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
bernie sanders
DNC Half-Measures Condemning Dark Money Won’t Cut It, Says Sanders as He Demands Total Ban
"Billionaire-funded super PACs—AIPAC, AI, crypto, and others—are spending hundreds of millions to defeat any candidate who crosses them. They should be banned from Democratic primaries. Period."
Apr 10, 2026
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday called for a total ban on dark money a day after the Democratic National Committee voted down a resolution that would have condemned the leading US pro-Israel lobby, which has spent nine figures on US elections over the past five years.
The DNC Resolutions Committee rejected the resolution, which condemned “the growing influence” of dark money and corporate-backed outside spending on Democratic races, specifically calling out the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. United Democracy Project, AIPAC's dark money arm, unleashed a $100 million blitz targeting progressives during the 2024 election cycle.
When combined with other pro-Israel lobby groups, like GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson's Preserve America PAC, that figure soars to over $200 million, according to the public interest group AIPAC Tracker.
Instead, the DNC panel opted for a broader resolution decrying the influence of dark money—defined as undisclosed independent campaign contributions—in the 2026 Democratic primaries.
"The DNC just passed a resolution condemning dark money," Sanders (Vt.) said Friday on X. "That’s a start, but not enough."
"Billionaire-funded super PACs—AIPAC, AI, crypto, and others—are spending hundreds of millions to defeat any candidate who crosses them," the senator added. "They should be banned from Democratic primaries. Period."
Sanders campaigned twice for president, centering his opposition to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which effectively ushered in the modern era of secret unlimited political spending.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, dark money spending in federal elections has skyrocketed from negligible amounts before 2010 to over $1.9 billion in the 2024 cycle alone, with over $4 billion in total undisclosed outside financing following the high court's contentious ruling.
Polling has repeatedly affirmed that support for Israel—which stands accused in the International Court of Justice of committing genocide in Gaza and has already been found by the ICJ to be illegally occupying Palestine under apartheid rule—is detrimental to Democrats.
The DNC's own suppressed postmortem of the 2024 presidential election also showed that former President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' unconditional support for Israel cost Harris votes.
As AIPAC has grown more toxic to US voters amid a litany of Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank under the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—a growing number of Democrats, including some who once welcomed the group's support, are turning their backs on the lobby.
“AIPAC really is not an organization that I think today I would want any part of," Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said last month after affiliated groups poured $22 million into House races in his state.
While AIPAC cash was instrumental in unseating congressional progressives including former Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.), its largesse failed to oust others, including Reps. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
Sanders wasn't the only one to criticize the DNC's rejection of the anti-AIPAC resolution.
“The American people are clear: They want our government to invest in life and stop funding the bombs that are destroying lives in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran," Jewish Voice for Peace political director Beth Miller said Friday.
"The DNC’s failure to pass this simple resolution condemning the outsized spending of an extremist and Republican-funded group like AIPAC in Democratic primaries shows how wildly out of touch the party is with its base," Miller added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Lack of Political Imagination Resulted in Trump Threatening to End a Civilization
We must be willing to say out loud that the Democratic Party as currently led is a huge part of the problem. The people running it have failed. They have names. Saying so isn’t radical. It’s honest.
Apr 09, 2026
I’ve been hearing from a lot of candidates and campaigns lately. This one is for them.
In 2015, I sold my food trucks to volunteer for Bernie Sanders. That turned into co-founding Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, then helping elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the US House of Representatives. I worked as her strategist and communications director for a few years after that. I’ve spent the better part of a decade pretty close to the center of the progressive movement. The following is what I learned.
Back in 2016, Hillary Clinton said Bernie Sanders’ policies were “fairy dust and rainbows.” The point wasn’t just that big things were hard. The point was that big things weren’t needed. The system was basically working. America was great. If you thought otherwise you weren’t serious, or you weren’t paying attention, or you were the kind of person who gets dismissed at Brookings as insufficiently realistic.
That was the consensus. Serious people. Credentialed people. New York Times columnists and think tank fellows and television regulars, all reading from the same hymnal. Don’t rock the boat. Take what the system offers. Be grateful.
That consensus didn’t protect us from Donald Trump. It elected him. Twice.
Because when someone came along and said the system is rigged and I’ll burn it down, 80 million people said, "Finally." They were wrong about the messenger. They were completely right about the problem. The “things are actually pretty good” position was the most destabilizing thing anyone could have said. That realism was actually radicalism. And we’re living in the results.
Progressive politics has the same capacity problem that the rest of the country does. We don’t have enough aligned people in power, and we can’t fix that one seat at a time any more than we can fix the housing crisis one subsidy at a time.
The market doesn’t work for the things people actually need to live. Not anymore. Maybe it once did. It doesn’t now and the evidence is everywhere.
We spend $6 trillion a year on healthcare. More than any country on earth, by a lot, and we rank last among wealthy nations in outcomes. Last. Tens of millions of people are one diagnosis away from financial ruin. Rural hospitals are closing. The market has had decades to fix this. It hasn’t fixed it. It has extracted wealth from it while delivering less.
Or consider the mRNA vaccines. The federal government funded the foundational research for 35 years. When COVID hit, the government paid Moderna and Pfizer billions more to finish the job and purchase the doses. Moderna and Pfizer then walked away with over $100 billion in combined revenue. The public got the bill twice, once as taxpayers funding the research, once as patients paying the prices, and the companies kept the patents.
The same pattern shows up in housing. We have been short on housing for decades. The market hasn’t built our way out of it. Cities that people actually want to live in are unaffordable. But so are the rural areas. I live in Lenoir City, Tennessee. Population about 11,000. Here a studio apartment runs you a thousand dollars a month.
And what did our nominee offer? Kamala Harris proposed a $25,000 grant for first-time home buyers. I understand the instinct. But the issue is supply. You pump $25,000 into a market that isn’t building enough homes then prices go up. The money flows straight through the buyer and into the seller or the landlord and the developer, and nothing new gets built. It’s the same story as healthcare. We keep pouring money into broken systems I assume because it seems like a logical solution. But it only makes the problem worse.
Too many people think of American problems as spending problems. But if I walked into my local grocery store and wanted 15,000 pounds of beef, it wouldn’t matter how much money I had. You can’t buy what doesn’t exist. We don’t have enough housing. We don’t have enough doctors. We don’t have enough childcare slots. Pumping money into markets that aren’t producing those things doesn’t produce them. It inflates the price of whatever scraps are left. You fix a capacity problem by building and training, not injecting more cash.
We built our way out of the Depression not just by writing checks but by doing it ourselves. The government built water and irrigation infrastructure that turned the Central Valley into the food supply for half the country. It strung electrical wire to farms and small towns across the rural South and Midwest that private utilities had written off as unprofitable. We built the industrial capacity that became the Arsenal of Democracy. That was public investment. That was us deciding some things are too important to leave to the market.
We don’t believe that anymore. Or rather, our leaders don’t. Those few that do get stopped before they can do anything about it.
AOC won. She scared people badly enough that they spent millions trying to destroy her. She had the right diagnosis. She had the right policies. She had the courage. The things she ran on didn’t happen. Not because she wasn’t good enough. Because she walked in alone. A seat won in isolation gets absorbed. The machinery of this system is designed to absorb individual attacks.
Progressive politics has the same capacity problem that the rest of the country does. We don’t have enough aligned people in power, and we can’t fix that one seat at a time any more than we can fix the housing crisis one subsidy at a time.
Which brings me to where we are. An American president is suggesting on a Tuesday night that Iran should cease to exist. Not metaphorically. And the people who are supposed to be the opposition are writing letters. That is where we end up when the people in charge have no affirmative vision, no plan to build anything, and no team capable of fighting for it even if they did.
So when people ask me about candidates, I’m not asking whether they have the right positions. Most of the good ones do. I’m asking whether they understand what those positions are actually up against. Whether they’re ready to fight it.
I’m looking for bold, specific, public policy positions. Not values. Policies. Medicare for All. Public ownership of AI infrastructure. A housing program that builds and owns, not just subsidizes. Drug pricing reform that takes back the patents on publicly-funded research so the public owns what the public paid for. You would be amazed how many candidates won’t put this out publicly.
We must be willing to say out loud that the Democratic Party as currently led is the problem. The people running it have failed. They have names. Saying so isn’t radical. It’s honest.
An understanding that our institutions have been captured. The FEC. The FDA. The SEC. The DOJ. The Supreme Court. Not neutral referees. A coordinated fifty-year project to make progressive governance legally impossible. A candidate who won’t say that isn’t ready for what’s coming.
I’m looking for bold, specific, public policy positions. Not values. Policies.
A willingness to take risks inside the party. Not fighting Republicans on television, which costs nothing. Backing primary challengers against Democratic incumbents who are blocking the agenda. Making it more dangerous to oppose you than to support you. Almost nobody will do this.
All of those are necessary. None of them are enough.
A commitment to building a team before they win. Not after. Campaigning alongside candidates in other states and districts. Endorsing across geographies. Treating their race as part of something bigger than their district. This has never been done at scale on our side. It’s the thing that would change everything.
People resist this one the most, so let me explain why it matters.
A candidate’s victory, whether it’s a House seat or a Senate seat, can only accomplish things within the framework of how big and powerful their team is, how aligned that team is, and whether they built it before they walked into the building. It has to happen before, not after, for two reasons. First, because building it before is what proves you’re willing to put skin in the game and take real risks. Anyone can talk about solidarity after they’ve won. Doing it before, when it costs you something, is what makes it mean anything. Second, because you cannot change who’s sitting at the table from inside the table. You have to build the power to change it from outside. That means committing to each other before any of you have a seat, when the only thing binding you together is the mission itself.
And it matters to voters. Candidates running on these ideas as individuals are just putting policies on a page. They’re giving speeches. When they show up with a team, when they’ve committed to each other before they’ve won anything, they’re showing voters they understand what’s standing in their way and they have a plan for taking it head on.
Nobody is coming to do this for us. It takes a team. People who said all of this out loud before they won.
Underneath all of it, public ownership as the mechanism. Not regulation. Not subsidy. Ownership. We did it before. We can do it again. When a technology has the power to transform society, it’s unwise to leave it in the hands of a tiny group of self-absorbed billionaires whose only goal is to maximize profit, who consistently show contempt for the rights and interests of their fellow Americans, and who aren’t accountable to anyone, especially with a federal government this weak. We don’t let private companies build nuclear weapons. We don’t let them decide when or how to use them. We don’t let them raise armies. We understand some things are too powerful to leave in private hands. AI is one of those things. It’s built off of thousands of years of human data and thought. It’s built off of major public investment. It’s built by us. It should be working for us. The only thing that’s got a single chance of ensuring that is if we own it. Just like Alaska gets dividends from its oil reserves, the American people should be getting dividends from their data and their investments.
Nobody is coming to do this for us. It takes a team. People who said all of this out loud before they won. Who committed to each other before they walked into Washington. Who understand that their victory only matters if the person running three states over wins too.
That team is what I’m building with A Fight Worth Having. Not candidates with good vibes. Candidates who’ve passed this filter. Who know what they’re up against. Who are ready to fight the right people, including the ones in their own party.
If you’ve been reading this and asking what do we do, this is what we do.
Go to AFightWorthHaving.com
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Declares AI 'A Threat to Everything the American People Hold Dear'
"We can’t allow a handful of billionaires, eager to increase their wealth and power, to rush forward with a technology that will fundamentally transform humanity without democratic input or accountability."
Apr 03, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders has declared artificial intelligence "a threat to everything the American people hold dear" in a Thursday editorial published by the Wall Street Journal.
Sanders (I-Vt.) began his piece by citing recent polls showing Americans are deeply apprehensive about the impact that AI will have on the economy and their lives, and he said that this feeling was entirely justified given what the people who currently control the technology aim to do with it.
"At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, people recognize the AI revolution is being led by some of the wealthiest people in this country," Sanders argued. "Billionaires like [Tesla CEO] Elon Musk, [Amazon founder] Jeff Bezos, [Meta CEO] Mark Zuckerberg, and [Oracle co-founder] Larry Ellison are investing enormous sums in AI and robotics not to improve life for working families but to expand their own wealth and power."
He then cited quotes from Musk and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates explaining how AI will eliminate the need for human labor and asked, "If machines can perform most economically valuable work better than humans can, how do people earn a living and support their families?"
Sanders said that the consequences of the widespread adoption of AI aren't just economic, but social as well.
"How can we rush forward when AI is already reshaping how we as human beings relate to one another?" he asked. "According to a recent poll by Common Sense Media, 72% of US teenagers say they have used AI companions, and more than half do so regularly. What does it mean for young people to form 'friendships' with AI while becoming lonelier and more isolated from other human beings?"
Sanders said the US Congress needs to step to the plate to regulate AI—and that Big Tech's massive campaign spending is intimidating too many lawmakers from speaking out.
"The AI industry has already spent more than $185 million to make sure government does nothing to protect the American people," Sanders said. "We can’t allow a handful of billionaires, eager to increase their wealth and power, to rush forward with a technology that will fundamentally transform humanity without democratic input or accountability."
Sanders has been one of the leading voices in Congress demanding the government due more to rein in AI, and last month he and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction "until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
Sanders last month also demanded that Amazon's Bezos testify publicly before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee about his plans to replace human workers with AI-powered robots, arguing that "we need to understand what will happen to these workers... Will they simply be thrown out on the street in order to make Mr. Bezos even richer?"
In the conclusion to his WSJ op-ed, Sanders called for "the future of AI" to be "decided by the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular