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
citizens united
The Midterms Are What Democracy Looks Like, Now Let's See What Democracy Can Do
For more than half a century, powerful interests have worked to build an America that serves the wealthy few. Now we have an opportunity to chart a different course, rooted in economic justice, human dignity, democracy, peace, and a livable planet.
Nov 13, 2026
The billionaire class made a bad bet. They thought their extraordinary wealth could buy them a country. That hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, control over powerful communications platforms, and an increasingly authoritarian political movement could overwhelm the democratic will of the American people.
On November 3, millions of Americans reminded them of something they had forgotten: Organized money has an opponent. Organized people.
From the millions who marched in the No Kings demonstrations to the volunteers who knocked on doors, registered voters, and mobilized their communities, Americans delivered an extraordinary repudiation of Donald Trump and his assault on democracy.
Democrats need an ambitious agenda that improves people's lives while confronting the concentrated wealth and political power that have prevented meaningful reform.
Young Americans helped power the Democratic victories. Latino voters shifted away from Republicans. Across the country, voters expressed their frustration with an administration that has prioritized the wealthy while ordinary Americans struggle with the cost of living.
Democrats won control of both houses of Congress. But the significance of this election extends far beyond which party holds the gavels. We may be witnessing a historic opportunity to reverse a political and economic transformation more than half a century in the making.
The Corporate Playbook
In 1971, corporate attorney Lewis Powell wrote a confidential memorandum for the US Chamber of Commerce urging business leaders to organize a sustained campaign to influence universities, the media, the courts, and government.
The Powell Memo helped inspire a corporate political offensive that reshaped American politics. Business interests invested enormous resources in think tanks, lobbying, political campaigns, and legal institutions, advancing policies that weakened unions, reduced taxes on corporations and the wealthy, rolled back regulations, and concentrated economic and political power.
The consequences are all around us. America has generated extraordinary prosperity, but an increasingly disproportionate share has flowed to the top. Housing, healthcare, and education have become increasingly unaffordable, while billionaires exercise extraordinary political influence.
Today's tech oligarchs didn't invent this power grab. They inherited a playbook.
But this election demonstrated that ordinary people, acting collectively, still possess the power to challenge concentrated wealth.
The question now is what we do with that power.
Democrats Need to Rediscover FDR, not Reagan
For decades, Democrats have been told that winning elections requires moving toward the center, moderating their ambitions, and reassuring wealthy donors that fundamental economic arrangements will remain undisturbed.
I've spent much of my adult life watching Democrats invoke Ronald Reagan more often than Franklin Roosevelt. Think about that. The party of the New Deal, Social Security, and organized labor has too often looked to the political philosophy of a president who helped undermine that legacy.
Yet Roosevelt understood something today's Democrats desperately need to remember: Government can transform people's lives, and doing so can build lasting political support.
Medicare for All would help democratize economic security. Public financing would help democratize political power.
His New Deal, propelled in significant part by organized labor and popular movements, established Social Security, strengthened workers' rights, created jobs, and helped build a more economically secure middle class. Those reforms were incomplete, and many Americans were excluded from their benefits. But they demonstrated the extraordinary possibilities of government acting on behalf of ordinary people.
In 1944, Roosevelt proposed a Second Bill of Rights that included the right to a decent job, adequate income, housing, medical care, education, and economic security.
More than 80 years later, that vision remains unfinished.
And in the wealthiest nation in human history, there is no justification for leaving it that way.
Two Pillars of Transformative Change
Democrats need an ambitious agenda that improves people's lives while confronting the concentrated wealth and political power that have prevented meaningful reform.
Two commitments should stand at its center: Medicare for All and public financing of elections.
The first would transform economic security. The second would help transform political power.
Start with healthcare.
The United States spends approximately two and a half times the OECD average per person on healthcare, yet delivers worse outcomes across key measures, from life expectancy to preventable deaths. Millions remain uninsured, while many people with coverage cannot afford to use it when they need care.
In America, cost effectively rations access to healthcare.
Other wealthy nations guarantee universal health coverage while spending substantially less. Yet our political leaders continue defending a fragmented, profit-driven system that places the financial interests of insurance companies ahead of people's health.
Medicare for All would guarantee healthcare as a fundamental human right, eliminate a major source of financial insecurity, and reduce workers' dependence on employers for health coverage.
But why has such fundamental reform remained politically elusive?
Part of the answer lies in the extraordinary influence of the industries that profit from the existing system. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and other powerful interests spend enormous sums lobbying politicians, financing campaigns, and influencing the public debate.
Which brings us to the second pillar: getting big money out of politics.
We need to overturn Citizens United, end the system of unlimited independent political spending and super PAC contributions, and establish robust public financing of elections so candidates can compete without depending on wealthy donors and corporate interests.
We should ban congressional stock trading and strengthen protections against conflicts of interest. But those reforms alone will not address the underlying system in which politicians must continually raise money from the very industries they are supposed to regulate.
Public financing offers a way to change that relationship, allowing candidates to rely more heavily on ordinary voters rather than wealthy contributors.
This is essential because campaign finance reform is not simply another progressive issue. It affects our ability to accomplish virtually everything else.
How can Democrats seriously challenge corporate monopolies, tax billionaires, protect workers, or reform healthcare while remaining financially dependent on the interests determined to block those changes?
Medicare for All would help democratize economic security. Public financing would help democratize political power.
Together, they could fundamentally change the terrain on which every other progressive struggle takes place.
The Agenda Americans Deserve
These two reforms must anchor a broader commitment to economic and social justice.
We need a living wage of at least $20 an hour, stronger unions and collective bargaining rights, affordable housing and childcare, and a tax system that requires billionaires and giant corporations to contribute their fair share.
We need to defend reproductive freedom, confront climate change, regulate Wall Street, enforce antitrust laws, and protect the democratic institutions increasingly threatened by concentrated wealth and authoritarianism.
The millions who marched, organized, and voted cannot simply return home and wait for the next election. They must continue demanding accountability and building the political power necessary to sustain change.
We must also challenge a foreign policy that devotes extraordinary resources to militarism while urgent human needs go unmet, and use congressional power to end illegal wars.
These are not radical demands in a society with the wealth and resources to achieve them. They are the foundations of a government that places human well-being above corporate profits.
And they challenge the conventional wisdom that progressive ambition is politically dangerous.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) built a national movement by demanding universal healthcare, economic justice, and an end to billionaire domination of politics. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani demonstrated that an unapologetically progressive affordability agenda could win broad support in America's largest city.
Their success does not mean every progressive candidate will win. But it demolishes the assumption that Democrats must abandon ambitious ideas to appeal to voters.
As Mamdani has emphasized, voters want change they can experience in their everyday lives, in the cost of rent, groceries, childcare, and healthcare.
Winning is one thing. Delivering is another.
None of this will happen overnight.
Trump remains president. Corporate interests will fight to protect their power. Even with congressional majorities, Democrats face vetoes, Senate procedural obstacles, and opposition from within their own ranks.
But political obstacles are not reasons to abandon fundamental principles.
Democrats should introduce Medicare for All legislation, fight for living wages, advance public financing, and investigate corporate abuses and political corruption. If Trump vetoes popular legislation, let Americans see what Democrats fought for and who stood in the way.
Congressional Democrats can also use hearings, subpoenas, oversight, and their control over federal spending to expose corruption, challenge corporate influence, and build the case for structural reform.
And that accountability must extend beyond Trump and the Republican Party. Democrats cannot credibly challenge a corrupt political system while protecting its beneficiaries within their own ranks.
The millions who marched, organized, and voted cannot simply return home and wait for the next election. They must continue demanding accountability and building the political power necessary to sustain change.
If Democrats fail to deliver meaningful improvements in people's lives, they risk recreating the disillusionment that helped bring Trump to power.
The Next Chapter of Democracy
The political and economic system that has concentrated so much wealth and power in the hands of so few was not inevitable. It was built through decades of deliberate political choices. And it can be changed through collective action.
The millions who marched, organized, and voted must remain engaged. Join an organization. Organize in your workplace and community. Hold elected officials accountable. Keep marching, keep voting, and keep demanding more.
For more than half a century, powerful interests have worked to build an America that serves the wealthy few. Now we have an opportunity to chart a different course, rooted in economic justice, human dignity, democracy, peace, and a livable planet.
This is what democracy looks like. Now let's show what democracy can deliver.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congressman-Elect Don Leonard Says House Members Warned of ‘Living Hell’ If He Doesn’t Back Jeffries
“The ‘big-D’ Democratic Party needs some ‘little-D’ democracy,” said Rep.-elect Don Leonard, who conditioned his support for Jeffries on efforts to end the Iran War, cut off support for Israel, and end Citizens United.
Nov 10, 2026
Rep.-elect Don Leonard of Ohio said Tuesday that “senior members of the Democratic House” have threatened to make his life “a living hell” unless he backs, without conditions, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to be the next Speaker of the House.
Leonard, who flipped Ohio's heavily Republican 15th Congressional District blue last Tuesday, said he told senior party leaders that, to win his support, Jeffries would have to meet with him and his constituents to discuss two priorities. One was a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling that struck down restrictions on independent election spending by corporations and unions. The other was ending “US support for the war in Iran and the country, Israel, that led us into it.”
In a video covered by Drop Site News, Leonard said the unnamed party leaders he met with responded with threats that felt like “the stuff you see in the movies.”
Leonard explained how the Democrats told him “in no uncertain terms” that unless he supported Jeffries “regardless” of his demands, “it would basically mean both making my life a living hell for the next two years here in Washington as well as being sure to lose my election in two years.”
Leonard said he had expected to face this kind of pressure once he took office and that support from fellow Democrats might dry up if he refused to “wear the team jersey and be a good team player.”
"We're searching our hearts tonight about how we can reach Leader Jeffries and help him be a better speaker," he said. "At the end of the day, the 'big-D' Democratic Party needs some 'little-d' democracy."
"I'm just a stubborn SOB," he said. "So we'll continue meeting with our fellow members of Congress and members-elect and try and see if we can build support for what we're trying to do here."
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) depart a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on January 8, 2026. (Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
Unlike in the US Senate, where a potential leadership challenge is simmering, no House Democrat has stepped forward to take on Jeffries, who has led the caucus since succeeding former Speaker Nancy Pelosi in early 2023.
But Democratic leaders seem wary of a growing grassroots rebellion against Jeffries’ leadership. Axios reported Friday that House Democrats had been “inundated” with calls and emails urging them to oppose Jeffries’ bid for speaker.
One unnamed senior House Democrat reported receiving over 500 calls in two days. A Democratic chief of staff, also unnamed, said their office had received around 300 calls, many urging support for Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who has shown no public interest in running for speaker.
"Democrats in both chambers can't go back to business-as-usual politics," said Ezra Levin, the leader of Indivisible—a progressive advocacy group—that has called for Democrats to choose a new speaker. "People want leadership that's ready to join the rest of us in this new era of politics."
In the Senate, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is considering a challenge to Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader. Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) has said he would back Van Hollen if he runs, and several other incoming Democrats have declined to endorse Schumer.
Opponents of Schumer argue that his fealty to the Democratic donor class has led to limp opposition to President Donald Trump and resistance to positions that large majorities of Democrats support, like Medicare for All, ending military aid to Israel, and bringing a swift end to the president’s war in Iran.
The grievances against Jeffries are largely the same. As Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, summed up in August, “Jeffries’ instinct is to negotiate with the Trump power structure rather than draw lines and fight it.”
Roughly 40 Democrats would need to vote for someone else in order to prevent Jeffries from taking the gavel. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a potential 2028 presidential contender who is popular with the Democratic base, told Drop Site that organizing the votes to challenge Jeffries—as Republican holdouts did when they delayed Kevin McCarthy’s election as speaker in January 2023—“should be absolutely part of the conversation” among progressive Democrats.
"But you have to remember, during that time, there was a very small margin that allowed for that kind of thing to happen,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez said that without a clear alternative, there’s “no material scenario” in which Democrats could block Jeffries from becoming speaker. She added that “in a contested race [it’s] a different situation.”
In October, RedBox Research, the polling arm of the super political action committee (PAC) A Fight Worth Having, surveyed likely voters in 31 races across 11 states. In the pooled results, only 19% wanted Jeffries as speaker, while 48% wanted “someone else.” Among Democratic respondents, 39% wanted Jeffries and 38% wanted someone else.
Writing about plans for another round of polling, Corbin Trent, a co-founder of Justice Democrats who helped conduct the October surveys, noted Tuesday in an op-ed published in Common Dreams that “support for Jeffries and Schumer is still nearly non-existent, especially where seats flipped.”
“To keep the promises these candidates made, we’ll have to take on the Democratic establishment, corporate greed, and powerful institutions," he added. "People with power and money don’t want to give it up. Unless we pull it from their death grip, we won’t get this country back on the right path.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Midterms Weren’t Red vs. Blue, They Were Bought vs. Not Bought
The 2028 lesson is not to find the most “electable,” most “moderate,” or most anti-MAGA Democrat. It’s to nominate one who is boldly and proudly against corporate money.
Nov 06, 2026
This week, voters in red and purple states sent Democrats to the Senate who ran against corporate money. James Talarico won in Texas. Annie Andrews won in South Carolina. Adam Hamilton won in Kansas. All three took $0 in corporate PAC money.
More than 16 years after Citizens United gave corporations a free speech right to unlimited political spending, I believe Americans have reached a breaking point. A fundamental realignment is underway, and the midterms are the clearest evidence yet. The 2028 lesson is not to find the most “electable,” most “moderate,” or most anti-MAGA Democrat. It’s to nominate one who is boldly and proudly against corporate money. A candidate who is not bought.
I know because I’ve spent years reporting on it. I was the fifth hire at More Perfect Union, a news start-up that would focus on the working class issues the mainstream media so often ignored. We told working-class stories across all 50 states: minor league ballplayers living in abject poverty, corporate chains flagrantly breaking the law, baristas organizing their Starbucks one store at a time, each inspired by a video of the last. We filmed factory workers at Kellogg’s and John Deere, resident doctors, Hollywood writers. The struggle was the same in every state and county, and in every workplace. It wasn’t a blue one or a red one. It was a working-class one.
Abdul El Sayed’s slogan, “Money out of politics, money in your pocket, and medicare for all” is the blueprint, and we must follow it.
It came into focus covering freight rail. In 2022, rail workers nearly shut down the US economy by refusing a contract with zero guaranteed sick days. President Joe Biden, the self-proclaimed “Union President,” brokered the deal rail workers had just rejected, then asked Congress to impose it on the 125,000 workers anyway. The Congress that did so had taken millions from the same railroads. In the 2020 cycle alone, rail PACs gave $3.7 million to congressional candidates.
That was the corporate Democrat playbook in one decision: Say you stand with workers, then side with the people who fund you when it counts. That’s the Democratic Party voters have been rejecting, and it’s the one we have to leave behind.
Now look at the midterms. Abdul El-Sayed won in Michigan, Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota, Josh Turek in Iowa, and Jon Ossoff in Georgia, all at $0 in corporate PAC money. Mary Peltola in Alaska and Scott Colom in Mississippi, whose races are too close to call as I write, fit the same mold. Angie Nixon took no corporate money and came within 200,000 votes in Florida, a state considered solidly red. Roy Cooper and Sherrod Brown won without this message, but I believe they’re the exceptions to the rule.
Abdul El Sayed’s slogan, “Money out of politics, money in your pocket, and medicare for all” is the blueprint, and we must follow it.
Talarico, the first Democrat to win a Senate seat in Texas since 1988, pointed out over and over in his campaign that "in America, we have an affordability crisis because we have a corruption crisis." Andrews was proud to say that "I don't take a dime of corporate PAC money.” and differentiated herself from her opponent by saying, "Unlike Senator Graham, I will not sell out to big money or take any corporate PAC money." This is the same anti-swamp, outsider message President Donald Trump won on, only this one has spine.
Voters are sick of watching the cost of everything rise while we send billions overseas for new wars. They’re sick of being forced to work longer hours, adopt AI without guardrails, and produce more without seeing their paychecks go up, all while the US produces its first trillionaire.
Campaign finance is public record. Tools like the Political Integrity Index let anyone see which candidates are selling out to corporations and which have taken an integrity pledge to the people who elected them. To win the presidency in 2028, Democrats must take a bold stand against corporate influence over politicians and campaigns. To save our democracy, we must do as much.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Montana Voters Overwhelmingly Pass Ballot Initiative to Ban Corporate Cash From Political Campaigns
"The more states that follow this innovative approach, the more we can make Citizens United irrelevant."
Nov 04, 2026
Voters in Montana on Tuesday delivered a major blow to big moneyed interests by overwhelmingly passing a ballot initiative barring corporate cash from political campaigns in the state.
With 87% of votes counted as of Wednesday morning, Montana Constitutional Initiative 194 has received support from more than 65% of voters, with just 35% registering opposition.
The initiative prohibits what it describes as "artificial persons"—which includes corporations, nonprofits, trusts, partnerships, and trade associations—from giving money to political campaigns.
Supporters of the initiative have billed it as a way to strike a blow against the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the door to unlimited campaign spending in US politics.
“A yes vote on I-194 means that only real people—not corporations, unions, trade associations, nonprofits, or groups with anonymous donors—are allowed to spend money in Montana elections,” the Yes on Initiative 194 campaign explained on its website. "It’s time to kick the oligarchs out of Big Sky country."
The initiative's overwhelming victory drew praise from Tom Moore, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, who congratulated the people of Montana for taking "a historic step toward ending the scourge of corporate and dark money in politics."
Moore noted that the initiative passed by Montana is similar to a law passed in Hawaii earlier this year that classified corporations as "artificial persons" who do not have a constitutional right to make political donations.
Both states, Moore said, are "setting a bold example for other states to follow suit, sending a powerful message that we don’t have to give corporations unlimited power."
"The more states that follow this innovative approach," he added, "the more we can make Citizens United irrelevant."
Stacy Mitchell, co-executive director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, hailed the initiative's passage as a win for democratic governance.
"We've largely forgotten that states define what corporations can do," Mitchell wrote in a social media post. "Yesterday, Montana voters overwhelmingly stripped corporations of the power to spend money influencing elections. Hawaii did the same in May. Both face court fights. Our nascent citizen muscle is coming to life."
Adam Bojak, a Democrat who on Tuesday won an election in New York State Assembly District 149, said he'd like to see the Empire State follow the trail blazed by Montana and Hawaii.
"Congratulations to the people of Montana!" Bojak wrote. "I can't wait to bring this legislation to New York in next year's session."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'How Do You Get Money Out of Politics Without Overturning Citizens United?' Montana Could Have the Answer
Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check," explained one backer, but it would prevent "laundering the money through a dark money group."
Nov 03, 2026
Montanans are voting Tuesday on a potentially groundbreaking ballot initiative that could become a model for how to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—the 2010 US Supreme Court decision that ushered in the era of unlimited money in politics—without the near-impossible necessity of a constitutional amendment.
Citizens United established that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other outside groups on the basis of their corporate or union identity. Simply put, the decision affirmed corporate personhood and, essentially, that money is speech that cannot be restricted.
Since then, super political action committees have proliferated, and corporate spending has exploded from just $12.8 million during the 2010 election cycle to $737 million during the current one.
Initiative 194, also known as the Montana Plan, would prohibit corporations, nonprofits, trade associations, and other artificial entities from spending money to influence elections and ballot measures in the state. Rather than attempting to restrict corporations' constitutional rights as affirmed by Citizens United, states could simply not give corporations the legal power to spend on politics.
"A yes vote on I-194 means that only real people—not corporations, unions, trade associations, nonprofits, or groups with anonymous donors—are allowed to spend money in Montana elections," the Yes on Initiative 194 campaign said on its website.
"It's time to kick the oligarchs out of Big Sky country," the campaign added.
The proposal's backers argue that legal entities should not have the same rights as natural persons.
"Each state creates and defines its corporations. It need not permit its creations to consume it," Tom Moore, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), explained in September, arguing that corporations are legal creations, not natural persons, and that states retain broad authority to determine what powers they exercise.
"When the state creates a corporation, it is starting from nothing and deciding what to give the corporation, and no case has ever held that they have to give local spending power to a corporation," Moore told Fortune on Tuesday. "It's not regulation; it's redefinition."
Moore stressed that Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check to some election in Montana."
"What it will stop them from doing is laundering the money through a dark money group," he added.
Montana's former commissioner of Political Practices, Jeff Mangan—who spearheaded Initiative 194—was equally blunt.
"The Montana Plan simply removes the ability for corporations to spend in our politics," he told Montana PBS. "By removing the corporation's ability to spend in our politics, we end dark money. Simple as that."
Initiative 194 has attracted support from Montanans concerned about the growing influence of wealthy donors and anonymous political spending.
"Most people I talk to when they hear about the prospect of getting dark money out of elections are in favor of it," state resident Nathan Kommers told Montana PBS. "I think that it makes sense to almost everybody."
Shannon Stober, who lives in the Bozeman area, said: "I think what I've observed over the past 15 years is the ways in which money and politics has completely created a decline in civic engagement and participation. A lot of people have just decided that their participation doesn't matter and they don't feel like there's a way out."
Opponents, including the Montana Chamber of Commerce, argue that Initiative 194 violates the First Amendment by restricting organizations' political speech. If passed, the measure will surely face legal challenges.
However, former Republican Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, who supports Initiative 194, said the effort is worthwhile regardless of the ultimate outcome.
"You can't just sit back and curse the darkness," he told Montana PBS. "You have to try and do something about it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Oligarchy Is on the Ballot': Reports Uncover Unprecedented Sums Ultrarich Spent to Buy 2026 Midterms
"In a democracy, it’s supposed to be one person, one vote, and the more one person can influence, the less egalitarian our system becomes," said one expert.
Nov 02, 2026
Some of the richest people in the US have spent unprecedented sums of money to influence the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections, and a Sunday report in The New York Times estimated that the top 20 biggest donors alone have spent a combined $2 billion in federal races this cycle.
The single largest funder of the 2026 midterms, by a wide margin, is far-right billionaire Elon Musk, who has shoveled nearly $450 million to help GOP candidates.
In fact, pro-Republican donors account for the five largest individual contributors to midterm races.
In addition to Musk, the other largest donors this cycle are industrialists Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, who have given $150 million to help elect Republicans; flagship GOP Senate super PAC One Nation, which has spent $138 million; venture capitalists Marc Andreesen and Ben Horowitz, who have given $116 million; and hedge fund investor Jeff Yass, who has given $110 million.
On the Democratic side, the top spenders have been flagship Democratic Senate super PAC Majority Forward, which has spent $104 million, and George and Alexander Soros, who have given $103 million.
The Times' report echoes an analysis published last week by the Brennan Center for Justice showing that the 40 largest individual donors to the 2026 elections had spent a combined $2.4 billion as of mid-October.
According to Brennan, this represents the single largest amount of money spent on a midterm election ever since the US Supreme Court's landmark 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC unleashed limitless political campaign spending.
The Brennan analysis reveals that the spending of the very largest donors has grown dramatically over the last decade.
"The donations coming from the top 40 donors for the midterms total eight times the amount from the top 40 donors by mid-October in the 2014 midterms (the first full midterm cycle after Citizens United), adjusted for inflation," the analysis explains. "The cutoff to be in the top 40 has also increased to 10 times what it was four cycles ago, to $25 million."
And while the biggest spenders used to favor Democrats, their loyalties have since shifted to the GOP, and in this election cycle "donors loyal to the GOP now give more than three times the amount that reliably Democratic donors give."
And while labor unions were once at least represented in the list of top 40 election donors, they have since fallen out and have been replaced by donors from the cryptocurrency industry, the Brennan Center analysis finds.
Ian Vandewalker, senior counsel at Brennan and co-author of the analysis, told The Guardian in an interview published Monday that it's become easier for politicians to be totally beholden to a single large donor while ignoring the needs of voters.
"In a democracy, it’s supposed to be one person, one vote," Vandewalker explained, "and the more one person can influence, the less egalitarian our system becomes."
Economist Paul Krugman expressed similar concerns about the influence of big money in US politics, writing on his Substack page Monday that "oligarchy is on the ballot" in the 2026 midterms.
In assessing the massive spending by megadonors on elections, Krugman said the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision deserved significant blame. However, he said it was also a simple reflection of the fact that the US economy for decades has been rigged to provide benefits primarily to the ultrawealthy.
"Now we... have men big enough to own the government of the United States," Krugman commented. "This midterm is a test of whether they will get away with it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Before Citizens United, Corporations Spent $12.8 Million on 2010 Elections. In 2026? $737 Million
"This election cycle shows beyond any doubt that we desperately need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United," said the co-president of a prominent consumer advocacy group.
Oct 29, 2026
Data published Thursday by a leading consumer watchdog group revealed that corporate spending on US elections has soared by more than 5,000% since an infamous 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates of outside political contributions—a staggering increase that critics said underscored the need for major campaign finance reform.
Public Citizen released an analysis of newly filed federal campaign finance data showing that corporate political spending has grown exponentially since the 2010 midterm election cycle, the first of the Citizens United era.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission affirmed corporate personhood and that unlimited political spending by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other groups is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment that government cannot restrict. The decision ushered in the era of super political action committees (PACs)—which can raise unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns—and secret spending on elections with so-called “dark money.”
According to the data studied by Public Citizen, corporate spending totaled $12.8 million for the 2010 election cycle. By the 2012 cycle, it had surged to $84.9 million. During the 2016 cycle, it spiked to $117.9 million.
NEW from @publiccitizen.bsky.social:Corporate money in the 2026 midterms has reached an unprecedented $737 million, October filings show.Full report: www.citizen.org/article/corp...
[image or embed]
— Rick Claypool (@rickclaypool.bsky.social) October 29, 2026 at 10:55 AM
For 2026, spending this cycle—over $737 million—accounts for "40% of the $1.8 billion corporations have spent on federal elections" since 2010," Public Citizen said.
"Cryptocurrency, online betting, and Big Tech interests—including companies involved in [artificial intelligence] and data centers—have collectively contributed $391 million toward the 2026 elections," the group noted. "This accounts for more than half of corporate political spending reported this cycle."
The analysis shows that the 50 largest donors and organizations had collectively contributed $2.77 billion, with Republican-aligned contributors accounting for roughly 60% of that amount.
Elon Musk—the world's richest person and first trillionaire in history—led the pack, giving over $445 million to conservative candidates and causes. This, after the tech titan and former de facto head of the short-lived Department of Government Efficiency poured more than a quarter billion dollars into the campaign coffers of then-former President Donald Trump's successful reelection bid and Republican congressional candidates during the 2024 cycle.
“Corporations are exploiting Citizens United to drive their political spending to unprecedented levels,” Robert Weissman, Public Citizen's co-president, said Thursday.
“These corporations aren’t investing this money because they are civic-minded or want to advance a particular viewpoint," he continued. "They are spending to buy influence, determine outcomes, and shape policy. This election cycle shows beyond any doubt that we desperately need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and put the people, not corporations or the super rich, back in charge of elections."
Democrats are trying to do just that. Last year, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) led more than two dozen lawmakers in introducing the We the People Amendment, a constitutional amendment that would reverse Citizens United.
The following month, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) led 39 upper chamber Democrats plus Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Angus King (I-Maine) in reintroducing the Democracy for All Amendment. The proposal would allow Congress and state legislatures to impose some limits on money raised and spent to influence elections, distinguish between people and corporations, and prohibit corporate election spending.
But it might not take a constitutional amendment—something that is exceedingly difficult to pass, by design—to undo Citizens United.
Mother Jones reported Thursday that Montana could become a testing ground for a new legal strategy to reverse the effects of the ruling without having to overturn the decision. Instead, Montana is challenging corporations’ legal powers under state law rather than targeting their constitutionally protected political "speech" in the form of spending.
The strategy, known as the Montana Plan, will be put to voters on Election Day in the form of Initiative 194, which would prohibit corporations, nonprofits, labor unions, trade associations, and other special interests from spending money to support or oppose candidates, political parties, or state and local ballot measures. Violators could forfeit their state-granted privileges, including limited liability.
If approved, it could provide a model for other states seeking to curb corporate political spending and anonymous campaign financing.
Other efforts include a Sanders-led push for the Democratic Party to ban super PAC and dark money spending in its primaries.
"We cannot allow billionaires and powerful corporate interests to continue undermining democracy by injecting unlimited amounts of money into the political process," Sanders and seven Senate backers of his proposal asserted last year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Led by Elon Musk, 515 Superrich People Have Donated $4.2 Billion to Super PACs for 2026 Elections
"Until something is done, like overturning the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision, the wealthy’s stranglehold on our political system will continue to tighten."
Oct 28, 2026
The "almost cartoon-villain level of political spending" by SpaceX CEO and former Trump administration adviser Elon Musk has reached a fever pitch ahead of the midterm elections, with the right-wing billionaire's donations of $445 million to super political action committees accounting for 10% of the $4.2 billion the PACs have brought in.
As an analysis released Tuesday by the government watchdog Public Citizen found, Musk has led the way in contributing huge sums to super PACs. The PACs can raise unlimited amounts of money on behalf of candidates and causes and have increasingly influenced elections following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, which said the government cannot restrict political spending by corporations.
But excluding Musk, just 514 donors have contributed about $3.8 billion to super PACs this election cycle, as Republicans attempt to hold onto control of the US Senate and House of Representatives despite President Donald Trump's plummeting approval rating and his record of raising the prices of gas and other essentials with his illegal war on Iran and his tariff policy.
Altogether, the donations from the 515 contributors account for 73% of all super PAC funding from individuals, corporations, and nonprofits this election cycle, according to Public Citizen.
"The figures add to a growing body of evidence that unlimited political spending has concentrated influence over elections among a tiny number of wealthy individuals and corporations," said the organization, noting that Musk's contributions come two years after he poured nearly $300 million into the 2024 elections, boosting Trump and other Republicans and spending close to $120 million more than the next closest donor.
The report follows an earlier Public Citizen analysis that found more than 100 super PACs that have raised at least $1 million received the majority of the funding from just a single donor, collectively gathering more than $1 billion to boost the candidates of their choice.
The Senate Leadership Fund has the most donors contributing at least $1 million each, with 61 people contributing $496 million.
“When 500 donors account for more than 70% of super PAC contributions, we should be asking whose voices our political system is prioritizing.”
MAGA Inc., the super PAC affiliated with Trump, has taken $405 million from 102 contributors ahead of the crucial midterms, while the Senate Majority PAC has received $244 million from 44 people or groups.
Fifty-three donors have sent $231 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund, while 31 donors have contributed $183 million to the House Majority PAC.
“Super PACs have helped create a political system where a small number of wealthy interests can spend unlimited amounts to influence elections and shape the choices voters face,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. “When 500 donors account for more than 70% of super PAC contributions, we should be asking whose voices our political system is prioritizing.”
After Musk, GOP megadonors Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein have been the second-largest contributors to super PACs this year. The Uihleins own the packing company Uline, and have pushed for years for government deregulation and against labor unions.
Other top contributors include multiple dark money groups, right-wing megadonor Jeffrey Yass—a longtime funder of anti-LGBTQ+, anti-choice, and anti-public school campaigns—and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who said earlier this year that he would prefer to use artificial intelligence in his business rather than hire human workers.
As The Washington Sun reported Tuesday, dark money groups, which don't have to reveal the source of their contributions, have poured more than $392 million into the four congressional leadership PACs this year.
The Public Citizen report stresses that the hundreds of top donors to super PACs this year gave amounts of money that "most Americans could not fathom donating to a political cause."
More than 85% of the money raised by super PACs ahead of the midterms came from donors who gave at least $20,000—"nearly a quarter of the median household income," said Public Citizen.
"Until something is done, like overturning the Citizens United US Supreme Court decision," said the group, "the wealthy’s stranglehold on our political system will continue to tighten."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don't Let the Billionaires and Elon Musk Buy Our Elections and Destroy Our Democracy
Not too long ago, Musk’s splurge would have been flatly illegal. A reckless Supreme Court and moribund Federal Election Commission took care of that. It should be made illegal again.
Oct 15, 2026
On a recent episode of the Bulwark podcast, journalist Ron Brownstein described the election as a contest between “the wave versus the wall.” The wave being voter anger and President Donald Trump’s plummeting popularity. The wall being structural impediments to voters’ voices, such as gerrymanders and the Republican Party’s stark spending advantage.
Now we know that much of that money comes from one man. Perhaps you’ve heard of him.
Elon Musk has contributed at least $366 million on behalf of Republicans since the last election. As The New York Times explained yesterday, “It means that when we talk about the Republicans’ considerable outside spending advantage over Democrats in this midterm, we are talking, in large part, about Musk’s personal contributions.”
Such a blatant attempt to buy the outcome of an election should be a big scandal. As is so often the case, the scandal is not what’s illegal, but what’s legal.
Not too long ago, Musk’s splurge would have been flatly illegal. A reckless Supreme Court and moribund Federal Election Commission took care of that. It should be made illegal again.
Musk’s spending is historic, and not in a good way. It is the biggest contribution during a campaign cycle by any human being in the history of American politics. (Billionaires Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer spent more in 2020, but on their own doomed presidential campaigns.)
At times, cautious donors have hedged bets, as lobbyists and PAC managers gave to lawmakers from both parties. Some years, small donors favor one side or another, evening things out in partisan terms.
But this year, big money has mobilized to defend Republican control. We have not had a major election where one party’s spending so dwarfs the other’s in at least a half century, likely since the 1972 election that brought us Watergate.
So much money sloshing around can produce odd or extravagant spending, such as expensive television commercials for a Texas Senate race running on football games and the ads boosting Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) that aired in Portland, Oregon, rather than Portland, Maine.
At this late date, more ads might yield minimal impact. That Musk’s contributions are paying for Republican get-out-the-vote operations may have a real impact in key states.
The Supreme Court led by John Roberts has told us that this is all glorious free speech, with campaign contributions “the whole point” of the First Amendment.
Elon Musk is a singular figure. We know of his destruction of foreign aid through DOGE, estimated to have cost hundreds of thousands of lives already around the world, his flamboyant celebrity, his status as the world’s first trillionaire.
Let’s not overthink it. The grubby reality is he’s a big federal contractor. According to The Washington Post, “Over the years, Musk and his businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits, often at critical moments.”
Musk has massive investments in artificial intelligence through platforms such as Grok, just as political debate finally has erupted around that technology. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth just named Musk, another billionaire, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to lead Project Meridian to reshape the use of technology in warfare.
Such a blatant attempt to buy the outcome of an election should be a big scandal. As is so often the case, the scandal is not what’s illegal, but what’s legal.
Once, there were limits on what could be donated to campaigns. No longer. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, other court cases since then, and a Federal Election Commission that lacks even a quorum to act have deregulated money in politics. Operatives need no longer pretend these funds are “independent.” Musk’s spending is public, but this year at least $1.3 billion is dark money from undisclosed donors. (The candidates and officeholders know who they are. Just not voters.)
But candidates and lawmakers must do more than decry corruption. The aftermath of this election must lead to action, to reform that follows scandal.
The Brennan Center has proposed Nine Solutions for Political Corruption as part of our series, Solutions for a Stronger Democracy. One of them is especially relevant to the Musk news.
Statutes already purport to bar campaign gifts from federal contractors, but they are more loophole than law. In an article in Just Security published Wednesday, my colleague Eric Petry explains how an expanded and toughened contractor ban would work. It should cover, for example, not just the corporation that holds the contract but the major shareholders, parent company, and other “affiliated entities.” The ban should also extend to donations to inaugural funds, presidential libraries, and vanity projects like Trump’s White House ballroom. Above all, taxpayer money should go to the best contractors chosen under strict rules, not those who best curry favor.
The Watergate election and the scandals it produced led to major reforms, including contribution caps and public financing of presidential campaigns. That response came from lawmakers from both parties, many of them newly elected, demanding change. Ultimately it was voters who responded.
This year we’ve watched the effort to undermine the balloting, and fought back. One lesson may be: Why steal an election when you can buy it?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Is Right-Wing Dark Money Funding an Ohio Socialist for US Senate?
"After years of using socialism to frighten voters away from Democrats, political interests with apparent Republican connections are trying a remarkable reversal: selling voters on a socialist," said one news site.
Oct 13, 2026
A mysterious right-wing political action committee has spent nearly $400,000 promoting a socialist running for the US Senate in Ohio, raising questions about an apparent effort to siphon progressive votes from Democratic candidate Sherrod Brown in a key midterm contest, according to reports published Monday.
The Columbus Dispatch and Cleveland.com are among the media outlets reporting that the newly formed Enough Promises Ohio PAC has financed mailers urging voters to support Greg Levy, an independent candidate affiliated with the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), whose working-class platform includes implementing a $30 hourly minimum wage, ending the "US war machine" and "war on Black America," and working to "save the planet from capitalism."
The mailers were not produced by Levy's campaign. Federal campaign finance filings trace the spending to a printing vendor with connections to President Donald Trump's political network. Seven Farms shares a business address with Whistlestop Strategies, a direct mail operation associated with Big Dog Strategies, a Republican consulting firm that has worked with Republican candidates and has ties to MAGA Inc., Trump's principal super political action committee (PAC).
"After years of using socialism to frighten voters away from Democrats, political interests with apparent Republican connections are trying a remarkable reversal: selling voters on a socialist," Cleveland.com reported, noting what some are calling a "cynical attempt to turn growing interest in socialism into a weapon against Sherrod Brown."
The connections raise questions about whether the spending is part of a Republican strategy to divide Democratic-leaning voters. Enough Promises Ohio has not disclosed its contributors, leaving the source of the money unclear. The PAC and the involved companies have yet to explain the spending.
"The Greg Levy for Senate campaign team has recently discovered, through messages circulating on social media, that mailers falsely impersonating our campaign are being sent out to voters across Ohio," Levy said on X. "The Greg Levy for Senate campaign has no ties to the entities circulating the mailer, and we condemn this attempted deception of voters."
"There is a well-established record of both Republican and Democratic Party operatives using their financial resources to try and trick voters," he continued. "This is a highly undemocratic practice and does a disservice to voters in Ohio and throughout the country."
"Our campaign is historically rooted in Black and working-class communities throughout our state, and our message of fighting for working people against the biggest banks and corporations is resonating with voters all over Ohio," Levy said. "We reject and condemn the dirty tricks and racist impersonation of our campaign by entities working on behalf of those same capitalist institutions."
"This racist caricaturing of our candidate, a form of digital blackface, is a cheap, cowardly attack that is meant to demean the communities we represent and scare voters away from policies that put the needs of working families ahead of corporate profits," he added. "The Greg Levy for Senate campaign is considering taking legal action against the operatives behind this crude impersonation."
The murky mailers come as Brown, a former US senator seeking to reclaim his seat, faces Republican Sen. Jon Husted in a closely watched race that could help determine control of the Senate. Numerous recent polls indicate a low- to mid-single-digit lead for Brown.
Progressives who eschew Brown in favor of Levy cite the latter's pro-working-class economic agenda, Brown's support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza, and general frustration with the two major parties.
In an opinion piece published Tuesday by Common Dreams, Ohio Peace Council Chair Werner Lange argued that Levy's candidacy risks being a "spoiler," particularly among younger and pro-Palestinian voters dissatisfied with Brown's record and his acceptance of campaign contributions from pro-Israel interests—including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—which have given more than $1.2 million to the former senator since 1990, according to the campaign finance tracker OpenSecrets.
"The danger is that Levy may do to the 2026 Senate race in Ohio what Ralph Nader did to the 2000 Presidential race in Florida—snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory for progressive forces," Lange wrote, repeating the controversial, and, according to some experts, false claim that the consumer advocate's Green Party run tipped the highly contentious contest in favor of Republican nominee George W. Bush.
That does not mean that Levy can't divert enough votes from Brown to deliver a win for Husted and, possibly, control of the narrowly divided Senate to Republicans.
The right-wing funding in support of Levy underscores how outside groups can spend enormous sums to influence voters while keeping their own donors hidden, at least until disclosure deadlines require them to reveal more, largely as a result of US Supreme Court rulings, chiefly 2010's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Recently, Democrats including former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, and comedian/commentator Jon Stewart have called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and get big money out of politics.
Last year, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) led the introduction of the We the People Amendment, which rejects corporate personhood and would enshrine that "the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy