
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
An investigation found that the anti-socialist group Promise to America has ties to a PAC funded by billionaires such as LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman.
More than a dozen corporate Democrats last week responded to upstart progressive wins in primaries by pledging their support to a political manifesto called "Promise to America," which emphasizes support for capitalism, law enforcement, and "fiscal discipline."
A Thursday report published by Sludge about the Promise to America found that it "is closely tied to the Welcome Party, a group whose PAC has received more than half of its individual contributions from billionaires."
According to Sludge, the Promise to America appeared in public for the first time last month at Welcome Party's annual WelcomeFest conference, where it was signed by Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) and Adam Gray (D-Calif.).
Other prominent Democrats who have signed the pledge include Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Vincente Gonzalez (D-Texas), and Don Davis (D-NC).
Although Sludge uncovered no evidence that Welcome Party is financially supporting the Promise to America, the manifesto's presence at the group's conference was notable given that billionaire donations account for more than 60% of the $10.8 million in donations that it has received over the last five years.
Major donors to the PAC include LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, who has donated a total of $1.8 million, and former 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch, who with his wife Kathryn has donated $2.5 million.
Other notable billionaires who have contributed to WelcomePAC include Bain Capital co-founder Joshua Bekenstein, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and several members of the Walton family.
Sludge's investigation also found that "more billionaires may have donated to the Welcome Party’s two 'dark money' nonprofit arms, which do not disclose their donors publicly."
The Promise to America manifesto has drawn heavy criticism from progressives.
In a recent interview with political commentator Santita Jackson, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said that the corporate Democrats' pledge was a reactive document that lacked policy solutions to the problems facing Americans.
"Okay fine, if you’re against [democratic socialists], that’s okay. But what do you believe?" said Ocasio-Cortez. "And that I think is the core of the weaknesses from that wing at this moment. There’s no affirmative vision really coming from most places in the Democratic Party with the exception of democratic socialism."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) last week also challenged the corporate wing of the party in a speech on the floor of the US House of Representatives in which he defended the vision being laid out by progressive insurgents.
“The progressive movement is winning across the country, from the heart of New York to Michigan to Maine,” Khanna said. “The people are saying no to foreign wars and they’re saying no to genocide in Gaza. They’re saying no to the unfair and lopsided economy that has allowed a few people to hoard extreme wealth and power, and they’re saying yes to Medicare for All.”
Tuesday's New York primary results are the latest sign that Americans are sick to death of a rigged economy and of billionaires buying their elections.
On Tuesday night, the establishment wing of the Democratic Party got a message it would prefer to pretend it didn’t hear. In New York, Mamdani-backed progressives swept the congressional primaries, ousting two sitting Democratic congressmen and taking an open seat in a single evening.
Former city comptroller Brad Lander beat Rep. Dan Goldman by more than 30 points. A 32-year-old democratic socialist named Darializa Avila Chevalier knocked off five-term Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and state Assemblymember Claire Valdez won the seat Nydia Velázquez is vacating. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (a recipient of dark money and AIPAC money) campaigned hard against all three and watched all three win anyway.
As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) put it afterward, the message is pretty clear: Americans are sick to death of a rigged economy and of billionaires buying their elections.
The corporate press and just about every Republican in the country will tell you these candidates are “socialists,” and they’ll spit the word the way you’d say “arsonist.” A little history clears the fog.
This is what oligarchy looks like, and the people feeling it in their bank accounts, student loans, and their doctors’ offices understand it far better than the idiotic (or bought-off) Democratic National Committee consultants who keep telling Democrats to move to the “center.”
When a young public defender in upper Manhattan or a state assemblywoman in Brooklyn calls herself a democratic socialist today, she isn’t talking about Havana or the old Soviet Politburo (the way Republicans and much of the press want you to think). The three who won in New York ran on Medicare for All, affordable housing, stronger union protections, and an end to US military support for Israel’s assault on Gaza.
Strip away the scare word and what’s left is far more truly and anciently American than frightening: a country where a person who works 40 hours a week, no matter how complicated or how humble that work might be, can afford a home and a car, take the family on a vacation every year, put the kids through school and college, see a doctor without going bankrupt, and retire with dignity.
That’s the entire “radical” program that Republicans, corporate Democrats, and our billionaire oligarchs are so flipped out about.
Americans have wanted those things for a very long time. More than 120 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt stood up and called it the Square Deal: a fair shot for the worker, the consumer, and the “honest businessman” against the trusts and the railroad barons who’d swallowed the economy whole.
Franklin Roosevelt built the scaffolding of it with the New Deal, Lyndon Johnson finished the second story with the Great Society, and for about three decades we actually had it. The middle class in the postwar years grew faster and richer than any middle class in the history of the world. By 1980, it was two-thirds of us with a single paycheck (it’s about 41% now, and takes two paychecks to get there).
I grew up inside that promise. My father came home from the antifa war (aka WWII); got a job in a unionized tool-and-die shop in Michigan; and on that one paycheck he and my mother raised four boys, bought a house, kept a car in the driveway (new every three years), had a pension when he retired that let him travel the world, and never once feared that a hospital bill would take the whole thing down.
Nobody we knew was rich, but almost everybody we knew was secure. That security was the whole point, and it didn’t happen by accident. It happened because the country decided, through its government, to make it happen.
And then it was taken apart on purpose. As I lay out in The Hidden History of American the American Dream, the dismantling of that middle class wasn’t an unfortunate side effect of globalization or robots or some impersonal economic weather. It was a deliberate Republican neoliberal project that began with Ronald Reagan imitating Maggie Thatcher and following Heritage’s A Mandate for Leadership in 1981 and has been carried forward by both parties ever since.
The tools were straightforward. Going back to Taft-Hartley in 1947 and the spread of “right-to-work-for-less” laws, Republicans and their corporate funders handed states and giant companies the power to strangle unions, and a worker without a union is a worker without leverage.
They froze the federal minimum wage at $7.25 an hour, where it has sat untouched since 2009. America’s oligarchs fought, decade after decade, to keep the United States the only wealthy nation on Earth without national healthcare, herding us instead into the arms of insurance conglomerates and hospital and physician monopolies, more and more of them now owned by private equity firms that treat a sick patient as a line item to be squeezed.
The result, as the nonpartisan RAND Corporation recently calculated, is that roughly $79 trillion has been pumped upward from the bottom 90% of Americans into the money bins of the morbidly rich top 1% since Reagan, and the middle class has sunk below 50% of us and is hanging on—now requiring two paychecks—by its fingernails.
In that same span the share of national income going to the bottom 90% fell from about two-thirds to less than half, we’ve watched the largest upward transfer of wealth in the history of the American republic all the way back to George Washington, and every dollar of it was a choice some oligarch or his wholly-owned politician made.
The one fully socialized, fully government-run healthcare system we do have in this country, the Veterans Administration, works so well (it has the highest happiness-approval rating of any other healthcare system in America) precisely because it isn’t run for profit, which is exactly why the Republicans are now busy gutting it.
And during the George W. Bush years they took a run at Medicare itself, creating the Medicare Advantage scam through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act and handing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to private insurers to “manage” the care of our parents and grandparents.
We can see now how that’s going. A federal watchdog reported this month that the biggest for-profit insurers are denying pre-approval for post-hospital care at rates between 51-80%, with more than a third of those denials reversed the moment somebody appeals, which tells you the care should have been approved in the first place.
A Senate investigation found those same insurers overcharged taxpayers by $83 billion in a single year while denying sick seniors the rehabilitation they were promised. But the health insurance industry oligarchs made out like bandits; several are now billionaires or worth hundreds of millions.
And now the administration is importing that very same denial machinery into traditional Medicare through a “test” program in six states that literally pays contractors a bounty for every claim they refuse.
This is what oligarchy looks like, and the people feeling it in their bank accounts, student loans, and their doctors’ offices understand it far better than the idiotic (or bought-off) Democratic National Committee consultants who keep telling Democrats to move to the “center.”
Forty-five years of this has produced a country where, thanks to the Supreme Court’s corrupt Citizens United decision, with on-the-take Justice Clarence Thomas the deciding vote, billionaires can legally own politicians outright. And that’s exactly what they’re doing: Just look at the billions that flowed to President Donald Trump and the GOP in 2024 and ask yourself who that government really works for.
Oligarchy, as history teaches and as I write about at length in The Hidden History of American Oligarchy, is never a stable form of government. It’s a transitional stage because sooner or later ordinary people figure out they’ve been stripped of any real say, and they rebel.
When that moment comes—and, frankly, it’s here now in America—the oligarchs and the politicians they own face exactly two choices:
Donald Trump and the lickspittles who work for him have very plainly chosen the iron fist.
His Department of Justice (DOJ) is prosecuting anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protesters in Minnesota on conspiracy charges while the federal agents who shot and killed two American citizens during that same operation walk free, and a jury in Texas just handed protesters 50-100 years in prison on “terrorism” charges.
His DOJ even tried to drag Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporters before a grand jury to force them to burn their sources, backing off only after the papers fought back in sealed court filings, an effort that can be reissued the instant he wants it back.
The blueprint for all of it, Project 2025, is the latest plan to drag America back to the dog-eat-dog, mostly poor and powerless country we were before Franklin D. Roosevelt, when the middle class was a sliver rather than a majority and the rich owned everything and made most of the decisions.
What the overpaid corporate Democratic Party consultants miss, and what Trump’s own pollsters figured out years ago, is the shape of the actual American electorate.
Political scientists who map voters find that the single largest bloc of white voters is neither “conservative” nor “liberal,” but both. As Trump’s former PR guy Anthony Scaramucci told us all a few months ago:
Trump told me something once that I haven’t forgotten. He said, "You Wall Street guys are imbeciles. You’re socially liberal and fiscally conservative. You know what MY base is? Socially conservative and fiscally liberal.”
A meaningful share of white voters (probably a bit over half, looking at Trump’s two successful elections) carry real prejudice—hate—against either non-whites, queer people, or both, which is precisely why Republicans run almost entirely on trans panic and on demonizing Black “welfare queens” and brown immigrants, because those are about the only issues left on which they’re aligned with that bloc.
On the economics, though, as Scaramucci and Trump noted, that same white voting bloc wants the FDR-Truman-Eisenhower-JFK-LBJ-Nixon-Ford-Carter-era middle class back, the secure one we had before Reagan started tearing it all down in 1981.
That’s why Republicans have to scream “socialism” at any candidate whose actual platform is “rent you can afford” and “a doctor you can see when you need to without going broke.” They can’t argue the economics (and their billionaire donors won’t let them even if they wanted to), so they change the subject to fear.
But the American people aren’t buying the GOP’s oligarchic bullshit anymore. The GOP got crushed in last year’s off-year elections on the simple issue of affordability—which I read as blowback against oligarchy—and Tuesday in New York the floor under corporate Dems who’re still singing the Reaganomics song gave way again.
And it isn’t only New York. Progressives took a House primary in Pennsylvania last month, swept races across Los Angeles and the District of Columbia, and on Tuesday night knocked off four incumbent state legislators in New York alone, while Bernie Sanders kept drawing the biggest crowds of his life on what he calls his Fighting Oligarchy Tour.
So we’re watching two parties move in opposite directions at once.
What these voters keep saying they want is fighters against neoliberalism, fascism, and a return to the New Deal and Great Society.
The Democratic base is trying hard to pull its party back toward its FDR and LBJ roots, away from the Clinton-era deals with Wall Street and the Davos set, away from Barack Obama’s bargain with the insurance giants, away from the bipartisan habit of bankrolling distant wars, including the weapons still flowing to Israel’s assault on Gaza, because people here can’t make rent, go to college, or see a specialist without a three-month wait and a homelessness-threatening bill.
Opposition to that war inside the Democratic coalition has gone lopsided, and the base has noticed that its leaders—mired in big money—missed the moral question entirely. What these voters keep saying they want is fighters against neoliberalism, fascism, and a return to the New Deal and Great Society.
The Republican Party, meanwhile, is bowing and scraping lower and lower to Trump, Project 2025, and their neofascist agenda.
Just look at the last two days: On Tuesday the Senate found the spine to pass a war powers resolution reining him in on Iran, and by Wednesday night, after Trump reportedly screamed at Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) in a closed-door lunch, the Senate turned right around and reversed itself when Cassidy lost his spine and flipped his vote and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) ducked into a cowardly “present.”
November will tell us which direction the majority of Americans actually want to go, assuming Trump’s many efforts to rig the outcome don’t all succeed (and I’ll get into those efforts in detail in a future piece).
For now, though, we all should understand what these primaries and the wins that are shocking the Schumer-Jeffries crowd actually represent.
After 45 years in the wilderness, Americans are reaching back for the Square Deal that Teddy Roosevelt promised and the New Deal and Great Society that FDR and LBJ delivered, and no amount of red-baiting about Havana is going to talk them out of it.
We’ve been here before, and now at the end of the third of these 80-year cycles, Democrats must choose to kick the oligarchs out and let the people back in. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again, this time with Zoomers leading the way.
If any of this matters to you, don’t just nod and scroll. Call your senators and representative through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and tell them where you stand on healthcare, on the minimum wage and free college, and on the right to protest.
Make sure you and everyone you know is registered and ready to vote in 2026 at vote.org, and find out who’s on your state and local ballot at openstates.org, because the people rigging the game are counting on you staying home.
And if this piece helped you see the pattern a little more clearly, share it, forward it, post it, and consider subscribing at hartmannreport.com so we can keep doing this work together.
Democracy, as Bernie used to say every Friday for 11 years on my radio program, isn’t a spectator sport, and the next three years are, I believe (if we all work hard enough), going to prove it.
Tag, you’re it!
"It is time to break decisively with the perverse logic in which retirees, the poor, or immigrants are expected to balance the budget, while the rich are to be allowed to live tax-free in their own parallel society. "
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk became the world's first trillionaire last week, and now a prominent economist is warning that his unprecedented wealth poses a grave threat to human freedom in the US and across the globe.
In a column published by The Guardian on Tuesday, Paris School of Economics professor Gabriel Zucman argued that Musk's enormous fortune is fundamentally at odds with a democratic system of governance because it gives him "the power to stifle competition, the power to shape public discourse, the power to influence policymaking, the power to buy elections, the power to stall social progress," and much else.
Zucman noted that wealth concentration is even greater now than it was during the original Gilded Age, as the top 0.00001% now have fortunes large enough to "buy 14% of everything produced in a given year in the US."
The economist added that while Musk—whose infamous destruction of the US Agency for International Development is projected to kill millions of people in the coming years—makes a particularly compelling villain, trillionaires would be a major problem for democracy even if they were of a more benevolent variety.
"No one should want to live in a society where one single individual can be worth $1 trillion, no matter their personal virtues," Zucman emphasized. "Such levels invariably skew power, distort markets, and sap our democratic ideals."
The best solution to this crisis, Zucman said, is to "create an unavoidable minimum tax on their wealth" that will "make it impossible for the super-rich to pay less tax than middle-class workers—a matter of basic equality before the law."
"It is time to break decisively with the perverse logic in which retirees, the poor, or immigrants are expected to balance the budget," Zucman concluded, "while the rich are to be allowed to live tax-free in their own parallel society. There cannot be a law more lenient for the rich and powerful than for the rest of us. If ever there was a time to act, it is now."
Zucman's thoughts on extreme wealth and democracy were echoed by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who on Tuesday published an essay on his Substack page where he likened President Donald Trump's White House cage-fighting matches to the kinds of spectacles put on by Roman emperors before noting ominous similarities between the US today and the Roman Empire.
"While the causes of the decline of republican government and Rome’s eventual transition to one-man rule were doubtless complex," Krugman wrote, "there is broad consensus among historians that a key factor was the emergence of extreme inequality. A handful of men became incredibly wealthy from the spoils of Rome’s eastern conquests, and their wealth and power eventually became too great for the rules of constitutional, republican government to contain. Sound uncomfortably familiar?"
Gautam Mukunda, a professor at the Yale School of Management, similarly warned that Musk's newly minted trillionaire status was bad news for American self-governance.
In a Monday column published by Bloomberg, Mukunda pointed to the vast sums of money being spent by billionaires in US elections, which he noted "dwarf what candidates can raise themselves."
And like Krugman, Mukunda saw disturbing parallels between the US today and Ancient Rome.
"Marcus Crassus was the richest man in ancient Rome," he explained. "So rich that, by Plutarch’s account, he thought no man truly wealthy unless he could pay an army from his own purse. He spent that fortune bankrolling Julius Caesar and building the triumvirate that sidelined the Senate and, in fact if not in name, overthrew the republic."
"Barbed wire cannot silence people," said one conservationist. "A protected landscape of global importance is under attack, and people are demanding an end to the devastation."
As President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner moves forward with plans to build a luxury resort on one of the last untouched parts of the Mediterranean coast, thousands of Albanians have taken to the streets in protest.
On Tuesday evening, a throng gathered outside the office of Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama in the capital Tirana, holding inflatable flamingos and signs reading "Nation is not for sale" and "I don't want Albania like Dubai," Reuters reported.
Kushner's investment firm, Affinity Partners, is seeking to build a €1.4 billion ($1.6 billion) resort on the uninhabited island of Sazan and around 10,000 hotel rooms and villas along a stretch of coastline near the protected wetland of Vjosa-Narta.
According to BirdLife International:
The area shelters over 70 endangered species and more than 200 bird species, including flamingos and Dalmatian pelicans. It sits on the Adriatic Flyway, a critical migration corridor for millions of birds traveling between Africa and Europe each year. The surrounding waters are among the last Mediterranean refuges for the Mediterranean monk seal, one of the world’s most endangered marine mammals, and a key nesting ground for the loggerhead sea turtle.
In February 2024, Albania's parliament amended its protected areas law to allow the development of luxury resorts. Just weeks later, Kushner announced plans to build in Albania, which spurred an investigation by anti-corruption prosecutors.
Kushner himself has not been accused of any wrongdoing, but protesters view the construction of the sprawling complex as a symbol of the country being sold out to powerful oligarchs without their consent.
"We have a protected area, but above all, our state has allowed construction work to continue without consultation and without transparency," said Klajdi Belo, an activist who attended a demonstration on Monday, told Euronews.
Activists have said bulldozers have begun tearing through the coastline and gravel has already been dumped on age-old sand dunes—damage that could take hundreds of years to repair. Meanwhile, a large barbed-wire fence has been erected, blocking public access to the beach.
Over the weekend, protesters assembled outside the barricades surrounding the development near the coastal village of Zvërnec.
"Don't defend the oligarchs!" one man was seen shouting into a megaphone. "Those are the citizens' properties!"
During these protests, a video captured an activist being dragged along the ground by a group of black-shirted security contractors.
"There is great public outrage over what is happening in Albania, but the spark was what happened in Zvërnec," said Arilda Lleshi, who said the man and others were there because they were "protesting against a fence that had been installed there illegally."
As activists have called for heavy machines to be removed from the protected area, Rama has said no amount of public backlash will lead him to abandon the project.
"Under no circumstances do we receive the stigma of being a country where investors are met with hostility," he said in a statement to Reuters. "There is absolutely no chance that the investment will stop as long as I am here."
Anouk Puymartin, head of policy for BirdLife Europe and Central Asia, said that it's not just the habitat of endangered species at stake, but the question of whether longstanding environmental protections can be shredded at the whim of the wealthy.
"Barbed wire cannot silence people. Thousands have taken to the streets of Tirana to defend Vjosa-Narta from destruction driven by private profit," Puymartin said. "A protected landscape of global importance is under attack, and people are demanding an end to the devastation."
Ivanka Trump, the US president's daughter and Kushner's wife, has come under scrutiny for her comments about the development project recently, which were blasted as "out of touch."
In a recent interview, the Trump heiress described being inspired to purchase the island of Sazan while vacationing there years ago: “We were on a friend’s boat, and we stopped for a swim. Effectively, that’s how we found it. We swam to the islands. We went on a hike, barefoot all the way, up to the top. And we were just captivated.”
She described the project of developing the island as part of an effort to "help realize its potential" and described it as "the culmination of all of my experience in real estate, all of my travel, a lot of reflection on how I want to live."
But Puymartin describes the project as an encroachment by private wealth onto land that was previously held for the benefit of everyone.
"Nature belongs to everyone, not a handful of investors," she said. "The horrendous situation in Vjosa-Narta shows why laws are crucial to protect both people and nature. But those protections mean little if governments fail to uphold them."
"It's fascinating that the more money that goes into our political system, the less we talk about actual politics."
The super PACs pouring money into the US Senate race in Maine are doing a great job of proving Graham Platner's point.
As new reporting on Monday detailed the flood of dark money targeting his campaign, the Democratic hopeful in recent days has put a spotlight on the super PACs, which he says have created a political system dominated by corporations and wealthy donors who want to distract from the serious issues and struggles faced by everyday voters and working families.
"I think it's very telling that a political system that has become controlled by money, controlled by the power of organized money, is also a political system that is trying to convince all of us down here that policy and discussions around what government can or cannot do is not what they want to talk about," Platner said during a conversation with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of super PACs, posted to social media.
"It's fascinating that the more money that goes into our political system," he continued, "the less we talk about actual politics."
"I agree with Senator Sanders: Super PACs should be outlawed," said Platner.
On Monday, Sludge reported that a pair of shadowy nonprofits "with no public presence and no disclosed staff" have dumped at least $750,000 into a super PAC supporting Platner's opponent, the five-term incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
Condorcet Initiative Corp. has given $500,000 to Pine Tree Results PAC across two separate donations, including $250,000 on May 1 that was disclosed in a filing reported to the Federal Election Commission last week. Ardleigh Impact Corporation contributed an additional $250,000 in April.
The PAC has spent nearly $4 million on attack ads against Sen. Susan Collins’ Democratic challenger Graham Platner, according to FEC data.
The two nonprofits are both described as shell-like entities linked to the same address in Springfield, Virginia, belonging to Republican political consultant Staci Goede.
The groups are part of a much larger network and have poured a combined $9 million into GOP-aligned PACs since 2024, including in four competitive Senate races in this coming cycle.
Goede, meanwhile, is the treasurer or officer for at least nine different nonprofits "that span Republican Senate campaigns, pro-Israel donor pass-throughs, and issue advocacy groups," according to the report.
The Campaign Legal Center has filed a complaint against Ardleigh, arguing that the nonprofit, which contributed an astonishing $2.575 million across six federal committees in its first three months of existence, was being used as a straw donor to conceal the identities of one or more rich benefactors.
The source of the $750,000 aimed at Platner remains unknown. But the Pine Tree Results PAC is already known to have a slate of wealthy backers from the commanding heights of finance and tech, including Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, hedge fund founder Paul Singer, and Palantir CEO Alex Karp. The fund has also taken in contributions from an affiliate of the tobacco giant Altria and from the far-right news company Newsmax.
According to a FEC data, it has raised more than $16 million to help Collins ward off a challenger in 2026, which will almost certainly be Platner.
While the potential use of straw donors may present legal issues, the use of super PACs by wealthy backers to dump unlimited sums behind their preferred candidates is unquestionably legal under federal campaign finance law.
As of March, super PACs funded by crypto, artificial intelligence, pro-Israel donors, and outside groups had already spent more than $225 million trying to influence the 2026 election cycle, according to the Washington Post.
Platner has argued on the campaign trail that the unchecked ability of the wealthy to influence elections is a genesis point for the growing wealth gap between the rich and poor.
"The inequality we’re experiencing, it didn’t happen organically," he said at a recent campaign event. "We live in the outcome of policy written by establishment politicians who for 40 years have been doing the bidding of those who donate the most money to them."
The Pine Tree Results PAC had already spent nearly $4 million on ads attacking Platner as of May 20, according to FEC data. As Sludge's reporting notes, "Rather than engaging with policy, the ads are exclusively focused on personal attacks against Platner, digging up comments the candidate made online going back as far as 2013."
So far, attempts to mire Platner in personal scandal have done little to blunt the momentum of his populist campaign. A poll from the University of New Hampshire in late May showed him leading the incumbent by a nine-point margin among likely voters and other polls show similar advantages.
It can be expected that the PACs attacking Platner will make a meal out of recent reports from The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times that probe into the private details of his marriage.
But noting the failure of past attempts to drown Platner in controversy, Lever News founder David Sirota questioned in a piece on Monday if these sorts of "character" attacks even work in an age of politics defined by rapacious corporate greed and corruption.
He noted how Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) responded to recent questions from news outlets about whether Platner’s controversies mean he’s failed to “pass the character test.” Murphy responded that “character involves standing up to people who are bankrupting and corrupting this country,” while Khanna lauded Platner for “having the character to stand up against the war in Iran, against genocide, and against an unfair and lopsided economy.”
This response, Sirota said, hinted that the country could be entering a new political paradigm—"a reality in which many voters are so economically pulverized and politically disillusioned that they now define 'character' in a politician solely as whether or not they are single-mindedly focused on destroying oligarchy and ending corruption."
“It is, potentially, a new era in which voters who can’t afford anything and who feel totally ignored by their government have reimagined their entire definition of political 'character' on economic/anti-corruption terms—rather than on old definitions of personal moral rectitude,” he wrote. “In this potential new reality, the personal shortcomings of individual politicians—which often have little effect on voters’ actual lives—are less important and electorally salient than the policies those politicians support and oppose."
"And such a shift," he added, "would make sense in the current moment.”
As the Trump-backed oligarch tries to grow even more wealthy and with longstanding rules changed to his benefit ahead of the SpaceX public offering, "retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out."
Billionaire Elon Musk has ambitions to become the world's first trillionaire when his company SpaceX makes what is expected to be the biggest initial public offering in history—and money unwittingly invested by ordinary Americans may help him get there.
Progressive media outlet More Perfect Union on Wednesday published a video detailing how the Nasdaq stock market exchange changed its own rules so that SpaceX can be immediately included in index funds without having to wait through the one-year "seasoning" period that used to be required for newly public companies.
The reason companies in the past had to wait a year to be included in index funds is that such funds contain a large chunk of Americans' retirement savings, and are thus supposed to be more averse to risk.
Watch the 12-minute video:
NEW: Elon Musk wants a SpaceX IPO valuing the company at upwards of $1.75 trillion.
To get there he got the rules changed so that index funds, with millions of Americans' retirement savings, are forced to buy in.
Retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out. pic.twitter.com/DviJEt0XAu
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) May 27, 2026
This means that ordinary investors could see their money plunged into an unproven company while investors who have bankrolled Musk's previous ventures now rolled into SpaceX could cash out at inflated prices.
"Every piece of evidence we have is that the IPO is being engineered to rise very rapidly after it prices, and then fall very dramatically after that," George Pearkes, global macro strategist for Bespoke Investment Group, told More Perfect Union. "That is a recipe for retail investors, especially, to take large losses."
SpaceX is a particularly risky bet, Preakes added, given that it is seeking a $1.75 trillion valuation with its IPO. For a company that made only $19 billion in profits last fiscal year, critics say a valuation 54 times larger than its projected revenue multiple, a measure of its value based on expected future earnings, is a huge red flag.
"This combination of extreme size and this extreme multiple," Peakes said, "is completely unprecedented."
Pearkes isn't in the only expert concerned about the structure of the SpaceX IPO.
Writing at Seeking Alpha, independent equity researcher Julia Ostian similarly argued that the SpaceX IPO is structured using a "calculated mechanism that will feed the artificial demand generated by the forced index fund buyers," and thus at least initially send share values soaring beyond what the company's fundamentals would suggest, and giving insiders an opportunity to quickly cash out.
Ostian added that "it is clear who is the beneficiary here and who pays the price for this engineered system," and said that "the rich are getting richer openly, without hiding it or even without trying to pretend it’s something else."
As More Perfect Union emphasized, the entire IPO was orchestrated by Musk for maximum advantage to himself and his closest allies, but he needed regular Americans to put up the money for the scheme to work.
"He got the rules changed so that index funds, with millions of Americans' retirement savings, are forced to buy in," the outlet noted. "Retirees could take huge losses, while insiders cash out."
"Are you willing to fight for somebody you don't know as much as you are willing to fight for yourself? If this campaign is any indication, the answer in Maine is a resounding yes."
Over 1,700 people attended a packed-house rally in a former waterfront warehouse in Portland, Maine on Monday as Sen. Bernie Sanders championed the working-class populist candidacies of Graham Platner for US Senate and Troy Jackson for governor in front of a crowd that never missed a chance to boo and rail against Republican Sen. Susan Collins—and the billionaire class that has benefited most from her nearly 30-year career in Washington, DC.
"We are coming for you, Susan Collins," said Bill Jefferson, a Vietnam veteran and peace activist, who opened the Memorial Day event by noting "the horror of combat and unbearable losses" that come with war.
Jackson, a fifth generation logger from northern Maine who previously served as president of the State Senate, denounced a political system in which "people that can write the biggest checks" win while working people—stretched to the breaking point week after week just trying to get by—always end up on the losing end.
"What little time we have is being stolen by the oligarchy," —Troy Jackson
"This is a hard point sometimes to get across," said Jackson, "but honestly, I'm running for governor because we've been robbed by so many things in this world by the people who control it, but there's never been any greater robbery than that of our time. It's something that we can never get back. The time that we have with our parents, our children, and our loved ones is limited. It's finite."
"What little time we have is being stolen by the oligarchy," said Jackson, "who see our lives, who see us as nothing more than a commodity—something to monetize."
"We can't afford to wait any longer," he said, before declaring: "Our time is now!"
Ahead of the Democratic Party primary in Maine on June 9, where he faces a large field of candidates looking to take over from outgoing Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, Jackson said that "solidarity" between the people of the state is not a word, but a "lifestyle," and that campaigning next to Sanders and Platner is about building a movement with the strength of working people behind it.
"Right here in Maine," he said, "we are going to remind the world that the Democratic Party is the party of the working class and we're damn well going to fight for it for a change."

Kelli Brennan, president of the Maine State Nurses Association (MSNA), told the crowd that the fight at hand is against President Donald Trump and "his billionaire buddies," but also about building a better society where Medicare for All is embraced and people are not profiting off the sickness of others.
"This isn't about the right versus the left," said Brennan. "This is about the haves versus the have-nots; the billionaires versus the working class; and healthcare capitalism has no place in the world of healing."
After Gov. Mills dropped out of the race for the US Senate last month, the primary is no longer the obstacle it once was for Platner's campaign, which now has its sights firmly set on the general election against Collins. After a similar rally on Sunday further north in Orono, Platner told the crowd in Portland, the state's largest city, that the strength his campaign has shown thus far is more a credit to them than to him.
"Senator Sanders asked a question in his 2020 presidential run," said Platner. "Are you willing to fight for somebody you don't know as much as you are willing to fight for yourself? If this campaign is any indication, the answer in Maine is a resounding yes."
"This isn't about the right versus the left. This is about the haves versus the have-nots; the billionaires versus the working class." —Kelli Brennan, MSNA president
Back in September, Sanders became the first major political figure to endorse Platner at a Labor Day event when the campaign was just a few weeks old. In the months since, Platner explained Monday, he has seen firsthand what the question posed by the man he credits with inspiring him politically means in practice.
"I've heard from students who fear not only for themselves, but for their parents and their grandparents, the people who gave them everything and whose Social Security checks get smaller each month as everything else gets more expensive," said Platner. "I've heard from fishermen, who—with all the challenges they face—are concerned about how tariffs are impacting their neighbors who are contractors. Or I've heard from loggers who fear for the nurses and the teachers in their communities who seem to never be paid what we know they are owed."
"Here in Maine, we are ready to fight as hard for the people we do not know as we are for the ones that we do," Platner thundered. "It is who we are and it is who we will always be."

"This movement—our movement—is not divided by age or by class or by gender or by race," he continued. "It's not divided by where you live in Maine or for how long. This is a movement of Maine, by Maine, and for Maine. And we are going to take back what is ours, because for decades—they have taken. Piece by piece, store by store, hospital by hospital, home by home—they have taken. They took so much they began to think that we didn't exist at all, but they don't know Maine."
Recalling claims by establishment Democrats like Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who last year complained that Sanders’ use of the word “oligarchy” wouldn’t resonate with Americans even as he had drawn more than 100,000 people to rallies on the nationwide Fighting Oligarchy tour, Platner jokingly checked with the crowd before using the term.
“There’s a word I want to use to describe what we are fighting,” he said. “Before I use it, I just want to make sure. Can you raise your hand if you know what the word ‘oligarchy’ means?”
"That's what I thought," said Platner as hands shot up across the crowd.
"Piece by piece, store by store, hospital by hospital, home by home—they have taken. They took so much they began to think that we didn't exist at all, but they don't know Maine."—Graham Platner
The word, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a system of government where all power is concentrated in the hands of a small, elite group," appeared well understood by attendees who filed out of the building after the rally.
"Balancing society with us versus the 1%, fighting the oligarchy... That's very important to me as a concern for the future," a resident named Ben Russell, who attended the rally with his young family, told Common Dreams. "We brought life into this world, and we'd like it to not devolve into some cyberpunk dystopia."
The rally speakers, along with Sanders, Jackson, and Platner, offered a "brand of politics that cares about all the people," Russell said, "and not just allowing the greed of a few Americans to ruin it for the rest of us."
Sanders, in his remarks, said that oligarchs, the billionaires, the corporate media, and too many folks in Congress are in the habit of telling people that the society we have now is just "the way it is—you can't do better than that."
But the message from candidates like Jackson and Platner, as well as the nationwide push to confront the oligarchy, is to stand firmly against that position.
"We're here to say that we can do a hell of a lot better than that," said Sanders. "We can create an economy that works for all of us, not just the billionaire class."

Another rallygoer, who asked not to be identified, said she was motivated to spend Memorial Day at an indoor political event because "the billionaires are running this country right now, and we have a criminal wannabe billionaire king in the White House who's allowing it to happen."
"My son has to live with me because he can't afford to live on his own," she told Common Dreams, referring to a living arrangement that's grown more common for adults aged 18-34 across the country.
Among Americans aged 25-34, the share living with their parents has jumped over 87% over the past two decades, US Census data shows, as adults struggle to afford housing.
At the rally, Sanders asked the crowd whether "everybody here in Portland [has] great housing at an affordable cost," leading the crowd to answer with a resounding, "No!"
"Well, nobody in Burlington, Vermont does either," said the senator. "And all over this country, what we're seeing is people paying 40, 50% of their limited incomes on housing."
"We can create an economy that works for all of us, not just the billionaire class." —Sen. Bernie Sanders
The housing affordability crisis is well known to Mainers and Portland residents, with a 2023 study finding the state was in need of 84,000 new housing units by 2030 in order to meet demand. Last year, the National Low Income Housing Coalition found that a full-time worker in Maine must earn $28.42 an hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment at fair market rent—but the median hourly wage in the state is just $24.19, while the minimum wage is $15.50.
Roughly half of renters in Cumberland County, where Portland is located, were spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs in 2020-24, qualifying them as cost-burdened, according to a Census survey.
At the rally, the crowd expressed anger at the impact of the housing affordability crisis on people at all income levels, booing loudly when Sanders noted that 800,000 Americans are now homeless.
"I think [it] is really unfortunate in the wealthiest country in the world that we can't take care of those people," Russell told Common Dreams.

Along with loudly booing Collins throughout the speeches, the crowd erupted in cheers at Platner's demand that US tax dollars be used to "build schools and hospitals in America instead of bombs to drop on them in Gaza," and at Sanders' call to pass "legislation to get super [political action committees] out of the political process."
"I want the day to come when young people who want to run for public office," said Sanders, can do so "without having to beg wealthy people and billionaires for campaign contributions."
Planter, who has said that before last year he never aspired to any public service beyond serving as harbor office in his small town of Sullivan, credited Sanders for his relentless commitment to a message that says "we can have an economy and a government that works for the 99% and not just the 1%." But Platner also emphasized that "we are not going to get any of this with speeches alone or with any politician alone."
"No one is coming to save us. We need one thing, something the man speaking after me has been fighting for for 60 years. We need a political revolution," said Platner, drawing some of the biggest applause of the night. "It is thousands of people across Maine, millions across America, acting together, creating a movement too powerful for money to buy."
Platner followed with a call for attendees to volunteer for his and Jackson's campaigns, emphasizing that doing so would be an opportunity to connect with people who may have different political beliefs or affiliations.
"It is taking precious time out of our weeks, week after week, and doing something that isn't complicated, but is hard: talking to our neighbors at their doors, overcoming our differences, and bringing them into our fight because this is the fight of our lives," said Platner.
The message stuck with one voter, who said as she was leaving the venue, "People have to take back the power, and this bunch of people can do that."
Those who gathered in Portland, she said, were "not coming from any other place except who they are as individuals and what they want to see for their families."
"We will defeat the oligarchy and the political system that it maintains," said Graham Platner. "The politics of Susan Collins."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday rallied in Orono, Maine with progressive Senate candidate Graham Platner, who called for transformative political change to reclaim the wealth that has been "stolen by corrupt politicians and the corporations that bought them."
Platner, who effectively locked up the Maine's US Senate Democratic primary after Gov. Janet Mills exited the race last month, placed five-term incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins among the corrupt lawmakers who have sold out workers and advanced the interests of the billionaire class, which is shelling out millions to protect Collins' seat.
"We will not just fight the oligarchy," Platner told an audience of 1,400 gathered at the University of Maine, the location of the 40th stop of Sanders' (I-Vt.) nationwide "Fighting Oligarchy" tour. "We will defeat the oligarchy and the political system that it maintains... The politics of Susan Collins. A politics that turns politicians into millionaires but tells you to be grateful for crumbs. It is a lie."
Platner declared that "we need a political revolution," something he said Sanders "has been fighting for for 60 years."
"When we beat back fascism, when we defend our democracy and our freedom, let it be a different kind of freedom," said Platner. "A freedom to not be condemned to scraps and struggle, but to live with the dignity and fulfillment that gives us the society we deserve."
Watch the full rally:
Sanders, who became the first US senator to endorse Platner last August when he was widely seen as a long shot to win the Democratic nomination, said that "what we're talking about"—from Medicare for All to a living wage to union rights for all workers—"is not radical."
"What is radical is when so few have so much," said Sanders. "What is radical is when billionaires control our political system."
Sunday's "Fight Oligarchy" rally came days after a survey showed Platner leading Collins—who has held her seat for nearly three decades—by seven percentage points among likely voters, who appear unfazed by an intensifying wave of attacks on Platner from pro-Collins super PACs and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
"Susan Collins is spineless and corrupt," Platner wrote on social media ahead of the rally. "And in 163 days, we will defeat her."
"Our political revolution is a multiracial, multigenerational working-class movement built from the ground up," ready to "fight for the kind of changes our country desperately needs," the senator said.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday announced his endorsement of more than five dozen progressives running for local and state political offices across the country, from Arizona and Missouri to Georgia and New Jersey.
"In this pivotal and dangerous moment in our country's history, we need leaders at every level of government who are prepared to take on the billionaire class and fight for working families. We need bold solutions to the crises we face, not tinkering around the edges," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement.
The 84-year-old caucuses with Democrats in the Senate and twice sought the party's presidential nomination, in 2016 and 2020. During those campaigns and since—particularly with the Fighting Oligarchy Tour he launched shortly after Republican President Donald Trump returned to office last year—he has encouraged Americans, especially younger people, to get involved in US politics.
"In the last 15 months, we have recruited over 8,500 Americans to run for office, many of whom are Independents," the senator noted. "Our political revolution is a multiracial, multigenerational working-class movement built from the ground up."
"Today, I am proud to endorse 61 progressives running for state and local office across America," said Sanders. "They will fight for the kind of changes our country desperately needs."
In Arizona, Sanders is supporting Bobby Nichols for Tempe City Council, Analise Ortiz for state Senate District 24, Mariana Sandoval for state House District 23, Brian Garcia for state House District 8, and two candidates for state House District 9: Lorena Austin and Jacob Martinez.
In California, he is backing four state Assembly candidates: Jessie Lopez for District 68, Ada Briceño for District 67, Fatima Iqbal-Zubair for District 65, and Sandra Celedon for District 31. He's also endorsing Joz Sida for Fontana mayor, Marissa Roy for Los Angeles city attorney, and multiple people running for LA City Council: Hugo Soto-Martinez for District 13, Faizah Malik for District 11, Estuardo Mazariegos for District 9, and Eunisses Hernandez for District 1.
In Colorado, he is endorsing Chela Garcia Irlando for state Senate District 34, Gabriel Cervantes for state House District 31, and Tyler Quick for Adams County Commission. In Delaware, Sanders is backing Shay Frisby for state Senate District 5, Adriana Leela Bohm for state Senate District 1, and Rae Krantz for state House District 6.
In Florida, he is supporting Kyandra Darling for state House District 62, and in Georgia, he is backing Ruwa Romman for state Senate District 7. In Iowa, the senator is endorsing India May for state House District 58, Leila Staton for state House District 54, and three Johnson County supervisor candidates: V. Fixmer-Oraiz, Jon Green, and Mandi Remington.
Sanders is also supporting Scott Houldieson for Indiana Senate District 1, Frank Henderson for Kansas House District 6, Robert LeVertis Bell for Kentucky House District 43, Eboni Taylor for Michigan Senate District 3, Justice Horn for the 1st District in Missouri's Jackson County Legislature, Tick Segerblom for Nevada's Clark County Commission, Ali Aljarrah for New Jersey's Passaic County Commission, and Daisy Maldonado for New Mexico's Doña Ana County Commission.
In New York, where Sanders was notably an early supporter of democratic socialist NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, he is now endorsing three state Senate candidates—Yuh-Line Niou for District 27, Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas for District 13, and, Aber Kawas for District 12—as well as several state Assembly hopefuls: Adam Bojak for District 149, Maurice Brown for District 129, Dan Livingston for District 123, Conrad Blackburn for District 70, Eli Northup for District 69, Illapa Sairitupac for state Assembly District 65, Eon Huntley for District 56, Christian Celeste-Tate for District 54, David Orkin for District 38, Samantha Kattan for District 37, Diana Moreno for District 36, and Shamsul Haque for District 30.
In Pennsylvania, the senator is supporting Mark Pinsley for state Senate District 16, Sierra McNeil for state House District 195, and Brad Chambers for State House District 41. He's also backing David Morales for mayor of Providence, Rhode Island; Julio Salinas for Texas House District 41; and Jaelynn Scott for Washington House District 37. In West Virginia, he's endorsing three state House candidates: Olivia Miller for District 80, Cody Cumpston for District 6, and Dave Cantrell for District 3.
Sanders had previously announced his support for US Senate candidates Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, and Graham Platner in Maine, as well as multiple progressives running for the House of Representatives, including Dr. Adam Hamawy in New Jersey's 12th Congressional District earlier this month.
"We're building a movement for the future," Sanders told The New York Times, which first reported on his new endorsements Friday.
"Our effort is to lead a national movement against Trump's authoritarianism and kleptocracy and unnecessary wars and his contempt for the Constitution," he explained. "But equally important, the American people need an alternative to the Democratic establishment, which is significantly dominated by big-money interests."
"This week, Republicans will spend their time trying to get taxpayers to fund Trump’s parties," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
Even as US consumer sentiment hits record lows, gas prices remain stuck above $4.50 per gallon, and millions of Americans face cuts to basic assistance, Republicans in the US Senate are going to try to pass a massive spending bill that includes $1 billion for President Donald Trump's proposed luxury ballroom.
As Punchbowl News reported on Monday, Senate Democrats are planning to put the ballroom project in the spotlight and make supporting it as uncomfortable as possible for their Republican colleagues.
In a letter sent to fellow Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) slammed the GOP for giving priority to the president's vanity project amid economic suffering caused by his policies.
"At a time when Americans can't make ends meet, Republicans say 'Let them eat cake,'" Schumer wrote, "and then hand Trump a billion dollars to build a ballroom to serve it in. Americans do not need a ballroom. They need relief."
Schumer went on to blast his GOP colleagues as "Ballroom Republicans" who are "asking working families to pay the price while Donald Trump pockets the perks."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) similarly drew a contrast between the economic pain being felt by Americans with Trump's desire for a luxury ballroom to be constructed at taxpayers' expense.
"Gas is over $6 a gallon in many places," Murphy wrote in a social media post. "Farms are going bankrupt. Billions are being wasted on a war that’s making us weaker. And this week, Republicans will spend their time trying to get taxpayers to fund Trump’s parties."
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said that the proposed ballroom "perfectly sums up what Trump really cares about," noting that "while Americans are paying more for gas and millions are losing their healthcare, Trump can only think of his vanity ballroom."
During a Monday appearance on MS NOW, Boyle said "there is no way in hell I am going to vote for $1 billion of taxpayer money to a stupid, unnecessary ballroom," and vowed to reverse the cuts to Medicaid that Republicans made last year with their budget law. The cuts are projected to result in 10 million Americans losing their insurance.
"There is no way in hell I am going to vote for $1 billion of taxpayer money to a stupid, unnecessary ballroom that is nothing but a vanity project for Donald Trump." @CongBoyle pic.twitter.com/jgRUpuN7h8
— Progressive Caucus (@USProgressives) May 11, 2026
\According to Punchbowl News, congressional Republicans behind the scenes have been quietly pleading with leadership to remove funding for the ballroom from the budget bill, as they think voting to fund the president's project would be politically toxic for them this fall.
"The ballroom security money is the biggest problem for the reconciliation bill, and it caught lots of GOP lawmakers off guard," Punchbowl News explained. "Moderate Republicans in both chambers are privately raising objections, bristling at the political downside of blessing Trump’s controversial ballroom project."
The Trump administration is apparently aware of Republicans' objections, and Punchbowl News' Laura Weiss reported on Monday that the White House is dispatching Secret Service Director Sean Curran to address lawmakers' concerns during a Tuesday luncheon.
Weiss noted that Republicans in swing districts "are privately balking at the reconciliation money for securing" the ballroom, but added that the Trump administration "really wants it."