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.
(Image: foe.org)
What if fighting dirty money in our elections was the key to fighting dirty fuels in our economy? That's the question asked in a recent report released by the Sierra Club and Oil Change International.
What if fighting dirty money in our elections was the key to fighting dirty fuels in our economy? That's the question asked in a recent report released by the Sierra Club and Oil Change International.
From the perspective of the fossil fuel industry, political contributions are just another form of investment. The only difference is that, for the millions polluters spend on elections, they see billions in bonus profits. As the report says, "The return these polluters are getting on these political investments--in the form of billions in corporate tax handouts--exceed 5000 percent, demonstrating that Congress remains the best 'investment' possible for the coal, oil, and gas industries."
The oil and gas industries are among the worst offenders. Between 2009 and 2010, the report estimates that they spent $347 million on lobbying and campaign contributions, and in return netted a handsome $20 billion in federal subsidies. Most of these came in the form of accounting gimmicks that help hide corporate profits and obscure tax breaks that help cover drilling and refining costs. Because of loopholes like these, the actual taxes paid by most big energy companies fall well below the top corporate rate of 35 percent.
You would think that at a time when both Democrats and Republicans are preoccupied with deficits and debt, cutting subsidies for polluters should be an easy move. After all, these are some of the most profitable companies in world history; surely they need government support like Bill Gates needs food stamps. The fact that many of these giveaways are nearly a century old, dating from a time when fossil fuel extraction was a much riskier game, only adds to their irrelevance. At a time of significant fiscal strain, decades-old free money for rich polluters should be the first thing on the chopping block.
Unfortunately, in the new world of campaign finance born after Citizens United and supercharged earlier this month by McCutcheon vs. FEC, money speaks much louder than fiscal and environmental sanity. The report points out that solid majorities of Americans support action on climate change, investment in renewable energy, and a repeal of fossil fuel subsidies. And yet, Congress is arguably in its most rabidly anti-environment phase in U.S. history, voting repeatedly to block action on climate change, cut support for renewable energy, and hobble enforcement of clean air and water provisions.
The only way to solve this disconnect is through a new system of public financing. As such, the Sierra Club and Oil Change International are throwing their weight behind the recently sponsored Government By The People Act, which would allow federal candidates to receive money from small donors matched on a six-to-one basis. This would not end money in politics, or even strip polluters of their ability to purchase influence. Winning those fights has to be part of a much longer campaign against corporate personhood and the idea of money as free speech. But in the meantime, it would give candidates who share the increasingly pro-environment sentiments of the American people a chance to be heard. Friends of the Earth supports the Government By The People Act and its vision for a more healthy and just world.
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. |
What if fighting dirty money in our elections was the key to fighting dirty fuels in our economy? That's the question asked in a recent report released by the Sierra Club and Oil Change International.
From the perspective of the fossil fuel industry, political contributions are just another form of investment. The only difference is that, for the millions polluters spend on elections, they see billions in bonus profits. As the report says, "The return these polluters are getting on these political investments--in the form of billions in corporate tax handouts--exceed 5000 percent, demonstrating that Congress remains the best 'investment' possible for the coal, oil, and gas industries."
The oil and gas industries are among the worst offenders. Between 2009 and 2010, the report estimates that they spent $347 million on lobbying and campaign contributions, and in return netted a handsome $20 billion in federal subsidies. Most of these came in the form of accounting gimmicks that help hide corporate profits and obscure tax breaks that help cover drilling and refining costs. Because of loopholes like these, the actual taxes paid by most big energy companies fall well below the top corporate rate of 35 percent.
You would think that at a time when both Democrats and Republicans are preoccupied with deficits and debt, cutting subsidies for polluters should be an easy move. After all, these are some of the most profitable companies in world history; surely they need government support like Bill Gates needs food stamps. The fact that many of these giveaways are nearly a century old, dating from a time when fossil fuel extraction was a much riskier game, only adds to their irrelevance. At a time of significant fiscal strain, decades-old free money for rich polluters should be the first thing on the chopping block.
Unfortunately, in the new world of campaign finance born after Citizens United and supercharged earlier this month by McCutcheon vs. FEC, money speaks much louder than fiscal and environmental sanity. The report points out that solid majorities of Americans support action on climate change, investment in renewable energy, and a repeal of fossil fuel subsidies. And yet, Congress is arguably in its most rabidly anti-environment phase in U.S. history, voting repeatedly to block action on climate change, cut support for renewable energy, and hobble enforcement of clean air and water provisions.
The only way to solve this disconnect is through a new system of public financing. As such, the Sierra Club and Oil Change International are throwing their weight behind the recently sponsored Government By The People Act, which would allow federal candidates to receive money from small donors matched on a six-to-one basis. This would not end money in politics, or even strip polluters of their ability to purchase influence. Winning those fights has to be part of a much longer campaign against corporate personhood and the idea of money as free speech. But in the meantime, it would give candidates who share the increasingly pro-environment sentiments of the American people a chance to be heard. Friends of the Earth supports the Government By The People Act and its vision for a more healthy and just world.
What if fighting dirty money in our elections was the key to fighting dirty fuels in our economy? That's the question asked in a recent report released by the Sierra Club and Oil Change International.
From the perspective of the fossil fuel industry, political contributions are just another form of investment. The only difference is that, for the millions polluters spend on elections, they see billions in bonus profits. As the report says, "The return these polluters are getting on these political investments--in the form of billions in corporate tax handouts--exceed 5000 percent, demonstrating that Congress remains the best 'investment' possible for the coal, oil, and gas industries."
The oil and gas industries are among the worst offenders. Between 2009 and 2010, the report estimates that they spent $347 million on lobbying and campaign contributions, and in return netted a handsome $20 billion in federal subsidies. Most of these came in the form of accounting gimmicks that help hide corporate profits and obscure tax breaks that help cover drilling and refining costs. Because of loopholes like these, the actual taxes paid by most big energy companies fall well below the top corporate rate of 35 percent.
You would think that at a time when both Democrats and Republicans are preoccupied with deficits and debt, cutting subsidies for polluters should be an easy move. After all, these are some of the most profitable companies in world history; surely they need government support like Bill Gates needs food stamps. The fact that many of these giveaways are nearly a century old, dating from a time when fossil fuel extraction was a much riskier game, only adds to their irrelevance. At a time of significant fiscal strain, decades-old free money for rich polluters should be the first thing on the chopping block.
Unfortunately, in the new world of campaign finance born after Citizens United and supercharged earlier this month by McCutcheon vs. FEC, money speaks much louder than fiscal and environmental sanity. The report points out that solid majorities of Americans support action on climate change, investment in renewable energy, and a repeal of fossil fuel subsidies. And yet, Congress is arguably in its most rabidly anti-environment phase in U.S. history, voting repeatedly to block action on climate change, cut support for renewable energy, and hobble enforcement of clean air and water provisions.
The only way to solve this disconnect is through a new system of public financing. As such, the Sierra Club and Oil Change International are throwing their weight behind the recently sponsored Government By The People Act, which would allow federal candidates to receive money from small donors matched on a six-to-one basis. This would not end money in politics, or even strip polluters of their ability to purchase influence. Winning those fights has to be part of a much longer campaign against corporate personhood and the idea of money as free speech. But in the meantime, it would give candidates who share the increasingly pro-environment sentiments of the American people a chance to be heard. Friends of the Earth supports the Government By The People Act and its vision for a more healthy and just world.
"Voters have made their feelings clear," said the leader of Justice Democrats. "The majority do not see themselves in this party and do not believe in its leaders or many of its representatives."
A top progressive leader has given her prescription for how the Democratic Party can begin to retake power from US President Donald Trump: Ousting "corporate-funded" candidates.
Justice Democrats executive director Alexandra Rojas wrote Thursday in The Guardian that, "If the Democratic Party wants to win back power in 2028," its members need to begin to redefine themselves in the 2026 midterms.
"Voters have made their feelings clear, a majority do not see themselves in this party and do not believe in its leaders or many of its representatives," Rojas said. "They need a new generation of leaders with fresh faces and bold ideas, unbought by corporate super [political action committees] and billionaire donors, to give them a new path and vision to believe in."
Despite Trump's increasing unpopularity, a Gallup poll from July 31 found that the Democratic Party still has record-low approval across the country.
Rojas called for "working-class, progressive primary challenges to the overwhelming number of corporate Democratic incumbents who have rightfully been dubbed as do-nothing electeds."
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in June, nearly two-thirds of self-identified Democrats said they desired new leadership, with many believing that the party did not share top priorities, like universal healthcare, affordable childcare, and higher taxes on the rich.
Young voters were especially dissatisfied with the current state of the party and were much less likely to believe the party shared their priorities.
Democrats have made some moves to address their "gerontocracy" problem—switching out the moribund then-President Joe Biden with Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race and swapping out longtime House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) for the younger Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.).
But Rojas says a face-lift for the party is not enough. They also need fresh ideas.
"Voters are also not simply seeking to replace their aging corporate shill representatives with younger corporate shills," she said. "More of the same from a younger generation is still more of the same."
Outside of a "small handful of outspoken progressives," she said the party has often been too eager to kowtow to Trump and tow the line of billionaire donors.
"Too many Democratic groups, and even some that call themselves progressive, are encouraging candidates' silence in the face of lobbies like [the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee] (AIPAC) and crypto's multimillion-dollar threats," she said.
A Public Citizen report found that in 2024, Democratic candidates and aligned PACs received millions of dollars from crypto firms like Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreesen Horowitz.
According to OpenSecrets, 58% of the 212 Democrats elected to the House in 2024—135 of them—received money from AIPAC, with an average contribution of $117,334. In the Senate, 17 Democrats who won their elections received donations—$195,015 on average.
The two top Democrats in Congress—Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)—both have long histories of support from AIPAC, and embraced crypto with open arms after the industry flooded the 2024 campaign with cash.
"Too often, we hear from candidates and members who claim they are with us on the policy, but can't speak out on it because AIPAC or crypto will spend against them," Rojas said. "Silence is cowardice, and cowardice inspires no one."
Rojas noted Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), who was elected in 2022 despite an onslaught of attacks from AIPAC and who has since gone on to introduce legislation to ban super PACs from federal elections, as an example of this model's success.
"The path to more Democratic victories," Rojas said, "is not around, behind, and under these lobbies, but it's right through them, taking them head-on and ridding them from our politics once and for all."
"History will not forget," said UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese.
The United Nations human rights expert assigned to the Palestinian territories illegally occupied by Israel is calling on countries around the world to send military forces to end the genocidal Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip.
Since March 2024, "I've warned the UN I serve at great personal cost: the destruction of Gaza's health system is clear proof of genocidal intent," Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese said on social media Wednesday. "I'm in disbelief at its paralysis. States must break the blockade, send NAVIES with aid, and stop the genocide. History will not forget."
Albanese also shared her new joint statement with Dr. Tlaleng Mofokeng, special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. They said that "in addition to bearing witness to an ongoing genocide we are also bearing witness to a 'medicide,' a sinister component of the intentional creation of conditions calculated to destroy Palestinians in Gaza which constitutes an act of genocide."
"Deliberate attacks on health and care workers, and health facilities, which are gross violations of international humanitarian law, must stop now," the pair continued. "There is a moral imperative for the international community to end the carnage and allow the people of Gaza to live on their land without fear of attack, killing, and starvation, and free from permanent occupation and apartheid."
Their comments came as a growing number of governments are recognizing the state of Palestine or threatening to do so. In a Wednesday interview with The Guardian, Albanese stressed that the renewed push for Palestinian statehood should not "distract the attention from where it should be: the genocide."
"Ending the question of Palestine in line with international law is possible and necessary: End the genocide today, end the permanent occupation this year, and end apartheid," she said. "This is what's going to guarantee freedom and equal rights for everyone, regardless of the way they want to live—in two states or one state, they will have to decide."
As Common Dreams reported earlier Thursday, Israel's finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, claimed that the Israeli and U.S. governments have approved an expansion of settlements in the West Bank, which he said "finally buries the idea of a Palestinian state, because there is nothing to recognize and no one to recognize."
Meanwhile, in Gaza, the 22-month Israeli assault has left the coastal enclave in ruins and killed at least 61,776 Palestinians and wounded 154,906 others—though experts warn the real figures are likely far higher. Those who have survived so far are struggling to access essentials, including food, largely due to Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid and killings of aid-seekers.
On Thursday, over 100 groups—including ActionAid, American Friends Service Committee, Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam, and Save the Children—released a letter stressing that since Israel imposed registration rules in early March, most nongovernmental organizations "have been unable to deliver a single truck of lifesaving supplies."
"This obstruction has left millions of dollars' worth of food, medicine, water, and shelter items stranded in warehouses across Jordan and Egypt, while Palestinians are being starved," the letter notes. As of Thursday, the Gaza Health Ministry put the hunger-related death toll at 239, including 106 children.
Both the registration process and the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation "aim to block impartial aid, exclude Palestinian actors, and replace trusted humanitarian organizations with mechanisms that serve political and military objectives," the letter argues, noting that Israel is moving to "escalate its military offensive and deepen its occupation in Gaza, making clear these measures are part of a broader strategy to entrench control and erase Palestinian presence."
The coalition called on all governments to "press Israel to end the weaponization of aid," insist that NGOS not be "forced to share sensitive personal information," and "demand the immediate and unconditional opening of all land crossings and conditions for the delivery of lifesaving humanitarian aid."
During an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting on Sunday, Riyad Mansour, the state of Palestine's permanent observer to the UN, formally requested "an immediate international protection force to save the Palestinian people from certain death."
In response, Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the US-based advocacy group DAWN, said in a Tuesday statement, "Now that Palestine has formally requested protection forces, the UN General Assembly should move urgently to mandate such a force under a Uniting for Peace resolution."
"Israel has made clear for the past two years that no amount of pleading, pressure, or negotiation will end its atrocities and deliberate starvation in Gaza; only international peacekeeping forces can achieve that," she added.
"Who else sends ICE at the same time while having a conversation like this? Someone who is weak. Someone who's broken. Someone whose weakness is masquerading as a strength," said Newsom.
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday struck a defiant tone during a political rally in Los Angeles aimed at promoting a ballot initiative that would allow the state legislature to redraw the Golden State's electoral maps.
During his speech, Newsom emphasized his preference to having an independent commission draw up districts in California and across the country. However, he said that U.S. President Donald Trump's push to have Texas Republicans redraw their state's map in the middle of the decade to gain five more Republican seats in the U.S. House of Representatives has left him with no choice but to return the favor.
"You have poked the bear, and we will punch back," Newsom said during the speech, addressing Trump directly.
The California governor then explained why doing nothing in response to Trump's pressure on Texas is not an option.
"[Trump] doesn't play by a different set of rules—he doesn't believe in the rules," Newsom said. "And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It's not enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil, and talk about way the world should be. We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt, and we have got to meet fire with fire!"
Newsom also pointed out that several Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials had stationed themselves nearby where California Democrats were holding their rally, which he called a deliberate attempt at intimidation.
However, Newsom said that instead of subduing lawmakers and advocates with the mass deportation force, Trump was only exposing his weakness.
"He is a failed president," Newsom declared. "Who else sends ICE at the same time while having a conversation like this? Someone who is weak. Someone who's broken. Someone whose weakness is masquerading as a strength. The most unpopular president in modern history."
Newsom encouraged voters in his state to approve a ballot initiative this coming November 4 that would allow the redrawing of California's congressional map on a temporary basis before returning to the independent commission that has long been used in the state starting in 2030.