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.
Creating the nation's largest local TV station conglomerate--and raising the frightening prospect of a network that would rival Fox News--conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group announced Monday it will buy Tribune Media for $3.9 billion.
Craig Aaron, president of the communications watchdog organization Free Press, called the deal "a scandal," while former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner and Common Cause adviser Michael Copps said it was both "expected and disappointing."
"Expected because the new FCC majority is foaming at the mouth to rubber stamp more massive media mergers," Copps explained, "and disappointing because Sinclair is not known for the best journalism in the land, to put it mildly. Our nation's civic dialogue suffers yet another blow with this merger."
The deal must still be approved by the Trump administration's FCC, which has "signaled its openness to media consolidation," CNN notes.
Indeed, the FCC recently voted to reinstate a technical loophole called the UHF discount, thereby allowing broadcast companies to exceed the limit on how much of a nationwide audience they can reach. At the time, Jessica J. Gonzalez, Free Press deputy director and senior counsel, said the decision was favorable for Sinclair and other big broadcasters, and as the New York Timesreported Monday, "[t]he change effectively lowered Sinclair's coverage of American households to about 25 percent, from a current limit of 39 percent, freeing it to pursue acquisitions."
Now, if the merger is approved, 42 Tribune stations would be added to the Sinclair empire of 173 TV stations, many of which are affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and the CW. As the LA Timeswrote, the deal "would give Sinclair a presence in the top three TV markets, with KTLA in Los Angeles, WPIX in New York, and WGN in Chicago." Sinclair would also gain Tribune's ownership stakes in the Food Network and CareerBuilder.
The Baltimore Sunreports that the merger would give Sinclair ownership or control of TV stations in 72 percent of the United States.
Politicoadds:
[T]he deal means Sinclair's influence will now be felt in more than 100 markets across the country, many of them in swing states. And local news still has a huge impact: According to the Pew Research Center, citizens who are more inclined to vote in local elections are more likely to use and value local news, and local news is still an important source of information for voters in presidential elections.
"There has also been speculation that Sinclair, with the addition of Tribune's portfolio, could try to launch a rival to Fox News, though the company has not commented on the possibility," media critic Brian Stelter noted at CNN.
Already, the New York Timeswrote last week, Sinclair has used its existing network of local stations "to advance a mostly right-leaning agenda since the presidency of George W. Bush."
The Times reported:
While much of the station's local news broadcasts are filled with local news, Sinclair also provides commentary and syndicated reports from its Washington bureau that have generally taken stances critical of Democrats and laudatory of Republicans.
Mark Hyman, a onetime Sinclair executive, has a twice-weekly segment on dozens of the group's stations, promising to take viewers "behind the headlines." What they find there are reliably conservative arguments on hotly contested political issues like voter identification laws, the Export-Import Bank, and overhauling the Internal Revenue Service.
[...] Before the 2004 presidential election, Sinclair drew sharp criticism, including from Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, for its refusal to broadcast an episode of "Nightline" devoted to reciting the names of every member of the military killed in action in Iraq.
[...] Then, just days before the election, Sinclair aired parts of a documentary critical of the anti-Vietnam War activities of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.
"More recently, Jared Kushner, [President Donald] Trump's son-in-law and now a senior adviser in the White House, said at a meeting with business executives that the Trump campaign had reached an agreement with Sinclair to give more access to Mr. Trump and the campaign under the condition that the interviews be broadcast without commentary on the company's affiliates, according to two people who had attended the meeting but were not authorized to discuss it," the Times added. "Taped in Sinclair's Washington bureau, the interviews with Mr. Trump were broadcast across several swing states."
The Washington Postfurther reported Monday that "[i]n the most recent campaign, [Washington, D.C. station] WJLA, and Sinclair stations around the country, gave a disproportionate amount of neutral or favorable coverage to candidate Donald Trump compared with his rival, Hillary Clinton, according to internal documents supplied by people at WJLA."
The Post continued:
Among the stories that Sinclair's managers ordered stations to air were those questioning Clinton's handling of her controversial email server, the documents show. Another "must-run" report--about her health--included this internal description: "Why did Hillary Clinton struggle with disclosing her medical diagnosis? She has been repeatedly faced with previous questions of trust. Can a president lead with so many questions of transparency and trust?"
There were no equivalent "must-run" stories examining Trump's refusal to release his medical, draft or tax records, or the immigration records of his wife, Melania. But there were stories entitled "Donald Trump Reflections of 9/11," and a feature about women who were campaigning for Trump that included an interview with his daughter-in-law, Lara.
All this raises significant alarm for media watchdogs like Aaron, who said Monday: "Sure looks like a quid pro quo: friendly coverage and full employment for ex-Trump mouthpieces in exchange for a green light to get as big as Sinclair wants. I feel terrible for the local journalists who will be forced to set aside their news judgment to air Trump-administration talking points and reactionary commentaries from Sinclair's headquarters."
"This deal would have been DOA in any other administration," he said, "but the Trump FCC isn't just approving it; they're practically arranging it."
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Creating the nation's largest local TV station conglomerate--and raising the frightening prospect of a network that would rival Fox News--conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group announced Monday it will buy Tribune Media for $3.9 billion.
Craig Aaron, president of the communications watchdog organization Free Press, called the deal "a scandal," while former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner and Common Cause adviser Michael Copps said it was both "expected and disappointing."
"Expected because the new FCC majority is foaming at the mouth to rubber stamp more massive media mergers," Copps explained, "and disappointing because Sinclair is not known for the best journalism in the land, to put it mildly. Our nation's civic dialogue suffers yet another blow with this merger."
The deal must still be approved by the Trump administration's FCC, which has "signaled its openness to media consolidation," CNN notes.
Indeed, the FCC recently voted to reinstate a technical loophole called the UHF discount, thereby allowing broadcast companies to exceed the limit on how much of a nationwide audience they can reach. At the time, Jessica J. Gonzalez, Free Press deputy director and senior counsel, said the decision was favorable for Sinclair and other big broadcasters, and as the New York Timesreported Monday, "[t]he change effectively lowered Sinclair's coverage of American households to about 25 percent, from a current limit of 39 percent, freeing it to pursue acquisitions."
Now, if the merger is approved, 42 Tribune stations would be added to the Sinclair empire of 173 TV stations, many of which are affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and the CW. As the LA Timeswrote, the deal "would give Sinclair a presence in the top three TV markets, with KTLA in Los Angeles, WPIX in New York, and WGN in Chicago." Sinclair would also gain Tribune's ownership stakes in the Food Network and CareerBuilder.
The Baltimore Sunreports that the merger would give Sinclair ownership or control of TV stations in 72 percent of the United States.
Politicoadds:
[T]he deal means Sinclair's influence will now be felt in more than 100 markets across the country, many of them in swing states. And local news still has a huge impact: According to the Pew Research Center, citizens who are more inclined to vote in local elections are more likely to use and value local news, and local news is still an important source of information for voters in presidential elections.
"There has also been speculation that Sinclair, with the addition of Tribune's portfolio, could try to launch a rival to Fox News, though the company has not commented on the possibility," media critic Brian Stelter noted at CNN.
Already, the New York Timeswrote last week, Sinclair has used its existing network of local stations "to advance a mostly right-leaning agenda since the presidency of George W. Bush."
The Times reported:
While much of the station's local news broadcasts are filled with local news, Sinclair also provides commentary and syndicated reports from its Washington bureau that have generally taken stances critical of Democrats and laudatory of Republicans.
Mark Hyman, a onetime Sinclair executive, has a twice-weekly segment on dozens of the group's stations, promising to take viewers "behind the headlines." What they find there are reliably conservative arguments on hotly contested political issues like voter identification laws, the Export-Import Bank, and overhauling the Internal Revenue Service.
[...] Before the 2004 presidential election, Sinclair drew sharp criticism, including from Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, for its refusal to broadcast an episode of "Nightline" devoted to reciting the names of every member of the military killed in action in Iraq.
[...] Then, just days before the election, Sinclair aired parts of a documentary critical of the anti-Vietnam War activities of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.
"More recently, Jared Kushner, [President Donald] Trump's son-in-law and now a senior adviser in the White House, said at a meeting with business executives that the Trump campaign had reached an agreement with Sinclair to give more access to Mr. Trump and the campaign under the condition that the interviews be broadcast without commentary on the company's affiliates, according to two people who had attended the meeting but were not authorized to discuss it," the Times added. "Taped in Sinclair's Washington bureau, the interviews with Mr. Trump were broadcast across several swing states."
The Washington Postfurther reported Monday that "[i]n the most recent campaign, [Washington, D.C. station] WJLA, and Sinclair stations around the country, gave a disproportionate amount of neutral or favorable coverage to candidate Donald Trump compared with his rival, Hillary Clinton, according to internal documents supplied by people at WJLA."
The Post continued:
Among the stories that Sinclair's managers ordered stations to air were those questioning Clinton's handling of her controversial email server, the documents show. Another "must-run" report--about her health--included this internal description: "Why did Hillary Clinton struggle with disclosing her medical diagnosis? She has been repeatedly faced with previous questions of trust. Can a president lead with so many questions of transparency and trust?"
There were no equivalent "must-run" stories examining Trump's refusal to release his medical, draft or tax records, or the immigration records of his wife, Melania. But there were stories entitled "Donald Trump Reflections of 9/11," and a feature about women who were campaigning for Trump that included an interview with his daughter-in-law, Lara.
All this raises significant alarm for media watchdogs like Aaron, who said Monday: "Sure looks like a quid pro quo: friendly coverage and full employment for ex-Trump mouthpieces in exchange for a green light to get as big as Sinclair wants. I feel terrible for the local journalists who will be forced to set aside their news judgment to air Trump-administration talking points and reactionary commentaries from Sinclair's headquarters."
"This deal would have been DOA in any other administration," he said, "but the Trump FCC isn't just approving it; they're practically arranging it."
Creating the nation's largest local TV station conglomerate--and raising the frightening prospect of a network that would rival Fox News--conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group announced Monday it will buy Tribune Media for $3.9 billion.
Craig Aaron, president of the communications watchdog organization Free Press, called the deal "a scandal," while former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner and Common Cause adviser Michael Copps said it was both "expected and disappointing."
"Expected because the new FCC majority is foaming at the mouth to rubber stamp more massive media mergers," Copps explained, "and disappointing because Sinclair is not known for the best journalism in the land, to put it mildly. Our nation's civic dialogue suffers yet another blow with this merger."
The deal must still be approved by the Trump administration's FCC, which has "signaled its openness to media consolidation," CNN notes.
Indeed, the FCC recently voted to reinstate a technical loophole called the UHF discount, thereby allowing broadcast companies to exceed the limit on how much of a nationwide audience they can reach. At the time, Jessica J. Gonzalez, Free Press deputy director and senior counsel, said the decision was favorable for Sinclair and other big broadcasters, and as the New York Timesreported Monday, "[t]he change effectively lowered Sinclair's coverage of American households to about 25 percent, from a current limit of 39 percent, freeing it to pursue acquisitions."
Now, if the merger is approved, 42 Tribune stations would be added to the Sinclair empire of 173 TV stations, many of which are affiliates of ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and the CW. As the LA Timeswrote, the deal "would give Sinclair a presence in the top three TV markets, with KTLA in Los Angeles, WPIX in New York, and WGN in Chicago." Sinclair would also gain Tribune's ownership stakes in the Food Network and CareerBuilder.
The Baltimore Sunreports that the merger would give Sinclair ownership or control of TV stations in 72 percent of the United States.
Politicoadds:
[T]he deal means Sinclair's influence will now be felt in more than 100 markets across the country, many of them in swing states. And local news still has a huge impact: According to the Pew Research Center, citizens who are more inclined to vote in local elections are more likely to use and value local news, and local news is still an important source of information for voters in presidential elections.
"There has also been speculation that Sinclair, with the addition of Tribune's portfolio, could try to launch a rival to Fox News, though the company has not commented on the possibility," media critic Brian Stelter noted at CNN.
Already, the New York Timeswrote last week, Sinclair has used its existing network of local stations "to advance a mostly right-leaning agenda since the presidency of George W. Bush."
The Times reported:
While much of the station's local news broadcasts are filled with local news, Sinclair also provides commentary and syndicated reports from its Washington bureau that have generally taken stances critical of Democrats and laudatory of Republicans.
Mark Hyman, a onetime Sinclair executive, has a twice-weekly segment on dozens of the group's stations, promising to take viewers "behind the headlines." What they find there are reliably conservative arguments on hotly contested political issues like voter identification laws, the Export-Import Bank, and overhauling the Internal Revenue Service.
[...] Before the 2004 presidential election, Sinclair drew sharp criticism, including from Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, for its refusal to broadcast an episode of "Nightline" devoted to reciting the names of every member of the military killed in action in Iraq.
[...] Then, just days before the election, Sinclair aired parts of a documentary critical of the anti-Vietnam War activities of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.
"More recently, Jared Kushner, [President Donald] Trump's son-in-law and now a senior adviser in the White House, said at a meeting with business executives that the Trump campaign had reached an agreement with Sinclair to give more access to Mr. Trump and the campaign under the condition that the interviews be broadcast without commentary on the company's affiliates, according to two people who had attended the meeting but were not authorized to discuss it," the Times added. "Taped in Sinclair's Washington bureau, the interviews with Mr. Trump were broadcast across several swing states."
The Washington Postfurther reported Monday that "[i]n the most recent campaign, [Washington, D.C. station] WJLA, and Sinclair stations around the country, gave a disproportionate amount of neutral or favorable coverage to candidate Donald Trump compared with his rival, Hillary Clinton, according to internal documents supplied by people at WJLA."
The Post continued:
Among the stories that Sinclair's managers ordered stations to air were those questioning Clinton's handling of her controversial email server, the documents show. Another "must-run" report--about her health--included this internal description: "Why did Hillary Clinton struggle with disclosing her medical diagnosis? She has been repeatedly faced with previous questions of trust. Can a president lead with so many questions of transparency and trust?"
There were no equivalent "must-run" stories examining Trump's refusal to release his medical, draft or tax records, or the immigration records of his wife, Melania. But there were stories entitled "Donald Trump Reflections of 9/11," and a feature about women who were campaigning for Trump that included an interview with his daughter-in-law, Lara.
All this raises significant alarm for media watchdogs like Aaron, who said Monday: "Sure looks like a quid pro quo: friendly coverage and full employment for ex-Trump mouthpieces in exchange for a green light to get as big as Sinclair wants. I feel terrible for the local journalists who will be forced to set aside their news judgment to air Trump-administration talking points and reactionary commentaries from Sinclair's headquarters."
"This deal would have been DOA in any other administration," he said, "but the Trump FCC isn't just approving it; they're practically arranging it."
The study was published as President Donald Trump was blasted for an executive order that one critic said shows he wants to turn the Alaskan Arctic into the "the world's largest gas station."
For thousands of years, the land areas of the Arctic have served as a "carbon sink," storing potential carbon emissions in the permafrost. But according to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change Tuesday, more than 34% of the Arctic is now a source of carbon to the atmosphere, as permafrost melts and the Arctic becomes greener.
"When emissions from fire were added, the percentage grew to 40%," according to the Woodwell Climate Research Center, which led the international team that conducted the research.
The study, which was first reported on by The Guardian, was released the day after President Donald Trump issued multiple presidential actions influencing the United States' ability to confront the climate crisis, which is primarily caused by fossil fuel emissions, including one directly impacting resource extraction in Alaska, a section of which is within the Arctic Circle.
Sue Natali, one of the researchers who worked on the study published in Nature Climate Change, told NPR in December (in reference to similar research) that the Arctic's warming "is not an issue of what party you support."
"This is something that impacts everyone," she said.
As the permafrost—ground that remains frozen for two or more years—holds less carbon, it releases CO2 into the atmosphere that could "considerably exacerbate climate change," according to the study.
"There is a load of carbon in the Arctic soils. It's close to half of the Earth's soil carbon pool. That's much more than there is in the atmosphere. There's a huge potential reservoir that should ideally stay in the ground," said Anna Virkkala, the lead author of the study, in an interview with The Guardian.
The dire warning was released on the heels of Trump's executive order titled "Unleashing the Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential" that calls for expedited "permitting and leasing of energy and natural resource projects in Alaska," as well as for the prioritization of "development of Alaska's liquefied natural gas (LNG) potential, including the sale and transportation of Alaskan LNG to other regions of the United States and allied nations within the Pacific region."
The order also rolls back a number of Biden-era restrictions on drilling and extraction in Alaska, which included protecting areas within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil and gas leasing.
"Alaska is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet, a trend that is wreaking havoc on communities, ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and ways of life that depend on healthy lands and waters," said Carole Holley, managing attorney for the Alaska Office of the environmental group Earthjustice, in a statement Monday.
"Earthjustice and its clients will not stand idly by while Trump once again forces a harmful industry-driven agenda on our state for political gain and the benefit of a wealthy few," she added.
Trump wants to turn the Alaskan Arctic into the "the world's largest gas station," said Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, in a statement Monday. "Make no mistake, Trump's rushed and sloppy actions today are an existential threat to these lands and waters, and the communities and wildlife that depend on them."
The U.N. ambassador nominee also shrugged off the Nazi salutes made by Elon Musk on Inauguration Day.
As U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik faced questioning by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday regarding her nomination for a top diplomatic position, the rights group Jewish Voice for Peace Action called on lawmakers to consider her "record of antisemitic, anti-Palestinian, anti-immigrant, and anti-democracy rhetoric and policy" and block her confirmation.
Stefanik's (R-N.Y.) record was reinforced at the hearing as she was asked about her views on Palestine, expressions of antisemitism in the United States, and far-right Israeli leaders' political agenda, with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) recalling a meeting he had with the congresswoman after President Donald Trump nominated her to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
At the meeting, Van Hollen said, Stefanik had expressed support for the idea that Israel has a Biblical right to control the entire West Bank—a position that is held by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and former National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, but runs counter to the two-state solution that the U.S. government has long supported.
"Is that your view today?" asked Van Hollen, to which Stefanik replied, "Yes."
Van Hollen noted that Stefanik's viewpoint also flies in the face of numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions and international consensus about the Middle East conflict.
"If the president is going to succeed at bringing peace and stability to the Middle East, we're going to have to look at the U.N. Security Council resolutions," said the senator. "And it's going to be very difficult to achieve that if you continue to hold the view that you just expressed, which is a view that was not held by the founders of the state of Israel."
Stefanik also refused to answer a direct question from Van Hollen regarding whether Palestinian people have the right to self-determination, saying only that she supports "human rights for all" and pivoting to a call for Israeli hostages to be released by Hamas.
Jenin Younes, litigation counsel with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said Stefanik expressed "religious fanaticism, pure and simple" at the confirmation hearing—which was held as Israeli settlers and soldiers ramped up attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank.
"That [Stefanik] will now play a major role with respect to our foreign policy in the region is terrifying," said Younes.
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action noted that in addition to supporting "the Israeli government's brutal genocide of Palestinians," Stefanik has also "amplified the antisemitic Great Replacement theory"—which claims the influence and power of white Christian Americans is being deliberately diminished by Jewish Americans and immigration policy.
Despite her support for the debunked conspiracy theory, Stefanik made headlines last year for her accusations against college students, faculty, and administrators over the pro-Palestinian demonstrations that exploded across campuses as Americans spoke out against Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza. The congresswoman said the protests were expressions of antisemitism and pushed for the resignation of university leaders who declined to discipline students who spoke out against Israel.
The hearings where Stefanik lambasted college leaders "were part of a broader campaign to silence anti-war activism and dissent on college campuses while forwarding the MAGA culture war campaign against [diversity, equity, and inclusion], critical race theory, and LGBTQ+ rights," said JVP Action.
An exchange between Stefanik and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday also raised questions over Stefanik's views on antisemitism. Murphy asked the nominee about the Nazi salute twice displayed by billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk—whom the president has named to lead his proposed Department of Government Efficiency—at an event Monday night.
" Elon Musk did not do those salutes," Stefanik asserted.
Murphy countered by reading several comments from right-wing commentators who applauded Musk's "Heil Hitler" salute.
"Over and over again last night, white supremacist groups and neo-Nazi groups in this country rallied around that visual," said Murphy.
JVP Action said Stefanik has "deeply embraced Trump's anti-democratic agenda."
"Her nomination must be blocked," said the group.
"As long as Citizens United remains the law of the land, our democracy will remain broken," said one campaigner.
As President Donald Trump triumphantly returned to the White House thanks in part to a tsunami of campaign cash from oligarchs and corporate interests, democracy defenders on Tuesday marked the 15th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that unleashed such spending by urging action to overturn the decision.
In a nation where corporations and moneyed interests already wielded disproportionate power and influence over elections, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission reversed campaign finance restrictions dating back to the era of Gilded Age robber barons. The ruling affirmed that political spending by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other groups is a form of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment that government cannot restrict. The decision ushered in the era of super PACs—which can raise unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns—and secret spending on elections with so-called "dark money."
In his Citizens United dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens asserted that "in a functioning democracy the public must have faith that its representatives owe their positions to the people, not to the corporations with the deepest pockets," and warned that the ruling "will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process."
"Over the last 15 years, the American people have watched with disgust as both parties welcomed the unfettered sale of our democracy and elections to the highest bidders."
Since then, nearly $20 billion has been spent on U.S. presidential elections and more than $53 billion on congressional races, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Spending on 2024 congressional races was double 2010 levels, while presidential campaign contributions were more than 50% higher in 2024 than in 2008, the last election before Citizens United.
Ultrawealthy megadonors played a critical role in Trump's 2024 victory. Some of them have been rewarded with Cabinet nominations and key appointments in "an administration dominated by billionaires and corporate interests," as Americans for Tax Fairness executive director David Kass described it.
"Fifteen years ago today, the Supreme Court gave billionaires and special interests unprecedented power to rig our democracy with its disastrous Citizens United decision. Yesterday, Donald Trump was sworn in, ushering in the wealthiest administration in American history," Tiffany Muller, president of the advocacy group End Citizens United, said on social media Tuesday. "Citizens United paved the way for Trump II."
Alexandra Rojas, executive director of the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats, said in a statement that "over the last 15 years, the American people have watched with disgust as both parties welcomed the unfettered sale of our democracy and elections to the highest bidders."
"Citizens United legalized economic inequality as a political tool for the wealthy to exploit," Rojas added. "A decade-and-a-half later, working-class people cannot afford to run for office and everyday voters' voices are drowned out by billionaire-funded super PACs. As long as Citizens United remains the law of the land, our democracy will remain broken."
Justice Democrats noted: "Yesterday, Donald Trump was inaugurated as president in what was maybe one of the most openly corporate-sponsored inaugurations in American history. In just one row seated in front of Trump's Cabinet members, four men had the combined wealth of just under $1 trillion."
"Billionaires and corporations are paying their way to gain influence in the Trump administration and they can expect a massive return on their investment, at the expense of everyday people," the group added.
It's no surprise, say critics, that corporate profits and plutocrat wealth have soared to new heights during the Citizens United era.
"Citizens United allowed corporations to buy candidates and elections. Citizens United legalized political bribery. Citizens United let wealth dominate our elections," the consumer watchdog Public Citizen said Tuesday. "Overturn Citizens United."
Positing that "Citizens United turned our democracy into an auction," Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) wrote on social media Tuesday that "our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people—not corporations and billionaire elites. We must #EndCitizensUnited and put the American people back in charge."
Democratic lawmakers have introduced numerous bills, including proposed constitutional amendments, to reverse Citizens United. While Congress has not been able or willing to address the issue, 22 states and the District of Columbia, as well as more than 800 local governments across the country, have passed measures calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling, according to Public Citizen.
"This is a moment to
usher in a new era in the Democratic Party that rejects the growing oligarchy in this country by rejecting the unprecedented level of billionaire and corporate spending that has a stranglehold over both parties," Justice Democrats said on Tuesday. "Now is the moment to tirelessly center working people and expose the big money corruption that Citizens United has brought onto both parties. By rejecting their influence, working-class people may finally have the promise of a party that actually serves them."