SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
super pacs
'Must Be Done': Sanders Calls for Ban on Super PAC Spending in Democratic Primaries
"I would hope that we can all agree that Republican special interests should not play a role in determining the outcome of Democratic primaries. The time to act is now."
Aug 10, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday urged national Democratic leaders to impose a total ban on super PAC spending in primary contests, a change that the progressive senator said is necessary to prevent corporate interests from heavily influencing the party's electoral outcomes.
In a letter addressed to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote that "what is particularly obscene is not only the outrageous amount of money coming into Democratic primaries from billionaire-funded super PACs, but the reality that these special interests have no particular desire to see Democrats win."
Sanders, who caucuses with the Democratic Party, cited as a telling example the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's $30 million intervention in the Democratic primary for a critical US Senate seat in Michigan. The organization, known as AIPAC, spent heavily to boost Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and attempt to tear down her progressive opponent, Abdul El-Sayed—who went on to win the race despite being massively outspent.
AIPAC is now reportedly planning to spend big in support of El-Sayed's Republican general election opponent, Mike Rogers.
"It is absurd that they spend tens of millions of dollars to try to determine who the Democratic nominee is and, if they fail, then proceed to support the Republican candidate in the general election," Sandres wrote. "That is not democracy. That is not what Democratic voters want."
Sanders emphasized his support for passage of a constitutional amendment to repeal the US Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for the establishment and proliferation of super PACs—entities that can raise and spend unlimited sums supporting or opposing political campaigns.
"BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT," Sanders wrote in all caps. "Right now, the Democratic Party has the power to prohibit super PACs from participating in its primaries. That can be done. That must be done. I urge you to take action and make clear that the Democratic Party will no longer maintain this corrupt system."
"While there are ideological differences of opinion within the big tent of the party, I would hope that we can all agree that Republican special interests should not play a role in determining the outcome of Democratic primaries," the senator continued. "The time to act is now."
The DNC has repeatedly faced calls in recent years to curb or eliminate the influence of super PACs in Democratic primaries—but has yet to take concrete action.
Earlier this year, the DNC Rules Committee rejected a proposed resolution that condemned the "growing influence" of AIPAC and other organizations pumping huge sums into Democratic primaries. The rules panel instead advanced a resolution broadly condemning dark money and expressing the DNC's "commitment to campaign finance practices that align with the party’s core values."
Nearly a third of all corporate political spending on elections since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling has come during the 2026 election cycle, according to a June report by Public Citizen.
"Cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online betting corporations have collectively spent $294 million to influence federal elections in the 2026 midterm cycle, reflecting a strategic move to spend directly on political action committees to influence federal elections," the report found. "These corporate super PAC political contributions make up 57% of the $517 million that corporations have reported spending on the 2026 midterms so far."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sports Betting Giants Join Unprecedented Corporate Efforts to Buy 2026 Midterms
Democratic Rep. Summer Lee said the new spending was yet another reason “it’s time to get money out of politics.”
Jul 29, 2026
As corporations spend record sums to influence this November's elections, new campaign finance data shows a powerful new interest fueling the trend: sports gambling companies.
FanDuel, DraftKings, and others in the sports betting industry have spent $72 million seeking to influence the upcoming election cycle, according to a report from Reuters on Tuesday.
The industry's historic spending blitz faces growing scrutiny from state and federal lawmakers, and seeks to protect its turf against rising competitors in the prediction market business, such as Polymarket and Kalshi, which are financially tied to the Trump administration.
Sports gambling companies have become the third-largest corporate election donor in the country during this cycle behind just the technology and cryptocurrency sectors, according to a June report by the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. These two industries have spent over $100 million promoting their interests in the upcoming midterms.
That same report found that the 2026 election cycle has been influenced by more corporate money than any since 2010, when the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for companies to spend unlimited sums promoting their preferred candidates via super political action committees (PACs).
These groups are not legally allowed to coordinate with candidates or give them money directly, but are allowed to advocate on their behalf, sometimes spending tens of millions of dollars to run ads aimed at influencing a single race.
As of last month, the report found that corporations have spent $517 million, mainly through super PACs, to influence the 2026 election, accounting for nearly one-third of all corporate election spending since 2010.
According to Reuters, major sportsbooks have channeled their money into the super PAC Win For America, which launched last year, and distributed it to affiliated PACs: the Republican-focused American Conservative Fund and the Democrat-focused American Future.
DraftKings has given at least $34 million to Win for America, FanDuel has given at least $27 million, and Fanatics and the UK-based bet365 have given $5.5 million apiece.
Separately, DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics, and BetMGM created the Sports Betting Alliance in 2021 to lobby Congress and state legislatures.
Since 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down a federal law barring sports betting in most states, at least 39 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized it in some form.
While crypto and tech have directed more attention to federal races, the battles over sports betting are raging mostly at the state level, and that’s where most of Win for America’s focus is going.
According to Reuters:
The money's impact is already evident in some state races.
Win for America spent more than $12 million in Georgia state races through two smaller PACs—Republican-focused American Conservative Fund and Democrat-focused American Future—as the legislature there weighs bills that would legalize gambling, state campaign finance records show.
The money went into 34 legislative races ahead of the primary. All but two of the candidates supported by the industry won, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in May...
Win for America is also spending heavily on races in Pennsylvania, where there was a push to raise taxes on the online sports betting industry to boost state aid for public transportation, election records show.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), who introduced legislation in May that would apply the same contribution limits to super PACs that already apply to direct donations, argued that the huge sums spent by the sports betting industry were yet another reason that "it's time to get money out of politics."
"Crypto. Big tech. Now big sports betting," she wrote on social media Wednesday. "Another industry pouring tens of millions into our elections to protect its profits. Democracy shouldn't be auctioned off to the highest bidder."
Keep ReadingShow Less
$60 Million 'Crutch' From Super PACs Is Proof That Stevens Isn't Actually 'Electable,' Says El-Sayed
In the final debate before Michigan's pivotal Democratic Senate primary, Abdul El-Sayed continued to hammer on the idea that his opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, is "bought off" by AIPAC and corporate-funded super PACs.
Jul 28, 2026
Progressive US Senate hopeful Dr. Abdul El-Sayed spent Monday night's final Democratic primary debate in Michigan continuing to hammer on his centrist opponent Rep. Haley Stevens' backing from big money donors.
With just a week before Michiganders head to the polls, Stevens has emphasized her supposed electability against presumptive Republican nominee former Rep. Mike Rogers for the seat, which could decide the balance of power in the Senate.
While El-Sayed has consistently dominated in fundraising from individual contributors, particularly small-dollar donors, he is still dramatically outgunned by Stevens in terms of overall financial support.
Six aligned super PACs have reserved roughly $60 million to run ads boosting her—more than half of which comes from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-affiliated super political action committee (PAC) the United Democracy Project.
This tidal wave of outside funding has appeared to help Stevens remain competitive with El-Sayed after initially trailing him. But on the debate stage Monday, former Detroit public health official El-Sayed—who has made removing big money from politics a central campaign plank—argued that the spending cuts against Stevens' claim that she is more "electable" than him.
Along with the Senate filibuster, which he said would allow Republicans to stymy ambitious agenda items like Medicare for All and labor protection bills like the PRO Act, El-Sayed argued that "money in politics" was among the biggest "risks to our democracy."
He pointed to the super PAC-funded "attack ads that you've seen, probably in the last commercial break itself" that "change our political system." He then called out Stevens directly.
"When you ask $60 million to come into a race for you, and then say that somehow you're electable, I think you don't quite understand what electability means," El-Sayed said. "If you need a $60 million crutch, you probably can't be elected on your own terms."
Both El-Sayed and Stevens are shown to be slightly ahead of Rogers in polls for a hypothetical November matchup.
While Stevens has claimed that Rogers views El-Sayed as an easier opponent, one aggregate of four recent polls by 270ToWin shows El-Sayed leading the Republican by about 2.5 percentage points on average compared to Stevens, who leads by about 1.3 points on average.
El-Sayed, who has made a point of swearing off corporate backers, hit on the idea that Stevens was "bought off" repeatedly throughout the night.
He noted the $45,000 in direct support her campaigns had received since 2019 from the increasingly loathed Michigan energy monopoly DTE, as well as her support from super PACs backed by donors in the health insurance and tech industries.
Responding to Stevens’ message about the need to lower prices for ordinary people, El-Sayed said, “I don’t take money from the corporations who are jacking up your prices in the first place.”
He also pointed to her vote last week to preserve $3.3 billion in military aid for Israel while more than half of her Democratic colleagues voted for an amendment that would have cut off the support.
El-Sayed said it showed that AIPAC, which has grown overwhelmingly unpopular with Democratic voters disgusted by Israel's actions, had dumped at least $30 million behind Stevens because “they know she’ll be a reliable vote."
Stevens largely sidestepped questions about her super PAC support, instead hitting back at El-Sayed for campaigning with "senators who’ve come in here from the coast," like Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who she said lack an understanding of "what makes our state tick."
She emphasized her "experience" over El-Sayed as a four-term congresswoman and as “Michigan’s manufacturing geek” who'd bring a "unique understanding" of the state's issues to Congress.
"I don't think there's much difference between super PACs going in for Abdul or super PACs going in for me," Stevens said, ignoring that outside spending to back Stevens throughout the primary outpaces the amount supporting El-Sayed by about 18-to-1, according to the latest totals from AdImpact.
While polling for next Tuesday's primary has been all over the map, showing leads for both El-Sayed and Stevens in recent weeks, an unscientific online poll from Fox 2 Detroit indicated that El-Sayed was viewed overwhelmingly as the winner of Monday's debate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sen. Tina Smith Endorses El-Sayed as He Continues to Dominate With Small-Dollar Donors
"Abdul is the best candidate to win Michigan in November because he is the one who has the capacity to build the grassroots movement that is going to power Democrats to victory," Smith said.
Jul 24, 2026
With less than two weeks left before Michigan’s Democratic primary, Senate hopeful Dr. Abdul El-Sayed earned support from another US senator on Thursday, with Sen. Tina Smith praising the progressive as "a fighter."
The endorsement comes as El-Sayed's opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, rakes in massive support from large super PACs but continues to be massively outraised by him among small donors.
Smith (D-Minn.), who is not seeking reelection in 2026, is nevertheless the fourth member of the chamber to endorse El-Sayed, following Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
"I've been a United States senator for nearly nine years. And in that time, I have seen there are basically two kinds of senators," Smith said in a video posted to social media. "There are the ones who go along to get along, that hoard their power, and do everything they can to pacify big money. And then there are the fighters—the ones that are ready to challenge the status quo and fight a system that too often seems like it's rigged for the rich and the powerful."
El-Sayed, she said, was one of the latter, crediting his support for Medicare for All, his longtime union membership, and his refusal to accept corporate PAC money.
"Abdul is the best candidate to win Michigan in November," Smith said, "because he is the one who has the capacity to build the grassroots movement that is going to power Democrats to victory."
The endorsement comes as new Federal Election Commission filings released Thursday showed El-Sayed's grassroots fundraising advantage. Between July 1-15, he raised over $2.3 million from individual donors compared to about $921,000 for Stevens during the same period.
The divide is even starker among small donors, where El-Sayed leads Stevens by nearly 9-to-1.
Stevens still has the vast funding advantage thanks to the intervention of powerful outside groups. According to OpenSecrets, the United Democracy Project, the political spending arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has poured nearly $20 million to push her over the line.
Another super PAC, known as A Stronger Michigan, has spent an additional $14 million on ads promoting Stevens. The dark money group that provides nearly all of its funding, Center Forward, has not disclosed its donors and won't be required to do so until after the August 4 primary.
This wave of outside money has helped Stevens remain competitive against El-Sayed. But her struggles to raise money from voters have raised concerns about her ability to perform in the general election against Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers, who would be expected to suck up the AIPAC funding currently going to Stevens.
While Smith may not have the star power of other Democrats who have backed El-Sayed, journalist Zaid Jilani argued that her endorsement “is a big one” and “a sign [Democrats] think Abdul has a good chance of winning.”
"AIPAC is bailing [Stevens] out right now," he wrote. "But I don’t see why they’d spend on her in a general when Mike Rogers is even friendlier to them."
Journalist Ryan Grim asserted that without AIPAC money for a potential Stevens general election campaign, the Democrats could be forced to pull funding from "Ohio, and Iowa, and Alaska, and so on."
"El-Sayed, meanwhile, has a built-in fundraising base, because he has regular people supporting him, not a super PAC that doesn’t care about Michigan or the Democratic Party," said Grim.
Recent polls show El-Sayed with a slightly larger polling lead over Rogers than the one enjoyed by Stevens. Recent polls for next month's Democratic primary, however, have been more challenging to parse, with some showing El-Sayed far in front and others showing leads for Stevens.
David Dulio, a political science professor at Oakland University, described the race to OpenSecrets as a “battle for the future of the Democratic Party” between powerful donors and the grassroots.
"The story right now… is that Stevens is dominating with outside funding,” Dulio said. “El-Sayed has momentum, and Stevens has money.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Don’t Need to Be Unkind to Be Honest': El-Sayed Asks Supporters to Criticize Haley Stevens on 'the Issues'
The Michigan Democrat encouraged his followers to focus less on Stevens' voice and more on the $50 million in support she's received from "AIPAC, Trump-aligned billionaires, and corporate PACs."
Jul 17, 2026
Rep. Haley Stevens has become the subject of mockery in recent days after a viral clip showed her on the campaign trail for Michigan's Democratic US Senate primary attempting to rev up supporters with an almost comically Midwestern drawl.
“I am gonna be workin’ on our behalf, I am gonna be tellin’ the stories on our behalf,” Stevens said in the 19-second clip, which was posted over the weekend by the social media arm of the Republican National Committee. “And you better believe I’m gonna be doin’ it with a little bit of joy, a little bit of enthusiasm, a little bit of energy, and a little bit of ‘stick it to ’em!’ Because that’s the Michigan way!”
While Stevens may have been attempting to portray an authentic working-class affect, it came off as anything but to the denizens of X, the everything app.
Rather than a salt-of-the-earth Michigander, users said she sounded more like one of Chris Farley's characters on Saturday Night Live, Millhouse from The Simpsons "trying to give a class presentation," or a "baseball coach from the Great Depression."
But one person has refrained from joining the pile-on: Her Democratic primary opponent, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed.
In a post to social media on Friday, he discouraged his supporters online from ridiculing Stevens "for things that have nothing to do with her policies or politics," which he said was "unkind and unhelpful."
El-Sayed, the former director of public health for Detroit, who has championed a progressive agenda including Medicare For All, increased taxes on the wealthy, and an end to military aid to Israel, instead urged his backers to "focus on the issues" in the last weeks before the primary that will be held on August 4.
Since state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8) dropped out of the race earlier this month, out-of-state donors have revved up their pro-Stevens spending in what Punchbowl News reporter Ally Munick described as a "full court press to stop" El-Sayed.
As Common Dreams reported on Thursday:
Outside spending for Stevens from what the Detroit Free Press described as “murky” groups has dwarfed the amount spent for El-Sayed. The political advertisement tracker AdImpact said that of the $46 million spent or reserved by the two campaigns for television ads, nearly three-quarters has been spent on behalf of Stevens or against El-Sayed...
Additional outside spending in support of Stevens is estimated to have soared to roughly $50 million, according to an analysis by [Mutnick].
Last Friday, United Democracy Project (UDP), which is affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), disclosed that it has spent nearly $15 million on the Michigan US Senate race so far, including $9.3 million in support of Stevens and $5.7 million against El-Sayed.
El-Sayed has faced some criticism for how he's spoken about his opponent—he recently said: "Haley Stevens is a suit with a large AIPAC bank account, that’s it. I hope maybe they find some way to teach her how to string together two coherent sentences."
However, he stressed Friday that this tidal wave of big money is what his followers should truly find worthy of scorn.
"Congresswoman Stevens has welcomed corporations and special interests to support her," he said. "She votes to send our money abroad while Michiganders struggle. She’s bought by DTE, Blue Cross, Big Tech, and Big Pharma who pick our pockets. AIPAC, Trump-aligned billionaires, and corporate PACs are spending $50,000,000+ to support her."
"THOSE are the issues," El-Sayed said. "We don’t need to be unkind to be honest."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'They Get Rich. Maine Pays the Price': Platner Campaign Takes Swing at Collins and Corporate Lobbyist Husband
The campaign highlighted findings that the lobbying firm run by Collins’ husband brought in $76 million in federal contracts while she pushed K Street-friendly legislation in the Senate.
Jun 17, 2026
Democratic Senate nominee Graham Platner's campaign is taking aim at Sen. Susan Collins and her lobbyist husband, calling her long history of supporting policies that helped his firm "the biggest political scandal in Maine" in an ad released Wednesday.
It follows a report out the previous day from Zeteo revealing that Collins' husband, Tom Daffron, worked as recently as last year for a firm owned by Scott Reed, the lobbyist who leads Pine Tree Results, a billionaire-funded super political action committee (PAC) that is spending millions to support Collins' (R-Maine) campaign for reelection.
While not necessarily a violation of the law, which prohibits super PACs from coordinating with the campaigns they support, the Platner campaign described Daffron's lobbying work as “only the latest example of the blurred lines between Collins, her husband, and the Washington insider network that has surrounded her political career for decades.”
Daffron’s activity as a Washington lobbyist stretches back more than two decades, before his marriage to Collins in 2012. In 2006, Daffron became the chief operating officer of the lobbying and consulting firm Jefferson Consulting Group.
A veteran of national Republican campaigns, he also served as a consultant on Collins’ 1996, 2002, and 2008 Senate bids, and ran her leadership PAC from 2003 until 2012. As far back as 2001, the Portland Press Herald described Daffron as "a close friend [of Collins] and one of the top advisers in her ‘kitchen cabinet.'"
Platner’s ad accuses Collins of having overseen "over $76 million in taxpayer dollars to his company,” which the campaign has argued was due in part to contracting reform legislation she wrote, and which passed in 2008. That law was said to “improve the federal acquisition workforce,” an area in which Jefferson Consulting specialized.
The Platner campaign cited a 2020 article by Salon, which found that:
Between 2006 and 2016, Daffron’s firm landed more than $76 million spread across dozens of federal contracts related to acquisition and procurement, according to searches on USAspending.gov.
In 2010, Jefferson Consulting reported providing acquisitions services and support to nearly two dozen federal agencies. Certain specific provisions included with Collins’ 2007 contract reforms appear to have benefited Daffron’s firm directly, by adding new requirements for acquisition services that Jefferson specialized in.
The ad also highlights Collins' role in voting against several ethics and transparency efforts that could have impacted firms like the one run by Daffron.
One amendment she voted against in 2006 would have required members of Congress to disclose when they or their staff were discussing a possible future private-sector role while serving in government. It would also have restricted lobbyists from giving gifts to lawmakers, such as free lunch or paying for travel or tickets to events.
In 2012, Collins helped to defeat another amendment that would have targeted the so-called “political intelligence” industry that profits from acquiring insider information and passing it on to investors, corporations, and other clients.
Platner: Susan Collins has gotten 21 times wealthier just in the last 15 years. Has anybody else gotten 21 times wealthier since Susan Collins was elected to office? Does Maine have 21 times the schools and hospitals? No, we have less. Susan Collins is getting rich while we're… pic.twitter.com/ZsB2v9JyVu
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 10, 2026
Platner has attacked Collins over her husband's work in recent days, thundering before a crowd on the night of his primary victory last week that “Susan Collins has used her privilege to funnel... federal contracts to her lobbyist husband. If that’s not corruption, I don’t know what is.”
Collins has denied the accusation, saying "It’s just not true, and it’s obvious that Mr. Platner has a problem with the truth.”
Platner has also highlighted Collins' own personal net worth, which had grown from just over $205,000 in 2011 to at least $4.3 million today, when including the estimated value of her stock holdings.
"Has anybody else gotten 21 times wealthier since Susan Collins was elected to office?" Platner asked last week. "Does Maine have 21 times the schools and hospitals? No, we have less."
The ad continues to hammer on this theme of self-dealing, calling out that "Collins voted for new forever wars that gave billions to companies they invested in."
"They made millions," the ad states. "They get rich. Maine pays the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog’s Online Tracker Shows Which Candidates Are Being Showered With AI Industry’s Dark Money
"With AI Money Watch, Americans can see which candidates the biggest AI Super PAC is buying, who they are trying to stop, and how much they are spending.”
Jun 10, 2026
The artificial intelligence industry's super political action committees are dumping a heap of dark money into electing candidates from both parties to protect their interests on Capitol Hill amid growing public skepticism and backlash.
On Wednesday, the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress unveiled a new tool to help voters keep track of which midterm candidates are on the take.
The website, known as "AI Money Watch," is using Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings to track spending by the largest AI super PAC, Leading the Future (LTF), which has raised $125 million for into this year's midterms after being created last August to oust critics of the industry and protect allies.
"AI chatbots have been accused of flirting with children, discouraging people in distress from seeking help, and even offering instructions on how to plan a mass shooting—and billionaire AI CEOs are doling out millions to kill any safeguards that would stop this," said Demand Progress Action's AI policy adviser, Colin McGlynn, in a statement announcing the tracker. "With AI Money Watch, Americans can see which candidates the biggest AI Super PAC is buying, who they are trying to stop, and how much they are spending.”
The tracker allows users to view all 21 races in which LTF has spent money through its affiliated Democratic and Republican PACs and the 13 candidates it has endorsed.
While LTF has said it supports common-sense AI regulations to protect children and improve privacy, its affiliated nonprofit, Build American AI, has voiced opposition to state-level regulations and urged Congress to adopt a White House framework unveiled in March that calls for the federal government to preempt state AI laws.
Among LTF's principal backers are top MAGA donors, including OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman, the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, as well as Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale and CEO Alex Karp.
But its top three beneficiaries are all Democrats. The group has spent more than $982,000 on advertising through its Democratic affiliate Think Big in support of Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), a centrist facing a progressive primary challenger, Michael Blake, in his Bronx district. Torres, whom LTF has endorsed, has been one of the most active legislators in the realm of AI, introducing a regulatory bill last year aimed at "unleashing AI innovation" that was described by critics as too industry-friendly.
LTF also threw over $1.1 million behind former Rep. Melissa Bean, an ex-investment banker, who won the Democratic primary for the open seat in Illinois' 8th congressional district with additional help from cryptocurrency and pro-Israel groups, which gave her the edge over her Justice Democrats-backed opponent Junaid Ahmed.
The group poured even more money, $1.4 million, into backing former Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.—the son of the late civil rights icon—as he attempted a comeback after nearly 14 years out of Congress. The Democrat had said he wanted Illinois' economically marginalized 2nd District to be on the ground floor of the AI economic revolution.
By far the super PAC's biggest target has been New York State Assemblymember Alex Bores (D-73), whom it has bombarded with $5.7 million worth of negative ads to fight off his run in the state's 12th congressional district.
Bores, a former Palantir employee, has run proudly on his role in helping to enact one of the strongest state-level AI regulation frameworks in the country and made himself a target for LTF's benefactors. Think Big has described his legislation as “ideological and politically motivated" while Lonsdale has degraded him as a "random legislator in New York state" seeking to "harass and slow us down, and make us lose to China.”
LTF has also backed two pro-AI Republicans for US Senate through its GOP PAC American Mission—the hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham, who fought off an anti-interventionist primary challenger in South Carolina, and Rep. Andy Barr, who is gunning for the Kentucky seat long held by Sen. Mitch McConnell after comfortably winning his primary.
In a similar fashion to the cryptocurrency industry's $245 million push to put its allies in Congress and the White House in 2024, the AI industry's titanic effort to influence the midterms comes as its unchecked growth has left voters feeling increasingly uneasy and angry.
As Ryan Cooper explained on Wednesday for The American Prospect, "any messaging the PAC produces will almost certainly be dishonest."
AI as a business is quite unpopular, with 56% negative sentiment and just 38% approval in a recent NBC News poll. The data centers AI requires are even more unpopular, with a recent Heatmap News poll finding that Americans oppose them by a 71-21 margin—a 49-point swing in just one year.
When something is this unpopular, its associated PACs tend to carefully avoid mentioning what they actually care about. Instead, they run pretextual ads that raise unrelated pseudo-objections against their enemies. That’s how crypto took down Sen. [Sherrod] Brown (D-Ohio), and it’s how the Israel lobby took down Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). So, when some ad campaign is talking about housing, jobs, or whatever, and it’s funded by LTF, it will be vitally important to point out what is really going on.
McGlynn told Cooper that it's especially important to keep an eye on candidates like Torres, who claim to be in favor of some regulation but are receiving massive support from an industry that wants none.
“If you are going to take the money from the people that say, ‘No, don’t regulate anything,’ then you’ve lost credibility,” said McGlynn.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Over 80% of All US Voters Support Ending Dark Money’s Grip on Democracy
"The public’s conception of what has gone wrong goes far deeper than super PACs or White House ballrooms or even slush funds. To them, it is a system that is fundamentally misfiring."
Jun 04, 2026
The Brennan Center for Justice on Tuesday published a poll showing that American voters believe the country faces a serious corruption problem, and supermajorities support taking major action to end the role of dark money in US politics.
The poll, which surveyed 2,000 registered voters across the country, found 79% support "a constitutional amendment to restore limits on money in elections." The proposal would essentially overturn the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which opened the door to unlimited corporate spending in US elections.
The poll further found that 85% of Americans support "mandatory disclosure for all federal campaign contributions and spending"; 81% support "the creation of a new federal ethics enforcer"; and 69% support "a constitutional amendment limiting the president’s pardon power."
Support for these anti-corruption measures was widespread across both political parties, with 84% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans backing the amendment granting government the power to regulate and limit campaign spending. The proposed mandatory disclosure law drew even more widespread support, with 88% of Democrats and 85% Republicans registering approval.
The poll found Republican voters far less inclined to support proposals that would specifically limit presidential powers, but even in those instances, a majority of Republicans favored a law limiting presidential pardon powers and a law that would let the US Congress and state governments sue the president for alleged violations of the Constitution's emoluments clause that bars presidents from receiving foreign gifts.
Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote that he was struck by Americans' widespread support for the poll's proposed reforms, noting that "it's hard to find a set of proposals with a wider bipartisan appeal."
Waldman also noted that voters see corruption as why the government has become unresponsive to key voter concerns about housing and affordability.
"Policymakers should understand that the public’s conception of what has gone wrong goes far deeper than super PACs or White House ballrooms or even slush funds," he wrote. "To them, it is a system that is fundamentally misfiring. A government that is not performing. And there is a willingness to name names and assign blame."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Super PACs Should Be Outlawed,’ Says Platner, as Pro-Collins Corporate Dark Money Pours Into Maine to Attack Him
"It's fascinating that the more money that goes into our political system, the less we talk about actual politics."
Jun 02, 2026
The super PACs pouring money into the US Senate race in Maine are doing a great job of proving Graham Platner's point.
As new reporting on Monday detailed the flood of dark money targeting his campaign, the Democratic hopeful in recent days has put a spotlight on the super PACs, which he says have created a political system dominated by corporations and wealthy donors who want to distract from the serious issues and struggles faced by everyday voters and working families.
"I think it's very telling that a political system that has become controlled by money, controlled by the power of organized money, is also a political system that is trying to convince all of us down here that policy and discussions around what government can or cannot do is not what they want to talk about," Platner said during a conversation with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of super PACs, posted to social media.
"It's fascinating that the more money that goes into our political system," he continued, "the less we talk about actual politics."
"I agree with Senator Sanders: Super PACs should be outlawed," said Platner.
On Monday, Sludge reported that a pair of shadowy nonprofits "with no public presence and no disclosed staff" have dumped at least $750,000 into a super PAC supporting Platner's opponent, the five-term incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
Condorcet Initiative Corp. has given $500,000 to Pine Tree Results PAC across two separate donations, including $250,000 on May 1 that was disclosed in a filing reported to the Federal Election Commission last week. Ardleigh Impact Corporation contributed an additional $250,000 in April.
The PAC has spent nearly $4 million on attack ads against Sen. Susan Collins’ Democratic challenger Graham Platner, according to FEC data.
The two nonprofits are both described as shell-like entities linked to the same address in Springfield, Virginia, belonging to Republican political consultant Staci Goede.
The groups are part of a much larger network and have poured a combined $9 million into GOP-aligned PACs since 2024, including in four competitive Senate races in this coming cycle.
Goede, meanwhile, is the treasurer or officer for at least nine different nonprofits "that span Republican Senate campaigns, pro-Israel donor pass-throughs, and issue advocacy groups," according to the report.
The Campaign Legal Center has filed a complaint against Ardleigh, arguing that the nonprofit, which contributed an astonishing $2.575 million across six federal committees in its first three months of existence, was being used as a straw donor to conceal the identities of one or more rich benefactors.
The source of the $750,000 aimed at Platner remains unknown. But the Pine Tree Results PAC is already known to have a slate of wealthy backers from the commanding heights of finance and tech, including Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, hedge fund founder Paul Singer, and Palantir CEO Alex Karp. The fund has also taken in contributions from an affiliate of the tobacco giant Altria and from the far-right news company Newsmax.
According to a FEC data, it has raised more than $16 million to help Collins ward off a challenger in 2026, which will almost certainly be Platner.
While the potential use of straw donors may present legal issues, the use of super PACs by wealthy backers to dump unlimited sums behind their preferred candidates is unquestionably legal under federal campaign finance law.
As of March, super PACs funded by crypto, artificial intelligence, pro-Israel donors, and outside groups had already spent more than $225 million trying to influence the 2026 election cycle, according to the Washington Post.
Platner has argued on the campaign trail that the unchecked ability of the wealthy to influence elections is a genesis point for the growing wealth gap between the rich and poor.
"The inequality we’re experiencing, it didn’t happen organically," he said at a recent campaign event. "We live in the outcome of policy written by establishment politicians who for 40 years have been doing the bidding of those who donate the most money to them."
The Pine Tree Results PAC had already spent nearly $4 million on ads attacking Platner as of May 20, according to FEC data. As Sludge's reporting notes, "Rather than engaging with policy, the ads are exclusively focused on personal attacks against Platner, digging up comments the candidate made online going back as far as 2013."
So far, attempts to mire Platner in personal scandal have done little to blunt the momentum of his populist campaign. A poll from the University of New Hampshire in late May showed him leading the incumbent by a nine-point margin among likely voters and other polls show similar advantages.
It can be expected that the PACs attacking Platner will make a meal out of recent reports from The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times that probe into the private details of his marriage.
But noting the failure of past attempts to drown Platner in controversy, Lever News founder David Sirota questioned in a piece on Monday if these sorts of "character" attacks even work in an age of politics defined by rapacious corporate greed and corruption.
He noted how Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) responded to recent questions from news outlets about whether Platner’s controversies mean he’s failed to “pass the character test.” Murphy responded that “character involves standing up to people who are bankrupting and corrupting this country,” while Khanna lauded Platner for “having the character to stand up against the war in Iran, against genocide, and against an unfair and lopsided economy.”
This response, Sirota said, hinted that the country could be entering a new political paradigm—"a reality in which many voters are so economically pulverized and politically disillusioned that they now define 'character' in a politician solely as whether or not they are single-mindedly focused on destroying oligarchy and ending corruption."
“It is, potentially, a new era in which voters who can’t afford anything and who feel totally ignored by their government have reimagined their entire definition of political 'character' on economic/anti-corruption terms—rather than on old definitions of personal moral rectitude,” he wrote. “In this potential new reality, the personal shortcomings of individual politicians—which often have little effect on voters’ actual lives—are less important and electorally salient than the policies those politicians support and oppose."
"And such a shift," he added, "would make sense in the current moment.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dirty Tricks' Operation Behind GOP-Aligned Super PAC With a Progressive-Sounding Name Exposed
The mysterious Lead Left super PAC has been meddling in Democratic congressional primaries across the US.
May 27, 2026
A super political action committee with a progressive-sounding but with Republican financial backers that has been meddling in Democratic primaries was further exposed Wednesday by independent journalist Judd Legum as a clear example of a “dirty tricks operation.”
Legum's new reporting on the funding behind a mysterious super PAC called Lead Left, which recently spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit Maureen Galindo, a failed Democratic candidate for US Congress in Texas who has been broadly condemned for antisemitic rants.
According to Legum, Lead Left is linked to Republican operative Caleb Crosby, treasurer of the House GOP-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) super PAC.
"Several pieces of evidence point to Crosby’s involvement," explained Legum. "First, of the roughly 48,500 distinct political committees that have filed with the FEC since 2016, only two others share an address with Lead Left — the Staples at 2241 North Monroe Street in Tallahassee. Both of those committees are connected to the Crosby Ottenhoff Group, the political compliance firm founded by Crosby.
1. Lead Left, a super PAC created on 4/24, purports to stand "against MAGA extremists."
It has spent $3M+ in Democratic primaries.
But it's funders and motivations have been secret.
Until now.
It's a GOP dirty tricks operation.
🧵
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) May 27, 2026
Legum also documented what he said were "substantial similarities" in messages run against Democratic candidates by both CLF and Lead Left.
"In Nebraska, the American Action Network, the affiliated non-profit of the CLF, sent mail and ran digital ads seeking to damage House Democratic candidate and John Cavanaugh by linking him to Trump," explained Legum. "Before the Democratic primary, Lead Left then ran television advertisements with a nearly identical message."
In addition to spending money to boost Galindo, who lost to Democratic rival Johnny Garcia on Tuesday by more than 20 points, Lead Left this month also spent over $1 million in an attempt to derail the candidacy of retired firefighter Bob Brooks, who last week won the Democratic congressional primary in Pennsylvania's 7th congressional district and will now face off against incumbent Rep. Ryan MacKenzie (R-Pa.).
Elected Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, have accused GOP-backed interests of funding Lead Left, which they say is misleadingly posing as a progressive organization to boost the prospects of fringe candidates and hurt the party's chance of retaking the House in 2026.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy