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.
Donald Trump has benefited from bankruptcy twice. Donald Trump has grown his personal fortune following his two bankruptcies and now may run for President of the United States. Clearly, the rules for Donald Trump in the aftermath of bankruptcy are not the same as for the rest of us.
Donald Trump has benefited from bankruptcy twice. Donald Trump has grown his personal fortune following his two bankruptcies and now may run for President of the United States. Clearly, the rules for Donald Trump in the aftermath of bankruptcy are not the same as for the rest of us.
And is this what we want in terms of leadership for the nation? Someone who is smart enough to mow right over the realities the rest of us face when financial disaster looms? Someone who bellies up on hundreds of millions is better than someone like me who goes broke for want of several thousand dollars following medical crisis? My credit as a bankrupted person should be ruined forever and keep me from working some jobs or ever owning a home again while Donald Trump's bankruptcies catapult him to the Presidency and great personal wealth and the building of Trump structures all over the country?
I am missing not only the justice in this but also the logic. Why would anyone in this nation want someone who behaved in such a cavalier fashion in business and financial dealings to be the leader of this nation? For Donald Trump to stand as an example of what we want others around the world to know about American values flies in the face of most of what those of us in the working class learned about those values throughout our lives. If the rules have changed for the bankrupted Trumps in our country, then they should change for the rest of us.
If you were raised like I was raised in America, going bankrupt is to be avoided at almost any cost. Going bankrupt meant you didn't take your responsibilities seriously enough, you made bad choices, and you left others stuck with your debt after they had extended credit to you in good faith. Those were my working class lessons learned from parents with working class values who wanted me to grow into a decent and caring member of my community and nation with a healthy regard for careful financial dealings.
My life and the healthcare crisis in this nation made it impossible for me to adhere to the "no bankruptcy" values I held. I still feel ashamed that I did not find a way to make it through cancer and my husband's heart and artery issues without so much financial trauma.
Do you think Donald Trump feels one moment of shame for the debts his companies did not pay in his bankruptcies? Either one of them? Quite the contrary. Trump is often praised for being a shrewd businessman.
Take a look at this history for Trump's financial dealings as recounted on a legal services website explaining the "beauty" of his bankruptcy strategy:
"First, Trump doesn't get personally involved. He knows how to protect his personal finances. In both instances, Trump's corporations have filed for bankruptcy; Trump personally has not. Hence, when his casino fell into about a billion dollars in debt, the corporation filed for Chapter 11. Trump only made the decision to do so once he had spoken to his banks and bondholders. But, by filing, he gave his business the opportunity to regroup and reduce his business debt. It didn't hurt however that it would also reduce his personal debt, as Trump is likely the one every creditor would look to if the Taj Mahal couldn't pay up. So, in fact, Trump avoided potential lawsuits from creditors and he may have also avoided personal bankruptcy by keeping his own bank account insulated.
"Trump, it appeared, had triumphed. His company had dire financial problems but seemed to rise just as quickly from those bankruptcy ashes. Just three years later, he combined the hotels into the publicly held Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts.
"For several years, the new company enjoyed double digit stock prices. His personal fortune in turn also skyrocketed. And the man who came close to losing it all leapt onto Forbes' most wealthy list.
"Yet, Trump's public company would eventually fall...again. Within a few years of soaring high prices, the company stock had fallen into single digits. The one-time powerhouse company remained profitless and struggled just to pay the interest on the $2 billion debt. Trump claimed that the properties were unable to make the improvements necessary for keeping up with its flashier competitors. These financial troubles led to Trump's second trip into bankruptcy."
Is this the same sort of cut and run behavior he would bring to public policy? What would lead us to think he would behave any differently as an elected official than he has done as a businessman?
Bankruptcy as a last resort as opposed to bankruptcy as a business strategy seems to me to represent a significant difference in values. I am just having a hard time understanding why we have such vastly different measuring sticks for the rich and powerful when they declare bankruptcy than we do for the working class. I know the most obvious answers surround our general worship of those with great wealth and our cultural obsession with the attainment of Trump-like personal fortunes. I know we have political and public policies that favor the wealthy and the landed and those in power.
What I may never understand is why we internalize this and will look down our collective noses at a working class person or family who goes broke (even when we are working class ourselves or the children of the working class) while considering for one moment further aggrandizement of the twice-bankrupt business mogul who wouldn't think for a nanosecond before crushing any one of us or all of us for his own good. Surely, that's not what we value, is it?
It may be too early to tell who will be in the final field for the 2012 Presidential races, but I certainly hope we quickly exclude some people who are so opposed to and so oblivious to so many of us and our realities. An honest person who tries everything he or she can try to keep from ever needing to go bankrupt wouldn't bother me for an instant as a candidate for public office. But I am pretty sure Donald Trump doesn't belong in that category. I am equally sure that someone from the working class who tries to lift out from a bankruptcy will not find a path to the Presidency waiting around the bend.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Donald Trump has benefited from bankruptcy twice. Donald Trump has grown his personal fortune following his two bankruptcies and now may run for President of the United States. Clearly, the rules for Donald Trump in the aftermath of bankruptcy are not the same as for the rest of us.
And is this what we want in terms of leadership for the nation? Someone who is smart enough to mow right over the realities the rest of us face when financial disaster looms? Someone who bellies up on hundreds of millions is better than someone like me who goes broke for want of several thousand dollars following medical crisis? My credit as a bankrupted person should be ruined forever and keep me from working some jobs or ever owning a home again while Donald Trump's bankruptcies catapult him to the Presidency and great personal wealth and the building of Trump structures all over the country?
I am missing not only the justice in this but also the logic. Why would anyone in this nation want someone who behaved in such a cavalier fashion in business and financial dealings to be the leader of this nation? For Donald Trump to stand as an example of what we want others around the world to know about American values flies in the face of most of what those of us in the working class learned about those values throughout our lives. If the rules have changed for the bankrupted Trumps in our country, then they should change for the rest of us.
If you were raised like I was raised in America, going bankrupt is to be avoided at almost any cost. Going bankrupt meant you didn't take your responsibilities seriously enough, you made bad choices, and you left others stuck with your debt after they had extended credit to you in good faith. Those were my working class lessons learned from parents with working class values who wanted me to grow into a decent and caring member of my community and nation with a healthy regard for careful financial dealings.
My life and the healthcare crisis in this nation made it impossible for me to adhere to the "no bankruptcy" values I held. I still feel ashamed that I did not find a way to make it through cancer and my husband's heart and artery issues without so much financial trauma.
Do you think Donald Trump feels one moment of shame for the debts his companies did not pay in his bankruptcies? Either one of them? Quite the contrary. Trump is often praised for being a shrewd businessman.
Take a look at this history for Trump's financial dealings as recounted on a legal services website explaining the "beauty" of his bankruptcy strategy:
"First, Trump doesn't get personally involved. He knows how to protect his personal finances. In both instances, Trump's corporations have filed for bankruptcy; Trump personally has not. Hence, when his casino fell into about a billion dollars in debt, the corporation filed for Chapter 11. Trump only made the decision to do so once he had spoken to his banks and bondholders. But, by filing, he gave his business the opportunity to regroup and reduce his business debt. It didn't hurt however that it would also reduce his personal debt, as Trump is likely the one every creditor would look to if the Taj Mahal couldn't pay up. So, in fact, Trump avoided potential lawsuits from creditors and he may have also avoided personal bankruptcy by keeping his own bank account insulated.
"Trump, it appeared, had triumphed. His company had dire financial problems but seemed to rise just as quickly from those bankruptcy ashes. Just three years later, he combined the hotels into the publicly held Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts.
"For several years, the new company enjoyed double digit stock prices. His personal fortune in turn also skyrocketed. And the man who came close to losing it all leapt onto Forbes' most wealthy list.
"Yet, Trump's public company would eventually fall...again. Within a few years of soaring high prices, the company stock had fallen into single digits. The one-time powerhouse company remained profitless and struggled just to pay the interest on the $2 billion debt. Trump claimed that the properties were unable to make the improvements necessary for keeping up with its flashier competitors. These financial troubles led to Trump's second trip into bankruptcy."
Is this the same sort of cut and run behavior he would bring to public policy? What would lead us to think he would behave any differently as an elected official than he has done as a businessman?
Bankruptcy as a last resort as opposed to bankruptcy as a business strategy seems to me to represent a significant difference in values. I am just having a hard time understanding why we have such vastly different measuring sticks for the rich and powerful when they declare bankruptcy than we do for the working class. I know the most obvious answers surround our general worship of those with great wealth and our cultural obsession with the attainment of Trump-like personal fortunes. I know we have political and public policies that favor the wealthy and the landed and those in power.
What I may never understand is why we internalize this and will look down our collective noses at a working class person or family who goes broke (even when we are working class ourselves or the children of the working class) while considering for one moment further aggrandizement of the twice-bankrupt business mogul who wouldn't think for a nanosecond before crushing any one of us or all of us for his own good. Surely, that's not what we value, is it?
It may be too early to tell who will be in the final field for the 2012 Presidential races, but I certainly hope we quickly exclude some people who are so opposed to and so oblivious to so many of us and our realities. An honest person who tries everything he or she can try to keep from ever needing to go bankrupt wouldn't bother me for an instant as a candidate for public office. But I am pretty sure Donald Trump doesn't belong in that category. I am equally sure that someone from the working class who tries to lift out from a bankruptcy will not find a path to the Presidency waiting around the bend.
Donald Trump has benefited from bankruptcy twice. Donald Trump has grown his personal fortune following his two bankruptcies and now may run for President of the United States. Clearly, the rules for Donald Trump in the aftermath of bankruptcy are not the same as for the rest of us.
And is this what we want in terms of leadership for the nation? Someone who is smart enough to mow right over the realities the rest of us face when financial disaster looms? Someone who bellies up on hundreds of millions is better than someone like me who goes broke for want of several thousand dollars following medical crisis? My credit as a bankrupted person should be ruined forever and keep me from working some jobs or ever owning a home again while Donald Trump's bankruptcies catapult him to the Presidency and great personal wealth and the building of Trump structures all over the country?
I am missing not only the justice in this but also the logic. Why would anyone in this nation want someone who behaved in such a cavalier fashion in business and financial dealings to be the leader of this nation? For Donald Trump to stand as an example of what we want others around the world to know about American values flies in the face of most of what those of us in the working class learned about those values throughout our lives. If the rules have changed for the bankrupted Trumps in our country, then they should change for the rest of us.
If you were raised like I was raised in America, going bankrupt is to be avoided at almost any cost. Going bankrupt meant you didn't take your responsibilities seriously enough, you made bad choices, and you left others stuck with your debt after they had extended credit to you in good faith. Those were my working class lessons learned from parents with working class values who wanted me to grow into a decent and caring member of my community and nation with a healthy regard for careful financial dealings.
My life and the healthcare crisis in this nation made it impossible for me to adhere to the "no bankruptcy" values I held. I still feel ashamed that I did not find a way to make it through cancer and my husband's heart and artery issues without so much financial trauma.
Do you think Donald Trump feels one moment of shame for the debts his companies did not pay in his bankruptcies? Either one of them? Quite the contrary. Trump is often praised for being a shrewd businessman.
Take a look at this history for Trump's financial dealings as recounted on a legal services website explaining the "beauty" of his bankruptcy strategy:
"First, Trump doesn't get personally involved. He knows how to protect his personal finances. In both instances, Trump's corporations have filed for bankruptcy; Trump personally has not. Hence, when his casino fell into about a billion dollars in debt, the corporation filed for Chapter 11. Trump only made the decision to do so once he had spoken to his banks and bondholders. But, by filing, he gave his business the opportunity to regroup and reduce his business debt. It didn't hurt however that it would also reduce his personal debt, as Trump is likely the one every creditor would look to if the Taj Mahal couldn't pay up. So, in fact, Trump avoided potential lawsuits from creditors and he may have also avoided personal bankruptcy by keeping his own bank account insulated.
"Trump, it appeared, had triumphed. His company had dire financial problems but seemed to rise just as quickly from those bankruptcy ashes. Just three years later, he combined the hotels into the publicly held Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts.
"For several years, the new company enjoyed double digit stock prices. His personal fortune in turn also skyrocketed. And the man who came close to losing it all leapt onto Forbes' most wealthy list.
"Yet, Trump's public company would eventually fall...again. Within a few years of soaring high prices, the company stock had fallen into single digits. The one-time powerhouse company remained profitless and struggled just to pay the interest on the $2 billion debt. Trump claimed that the properties were unable to make the improvements necessary for keeping up with its flashier competitors. These financial troubles led to Trump's second trip into bankruptcy."
Is this the same sort of cut and run behavior he would bring to public policy? What would lead us to think he would behave any differently as an elected official than he has done as a businessman?
Bankruptcy as a last resort as opposed to bankruptcy as a business strategy seems to me to represent a significant difference in values. I am just having a hard time understanding why we have such vastly different measuring sticks for the rich and powerful when they declare bankruptcy than we do for the working class. I know the most obvious answers surround our general worship of those with great wealth and our cultural obsession with the attainment of Trump-like personal fortunes. I know we have political and public policies that favor the wealthy and the landed and those in power.
What I may never understand is why we internalize this and will look down our collective noses at a working class person or family who goes broke (even when we are working class ourselves or the children of the working class) while considering for one moment further aggrandizement of the twice-bankrupt business mogul who wouldn't think for a nanosecond before crushing any one of us or all of us for his own good. Surely, that's not what we value, is it?
It may be too early to tell who will be in the final field for the 2012 Presidential races, but I certainly hope we quickly exclude some people who are so opposed to and so oblivious to so many of us and our realities. An honest person who tries everything he or she can try to keep from ever needing to go bankrupt wouldn't bother me for an instant as a candidate for public office. But I am pretty sure Donald Trump doesn't belong in that category. I am equally sure that someone from the working class who tries to lift out from a bankruptcy will not find a path to the Presidency waiting around the bend.
Roger Alford, who was fired over his objections to a corrupt tech merger last month, said MAGA lobbyists and DOJ officials are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves."
An antitrust lawyer fired from the US Department of Justice last month accused Attorney General Pam Bondi's underlings on Monday of giving MAGA-aligned corporate lobbyists the ability to "rule" over antitrust enforcement.
Roger Alford, formerly the deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ's antitrust division, was ousted in July, reportedly for "insubordination" after he objected to the involvement of politically connected lobbyists in the $14 billion merger between Hewlett-Packard Enterprise (HPE) and Juniper Networks.
The DOJ had sued in January to block the merger, arguing that HPE's acquisition of Juniper would unlawfully stifle competition, raise prices for consumers, and harm innovation, since the two entities control over 70% of the wi-fi relied on by large companies, hospitals, universities, and other entities.
But that suit was resolved in June in what the Capitol Forum described as a "highly unusual settlement" in which Bondi's chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, overruled the DOJ's antitrust chief, Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, to allow the deal to settle.
At the time, left-wing consumer advocates, like Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, argued that the deal was "a corrupt and politically rigged merger settlement," which came after political operatives tied to Trump lobbied on behalf of the company.
Despite still describing himself as a staunch MAGA loyalist, Alford likewise feels that the settlement was a "scandal."
In a speech delivered Monday at the Technology Policy Institute in Aspen, Colorado, he said senior DOJ officials "perverted justice and acted inconsistently with the rule of law" by allowing "corrupt lobbyists" to hijack the process.
According to disclosures from HPE, it hired multiple top Trump allies as lobbyists to advocate for the merger. These included MAGA influencer Mike Davis—a right-wing critic of Big Tech and a notorious legal operative responsible for many of Trump's judicial nominations—and Arthur Schwartz, a close adviser and confidante to Donald Trump, Jr. and JD Vance.
According to reporting from the conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari in UnHerd last month, which cites one unnamed senior official, the DOJ's merger settlement was the product of "boozy backroom meetings between company lawyers and lobbyists, on one hand, and officials from elsewhere in the Department of Justice, on the other."
As Ahmari explained:
"Boozy backroom deal" here isn't a figure of speech, by the way. It captures what literally took place, according to the former official, who described a meeting between government officials and lobbyists that took place at one of Washington's "private city clubs" over cocktails.
In an essay for UnHerd adapted from his speech, Alford berated these "MAGA-in-name-only lobbyists and the DOJ officials enabling them," who he said are "determined to exert and expand their influence and enrich themselves as long as their friends are in power."
The current DOJ, Alford continued, has allowed for the "rule of lobbyists" to supplant the "rule of law." While he says this was not true of those idealists serving with him in the antitrust division—including his embattled former boss, Slater—he says that others in the DOJ showed "special solicitude" to lobbyists they perceived to be on the "same MAGA team."
"Too often in the current DOJ," he said, "meetings are accepted and decisions are made depending upon whether the request or information comes from a MAGA friend. Aware of this injustice, companies are hiring lawyers and influence-peddlers to bolster their MAGA credentials and pervert traditional law enforcement."
Alford makes a distinction between these corrupt officials and those he calls "genuine MAGA reformers" who "strive to remain true to President Trump's populist message that resonated with working-class Americans."
While he does not group Bondi in with the officials he deems corrupt, he does blame her for having "delegated authority to figures—such as her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, and Associate Attorney General-Designee Stanley Woodward—who don't share her commitment to a single tier of justice for all."
"Some progressives may blanche at Alford's praise for [US President Donald] Trump's populist messaging, and insistence that it has been subverted by top DOJ officials selling out to lobbyists," writes David Dayen in the American Prospect.
But Dayen notes that Alford's audience is not progressives and that he is instead "attempting to reach the president and his inner circle by playing on Trump's demand for total loyalty."
The merger between HPE and Juniper can still be stopped under the Tunney Act, which requires it to be reviewed by a federal judge to determine whether settlements brought in federal "antitrust" cases are in the "public interest."
While the Capital Forum says this process is typically a "rubber stamp," they wrote that "given the settlement's atypical substance and process, plus third parties who may be motivated to intervene and a judge who may be inclined to approach the review skeptically, what's normally a quick judicial signoff could turn into a fraught process with wide-reaching implications."
"Indeed, the court should block the HPE-Juniper merger," Alford said. "If you knew what I know, you would hope so, too."
"She won't hold a town hall, she won't take questions," said one protester. "She's never in her office."
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) got a hostile reception on Monday when she attended an event in the city of Plattsburgh, New York.
As reported by local news station NBC 5, Stefanik was in the city to pay tribute to the late Clinton County Clerk John Zurlo, who died this past December at the age of 86.
During the event, protesters mostly sat in silence until it was Stefanik's turn to speak. At that point, they erupted in angry boos as audience members shouted, "Shame on her!", "You sold us out!", and "Go home!" Demonstrators could also be heard calling Stefanik a "traitor."
Yikes – @EliseStefanik literally got booed off the stage TWICE at an event in her district today.
She hasn't hosted a #NY21 town hall in years. Now we know why. pic.twitter.com/4hsIZmbJyC
— Addison Dick (@addisondick0) August 18, 2025
All told, NBC 5 estimated that at least half of the crowd at the event were there to protest against Stefanik.
After the event, Stefanik lashed out at the protesters who jeered her and forced her off the stage.
"Today's event was about honoring John Zurlo," she said. "It is a disgusting disgrace that this is what the far left does. Rather than understanding that his family has been through a tremendous amount. It was about honoring his legacy."
However, some demonstrators who spoke with NBC 5 countered that they had no other way to reach the congresswoman given that she hasn't held a town hall in several months.
"She has not shown up in our district for months and months," protester Mavis Agnew explained. "She won't hold a town hall, she won't take questions. She's never in her office. People show up at her office constantly, door's closed. Her representatives, her employees won't talk to [us]... So this was her first appearance, the first opportunity we had to let her know we're unhappy."
Other protesters singled out Stefanik's support for the GOP's massive budget package that cut $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade and is already endangering the finances of hospitals around the country, including in New York state.
"With the recent cuts that have just been passed, we're all going to be affected by rural hospitals," said protester Jesse Murnane. "Hudson Headwaters [Health Network] potentially being affected, our only clinics available to patients. That's important to me."
The New York Democratic Party was quick to ridicule Stefanik for the angry reaction she displayed at the event.
"Stefanik couldn't handle the heat as she realized in real time that she can't escape her Fox News echo chamber forever while she raises prices, guts healthcare, and hurts New York families," the party said.
Despite the negative reaction to Stefanik at this week's event, she is in little danger of losing her congressional seat, as her district has repeatedly reelected her to office by double-digit margins and is labeled as a "safe Republican" district by Cook Political Report.
Stefanik has represented New York's 21st District since 2015. She is reportedly considering a run for governor in 2026 and said last month that she would reveal her plans after the November elections.
"I will be a senator," said Graham Platner, "for all those who can't buy senators."
Launching a US Senate run to unseat five-term Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, oyster farmer Graham Platner on Tuesday made clear in his inaugural ad that beating the "fake" moderate also means taking on the power-hungry billionaire class that has helped keep her in power all these years.
The enemy that the vast majority of Americans and Mainers have in common, said Platner, "is the oligarchy."
"It's the billionaires who pay for it," he added. "The politicians who sell us out. And yeah, that means politicians like Susan Collins."
Platner, who told The New York Times political organizers recruited him to enter the race, spoke in the ad about how Maine has "become unlivable for working people."
"Nobody I know around here can afford a house," said Platner. "Healthcare is a disaster, hospitals are closing. We have watched all of that get ripped away from us, and everyone's just trying to keep it all together."
My name is Graham Platner and I’m running for US Senate to defeat Susan Collins and topple the oligarchy that’s destroying our country.
I’m a veteran, oysterman, and working class Mainer who’s seen this state become unlivable for working people. And that makes me deeply angry. pic.twitter.com/QZfAm528N1
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) August 19, 2025
Maine has the 11th-highest cost of living in the country, and according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Living Wage Calculator, the state's minimum wage of $14.65 doesn't qualify as a living wage for single adults, married couples, or parents—even if both parents work full time.
The fact that many Mainers have to "work two or three different jobs" to survive—as nearly 8% of workers do in the state—"makes me deeply angry," said Platner.
The oyster farmer and local planning board chair is a veteran of both the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, and his campaign platform includes calls for ending homelessness among veterans and fully funding job training and healthcare for those who have served in the armed forces.
But Platner's tone in his opening campaign video contrasted with that other veterans who have been recruited by Democrats to run for public office, like former Kentucky Senate candidate Amy McGrath and a number of former service members who the party is currently pushing to run in 2026 in the hopes that they'll be seen as "politically moderate."
"There is a very tired playbook that the Democrats have run for a while where DC chooses establishment candidates that they base upon their fundraising capacity, and in 2020... they just got battered, and Susan Collins held the seat," Platner told Zeteo, referring to Democrats' decision to run state House Speaker Sara Gideon, who lost by nearly nine points despite vastly outraising Collins. "So in my opinion, we need to be doing something else. I mean, clearly that is a failed strategy."
Platner explicitly called for far-reaching, progressive policies that would serve all Americans—those that are frequently lambasted as dangerous "socialist" ideas by conservatives and dismissed as "unrealistic" by centrist Democrats.
"Why can't we have universal healthcare like every other first-world country?" asked Platner. "Why are we funding endless wars and bombing children? Why are CEOs more powerful than unions? We've fought three different wars since the last time we raised the minimum wage."
On his campaign website, Platner added that he would "be a strong supporter of a Medicare for All system, moving away from the for-profit insurance system that has brought us nothing but grief," protect Social Security, push for a "billionaire minimum tax," "fight for urgent action on climate change," and strengthen legislation to ensure that "enforcement against massive polluters and repeat offenders does not depend upon the whims of whoever happens to be president."
In an interview with Politico, Platner said that if elected, he would not support Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as the party's leader in the Senate, saying that "the next leader needs to be one of vision and also somebody who is willing to fight."
Along with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Schumer has angered progressives and self-described moderate Democrats alike by voting with Republicans to advance the GOP's spending bill—claiming doing so was necessary to stop a government shutdown—and refusing to endorse New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, who like Platner has centered affordability in his campaign.
Platner has hired Morris Katz, a top strategist for Mamdani, and his campaign so far carries echoes of the mayoral candidate. In addition to unapologetically calling for policies to further economic justice, Platner told Zeteo that Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza, which was a flashpoint in New York City's Democratic primary, is "the ultimate moral test of our time."
Since Mamdani's primary victory in June, Democrats including Jeffries and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg have claimed the mayoral candidate has not yet proven that his progressive platform has broad appeal.
"I think a lot of people are focused on the leftism, the ideological leftism, that I think we shouldn't be so surprised that prevailed in a New York Democratic Party primary," Buttigieg told NPR last month. "But I think if my party wants to learn lessons from Mamdani's success that are portable to a place like Michigan, where I live, it's less about the ideology and more about the message discipline of focusing on what people care about and the tactical wisdom of getting out there and talking to everybody."
Platner, who is one of six declared Democratic primary candidates in a race that could also soon include Gov. Janet Mills, appears intent on proving that defeating the oligarchy and the billionaires who have outsized influence on US politics and fighting for policies aimed at improving all Americans' lives are winning ideas even in the largely rural state of Maine.
"While my platform spans many issues, I view most of my job as a US senator as to do two things," reads Platner's website. "One, to ban billionaires buying elections; two, to dismantle the 'billionaire economy' in favor of an economy that works for the American worker, for small business, for the vast majority of Americans."
"I will be a senator," the platform reads, "for all those who can't buy senators."