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.
On December 30, the Montana Supreme Court delivered a New Year's gift to the nation, upholding a century-old ban on corporate political expenditures in state elections. The decision has gone underreported amidst the hoopla of the Republican primaries--even as super PAC spending skyrockets and there is an emerging understanding
On December 30, the Montana Supreme Court delivered a New Year's gift to the nation, upholding a century-old ban on corporate political expenditures in state elections. The decision has gone underreported amidst the hoopla of the Republican primaries--even as super PAC spending skyrockets and there is an emerging understanding of its corrosive impact--but the Montana case sets up the first direct challenge to the disastrous Citizens United decision as we approach its second anniversary.
Free Speech For People--a national non-partisan campaign challenging the fabrication of corporate rights under the US Constitution--filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Montana case. It led a coalition that included the American Sustainable Business Council, a network of more than 70,000 businesses across the country; the American Independent Business Alliance; and a local supermarket business and non-profit corporation.
Jeff Clements is the author of the coalition's brief. Co-founder and general counsel of Free Speech, Clements did two stints as Assistant Attorney General in Massachusetts, litigating in the areas of civil rights, environmental protection, healthcare, insurance and financial services, antitrust and consumer protection, and taking on the tobacco industry. He's also the author of a new book, Corporations Are Not People: Why They Have More Rights Than You Do and What You Can Do About. This is a book that anyone who cares about taking back our democracy of, by and for the people must check out.
Clements tells a vivid story of how some of the largest corporations organized to take over our government and Constitution, culminating with the Citizens United decision. He also lays out a vision of how we can return democracy to the people.
As Bill Moyers notes in the book's Foreword, this isn't the first time a Supreme Court has served as a "procorporate conservative fortress": in 1905 it killed a New York state law limiting working hours, and a prohibition against child labor about a decade later; it ruled against a minimum wage law in 1923, and early New Deal recovery acts in 1935 and 1936.
"But in the face of such discouragement, embattled citizens refused to give up," writes Moyers. "Every day citizens researched the issues, organized public events to educate their neighbors, held rallies, made speeches, petitioned and canvassed, marched and exhorted. They would elect the twentieth century-governments that restored 'the general welfare' as a pillar of American democracy."
Clements book, writes Moyers, describes "how to fight back"--as our forebears have done so many times before--in this case, through a constitutional amendment declaring what Clements calls "the simplest of propositions: corporations are not people." (Clements also calls for corporate accountability, and corporate charter and election law reform, including increased public funding.)
"Citizens United is a corporate power case masquerading as a free speech case," writes Clements. "We do not have to live with this. We can put the American project back together."
Campaigns for constitutional amendments demand patience and a great deal of tenacity, since they must first secure supermajority support from both houses of Congress and then win ratification by three-quarters of the states. But as Maryland State Senator Jamin Raskin, professor of constitutional law and the First Amendment at American University's Washington College of Law, says, "American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters, imposing poll taxes on voters or the opponents of woman suffrage."
It's a long haul, and groups working towards that end--including Public Citizen, the Center for Media and Democracy, Move to Amend, Common Cause, People For the American Way, and others--would be smart to agree on exactly what the amendment's language is and make it simple, clear, and appealing. After all, it's tough to organize a united front around the country when there are multiple versions of the same amendment.
Raskin himself will be introducing a Joint Resolution in the Maryland General Assembly calling on Congress to swiftly pass a constitutional amendment reversing the Citizens United decision and send it out to the states for ratification. He hopes his effort will kick off a national movement at the state level to press the amendment case. Other local jurisdictions are also pursuing that strategy, including the city councils of Los Angeles, Oakland, New York, Albany, Duluth, and Boulder which have all passed resolutions opposing Citizens United. In Congress, a number of representatives have introduced resolutions seeking a constitutional remedy, including: Donna Edwards; Senator Tom Udall and Representative Betty Sutton; Representative Ted Deutsch and Senator Bernie Sanders; Representative Jim McGovern; Representative John Yarmuth and Republican Representative Walter Jones; Representative Keith Ellison, and others. Kudos to these Senators and Congressmen for their good proposals, and--as with the pro-democracy advocacy organizations--the more they are able to agree on the language of an amendment, the more easily citizens will be able to rally around it.
But as undisclosed corporate money continues to flood our elections and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans, it's important to remember that we need to walk and chew gum at the same time, and not solely focus on the amendment fight. That means building on successful public campaign financing systems already on the books in places like Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, and North Carolina, bringing those models to other states. In Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act would allow federal candidates to run for office without relying on Big Money as well--force Republicans and conservative Democrats to go on record opposing it, and if it eventually passes and the Supreme Court shoots it down that will only galvanize the public.
With the Montana Supreme Court decision and public anger toward a political and economic system devoted to serving the 1 percent, this is a moment to dig-in and organize for a cleaner, more democratic way. On January 20 and 21 activists across the country are organizing to protest Citizens United and urge a Constitutional amendment. Will you join in the effort?
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. |
On December 30, the Montana Supreme Court delivered a New Year's gift to the nation, upholding a century-old ban on corporate political expenditures in state elections. The decision has gone underreported amidst the hoopla of the Republican primaries--even as super PAC spending skyrockets and there is an emerging understanding of its corrosive impact--but the Montana case sets up the first direct challenge to the disastrous Citizens United decision as we approach its second anniversary.
Free Speech For People--a national non-partisan campaign challenging the fabrication of corporate rights under the US Constitution--filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Montana case. It led a coalition that included the American Sustainable Business Council, a network of more than 70,000 businesses across the country; the American Independent Business Alliance; and a local supermarket business and non-profit corporation.
Jeff Clements is the author of the coalition's brief. Co-founder and general counsel of Free Speech, Clements did two stints as Assistant Attorney General in Massachusetts, litigating in the areas of civil rights, environmental protection, healthcare, insurance and financial services, antitrust and consumer protection, and taking on the tobacco industry. He's also the author of a new book, Corporations Are Not People: Why They Have More Rights Than You Do and What You Can Do About. This is a book that anyone who cares about taking back our democracy of, by and for the people must check out.
Clements tells a vivid story of how some of the largest corporations organized to take over our government and Constitution, culminating with the Citizens United decision. He also lays out a vision of how we can return democracy to the people.
As Bill Moyers notes in the book's Foreword, this isn't the first time a Supreme Court has served as a "procorporate conservative fortress": in 1905 it killed a New York state law limiting working hours, and a prohibition against child labor about a decade later; it ruled against a minimum wage law in 1923, and early New Deal recovery acts in 1935 and 1936.
"But in the face of such discouragement, embattled citizens refused to give up," writes Moyers. "Every day citizens researched the issues, organized public events to educate their neighbors, held rallies, made speeches, petitioned and canvassed, marched and exhorted. They would elect the twentieth century-governments that restored 'the general welfare' as a pillar of American democracy."
Clements book, writes Moyers, describes "how to fight back"--as our forebears have done so many times before--in this case, through a constitutional amendment declaring what Clements calls "the simplest of propositions: corporations are not people." (Clements also calls for corporate accountability, and corporate charter and election law reform, including increased public funding.)
"Citizens United is a corporate power case masquerading as a free speech case," writes Clements. "We do not have to live with this. We can put the American project back together."
Campaigns for constitutional amendments demand patience and a great deal of tenacity, since they must first secure supermajority support from both houses of Congress and then win ratification by three-quarters of the states. But as Maryland State Senator Jamin Raskin, professor of constitutional law and the First Amendment at American University's Washington College of Law, says, "American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters, imposing poll taxes on voters or the opponents of woman suffrage."
It's a long haul, and groups working towards that end--including Public Citizen, the Center for Media and Democracy, Move to Amend, Common Cause, People For the American Way, and others--would be smart to agree on exactly what the amendment's language is and make it simple, clear, and appealing. After all, it's tough to organize a united front around the country when there are multiple versions of the same amendment.
Raskin himself will be introducing a Joint Resolution in the Maryland General Assembly calling on Congress to swiftly pass a constitutional amendment reversing the Citizens United decision and send it out to the states for ratification. He hopes his effort will kick off a national movement at the state level to press the amendment case. Other local jurisdictions are also pursuing that strategy, including the city councils of Los Angeles, Oakland, New York, Albany, Duluth, and Boulder which have all passed resolutions opposing Citizens United. In Congress, a number of representatives have introduced resolutions seeking a constitutional remedy, including: Donna Edwards; Senator Tom Udall and Representative Betty Sutton; Representative Ted Deutsch and Senator Bernie Sanders; Representative Jim McGovern; Representative John Yarmuth and Republican Representative Walter Jones; Representative Keith Ellison, and others. Kudos to these Senators and Congressmen for their good proposals, and--as with the pro-democracy advocacy organizations--the more they are able to agree on the language of an amendment, the more easily citizens will be able to rally around it.
But as undisclosed corporate money continues to flood our elections and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans, it's important to remember that we need to walk and chew gum at the same time, and not solely focus on the amendment fight. That means building on successful public campaign financing systems already on the books in places like Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, and North Carolina, bringing those models to other states. In Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act would allow federal candidates to run for office without relying on Big Money as well--force Republicans and conservative Democrats to go on record opposing it, and if it eventually passes and the Supreme Court shoots it down that will only galvanize the public.
With the Montana Supreme Court decision and public anger toward a political and economic system devoted to serving the 1 percent, this is a moment to dig-in and organize for a cleaner, more democratic way. On January 20 and 21 activists across the country are organizing to protest Citizens United and urge a Constitutional amendment. Will you join in the effort?
On December 30, the Montana Supreme Court delivered a New Year's gift to the nation, upholding a century-old ban on corporate political expenditures in state elections. The decision has gone underreported amidst the hoopla of the Republican primaries--even as super PAC spending skyrockets and there is an emerging understanding of its corrosive impact--but the Montana case sets up the first direct challenge to the disastrous Citizens United decision as we approach its second anniversary.
Free Speech For People--a national non-partisan campaign challenging the fabrication of corporate rights under the US Constitution--filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Montana case. It led a coalition that included the American Sustainable Business Council, a network of more than 70,000 businesses across the country; the American Independent Business Alliance; and a local supermarket business and non-profit corporation.
Jeff Clements is the author of the coalition's brief. Co-founder and general counsel of Free Speech, Clements did two stints as Assistant Attorney General in Massachusetts, litigating in the areas of civil rights, environmental protection, healthcare, insurance and financial services, antitrust and consumer protection, and taking on the tobacco industry. He's also the author of a new book, Corporations Are Not People: Why They Have More Rights Than You Do and What You Can Do About. This is a book that anyone who cares about taking back our democracy of, by and for the people must check out.
Clements tells a vivid story of how some of the largest corporations organized to take over our government and Constitution, culminating with the Citizens United decision. He also lays out a vision of how we can return democracy to the people.
As Bill Moyers notes in the book's Foreword, this isn't the first time a Supreme Court has served as a "procorporate conservative fortress": in 1905 it killed a New York state law limiting working hours, and a prohibition against child labor about a decade later; it ruled against a minimum wage law in 1923, and early New Deal recovery acts in 1935 and 1936.
"But in the face of such discouragement, embattled citizens refused to give up," writes Moyers. "Every day citizens researched the issues, organized public events to educate their neighbors, held rallies, made speeches, petitioned and canvassed, marched and exhorted. They would elect the twentieth century-governments that restored 'the general welfare' as a pillar of American democracy."
Clements book, writes Moyers, describes "how to fight back"--as our forebears have done so many times before--in this case, through a constitutional amendment declaring what Clements calls "the simplest of propositions: corporations are not people." (Clements also calls for corporate accountability, and corporate charter and election law reform, including increased public funding.)
"Citizens United is a corporate power case masquerading as a free speech case," writes Clements. "We do not have to live with this. We can put the American project back together."
Campaigns for constitutional amendments demand patience and a great deal of tenacity, since they must first secure supermajority support from both houses of Congress and then win ratification by three-quarters of the states. But as Maryland State Senator Jamin Raskin, professor of constitutional law and the First Amendment at American University's Washington College of Law, says, "American citizens have repeatedly amended the Constitution to defend democracy when the Supreme Court acts in collusion with democracy's enemies, whether they are slavemasters, imposing poll taxes on voters or the opponents of woman suffrage."
It's a long haul, and groups working towards that end--including Public Citizen, the Center for Media and Democracy, Move to Amend, Common Cause, People For the American Way, and others--would be smart to agree on exactly what the amendment's language is and make it simple, clear, and appealing. After all, it's tough to organize a united front around the country when there are multiple versions of the same amendment.
Raskin himself will be introducing a Joint Resolution in the Maryland General Assembly calling on Congress to swiftly pass a constitutional amendment reversing the Citizens United decision and send it out to the states for ratification. He hopes his effort will kick off a national movement at the state level to press the amendment case. Other local jurisdictions are also pursuing that strategy, including the city councils of Los Angeles, Oakland, New York, Albany, Duluth, and Boulder which have all passed resolutions opposing Citizens United. In Congress, a number of representatives have introduced resolutions seeking a constitutional remedy, including: Donna Edwards; Senator Tom Udall and Representative Betty Sutton; Representative Ted Deutsch and Senator Bernie Sanders; Representative Jim McGovern; Representative John Yarmuth and Republican Representative Walter Jones; Representative Keith Ellison, and others. Kudos to these Senators and Congressmen for their good proposals, and--as with the pro-democracy advocacy organizations--the more they are able to agree on the language of an amendment, the more easily citizens will be able to rally around it.
But as undisclosed corporate money continues to flood our elections and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans, it's important to remember that we need to walk and chew gum at the same time, and not solely focus on the amendment fight. That means building on successful public campaign financing systems already on the books in places like Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, and North Carolina, bringing those models to other states. In Congress, the Fair Elections Now Act would allow federal candidates to run for office without relying on Big Money as well--force Republicans and conservative Democrats to go on record opposing it, and if it eventually passes and the Supreme Court shoots it down that will only galvanize the public.
With the Montana Supreme Court decision and public anger toward a political and economic system devoted to serving the 1 percent, this is a moment to dig-in and organize for a cleaner, more democratic way. On January 20 and 21 activists across the country are organizing to protest Citizens United and urge a Constitutional amendment. Will you join in the effort?
"We've got the FBI patrolling the streets." said one protester. "We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Residents of Washington, DC over the weekend demonstrated against US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in their city.
As reported by NBC Washington, demonstrators gathered on Saturday at DuPont Circle and then marched to the White House to direct their anger at Trump for sending the National Guard to Washington DC, and for his efforts to take over the Metropolitan Police Department.
In an interview with NBC Washington, one protester said that it was important for the administration to see that residents weren't intimidated by the presence of military personnel roaming their streets.
"I know a lot of people are scared," the protester said. "We've got the FBI patrolling the streets. We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Saturday protests against the presence of the National Guard are expected to be a weekly occurrence, organizers told NBC Washington.
Hours after the march to the White House, other demonstrators began to gather at Union Station to protest the presence of the National Guard units there. Audio obtained by freelance journalist Andrew Leyden reveals that the National Guard decided to move their forces out of the area in reaction to what dispatchers called "growing demonstrations."
Even residents who didn't take part in formal demonstrations over the weekend managed to express their displeasure with the National Guard patrolling the city. According to The Washington Post, locals who spent a night on the town in the U Street neighborhood on Friday night made their unhappiness with law enforcement in the city very well known.
"At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk—watching, filming, booing," wrote the Post. "Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left."
Trump last week ordered the National Guard into Washington, DC and tried to take control the Metropolitan Police, purportedly in order to reduce crime in the city. Statistics released earlier this year, however, showed a significant drop in crime in the nation's capital.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" asked NBC's Kristen Welker.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday was repeatedly put on the spot over the failure of US President Donald Trump to secure a cease-fire deal between Russia and Ukraine.
Rubio appeared on news programs across all major networks on Sunday morning and he was asked on all of them about Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ending without any kind of agreement to end the conflict with Ukraine, which has now lasted for more than three years.
During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Rubio was grilled by Martha Raddatz about the purported "progress" being made toward bringing the war to a close. She also zeroed in on Trump's own statements saying that he wanted to see Russia agree to a cease-fire by the end of last week's summit.
"The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire, and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire," she said. "So where are the consequences?"
"That's not the aim of this," Rubio replied. "First of all..."
"The president said that was the aim!" Raddatz interjected.
"Yeah, but you're not going to reach a cease-fire or a peace agreement in a meeting in which only one side is represented," Rubio replied. "That's why it's important to bring both leaders together, that's the goal here."
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. So where are the consequences?
RUBIO: That's not the aim
RADDATZ: The president… pic.twitter.com/fuO9q1Y5ze
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
Rubio also made an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," where host Margaret Brennan similarly pressed him about the expectations Trump had set going into the summit.
"The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire," she pointed out. "He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn't agree to one. He said he'd walk out in two minutes—he spent three hours talking to Vladimir Putin and he did not get one. So there's mixed messages here."
"Our goal is not to stage some production for the world to say, 'Oh, how dramatic, he walked out,'" Rubio shot back. "Our goal is to have a peace agreement to end this war, OK? And obviously we felt, and I agreed, that there was enough progress, not a lot of progress, but enough progress made in those talks to allow us to move to the next phase."
Rubio then insisted that now was not the time to hit Russia with new sanctions, despite Trump's recent threats to do so, because it would end talks all together.
Brennan: The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire. He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn’t agree to one. He spent three hours talking to… pic.twitter.com/2WtuDH5Oii
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2025
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Kristen Welker asked Rubio about the "severe consequences" Trump had promised for Russia if it did not agree to a cease-fire.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" Welker asked.
"Well, first, that's something that I think a lot of people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true," he replied. "I don't think new sanctions on Russia are going to force them to accept a cease-fire. They are already under severe sanctions... you can argue that could be a consequence of refusing to agree to a cease-fire or the end of hostilities."
He went on to say that he hoped the US would not be forced to put more sanctions on Russia "because that means peace talks failed."
WELKER: Why not impose more sanctions on Russia and force them to agree to a ceasefire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?
RUBIO: Well, I think that's something people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions on Russia… pic.twitter.com/GoIucsrDmA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that he could end the war between Russian and Ukraine within the span of a single day. In the seven months since his inauguration, the war has only gotten more intense as Russia has stepped up its daily attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.
"I had to protect my life and my family... my truck was shot three times," said the vehicle's driver.
A family in San Bernardino, California is in shock after masked federal agents opened fire on their truck.
As NBC Los Angeles reported, Customs and Border Protection (CPB) agents on Saturday morning surrounded the family's truck and demanded that its passengers exit the vehicle.
A video of the incident filmed from inside the truck showed the passengers asked the agents to provide identification, which they declined to do.
An agent was then heard demanding that the father, who had been driving the truck, get out of the vehicle. Seconds later, the agent started smashing the car's windows in an attempt to get inside the vehicle.
The father then hit the gas to try to escape, after which several shots could be heard as agents opened fire. Local news station KTLA reported that, after the father successfully fled the scene, he called local police and asked for help because "masked men" had opened fire on his truck.
Looks like, for the first time I'm aware of, masked agents opened fire today, in San Bernardino. Sources posted below: pic.twitter.com/eE1GMglECg
— Eric Levai (@ericlevai) August 17, 2025
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defended the agents' actions in a statement to NBC Los Angeles.
"In the course of the incident the suspect drove his car at the officers and struck two CBP officers with his vehicle," they said. "Because of the subjects forcing a CBP officer to discharge his firearm in self-defense."
But the father, who only wished to be identified as "Francisco," pointed out that the agents refused to identify themselves and presented no warrants to justify the search of his truck.
"I had to protect my life and my family," he explained to NBC Los Angeles. "My truck was shot three times."
His son-in-law, who only wished to be identified as "Martin," was similarly critical of the agents' actions.
"Its just upsetting that it happened to us," he said. "I am glad my brother is okay, Pop is okay, but it's just not cool that [immigration enforcement officials are] able to do something like that."
According to KTLA, federal agents surrounded the family's house later that afternoon and demanded that the father come out so that he could be arrested. He refused, and agents eventually departed from the neighborhood without detaining him.
Local advocacy group Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice said on its Instagram page that it was "mobilizing to provide legal support" for the family.