

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.
"One more time for the people in the back: No Labels, and their candidates like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema aren't 'bipartisan,'" said one progressive activist. "They are 'corporate-donor-first.'"
As U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin took his so-called "commonsense" message to a New Hampshire audience on Monday, critics blasted the right-wing West Virginia Democrat for promoting a political organization backed largely by Republican donors and—if he decides to run for president next year as many observers believe he might—possibly helping to return former President Donald Trump to the White House.
Speaking alongside fellow headliner and former Republican Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman at Monday's No Labels "Common Sense Town Hall" at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire—a key primary state—Manchin said that "I haven't made a decision" about running for president next year, when the coal baron and habitual saboteur of his own party's agenda is also up for Senate reelection.
Claiming that Republicans and Democrats have "gone too far right and too far left," Manchin said the two parties can't be moved toward moderation "unless they're threatened."
Manchin said that if voters have viable alternatives to what critics have called the two-party duopoly, Democrats and Republicans "are in trouble."
Rejecting the notion that he would act as a spoiler were he to run for president, Manchin said that "I've never been in any race I've ever spoiled, I've been in races to win. And if I get in a race, I'm gonna win."
Numerous observers derided the notion that No Labels—a billionaire-backed organization seeking to run a so-called "unity ticket" in 2024—is nonpartisan.
"No Labels is nothing more than a Republican front group," the Progressive Change Campaign Committee tweeted. "They're staffed by Republicans, bankrolled by Republicans, and their third-party gambit will only help elect MAGA Republicans like Trump. Joe Manchin just gives them the patina of bipartisanship."
In a message to Manchin, 2020 GOP presidential candidate and former Republican U.S. Congressman Joe Walsh said that "the world doesn't revolve around you."
"What your country is going through right now is bigger than you and your ambition," he added. "Don't even think about this No Labels bullshit idea of running for president. Put your country first dammit."
Journalist, political activist, and comedian Francesca Fiorentini said it is "hard to hold back the rage at the No Labels group trying to float Manchin as a third-party candidate."
"Make no mistake that billionaires would rather see Trump Part 2 than anyone taking action for working people."
"Make no mistake that billionaires would rather see Trump Part 2 than anyone taking action for working people," she added.
Melanie D'Arrigo, who leads the Campaign for New York Health—which is fighting for single-payer universal healthcare—tweeted a megaphone emoji with the message, "One more time for the people in the back: No Labels, and their candidates like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema aren't 'bipartisan.'"
Sinema, a senator from Arizona who is also up for reelection next year, switched from serving as a Democrat to an Independent in December after long facing criticism for obstructing the party's priorities.
"They are 'corporate-donor-first,'" D'Arrigo added. "They help donors who donate to both sides of the aisle and call it 'bipartisanship.'"
If the Supreme Court strikes down the student debt cancellation, said one campaigner, Biden "needs to act, and act fast."
Barring unforeseen circumstances, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday will hand down its long-awaited ruling on the Biden administration's pending student debt relief program, a decision with huge implications for tens of millions of borrowers and the broader economy.
Organizers are preparing for the worst despite the glaring flaws in right-wing plaintiffs' arguments against debt relief, which rely heavily on supposed harms to a student loan servicer that is not even part of the case.
Astra Taylor, a co-founder of the Debt Collective, tweeted late Thursday that "SCOTUS will likely strike down Biden's current student debt relief plan tomorrow at 10:00 am."
"POTUS better have a Plan B," Taylor added. "He needs to act, and act fast."
White House officials have thus far declined to say whether the administration has an alternative plan ready in the case of an unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court, which is dominated by conservative justices—including one who has faced calls to recuse over his ties to a billionaire hedge tycoon with financial connections to the groups working to block relief.
Speaking to The Messenger on Thursday, Taylor said it is "imperative" that the Biden administration act swiftly after the Supreme Court's decision even in the case of a ruling that upholds the president's program—a possibility given justices' skepticism over whether the plaintiffs have established legal standing to challenge the plan.
If the administration "moves like a snail" after the high court ruling, Taylor warned Thursday, another right-wing judge could issue "an injunction on baseless grounds."
"They need to deliver," said Taylor, "because people's lives are on the line."
Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), echoed Taylor's concerns, telling The Messenger that the White House must "not dilly-dally and let the right-wing file more lawsuits."
Bloomberg reported earlier this week that the PCCC "has a mobilization campaign ready to bombard the White House with emails and phone calls urging Biden pursue an alternative path if the court overturns his student loan forgiveness program."
Debt relief campaigners have long argued that the emergency authority the Biden administration invoked to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt per eligible borrower is too narrow and highly vulnerable to legal challenges. Instead, advocates say Biden should use his power under the Higher Education Act of 1965 to cancel all outstanding student loan debt.
"We cannot afford to give up on cancellation, no matter what the Supreme Court decides," Satra D. Taylor, director of higher education and workforce with the advocacy group Young Invincibles, said after a rally outside the White House last week.
"Student debt cancellation is legal," Taylor added, "and we must provide relief for over 40 million borrowers now."
Democrats have an opportunity "to raise the volume on bank reform and accountability—and be seen as challenging power on behalf of everyday people," the poll showed.
The largest U.S. bank collapse since the 2008 financial meltdown has left Americans especially eager for Congress to rein in Wall Street—and impatient with the power the financial sector has over lawmakers, according to polling released Monday.
A month after Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) failed following its decision to invest $91 billion of its deposits in long-term Treasury bonds before their value plummeted as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates, progressive think tank Data for Progress joined the Progressive Change Institute in polling 1,215 likely voters about the bank and banking regulations.
Nearly 7 in 10 respondents said they were "very" or "somewhat" concerned about the health of the banking industry following SVB's collapse, and 82% said they supported Congress taking action to strengthen banking rules in order to avoid another failure.
More than 70% said they would support the reinstatement of "critical banking rules" that were rolled back in 2018. Those rules weakened regulations for banks with between $50 billion to $250 billion in assets, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) said last month that their repeal was a major driver of SVB's collapse as they introduced the Secure Viable Banking Act to impose the rules once again.
The Biden administration said after the collapse that it would take steps including creating an emergency fund to make sure all SVB deposits were covered and demanded that executives be held accountable for bonuses that were handed out in the hours before the bank failed, but 90% of respondents told Data for Progress that they had heard little or nothing about the proposed reforms.
"While voters strongly support reforms in the banking sector and the actions taken by the Biden administration in the wake of SVB's collapse, these results signal that the administration has room to expand communication on the subject and claim this issue for Democrats," said Data for Progress.
The organization noted that likely voters were more supportive of President Joe Biden's plan when told the administration had created an "emergency fund" than when the fund was described as a "bailout" and when they were told that SVB's client base, made up largely of "billionaire tech investors and multimillion-dollar companies," had been helped by the fund.
The poll indicates, said the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, that Democratic leaders have an opportunity "to raise the volume on bank reform and accountability—and be seen as challenging power on behalf of everyday people."
Progressive advocacy groups are calling on Amy McGrath, running to unseat Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, to commit to dedicating millions of dollars in unspent campaign cash to defeating the powerful Republican in the general election should she lose the Democratic primary to a surging progressive challenger.
The call from the Sunrise Movement, Indivisible, Working Families Party, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and The Collective came Thursday after new polling from the progressive think tank Data for Progress showed McGrath eight points behind state Rep. Charles Booker in the primary.
The survey of 898 Kentucky voters also found Booker--who is running on a platform including Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and universal basic income--performing better than McGrath in a hypothetical general election head-to-head with McConnell. McConnell beat McGrath by 20 points in the poll; his lead against Booker was narrower, at 52% to 38%.
"As the race tightens, McGrath owes her contributors an assurance that she'll use their funds to take on the obstructionist Senate Majority Leader no matter who wins on Tuesday. We hope Amy will do the right thing and take the pledge."
--Joe Dinkin, Working Families Party
McGrath was expected to be the Democratic nominee for much of 2019 after she launched her campaign last July. But since announcing his candidacy in January, Booker has inspired progressives with his message that running from the "soft center that doesn't take any positions" is not the way to defeat McConnell.
"Thousands of our members donated to Amy McGrath early on--not because they love her, but because she was assumed to be the Democratic nominee," said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which endorsed Booker last week.
The group raised $21,000 for McGrath via 2,500 donations the first month of her campaign, and was adamant that its donors contributed to McGrath's campaign for one reason: to defeat McConnell in 2020.
"Donors don't want their money going into a slush fund for McGrath's future campaigns or to bonuses for losing consultants," said Taylor. "They don't even want their money returned. They want to defeat one of the worst senators in history, Mitch McConnell."
McGrath currently has $19 million in unspent cash, which she could legally funnel to independent efforts to beat McConnell should she lose the primary on Tuesday.
Instead, said the Working Families Party, McGrath must pledge that the funds will be used by the Democratic nominees against McConnell--whoever that nominee is.
"As the race tightens, McGrath owes her contributors an assurance that she'll use their funds to take on the obstructionist Senate Majority Leader no matter who wins on Tuesday," said Joe Dinkin, the party's campaigns director. "We hope Amy will do the right thing and take the pledge."
The call followed numerous recent endorsements for Booker, both from progressive leaders like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), but also from less expected supporters.
Kentucky's two largest newspapers, the Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader, both endorsed Booker in recent weeks, with the former writing, "Frankly, it's time to shake up the establishment."
Former Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes--"very much a representative of the Kentucky Democratic establishment," as journalist Krystal Ball tweeted--also announced her endorsement of Booker this week.
Results from a straw poll by progressive group MoveOn of its members released Tuesday show Sen. Elizabeth Warren trouncing the rest of the Democratic field in the presidential primary, 21 points ahead of her closest rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Warren, of Massachusetts, claims 37.8 percent of the poll's voters, while Sanders, of Vermont, came in second with 16.5 percent. Former vice president Joe Biden, who is seen as a more conservative candidate, came in third at 14.9 percent with MoveOn's progressive supporters; Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg rounded out the top four with 11.9 percent. The rest of the field were in the single digits. Warren, California's Sen. Kamala Harris, Buttigieg, and Sanders were the top four candidates for the poll's "second choice" option.
The MoveOn poll targets the left-leaning progressives that make up its supporters. Nonetheless, the group's federal endorsement manager Allison Pulliam said in a statement, the poll's findings indicate the Democratic Party faithful are beginning to coalesce around a small number of top-tier candidates.
"MoveOn members make up a huge part of the Democratic Party's base," said Pulliam, "and this poll is clearly good news for Sen. Warren, showing that she's gained substantial support from MoveOn members over the past six months and is also well positioned to continue building support given that she's also the top second choice candidate of our membership."

In comments Monday to The Hill about Warren's chances in the primary, Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green said that he believes Warren is uniquely positioned to pick up more supporters from Biden backers and undecideds. Green's group endorsed Warren minutes after she announced her run for president in February.
"Bernie supporters are pretty hard core and are not the cornerstone of any Warren strategy," Green told The Hill. "Biden voters and undecided voters are the biggest honey pots for Elizabeth Warren because they are disproportionately pundit voters who prioritize electability."
The MoveOn poll indicates that Warren is already picking up some of that support.
Tuesday also marked the release of a national poll from Emerson Polling that found Biden still leading the pack of Democrats with 34 percent. Sanders was close behind at 27 percent while Warren, in contrast to her strong showing among MoveOn voters, was a distant third at 14 percent.
The large Democratic field will debate for the first time on Wednesday and Thursday. Warren will be the lone frontrunner on the first day with nine others polling at under five percent. Biden and Sanders face off against Buttigieg, Harris, and six other candidates on Thursday.
In a clear rebuke of Democratic Party leadership and the mounting threats to abortion rights across the United States, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday endorsed Marie Newman, who is challenging anti-choice Illinois Congressman Dan Lipinski in the 2020 primary after she narrowly lost to the Blue Dog Democrat in the last cycle.
"At a time when workers are under attack by Wall Street and women's rights are under attack by well-funded extremist groups across the country, I am proud to support Marie Newman's grassroots campaign for Congress," Sanders (I-Vt.) told BuzzFeed News.
"Marie will challenge the establishment by fighting for Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, expanding workers' rights," Sanders said, "and she will be a powerful voice for upholding Roe v. Wade at a disturbing moment in our history when a woman's right to control her own body and future is at stake."
Waleed Shahid, the communications director for Justice Democrats, called the endorsement "huge" and tweeted, "I wonder if other 2020 candidates will follow suit." So far, Newman has the support of only three of the 23 Democratic candidates: Sanders, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee.
The senator's endorsement of Newman--his first for a congressional candidate in this primary cycle, according to BuzzFeed--comes as states continue to enact restrictions on abortion that are designed to provoke a lawsuit that forces the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that affirmed the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy up until viability.
Lawmakers in nine states--Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and Utah--have passed legislation restricting abortion rights this year. Though most measures were pushed through by Republican politicans, a Democratic state senator wrote Louisiana's ban and Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards signed it into law.
At the federal level, BuzzFeed noted, Lipinski is one of the last anti-choice Democrats in Congress. Lipinski's record on reproductive rights was a major focus of the 2018 primary race, but it could take on new weight in this cycle, given the growing threats to Roe.
Newman's support from Sanders also comes as progressives continue to call out party leaders for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's (DCCC) March decison to blacklist firms and strategists who work with anyone who runs against incumbent Democrats, including primary candidates.
As Common Dreams reported in April, Newman said she had several vendors leave her campaign due to the DCCC's policy. At the time, Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, expressed her frustration with the news on Twitter: "Dan Lipinski votes against women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and the Affordable Care Act, and the the DCCC is punishing his opponent, Marie Newman who stands up for all of those things."
In addition to NARAL, Newman's campaign is backed by Planned Parenthood Action Fund, EMILY's List, Democracy for America, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, MoveOn, and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a leader in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
A few weeks after Newman's revelation about departing vendors, the head of the DCCC backed out of a fundraiser for Lipinski. In a statement, Cheri Bustos boasted about her "100 percent pro-choice voting record" and claimed she was "deeply alarmed" by the recent wave of anti-choice state laws--but she also reiterated that "this does not change how I will work as DCCC chair to protect our big tent Democratic caucus."
Progressives on Thursday pointed to new polling by a number of sources which suggest that after months of polling in the single digits in many national surveys, Sen. Elizabeth Warren's presidential campaign is growing in popularity with Democratic primary voters.
In a poll released Wednesday by The Economist/YouGov, the Massachusetts Democrat was shown with a 42 percent favorability rating, coming in second behind Joe Biden's 45 percent rating. Sen. Bernie Sanders was behind Warren by one point in overall approval among Democrats.
Fifty-three percent of respondents identifying themselves as "liberal" said they were currently supporting Warren in the primary, with Sanders coming in second with a 47 percent rating.
"Warren has withstood the entry of 20-some competitors, and after mediocre polling led to media insinuations she couldn't sustain a campaign, she still ranks in the top handful of candidates," wrote Dylan Scott at Vox last week. "She has two supremely obvious things in her favor: She's very well-known and Democratic primary voters like her. Warren has distinguished herself with a very thoroughly prepared policy platform."
Warren also had the lowest "unfavorability rating" in the YouGov poll, with just 9 percent of respondents saying they had a negative impression of her and the campaign she officially began in February. Those who were surveyed often described the second-term senator as "intelligent," "strong," "smart," and "progressive."
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) argued Thursday that Warren's campaign, marked by the frequent roll-out of detailed policy proposals aimed at combating inequality through what Warren calls "big, structural change," has connected with voters.
"It's becoming clear to voters that Elizabeth Warren is the most electable Democrat we could put up against Trump," Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the PCCC, said in a statement. "Voters are inspired by her personal story of struggle growing up in Oklahoma and how she connects that to her big-picture worldview of fighting for everyday people and challenging power."
Warren's acceleration in polls, author Sady Doyle wrote, is "not just about her famously prolific policy rollouts -- though she's laid out detailed strategies on everything from housing discrimination to abortion access -- but about the depth and care with which she approaches every aspect of her campaign."
"It's about her tactical preparation in Iowa, where she has already hired more staffers than any other candidate," she added. "It's about the depth and breadth of her learning, and her commitment to having answers on the issues that matter."
Taylor suggested that voters may be comparing Warren's far-reaching proposals with Biden's centrist approach.
To the contrary, Taylor said, "voters can picture Warren crushing Trump on the debate stage. As voters hear more from Biden and Warren, the trajectory is clear: Warren is on the rise."
On social media, other political observers in recent days have pointed out Warren's momentum.
At Vogue on Wednesday, Michelle Ruiz pointed to Warren's ambitious policy proposals--including her plans to forgive student debt and establish tuition-free public college and institute a universal childcare program, all paid for with her Ultra-Millionaires Tax:
She is hardly the first presidential candidate to introduce comprehensive plans. John Kerry had plans; John Edwards had plans. Of course, Hillary Clinton had plans, too--plenty of plans she often referred to as being spelled out in great detail on her website. Candidates' plans--and their implied, dreaded sense of policy wonkiness--haven't exactly been sexy sources of charisma or media buzz. But they've also, largely, been forgettable. Warren's proposals feel different, perhaps because they are so sweeping, so thoughtful, and so ambitious. Perhaps because they actually offer solutions to the very real drains on voters and the economy.
Other recent polls bolstered the case that Warren is growing more popular with voters. Quinnipiac University found in a survey released last week that Warren was behind just Biden and Sanders in terms of which candidates voters say they would support if the primary were to be held now. Warren held 13 percent of the vote, behind Sanders's 16 percent and Biden's 35 percent.
After frequently polling behind Sen. Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg in national polls, Warren was ahead of both candidates in a Morning Consult survey taken between May 20 and 26.
"Sen. Warren has national name recognition as an anti-Wall Street warrior and a person unafraid of standing up to both Trump and Mitch McConnell, who famously scolded her for 'persisting' on the Senate floor," Ruiz wrote. "But Warren's new momentum also feels like a triumph for the way she is shifting the political conversation from trending hashtags to real issues."
A prominent House Democrat plans to host a fundraiser for one of her party's most strident anti-abortion voices at a time when a woman's right to choose is under attack, as his primary opponent nets grassroots endorsements from progressive groups.
"At a time when Roe v Wade is under threat with the Alabama law, the last person the DCCC should be supporting is Lipinski who does not believe in constitutional reproductive rights. It's demeaning to women across this nation." -- Rep. Ro Khanna
Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) is hosting a fundraiser for Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) Thursday, June 6, at the Chicago Cut Steakhouse in Chicago.
The event has three tiers of support--plates go for $1,000, $2,800, and $5,600--and the presence of Bustos, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is sure to send a message that the party is behind Lipinski.
Read the invitation:
Meanwhile, Lipinski's opponent in next year's primary, Marie Newman, was endorsed Monday by a coalition of six major Democratic allied groups.
Per The Chicago Sun-Times:
The Monday joint endorsement of Newman from EMILY's List, MoveOn, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America sends a strong signal to progressives in the 3rd Congressional District.
In a statement provided to the Sun-Times, Lipinski claimed the endorsements were part of a fringe conspiracy against his candidacy.
"These endorsements make clear that Marie Newman is again running a 'tea party of the left' campaign at the behest of national interest groups rather than focusing on taking care of the everyday concerns of people in the district as I have a track record of doing," said Lipinski.
Lipinski's anti-choice record came in for withering criticism from the Justice Democrats. In an email sent Thursday, the progressive group ripped Lipinski for his record and attacked Bustos and the DCCC for their support of the right-wing Democrat.
Dan Lipinski has single-handedly given bipartisan clout to the insanely hateful anti-choice movement. He's co-sponsored bills in Congress to rip government benefits away from women who seek to terminate their pregnancy, and has fought to instill fetal personhood -- the same insanity that is now subjecting women who miscarry to potential manslaughter investigations in Georgia and Alabama.
"How could the DCCC raise money to defend an anti-choice Democrat just days after Alabama passed the most restrictive abortion ban in modern history, and Missouri is just a few steps away from following their lead?" the letter asked.
Newman raised the same concern.
"The day after Alabama voted to restrict a woman's right to choose," Newman said in a tweet Wednesday, "it's shocking the DCCC is fervently supporting a representative who is anti-choice, anti-birth control, and anti-health care for all."
Despite the anti-abortion legislation and the nationwide push from the right to end access to reproductive care, it's not much of a surprise that Bustos would support Lipinski. Her tenure as head of the DCCC has been dominated by one major policy decision: that the DCCC will blacklist vendors that work with primary challengers to Democratic incumbents, cutting the upstart campaigns off from the expertise and professionalism that outside consultants, pollsters, volunteer coordinators, and other businesses that work with campaigns.
Newman's campaign was one of the first to feel the crunch from the policy. In late April, as Common Dreams reported, Newman lost a number of vendors.
"I've had four consultants leave the campaign," Newman said at the time. "We've now had two mail firms say that they couldn't work with us because of the DCCC issue, and then a [communications] group, a compliance group and several pollsters."
But Newman's campaign may well prove to be a test of the new policy and the level of commitment from the DCCC to its policy of incumbency protection. The Lipinski-Newman race isn't easily dismissed as a fringe candidate coming out of nowhere to play purity politics, as Newman's endorsements show. And the primary campaign is already receiving attention--and support--from prominent members of the House Democratic caucus.
"At a time when Roe v Wade is under threat with the Alabama law, the last person the DCCC should be supporting is Lipinski who does not believe in constitutional reproductive rights," said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). "It's demeaning to women across this nation."
Rebecca Katz, the leader of New Deal Strategies, a consulting firm that was one of the founding members of the DCCC Blacklist coalition of firms that pledged to work with primary challengers in defiance of the DCCC rule, said on Twitter that Democrats should "think about what we need to be fighting for."
"At a time when we need every pro-choice voice we can get," said Katz, "this is reprehensible for a leader in the Democratic Party."
It doesn't matter where you live in this country or what your political identification is; nobody likes getting ripped off by pharma. Everybody wants their members of Congress to drastically lower drug prices by taking on big pharma's greed and breaking up pharmaceutical monopolies.
Our organizations, Social Security Works and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently commissioned new polling by Public Policy Polling that shows that lowering drug prices is not a partisan issue. Republicans, Democrats and Independents overwhelmingly agree that Congress must act aggressively to lower drug prices. The only people who don't want bold, aggressive action are the drug corporations and the members of Congress who are listening to them instead of their constituents.
Public Policy Polling surveyed Americans in three House districts--Iowa's 4th, represented by Republican Steve King; New Hampshire's 1st, represented by Democrat Chris Pappas; and South Carolina's 1st, represented by Democrat Joe Cunningham. These are all swing, frontline congressional districts, the kind where both parties worry most about winning control. They are all also in early caucus or primary states for the 2020 presidential races. Together they give a good look at how an issue plays in "tough" districts and states.
What did we find? Do Republicans and Independents like getting ripped off by drug corporations? Nope.
The survey asked about allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug corporations, a commonsense policy that could save over a hundred billion dollars a year for taxpayers and seniors.
Q: Some have proposed allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices, which could save over a hundred billion dollars a year for taxpayers and seniors. Do you support or oppose this idea?
Iowa's 4th Congressional District is 22.5 points more Republican than the average district in the nation, a deeply red district represented by a Republican, and yet 80 percent of voters want Medicare to directly negotiate with drug corporations.

New Hampshire's 1st Congressional District is 4.4 points more Republican than average, a swing district that leans slightly Republican and is currently held by a Democrat. Here 84 percent of voters want Medicare to directly negotiate with drug corporations.

South Carolina's 1st Congressional District is 18.9 points more Republican than the average district, yet here 87 percent of voters want Medicare negotiation.

In Washington, D.C., there is a thing called conventional wisdom. Sometimes it is true--like always carrying an umbrella in April and March--but too often what is called conventional wisdom is actually just industry talking points masquerading as insight. There is no industry more adept at distorting the conversation in D.C. than the pharmaceutical industry.
Right now there is a bill sponsored by Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and 123 of his fellow Democrats (more than half of the Democratic caucus) that instructs Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Representative Doggett and his colleagues who are sponsors of the Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act of 2019 are clearly listening to the American people. The backers of this bill also know that when it comes to pharma, a bill needs to have real teeth. So if a drug company refuses to negotiate in good faith, the bill empowers government to allow generic competition and end the company's monopoly.
There is a bit of this so-called conventional wisdom that an army of lobbyists is trying to speak into existence. It goes something like this: Conservative and independent voters in this country don't want to touch a company's monopoly. We decided to actually ask the voters what they thought, and, as we expected, the American people want lower drug prices and support using generic competition to get there if a company is abusing their monopoly.
Q: "Some have proposed allowing generic competition on lifesaving drugs when the government determines that a drug company has abused their monopoly and raised the price beyond patients' ability to pay. This would allow other companies to manufacture the drug and provide it to consumers at a more affordable cost, and it would end a company's monopoly on the drug. Do you support or oppose this idea?"
83 percent of voters in Iowa's deeply red 4th Congressional District, including 80 percent of Republicans, support generic competition.

78 percent of voters in New Hampshire's 1st Congressional District, including 73 percent of Republicans, support generic competition.

83 percent of voters in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District, including 78 percent of Republicans, support generic competition.

Voters across the country understand that with our tax dollars already paying for the research to develop new prescription drugs, we should be able to access lifesaving drugs at prices we can afford.
These polling numbers show that politicians of all parties have absolutely no excuse for treating big pharma with kid gloves. Anyone who cites "political concerns" or says they are "in a tough district" is making excuses. This has nothing to do with their frontline voters and everything to do with their frontline donors--pharma CEOs and shareholders.
Americans deserve to know if their elected officials are working for the voters who put them in office, or for their donors. That's why a new coalition, including Social Security Works, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Business Initiative for Health Policy, Center for Popular Democracy Action, and NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice are developing a new scorecard to track key votes on prescription drug pricing.
This scorecard will allow us to see which members of Congress support key legislation to lower the cost of drugs for seniors and working families--and which members of Congress are standing in the way. It will be a vital tool as we work to make prescription drugs accessible and affordable to all Americans.
In November 2020, every member of the House and one-third of the Senate will be up for reelection. Drug prices will be at the top of voters' minds, and we will make sure that they know exactly where their elected leaders stand. Those who refuse to be bold will pay the price.
This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Not intimidated by the DCCC's widely condemned policy of blacklisting organizations that support primary challengers against Democratic incumbents, a coalition of progressive groups on Monday endorsed Marie Newman's campaign to oust "anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ" Illinois Rep. Dan Lipinski in 2020.
"Marie Newman is running on progressive values--for Medicare For All, reproductive rights, and equal rights."
--Progressive Change Campaign Committee
"Illinois women and families deserve someone who shares their values, not someone who pursues his own ideology that is out of step with his constituents," Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement.
"Marie Newman is ready to stand up for the women and families of Illinois' 3rd Congressional District and fight for their values," said Hogue. "Dan Lipinski is dangerously out of touch, and has time and time again refused to stand up for basic values like reproductive freedom, LGBTQ equality, and economic opportunity for every family."
EMILY's List, MoveOn, Democracy for America (DFA) Planned Parenthood, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) joined NARAL in endorsing Newman on Monday.
In an email to supporters, the PCCC said the coalition's endorsement of Newman is an explicit "rebuke of the DCCC's 'blacklist' of progressive consultants."
"Dan Lipinski inherited this seat from his father and then voted against Obamacare, voted to deregulate Wall Street, chairs the Pro-Life Caucus, and was the only Democrat in Congress to oppose an LGBTQ equality bill. All in a district Clinton won by 15 points," said the PCCC. "Marie Newman is running on progressive values--for Medicare For All, reproductive rights, and equal rights."
As Common Dreams reported, four consultants have already left Newman's campaign as a result of the DCCC's blacklist policy, which cuts off funds to vendors that work "with an opponent of a sitting member of the House Democratic Caucus."
Newman, who narrowly lost to Lipinski in the 2018 midterm elections, said she is "proud to have the endorsement of a coalition whose mission is to advocate for women, working families, workers, the middle class, and progressive policies."
"Illinois working families need a real Democrat with real plans to make everybody's everyday lives better," Newman said in a statement. "I'll never stop fighting to create an economy and society that works for everyone."