

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.
“It’s simple: Members of Congress should spend their time in Washington serving the American people, not preparing to cash in big time with a cushy lobbying career after they leave office,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
US Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Rick Scott introduced a bipartisan bill on Thursday to permanently ban members of Congress from becoming lobbyists after leaving office.
Right now, ex-lawmakers are given just a brief "cooling-off" period before they are allowed to return and lobby their former colleagues—one year in the House of Representatives and two years in the Senate.
According to OpenSecrets, about 41% of former members of the 117th Congress have gone on to work for a lobbying firm or client, which Warren (D-Mass.) said raises the prospect that they're "thinking about how they can make money in their next gig while in office."
The bill she co-introduced with Scott (R-Fla.), known as the Banning Lobbying And Safeguarding Trust (BLAST) Act, would replace the cooling-off periods with a permanent ban, forbidding former lawmakers from registering as lobbyists or engaging in the activities that would require them to do so.
It also bans ex-congresspeople from making lobbying contracts, which are often used as loopholes to avoid formal registration.
Those who violate the act could face up to five years in prison for knowing and willful violations.
“It’s simple: Members of Congress should spend their time in Washington serving the American people, not preparing to cash in big time with a cushy lobbying career after they leave office,” Warren said. “It’s long past time to close the revolving door that’s corrupted our government and destroyed public trust in elected officials. This bipartisan bill is an important push to get that done.”
While Warren has a long record of seeking to limit the influence of money in politics, Scott's presence as a cosponsor was a head-scratcher for many observers.
A former healthcare CEO whose company was hit with the largest healthcare‑fraud settlement in US history, he has always been a reliable partner to corporate interests and has been cited as one of the top Republican recipients of fossil fuel and defense industry money.
Nevertheless, Scott described the "revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street" as a major reason trust in institutions is at an all-time low among Americans.
Regardless of his own intentions, Scott is seizing on a sense of distrust among the American public that is both very real and very bipartisan.
With this coming midterm election cycle expected to be the most expensive in history, 72% of Americans said in a Politico poll released last week that there is "too much money from special interest groups in American elections," while just 5% disagreed. This belief was virtually equal between Republicans and Democrats.
And while more Democrats (76%) felt it necessary to curb billionaire control of politics, over half of Republican voters (54%) also agreed that billionaires had "too much influence" over elections.
Republican senators said they were seeking to end an "unfair inflation tax on everyday Americans." But nearly all the benefits of their proposal would go to the wealthiest 1%.
Two leading Republicans are pushing for the Trump administration to issue another $200 billion tax cut, primarily to the wealthiest Americans, without congressional approval.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Tim Scott (R-SC) sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent urging him to use executive authority to lower the federal tax on capital gains—the profits from selling stocks, bonds, real estate, and other investments.
The senators have proposed that capital gains taxes should be “indexed for inflation." As the Post explained:
The plan pushed by Cruz and Scott has been sought by conservatives for many years. Under current law, an investor who bought $100 worth of stock in 1990 and sold it today for $300 would currently owe capital gains taxes on the full $200 in profit. But the $100 investment in 1990 would be worth roughly $230 in today’s dollars after accounting for inflation. Under the Cruz-Scott proposal, the investor would only owe taxes on that $70, rather than the full $200.
The senators called on Bessent to "eliminate" this "unfair inflation tax on everyday Americans."
According to Federal Reserve data from 2025, the richest 1% of Americans owned about half of all stocks, while the poorest 50% owned only 1%.
Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which enacted massive cuts to social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) last summer, is already estimated to funnel more than $1 trillion to the top 1% of earners over the next 10 years, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
It is unclear whether Bessent would even have the power to change how gains are taxed without an act of Congress, or if Bessent has any interest in doing so. But the vast majority of the benefits from Cruz and Scott's proposal, if enacted, would likely go to the rich as well.
When the Trump administration first considered indexing capital gains taxes to inflation back in 2018, the Penn Wharton Budget Model projected that 63% of the benefits would flow to the richest 0.1%—those making tens of millions per year—while 86% would go to the top 1%.
Those in the bottom 90% of earners would see just over 2% of the overall benefits, with those in the bottom half receiving basically nothing.
According to the Post, the senators view lowering capital gains taxes as part of a GOP bid to "improve its economic approval rating with voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections," in which the party is expected to take a walloping, according to current polls.
Voters have not responded kindly to previous bills that handed lavish tax breaks to the rich. At the time of its passage, the OBBBA was one of the least popular pieces of legislation in modern history, with several polls showing nearly a 2-to-1 disapproval rating.
But Cruz and Scott are pushing for this policy change despite the public revulsion and the fact that the Department of Justice has previously ruled that the Treasury Department can't make policy without Congress' approval.
"Ted Cruz is asking the Treasury Department to break the law to give another round of tax breaks to the ultrarich," remarked Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. "These guys can't help themselves."
The hospital CEO turned US senator is a fraud superstar at working the system.
When Rick Scott came to town, every one of us who worked at Columbia Hospital Corporation’s Victoria Hospital in Miami, Florida stood at attention. The young, dashing CEO had come to make sure staff bloat was reduced and profits were maximized. After leaving my position in Denver and moving my whole family to Florida just five months prior to being the hospital’s billing manager, I was just learning how to do my job within all the rules and regulations. And Rick Scott in our facility meant I needed to at least be pleasant to the big boss. And, indeed, I was.
As the day of Scott’s visit wore on, staff members who were about to be laid off just six weeks before the holiday season in 1989 were called to the admin offices via the hospital’s public announcement system. The extension named “3200” was the call to ride the elevator up several floors to be dismissed by the hospital CEO and his CFO. The day never left my memory as one during which good, kind, and dedicated colleagues, including the boss who brought me to the position, were riffed. On her way out the door, she reminded me to stay alert and be careful. I didn’t know what to do. I cried a lot that night at home, yet I didn’t know what was still to come in Scott’s new vision of profitability.
Within weeks, I noticed a change in our workflow. I was pushed hard to generate collection letters for all the Medicare patients who had been admitted to Columbia’s Victoria Hospital who had not paid their Medicare deductibles before discharge. But then I was instructed to put those generated collection letters in the patient files but never to mail them to the patients. That, I was told, would create a paper trail for due diligence in collection efforts as required before the hospital could submit to have those unpaid (and now unbilled) deductibles reimbursed by the federal Medicare program.
Filing letters in patient files without sending them out seemed wrong and it seemed fraudulent to me, and since I was new to it all I thought maybe if this was standard practice for the hospital, it could have been some loophole I didn’t know about. I dove into the Medicare rules, and I found this troubling line, “If you knew or should have known,” a certain action was fraud, you are complicit and could be charged with a crime. When I questioned the CFO about it, he snapped at me and said that if I wouldn’t do my job, I might need to rethink working there.
Universal coverage via improved and expanded Medicare for all of us would end Rick Scott’s grift.
In mid-December 1989, with my husband suffering heart problems and desperately in need of insurance coverage, I loaded all my personal items in a box and left the hospital. I quit my job. I wrote a letter to my former US Sen. Tim Wirth of Colorado about the situation, and I never heard directly back about what happened to that letter as I asked him to be cautious about disclosing my name or location. I was already terrified of these people. They collected hundreds of thousands of dollars quarterly from the scheme I was asked to be part of, and Rick Scott’s Columbia Hospital Corporation was building a portfolio that included an awful lot of hospitals. Scott was a rising star, after all, and making the first few hospitals he owned profitable was critical to keep that star on its trajectory.
After the Department of Justice started investigating Columbia’s hospitals in the mid to late 1990s, the hospital industry giant paid a record $1.7 billion settlement around defrauding the US government programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and TriCare. It turns out the schemes to enrich profits were widespread and involved much more than patient collection letters. Yet, even after Rick Scott was forced to resign and take responsibility for the fraud committed, he took a severance package of $10 million and stock options totaling nearly $300 million. Wow, that was a generous, golden, gilded, and glorious send off, eh? Up next for Scott?
To see this man ascend the political ranks to be thought of as an appropriate US Senate architect of a new health industry scheme to replace the Affordable Care Act-Obamacare subsidies is a tragic turn of events. We will not get anything close to a humane system under a Rick Scott plan.
The health industry is likely celebrating a return to laissez-faire, anything-goes-if-it’s-profitable model Rick Scott was an expert at designing and operating for Columbia Hospital Corporation. Patients will be the revenue stream upon which his fortune grows larger, and until we wake up and finally move to a model that puts patient health and well-being at the forefront of the design, we will see the health industry enrich itself beyond its wildest dreams while the architect of Medicare and Medicaid fraud, Sen. Rick Scott, takes yet another victory lap on taxpayer money. He and his health industry allies really love being on the dole, despite any claims to the contrary. They just call it profit.
Universal coverage via improved and expanded Medicare for all of us would end Rick Scott’s grift. Perhaps now the truth becomes even more clear. Ending the stranglehold of hospital corporations like the behemoth HCA Healthcare that also includes all of the hospitals previously owned by Columbia Hospital Corporation. On the corporate website, HCA Healthcare writes, “HCA Healthcare, Inc. owns and operates 186 hospitals and approximately 2,400 ambulatory sites of care, including surgery centers, free standing emergency rooms, urgent care centers, and physician clinics in 20 states and the United Kingdom.”
The profits are dear—not the patients, my friends.
Sen. Rick Scott is warning fellow Republicans of a "slow creep" toward single-payer healthcare if they don't craft an alternative to the Affordable Care Act.
US Sen. Rick Scott, former CEO of the company that was at the center of the biggest Medicare fraud scheme in American history, has emerged as the most vocal Republican proponent of healthcare reform, warning his fellow GOP lawmakers that continued refusal to engage with the issue risks a "slow creep" toward single-payer healthcare.
On Thursday, according to Axios, Scott (R-Fla.) is "convening a group of House and Senate conservatives on Capitol Hill to pore over fresh polling to develop GOP alternatives to the Affordable Care Act."
Late last month, Scott unveiled his own proposal titled the More Affordable Care Act, which would keep ACA exchanges intact while creating "Trump Health Freedom Accounts" that enrollees could use to pay for out-of-pocket costs. Scott's plan, as the health policy group KFF explained, would allow enhanced ACA tax credits to expire and let states replace subsidies in the original ACA with contributions to the newly created health savings accounts.
"Unlike ACA premium tax credits, which can only be used for ACA Marketplace plans, the accounts in the Scott proposal could be used for any type of health insurance plan, including short-term plans that can exclude people based on preexisting conditions," KFF noted. "States could also waive certain provisions of the ACA, including the requirement to cover certain benefits."
"While ACA plans would still be required to cover people with preexisting conditions under the Scott proposal," the group added, "it is likely that the ACA marketplace would collapse in states that seek a waiver under his approach."
Last month, amid the longest government shutdown in US history, Scott leapt at the opportunity to champion possible Republican alternatives to the healthcare status quo, despite his ignominious record.
In 2003, the US Justice Department announced that the hospital chain HCA Inc.—formerly known as Columbia/HCA—had agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and damages to settle what the DOJ characterized as the "largest healthcare fraud case in US history."
Scott resigned as CEO of Columbia/HCA in 1997, days after federal agents raided company facilities as part of the sweeping fraud probe. The federal government and company whistleblowers said the hospital giant "systematically defrauded" Medicare, Medicaid, and other healthcare programs through unlawful billing and other ploys.
"In 2000, Scott invoked the Fifth Amendment 75 times in a deposition as part of a civil case involving his time leading the company," Florida Phoenix reported last year. A former HCA accountant accused Scott, who was never directly charged in the case, of leading "a criminal enterprise."
Scott later served two terms as governor of Florida and is now one of the wealthiest members of Congress, and he maintains he was the victim of a politically motivated DOJ investigation.
"The Clinton Justice Department went after me," Scott complained during his 2024 Senate reelection campaign.
It's unclear whether Scott's healthcare ideas will gain sufficient traction with President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers, who have seemed content to bash the existing system without proposing anything concrete or viable to replace it. Trump was supposed to unveil his own healthcare proposal last month, but the White House pulled the plug amid GOP pushback.
Some members of the Democratic caucus, meanwhile, are making the case for the very system Scott is warning his colleagues about.
"Let’s finally create a system that puts your health over corporate profits," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said earlier this week. "We need Medicare for All."
Many anti-war figures actually welcomed the news, with one professor calling the Department of Defense name "a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression."
In his latest attempt to project an image of strength for an empire in a state of decline, US President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order to rename the Department of Defense the Department of War, a move that would ultimately require congressional authorization.
"I think it's a much more appropriate name, especially in light of where the world is right now," Trump explained during a signing ceremony for the move.
When floating the name change idea last month, Trump said that "I'm sure Congress will go along if we need that."
Indeed, on Friday Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill meant to coincide with Trump's decree. The Department of War name dates back to the 18th century but hasn't been used since the National Security Act of 1947, which created the National Military Establishment (NME)—a name that was changed to Department of Defense because the acronym NME sounded too much like the word "enemy."
"The United States military is not a purely defensive force," Scott said in a statement. "We are the most lethal fighting force on the face of the planet—ready to defeat any enemy when called upon. Restoring the name to Department of War reflects our true purpose: to dominate wars, not merely respond after being provoked."
The move faces considerable opposition from lawmakers, including Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy combat pilot who, in a dig at Trump, quipped that "only someone who avoided the draft would want to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War," and Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ), who argued that "Americans want to prevent wars, not tout them."
However, others noted that "War Department" is a moniker befitting a nation that has attacked, invaded, or occupied others in all but a handful of the Defense Department's 78-year history, and which has a global military footprint of hundreds of overseas bases.
well, it’s truth in advertising and it’s honest, which is rare for Trump
[image or embed]
— David Sirota (@davidsirota.com) September 4, 2025 at 4:54 PM
Many "non-interventionists and foreign policy realists" concur that the name change "is just more honest," as Jack Hunter wrote for Responsible Statecraft.
Pointing to this week's deadly US strike on an alleged drug-running boat in the Caribbean and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's threat of more such attacks to come, former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth said Friday on social media that if Trump "keeps sending US forces to blow up alleged (but unproven) drug traffickers, he should call it the Department of Summary Executions."
Keeping with that theme, photojournalist Joshua Collins said on social media that "I actually think calling it 'the Department of War' is infinitely more honest. Because that's exactly what it does."
"Maybe while they're at it though, they can rename ICE 'the Department of kidnappings, extortion, forced disappearances, and human trafficking," Collins added, referring to Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement anti-immigrant blitz.
Jason Hickel, a professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona's Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, said on social media that "this is wonderful news."
"The US 'Department of Defense' has never been primarily about defense; it is a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression," he wrote. "At least now there is no pretending otherwise."
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, wrote: "I'm glad Trump is changing the name of the Defense Department to the War Dept because it has never been about defense. And calling it the 'Department-to-make-the-merchants-of-death-rich' is kind of long."
Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) remarked: "Department of War? More like Department of Distraction... Epstein."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said Friday that no matter what the president calls the Pentagon, "Trump is really good at renaming things, but bad at keeping Americans safe and prosperous."
"He ran as the supposed anti-war candidate but has proven to be just the opposite," Duss noted. "This stunt underscores that Trump is more interested in belligerent chest thumping than genuine peacemaking—with dangerous consequences for American security, global standing, and the safety of our armed services."
"Voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests," said the general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday narrowly voted in favor of advancing a bill that bars politicians at the federal level from trading stocks—with one highly notable exception.
As reported by Politico, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) joined with all Democrats on the committee to advance a bill to ban stock trading by elected officials. However, to get Hawley's vote, Democrats had to agree to create a carveout for U.S. President Donald Trump and to apply the stock-trading ban only to future presidents.
Business Insider reported that, as written, the legislation "would ban members of members of Congress, the president, and the vice president from buying stocks immediately upon enactment, and would block them from selling stocks beginning 90 days after that."
"It would then require lawmakers to divest entirely from their stock holdings at the beginning of their next term, and it would require the president and vice president to do so beginning in 2029—after President Donald Trump's current term," the outlet explained.
Hawley took heat from fellow Republicans on the committee for advancing the legislation, including Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who accused his Missouri colleague of demonizing the wealthy.
"I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money," said Scott. "How many of you don’t want to make money? Anybody want to be poor?"
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said that she wished that the law didn't have a carveout for Trump, but nonetheless supported advancing the bill and she described herself as "willing to make the good work instead of waiting for the perfect."
The bill's advancement out of committee earned plaudits from some government reform advocates. Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, encouraged the full U.S. Senate to take up a vote on the package while also explaining the proposed legislation's importance.
"Members of Congress frequently have access to nonpublic information about economic and business trends and are in a position of power to influence those trends," he said. "That is why the American public—Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike—has called for this type of legislation ever since a series of insider trading scandals erupted over the last several years."
Kedric Payne, the vice president and general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), similarly praised the bill's advancement while also explaining why current transparency rules were no longer adequate.
"To prevent corruption and conflicts of interest, CLC has long called on Congress to update the STOCK Act, which merely requires members to disclose their transactions, and fully ban stock trading by sitting legislators," said Payne. "In the absence of these stronger rules, we've seen congressional stock trading proliferate. This has led to repeated examples of ethical violations and questionable financial activity, including during global health emergencies and times of great economic uncertainty."
Payne further emphasized that "voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests."
The legislation advanced by Hawley and the Democrats was originally named after Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former speaker whose highly profitable stock trades have come under scrutiny in recent years.
Even though the bill has now made its way out of committee, it still faces an uncertain future in the full U.S. Senate where Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority and where Democrats would need to win over some additional Republican converts on top of Hawley. And even should it pass the Senate, it's uncertain whether the legislation would be able to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Scott's proposal for more draconian cuts has renewed scrutiny regarding his past as a hospital executive, where he oversaw the "largest government fraud settlement ever," which included stealing from Medicaid.
Sen. Rick Scott has introduced an amendment to the Republican budget bill that would slash another $313 million from Medicaid and kick off millions more recipients.
The latest analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that 17 million people could lose their health insurance by 2034 as the result of the bill as it already exists.
According to a preliminary estimate by the Democrats on the Joint Congressional Economic Committee, that number could balloon up to anywhere from 20 to 29 million if Scott's (R-Fla.) amendment passes.
The amendment will be voted on as part of the Senate's vote-a-rama, which is expected to run deep into Monday night and possibly into Tuesday morning.
"If Sen. Rick Scott's amendment gets put forward, this would be a self-inflicted healthcare crisis," said Tahra Hoops, director of economic analysis at Chamber of Progress.
The existing GOP reconciliation package contains onerous new restrictions, including new work requirements and administrative hurdles, that will make it harder for poor recipients to claim Medicaid benefits.
Scott's amendment targets funding for the program by ending the federal government's 90% cost sharing for recipients who join Medicaid after 2030. Those who enroll after that date would have their medical care reimbursed by the federal government at a lower rate of 50%.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced the increased rate in 2010 to incentivize states to expand Medicaid, allowing more people to be covered.
Scott has said his program would "grandfather" in those who had already been receiving the 90% reimbursement rate.
However, Medicaid is run through the states, which will have to spend more money to keep covering those who need the program after 2030.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that this provision "would shift an additional $93 billion in federal Medicaid funding to states from 2031 through 2034 on top of the cuts already in the Senate bill."
This will almost certainly result in states having to cut back, by introducing their stricter requirements or paperwork hurdles.
Additionally, nine states have "trigger laws" that are set to end the program immediately if the federal matching rate is reduced: Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Utah, and Virginia.
The Joint Congressional Economic Committee estimated Tuesday that around 2.5 million more people will lose their insurance as a result of those cuts.
If all the states with statutory Medicaid expansion ended it as a result of Scott's cuts, as many as 12.5 million could lose their insurance. Combined with the rest of the bill, that's potentially 29 million people losing health insurance coverage, the committee said.

There are enough Republicans in the Senate to pass the bill with Scott's amendment. However, they can afford no more than three defections. According to Politico, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) have signaled they will vote against the amendment.
Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.V.) also said he'd "have a hard time" voting yes on the bill if Scott's amendment passed. His state of West Virginia has the second-highest rate of people using federal medical assistance of any state in the country, behind only Mississippi.
Critics have called out Scott for lying to justify this line of cuts. In a recent Fox News appearance, Scott claimed that his new restrictions were necessary to stop Democrats who want to "give illegal aliens Medicaid benefits," even though they are not eligible for the program.
Scott's proposal has also brought renewed scrutiny to his past as a healthcare executive.
"Ironically enough, some of the claims against Scott's old hospital company revolved around exploiting Medicaid, and billing for services that patients didn't need," wrote Andrew Perez in Rolling Stone Monday.
In 2000, Scott's hospital company, HCA, was forced to pay $840 million in fines, penalties, and damages to resolve claims of unlawful billing practices in what was called the "largest government fraud settlement ever." Among the charges were that during Scott's tenure, the company overbilled Medicare and Medicaid by pretending patients were sicker than they actually were.
The company entered an additional settlement in 2003, paying out another $631 million to compensate for the money stolen from these and other government programs.
Scott himself was never criminally charged, but resigned in 1997 as the Department of Justice began to probe his company's activities. Despite the scandal, Scott not only became a U.S. senator, but is the wealthiest man in Congress, with a net worth of more than half a billion dollars.
The irony of this was not lost on Perez, who wrote: "A few decades later, Scott is now trying to extract a huge amount of money from state Medicaid funds to help finance Trump's latest round of tax cuts for the rich."
"The Trump tax scam is a grift for the ultrarich, including those who are in charge of passing this legislation themselves, and a betrayal to hardworking Americans everywhere," said the head of Accountable.US.
As U.S. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans' so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" heads to the Senate, a watchdog group on Tuesday released a report highlighting that dozens of GOP members of Congress worth a total of $2.5 billion are set to benefit from the package, which would cut food and healthcare benefits for millions of working-class Americans.
The group, Accountable.US, found that the top 10 richest Republican senators and top 25 richest GOP members of the House of Representatives have a collective net worth of over $1.1 billion and over $1.4 billion, respectively, "allowing them to take advantage of tax breaks granted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that they are currently seeking to extend."
"While pushing for more tax cuts to line their own pockets," the report notes, "many of the richest Republican members are pushing for draconian cuts to the very social programs that millions of their constituents rely on," including federal student aid, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
According to Accountable.US, "6.3 million constituents represented by the top 10 richest senators and 2.1 million constituents represented by the top 25 richest representatives use SNAP and are at risk of losing their food security."
Additionally, "9.2 million constituents represented by the top 10 richest senators and 4 million constituents represented by the top 25 richest representatives use Medicaid and are at risk of losing critically needed healthcare," the report warns.
The watchdog also found that 3 million and 930,000 federal student aid grants were given to constituents within these lawmakers' states and districts, respectively, and proposed cuts threaten "to price students out of pursuing higher education."
The richest Republican senator, by a significant margin, is Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who made his money from the nation's for-profit healthcare system before serving as governor of his state. As of mid-May, his estimated net worth was around half a billion dollars, according to the new report.
Nine of the 10 senators—all but Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah)—"sit on five committees instrumental in shaping budget reconciliation," the report points out, as the upper chamber takes up the package following its passage in the House last week.
"As Trump's Big Beautiful Bill moves to the Senate, we must make it clear: There is nothing 'beautiful' about giving huge tax breaks to billionaires while cutting healthcare, nutrition, and education for working families. It is grossly immoral and, together, we must defeat it," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has been traveling the country for his Fighting Oligarchy Tour,
said on social media Tuesday.
Just two House Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, joined Democrats in opposing the bill, and GOP Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, voted present.
All other Republicans present voted in favor of the bill—even though, as Accountable.US detailed last week, a dozen wrote to GOP leadership last month saying that they represent "districts with high rates of constituents who depend on Medicaid," so they "cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations."
The watchdog stressed that six of those Republican lawmakers—Reps. Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania, Rob Wittman of Virginia, Jen Kiggans of Virginia, Young Kim of California, Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey—could directly benefit from the expansion of the "pass-through deduction" in the package.
Meanwhile, Tuesday's report calls out the richest House GOP members, led by Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida, and Rep. Darrell Issa of California, who are each worth nearly a quarter-billion dollars.
"The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is the definition of promises made and promises kept," Buchanan, vice chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement after last week's vote. "This is a commonsense, pro-growth, pro-family, America First bill. We will not stop fighting until we get this bill across the finish line and to the president's desk."
Of the top 25 Republicans in the House, by estimated net worth, 19 sit on five key panels, the report states.
"The richest Republicans in Congress are happy to raise costs for millions of their own constituents and jeopardize healthcare for millions more, while they get a tax cut for themselves," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk in a statement. "The Trump tax scam is a grift for the ultrarich, including those who are in charge of passing this legislation themselves, and a betrayal to hardworking Americans everywhere."
During her eight years as Florida attorney general, the cop was apparently off the beat when Bondi succumbed to the enticements of corporate lobbyists.
When Pam Bondi, president-elect Donald Trump’s new pick for U.S. attorney general, was the state attorney general of Florida, she was one of the best money can buy.
Despite the fact that a state attorney general’s job is to represent the public interest—not private, special interests—Bondi routinely took the side of corporate fraudsters and polluters during her two-term tenure that ran from 2011 to 2019, coincidentally after receiving political donations, free trips, and other generous perks from interested parties.
Instead of protecting the people of Florida, she failed to prosecute corporate fraud and defended the fossil fuel industry at the expense of public health and the environment.
A prime example of one of these alleged quid pro quos came up in the news coverage following Trump’s announcement that he had selected Bondi to replace his first choice, Matt Gaetz, to be the nation’s top law enforcement officer. In 2013, Bondi abandoned the idea of joining the New York attorney general’s civil fraud case against Trump University after a Trump family foundation donated $25,000 to a pro-Bondi political action committee.
The Senate should take a closer look at the circumstances surrounding that incident when considering her appointment. But it also should keep in mind that it was not a one-off. It was emblematic of a pattern of behavior.
In the fall of 2014, The New York Times published a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles by Eric Lipton examining the upsurge in corporate lobbying of state attorneys general. The first installment, “Lobbyists, Bearing Gifts, Pursue Attorneys General,” featured Bondi front and center. At the time, she was chair of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), an organization founded in 1999 with the primary purpose of electing Republican attorneys general.
Lipton found that state attorneys general had become “the object of aggressive pursuit by lobbyists and lawyers who use campaign contributions, personal appeals at lavish corporate-sponsored conferences, and other means to push them to drop investigations, change policies, negotiate favorable settlements, or pressure federal regulators.” He even discovered cases where attorneys general used legal briefs drafted by private lawyers nearly verbatim and relied on them to provide much of the research as well as the cost of litigation in exchange for a percentage of any settlement.
Although state laws generally require corporate lobbyists to register if they are trying to influence legislation, there are no explicit rules when it comes to lobbying attorneys general.
That “aggressive pursuit” Lipton described goes both ways. According to emails and documents obtained by the nonpartisan Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), Republican attorneys general offer lobbyists and lawyers private, confidential meetings in exchange for contributions to RAGA, which—as a 527 political organization—can raise unlimited amounts of cash from individuals and corporations. Another RAGA document, obtained by the nonprofit watchdog group Documented, detailed the degree of access funders get at RAGA conferences, retreats, and summits depending on how much they spend on their annual RAGA membership fee, which in 2019 ranged from $15,000 to $250,000.
This explosion of lobbying and dealmaking, Lipton pointed out, has taken place largely behind closed doors, because “unlike the lobbying rules covering other elected officials, there are few revolving-door restrictions or disclosure requirements governing state attorneys general.” Although state laws generally require corporate lobbyists to register if they are trying to influence legislation, there are no explicit rules when it comes to lobbying attorneys general.
Bondi first appears in the Times story when she was at a RAGA retreat at an exclusive California resort where rooms cost as much as $4,500 a night. She was joined by other RAGA members as well as representatives from lobbying firms, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and such Fortune 500 companies as Altria, Comcast, and Pfizer.
RAGA members’ airfare, meals, and hotel bills for such events are generally paid by the corporate sponsors or state taxpayers. Corporate donors, Lipton found, had provided Bondi nearly $25,000 worth of airfare, hotels, and meals for RAGA-sponsored events during the previous two years. Florida taxpayers, meanwhile, had covered nearly $14,000 in Bondi’s expenses since she took office in 2011 to go to meetings hosted by the nonpartisan National Association of Attorneys General and the Conference of Western Attorneys General, where corporate lobbyists were also in attendance. In a statement, Bondi told the Times that the financial support she had received for these events, either directly or through RAGA, did not have any influence on her decisions as attorney general.
The Times story went on to cite several examples when Bondi, after lobbying by the Dickstein Shapiro law firm, declined to investigate its corporate clients’ unethical practices that other state attorneys general deemed illegal. The firm’s clients included Accretive Health, whose bill collecting operations had been shut down by Minnesota’s attorney general for abusive practices; Bridgepoint Education, a for-profit online school whose sales pitches, according to Iowa’s attorney general, were “unconscionable”; and Herbalife, the maker of nutritional drinks and other products, which settled with the Federal Trade Commission in 2016 to pay $200 million back to people who the company conned with misleading moneymaking claims.
Besides mingling with Bondi at RAGA conferences and treating her to expensive dinners, Dickstein Shapiro lawyers helped place a cover story on Bondi in InsideCounsel, a magazine for corporate lawyers, and sponsored a fundraising event in 2014 for Bondi at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida.
When contacted by the Times about her reluctance to pursue the cases involving Dickstein Shapiro clients, Bondi said in a statement that her encounters with the firm’s representatives had no impact on her decisions and insisted that her office “aggressively protects Floridians from unfair and deceptive business practices.”
The second installment in Lipton’s Times series, “Energy Firms in Secretive Alliance With Attorneys General,” was based on thousands of pages of correspondence between energy industry executives and Republican attorneys general trying to block Obama administration proposals to address the climate crisis. In 2014 alone, Lipton found, the fossil fuel industry donated some $16 million to at least a dozen Republican attorney general candidates.
Apparently it was money well spent. As CMD reported, less than two weeks after representatives from fossil fuel companies, electric utilities, and their trade groups attended a RAGA conference in August 2015, Bondi and more than 20 other state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to kill the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which would have established the first-ever limits on U.S. power plant carbon emissions. Among the conference’s attendees were lobbyists from the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal industry trade group now called America’s Power, which gave RAGA $378,250 between 2015 and 2016; Charles Koch’s Koch Industries, which donated $350,000; coal giant Murray Energy, which contributed $250,000; and Southern Company, which gave RAGA $85,000, according to materials reviewed by CMD.
Bondi also benefited directly from corporate lobby firm and fossil fuel industry largess. In the run up to her fall 2010 victory through her two four-year terms as Florida’s attorney general, her campaigns raised nearly $397,000 from lawyers and lobbyists (who lobbied on a range of issues) and more than $46,000 from the energy sector, including electric utilities and such oil and gas companies as Chevron and Koch Industries, according election finance data compiled by Follow the Money. Forty percent of the nearly $6 million Bondi’s campaigns raised came from the Florida Republican Party, which in 2015—when Bondi and her colleagues challenged the Clean Power Plan and the last year she served as RAGA chair—received $775,000 from lawyers and lobbyists and more than $800,000 from the energy sector.
If Bondi were really serious about protecting her constituents, however, she would have joined the District of Columbia and the 15 states that backed the Obama administration and were ready to begin complying with Clean Power Plan rules.
In an October 2015 opinion column in The Florida Times-Union, Bondi maintained that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had no legal authority to impose the Clean Power Plan and that it would have resulted in higher electricity bills across the country. Four months later, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a controversial 5 to 4 ruling, blocked the plan (and Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general, repealed it in 2017), but Bondi’s assertion that replacing fossil fuel-powered electricity with renewables would lead to higher bills has been proven wrong.
According to a July 2024 analysis by Energy Innovation Policy & Technology, a nonpartisan think tank, “Since 2010, residential electricity rates have not increased faster than inflation, while electricity bills have declined in inflation-adjusted terms. Many of the states with the largest increases in wind and solar generation since 2010—including Iowa, New Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma—have seen rates rise slower than inflation.” Energy Innovation found that the key drivers of rising electricity rates have been the cost of fossil fuels, combatting wildfires, and transmitting and distributing power.
Bondi justified challenging the Clean Power Plan as a bipartisan effort, although only a couple of the 27 state attorneys general who signed onto the lawsuit were Democrats. She also insisted she was just protecting her constituents.
“Let me tell you who we are looking out for: We are looking out for consumers,” Bondi told reporters. “And we will continue to look out for our consumers and our businesses, especially when this affects their finances. That’s what this is about.”
If Bondi were really serious about protecting her constituents, however, she would have joined the District of Columbia and the 15 states that backed the Obama administration and were ready to begin complying with Clean Power Plan rules. After all, Florida is the most vulnerable state to climate change.
How bad will it likely get? Florida is currently the second hottest state, and the South Florida is projected to experience the biggest increase in the number of hottest days across the country. Palm Beach County, for example, projects that by 2040, it will suffer 35 to 49 days with temperatures over 95°F annually. By 2070, that number could be between 81 and 112 days, according to the county’s estimates.
At the same time, routine flooding is already a major problem, and by the end of the century, some 1 million Florida homes will be at risk. That’s largely because the state sits on porous limestone and the sea level around the state, which has gone up 8 inches since 1950, could rise another 14 to 16 inches by 2050, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Meanwhile, the state has been hit by 52 billion-dollar extreme weather disasters since 2010. About 40% were caused by hurricanes, which have been turbocharged by rising levels of carbon emissions. One of the most recent, Hurricane Ian, slammed into the state’s Gulf Coast in September 2022, causing more than $112 billion in damages. It was the costliest hurricane in Florida’s history and the third-costliest in U.S. history, according to a 2022 NOAA report. This year, three hurricanes made landfall, two of them less than two weeks apart.
Regardless, Pam Bondi doesn’t like to “philosophize” about climate change. In October 2015, when she announced Florida was joining other states in suing the Obama administration over the Clean Power Plan, a Politico reporter asked her if climate change was “man-made.” Bondi replied: “I’m not going to get into a philosophical discussion with you about climate change.”
She then pivoted to defend the lawsuit, saying that the plan would be costly for Florida’s consumers and businesses. The reporter pressed her again, asking her about her take on climate change and “whether it was an issue of science rather than philosophy.” Bondi refused to take the bait. “I’m not going to get in a discussion about climate change right now,” she replied.
Bondi’s opposition to the Clean Power Plan and other Obama-era EPA air pollution proposals, including a new rule for power plant startups and shutdowns, was also legalistic. Although the Clean Air Act grants the federal government the authority to set pollution standards, she maintained it is the states’ responsibility to implement them. “States play an important role in protecting air and water,” Bondi wrote in her October 2015 Florida Times-Union column, “and state attorneys general in particular have long been the last line of defense to protect states against gross federal overreach.”
States do have an important role in protecting the environment, but according to a September 2014 Tampa Bay Times editorial, the record of Rick Scott, the governor when Bondi was attorney general, was “an environmental disaster,” and the paper was only referencing his first four years in office. His second term, according to many accounts, was just as bad.
“Scott has bulldozed a record of environmental protection that his Republican and Democratic predecessors spent decades building,” the Tampa Bay Times editorial noted. “He weakened the enforcement of environmental laws and cut support for clean water, conservation, and other programs. He simultaneously made it easier for the biggest polluters and private industries to degrade the state’s natural resources. While the first-term Republican attempts to transform himself into an environmentalist during his reelection campaign, his record reflects a callous disregard for the state’s natural resources and no understanding of how deeply Floridians care about their state’s beauty and treasures.”
There are too many examples of Scott trashing Florida’s environmental safeguards to list here, but there are a few that are notable for their outrageousness.
When asked by a reporter in 2014 if he thinks man-made climate change is real and significant, Scott famously replied with the standard Republican mantra: “I am not a scientist.” More recently, after Hurricane Helene blew through Florida in September, Scott—who has been representing Florida in the U.S. Senate since 2019—acknowledged that the climate is “clearly changing.” However, when asked by a CNN anchor if Helene was part of a trend in which storms “are simply bigger than they once were, perhaps because of climate change,” he replied: “Who knows what the reason is, but something is changing. Massive storms. Massive storm surge. So we’ve got to figure this out.”
According to the nonpartisan National Association of Attorneys General, a state attorney general’s duty is to represent the public interest by, among other things, protecting consumers from fraud, regulating utilities, enforcing environmental laws, and instituting civil suits.
Bondi did the exact opposite: Instead of protecting the people of Florida, she failed to prosecute corporate fraud and defended the fossil fuel industry at the expense of public health and the environment.
As attorney general, Bondi oversaw her office’s Consumer Protection Division, which is charged with protecting “consumers by pursuing individuals and entities that engage in unfair methods of competition or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair practices in trade of commerce.” During her eight years as attorney general, the cop was apparently off the beat when Bondi succumbed to the enticements of corporate lobbyists.
Florida has already sustained billions of dollars in climate change-related damage. Regardless, Bondi routinely joined—and spearheaded—lawsuits and other actions to block federal environmental safeguards, especially those designed to mitigate the impact of global warming. Why? At least partly—if not largely—because the organization she chaired, the Republican Attorneys General Association, received massive financial support from fossil fuel companies, electric utilities, and their respective trade groups.
As a state’s top legal officer, attorneys general are supposed to function as the “people’s lawyer,” representing the interests of state residents. All swear to faithfully discharge their duties. By failing to prosecute corporate fraud and putting the interests of the fossil fuel industry ahead of the health and safety of her own constituents, did Pam Bondi violate her oath of office?
If elected to the Senate, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell’s consistent, dedicated support for both climate adaptation and mitigation actions will help Florida and the nation move toward a more livable, resilient future.
Leaving home on a south Florida summer day, we’re typically greeted with a wall of hot, humid air. We Floridians are quite familiar with long and languorous summertime mornings, oftentimes followed by afternoon thunderstorms. Summertime is also accompanied by the possibility of a hurricane–something we’re witnessing again right now in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene.
So far, we’ve usually responded by spending fistfuls of money on air conditioning to cool inside spaces, avoiding the midday sun if we can, and getting out of town for cooler climes if we have the means. Such aspects of life in the Sunshine State are the trade-off for basking in the abundant sunshine, warm temperatures, and tropical landscape of our so-called “winter.”
But it’s getting harder than ever to enjoy the summer outdoors. And summer is only getting longer.
If we want to protect the great outdoors in our state—and, even more so, protect those communities most vulnerable to extreme weather and climate change impacts—the stakes of this election are clear.
The number of heat advisories we’ve had the last few years seems endless. Those should be raising red flags for even the most adamant climate deniers. The heat is not going away. If anything, it’s going to get worse. And it threatens our health and well-being in the process.
For example, WPTV reported that “Palm Beach County projects that by 2040, we’ll see between 35 and 49 days with highs over 95°F in a year. By 2070, that number could be between 81 and 112 days, according to the county’s projections.”
A recent story in The Washington Post described a possible nightmare scenario, where a hurricane knocks out power for 48 hours in the midst of a heatwave. The suffering and health emergencies in such an instance would be dramatic and especially impactful for the economically distressed and elderly. South Floridians experienced a similar such scenario in 2017 during Hurricane Irma, when the power failed at a nursing home in Hollywood and nine residents died when inside temperatures soared. The reality of the climate crisis means that, sadly, this won’t be the last time we experience such tragedies.
Reducing the likelihood of hot days and other climate change impacts is an existential challenge for the state of Florida if it hopes to protect the safety of its citizens. And it is why we need to elect climate champions this November who can address the root causes of climate change—greenhouse gas emissions—and guide us to a more livable future.
The tightening U.S. Senate race in Florida, between Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and Rick Scott, features candidates who take very different views of climate change and how to address it. The Senate majority, and with it, the future of climate change investments funded by the Inflation Reduction Act, could very well be decided by this race. The IRA is supercharging the transition to clean energy. The choice for south Floridians should be clear if we want to slow the climate threat.
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a dedicated climate champion. Time and time again, she has shown herself willing to address both climate adaptation—repairing and preventing climate change caused damage—and mitigation—reducing the sources of greenhouse gas emissions. She has been characterized as a “leading freshman voice on environmental issues, especially water policy” during her time in the House of Representatives, where she introduced legislation to protect coral reefs and secure annual funding for restoration of the Everglades. She also unveiled a report in fall 2020 with fellow House of Representative members Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) about how climate action will bring important health and economic benefits to the Sunshine State. If elected to the Senate, her consistent, dedicated support for both climate adaptation and mitigation actions will help Florida and the nation move toward a more livable, resilient future.
As governor, Scott reportedly nixed the mere mention of “climate change.” In recent years, he has acknowledged that climate change is real, but he has opposed important climate change mitigation measures, such as the Green New Deal and the Inflation Reduction Act. Egregiously, now-Senator Scott did not sign onto a letter in 2023 calling on the Biden administration to implement an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) workplace federal heat standard—which would have helped workers cope with the heat while on the job. He is willing to help fund particular impact remedies such as beach renourishment and even Everglades restoration, but adaptation measures alone are not sufficient for slowing the source of the problem. Senator Scott remains unwilling to support the kind of clean energy legislation that is absolutely necessary to put our state on a better path when it comes to climate.
As a hiker, biker, and gardener, I love Florida’s outdoors. If we want to protect the great outdoors in our state—and, even more so, protect those communities most vulnerable to extreme weather and climate change impacts—the stakes of this election are clear. We cannot miss the chance to move our state toward a future that takes climate action seriously.