

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.

U.S. Reps. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and John Katko (R-N.Y.) today reintroduced a bipartisan constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics and restore democratic power to the American people.
The Democracy for All Amendment (H.J.Res. 1) affirms the right of states and the federal government to pass laws that regulate spending in elections, reversing the concentration of political influence held by the wealthiest Americans and large corporations capable of spending billions of dollars in our elections. This legislation comes on the 11th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's disastrous ruling in the Citizens United case, which gave corporations and America's wealthiest individuals the ability to corrupt our elections and undermine our democracy.
Cosponsors include Reps. Nanette Barragan (D-Calif.), Joy Beatty (D-Ohio.), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), Val Demings (D-Fla.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.), Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Chris Pappas (D-N.H.), Dean Phillips (D-Minne), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine.) and Norma Torres (D-Calif.)
In the 116th Congress, the Democracy for All Amendment had 221 bipartisan cosponsors.
Rep. Deutch: "The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United put an unacceptable price of admission on American democracy. We cannot allow the wealthiest individuals and corporations to flood our elections with cash through complex webs of Super PACs and dark money groups that put special interests above the will of the American people. Americans overwhelmingly support stronger gun laws to keep our communities safe, action on climate change to preserve our planet, and a fair economy that doesn't leave the most vulnerable behind or deny people basic needs like health care and a living wage. Unfortunately, big money in our politics gets in the way time and time again. Limitless campaign spending makes it harder for Washington to solve problems and opens the door to corruption. To ensure that our elections produce a democracy for all, we must overturn Citizens United and get big money out of our elections."
Rep. Katko: "Today, on the anniversary of the Citizens United ruling, I'm pleased to once again join my colleagues in introducing the Democracy for All Amendment, which would make essential reforms to our nation's campaign finance system. The Supreme Court's disastrous ruling in Citizens United made clear that a constitutional amendment would be required to address the outsized role of money in politics. In Congress, I've been a champion of these commonsense reforms and will keep working to restore democratic power to the American people."
Rep. McGovern: "We cannot continue to stand by as the American people suffer because wealthy special interests and corporations are able to spend unlimited money each and every election cycle. We must do better for the front-line workers who need PPE and a lifeline to keep their families safe. We need to combat climate change, prevent gun violence, and lower health care costs. Too often, big money and special interests stand in the way, and overturning Citizens United is the best way to restore power to the ballot box and get big money out of politics once and for all."
Rep. Raskin: "The Citizens United decision was a major error and a departure from the founding truth of our democracy, that political power must flow from the people. We have seen the damage it has caused in the hundreds of millions of dollars of dark money pouring unaccountably into our political system from corporations without the consent or even knowledge of their shareholders. We must reclaim our democracy for the people and this amendment puts us on the path."
Rep. Sarbanes, Chair of the Democracy Reform Task Force: "The Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United ruling has eroded our democracy and allowed an unprecedented flood of secret, special-interest money to pour into our political system. But House Democrats are fighting back and working tirelessly to clean up the corrupt status quo in Washington by advancing efforts like the Democracy For All Amendment and H.R. 1, the For the People Act - a transformational package of anti-corruption and clean election reforms. I want to commend Congressman Deutch, a key leader on our Democracy Reform Task Force, for once again spearheading this important effort to push back against the Citizen United decision and restore trust, transparency and integrity to Washington."
Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen: "This unites the American people: They are furious about a rigged political system that responds to the whims of Big Money rather than the needs and desires of regular people. The American people know that Citizens United embodies, perpetuates and locks in that rigged system. That's why by overwhelming numbers they favor a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and related decisions that create an overclass of the wealthy few and consign the rest of us to political serfdom. Every Member of Congress should co-sponsor the Democracy is for All Amendment, and the day is not far off when two-thirds majority in both houses will. Public Citizen thanks Reps. Deutch, McGovern, Raskin and Katko for leading the way to what will be the 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution."
Ben Jealous, president of People for the American Way: "Money in politics impacts every major issue facing our nation. Supreme Court cases like Citizens United have allowed unlimited outside political spending, and without an amendment to the Constitution we will be left fighting an uphill battle against powerful special interests with bottomless bank accounts. Whether it's confronting economic inequality or fighting for access to health care and education, big money is able to buy outsized influence in our democracy. On behalf of our 1.5 million members, we wholeheartedly support the reintroduction of the Democracy For All amendment. Americans from all walks of life are ready for bold reforms to build a democracy that truly represents the will of the people."
Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause: "Americans expect and deserve that our democracy works for everyone, regardless of the size of our wallets. For far too long, megadonors, wealthy special interests, and corporate lobbyists have had a megaphone to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. We greatly appreciate Representative Deutch for championing the Democracy for All Amendment to help get big money out of politics and ensure that all Americans can have a greater voice in our democracy."
Jeff Clement, president and CEO, American Promise: "We commend the cross-partisan leadership supporting the Democracy For All Amendment. A constitutional amendment like this will end the dominance of big money in our elections, usher in new voting and anti-corruption reforms, and place power back in the hands of the American people. Americans from across the political spectrum are tired of big money elections drowning out our voices. As America is still reeling from the toxic disinformation driven by the $14 billion price tag of the 2020 election cycle, we look forward to bringing all Americans together to pass and ratify this constitutional amendment to restore faith in our democracy and the voice of all Americans."
Tiffany Muller, president, End Citizens United / Let America Vote Action Fund: "The Citizens United decision has polluted our democracy by allowing big money to silence the voices of everyday people-including $2.9 billion in outside spending in the 2020 election alone. Americans are tired of a political system that too often works for the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of everyone else. We unequivocally support the Democracy for All amendment and applaud Reps. Deutch, McGovern, and Raskin for their commitment to unrigging the system and ending the dominance of special interest money in politics."
Jana Morgan, director of the Declaration for American Democracy: "We commend our congressional leaders for the introduction of Democracy for All Amendment, making it clear that our government should be representative of all Americans, and not just of corporate and elite interests. Creating an equitable democracy starts with curbing unfettered spending and eliminating the influence of big money in politics. This amendment will bring us closer to achieving our foundational ideal, that America is truly governed for and by the people."
John Bonifaz, co-founder and president of Free Speech For People: "Now more than ever, we must stand up to protect our republic. Across the political spectrum, Americans want a constitutional amendment which will reclaim our democracy. The Democracy For All Amendment would allow for overall campaign spending limits and would end the big money dominance of our elections. We applaud the re-introduction of this amendment, and we urge Congress to pass it and send it to the states for ratification."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"There can be no war crime if there is no war," said one human rights scholar this week. "But there can still be murder, which these attacks were."
What human rights experts and scholars of international law have described as nothing short of calculated and cold-blooded "murder," Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Thursday claimed was "entirely appropriate"—the extrajudicial killing of two shipwrecked sailors clinging to the side of their exploded boat after it was bombed in the middle of the Caribbean Sea by the US military.
The murder of the two men on Sept 2., which followed approximately 45 minutes after all the others on the boat were already killed in an initial strike that shattered the boat in a ball of fire, has become the center of controversy in terms of the legality of such attacks on nearly two dozen boats that have left at least 87 people dead over recent months.
Following a Thursday briefing, Johnson emerged to say that we was convinced the killings were justified despite the chorus of expert voices who have said—even if you accept the Trump administration's dubious claims about the justifications and authority to eviscerate alleged drug boats and everyone on board them with no due process—that killing people so clearly defenseless and unable to harm anyone, let alone the United States, would be a textbook war crime in the context of war and a murder on the high seas in the context of international maritime law.
In his remarks, Johnson said the killings of the two men was "entirely appropriate," though he has not yet called for the full video of the killing to be released, unlike others among the small handful of lawmakers who have seen it.
"They were able-bodied, they were not injured," Johnson said of the two victims, "and they were attempting to recover the contents of the boat, which was full of narcotics."
"The individuals on that vessel were not helpless castaways," he added. "They were drug runners on a capsized drug boat, and by all indications, attempting to recover it so they could continue pushing drugs to kill Americans."
According to experts, however, the claim—which numerous Republicans and high-ranking Trump officials have now made—that two men who have just survived a massive missile strike on their boat, clinging to life on bits of debris in the middle of the ocean were in the act of "pushing drugs to kill Americans," defies belief.
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch and now a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs, argued this week in The Guardian that such claims must be resolutely countered and these 87 killings at sea—ordered by President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—condemned for what they are: murder.
"The Pentagon has also fallen back on the claim that the two were trying to right the remains of the boat that might have still contained cocaine," wrote Roth. "But the stricken boat was clearly going nowhere and could easily have been intercepted. There was no need to kill the two men clinging to its wreckage."
"In an armed conflict, it is a war crime to attack people who have been shipwrecked at sea, as some in Congress have alleged happened. They are considered hors de combat—outside the fight—and hence no longer combatants who can be shot on sight. They are akin to wounded or surrendering combatants. Opposing forces have a duty to receive and care for them, not kill them."
Going beyond the "war crime" narrative, Roth echoes in his column what many other rights experts have said, that there can be no "war crimes," in fact, when there is no declared armed conflict that constitutes a war.
"There can be no war crime if there is no war," argues Roth. "But there can still be murder, which these attacks were. So were every one of the other killings at sea that Trump and Hegseth have ordered."
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which earlier this week filed a lawsuit demanding release of the internal Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo justifying the killings, accused the administration of warping the law beyond recognition in defense of what people should recognize as a murder spree, not legal military operations.
“The Trump administration is displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat,” Azmy said. “If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name.”
Judge Paula Xinis argued that Ábrego García was likely to suffer "irreparable harm" absent a court order barring ICE from imprisoning him.
A federal judge issued a restraining order on Friday morning barring federal immigration enforcement agents from re-detaining Kilmar Ábrego García, the man whom the Trump administration unlawfully deported to El Salvador earlier this year but who was released from custody on Thursday.
In the ruling, US District Judge Paula Xinis granted an emergency order sought by Ábrego García's attorneys to forbid the government from taking him back into custody when he appeared at the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Baltimore Field Office for a scheduled appointment later in the day.
The emergency order was necessary because the ICE Order of Supervision on Thursday night obtained a court order authorizing Ábrego García's removal from the US mere hours after Xinis ordered his immediate release from ICE custody after granting his habeas corpus petition.
In her ruling, Xinis argued that Ábrego García was likely to suffer "irreparable harm" absent a court order barring ICE from imprisoning him.
"If, as Ábrego García suspects, respondents will take him into custody this morning, then his liberty will be restricted once again," Xinis wrote. "It is beyond dispute that unlawful detention visits irreparable harm."
The Trump administration this past June complied with a Supreme Court order to facilitate Ábrego García’s return to United States after it acknowledged months earlier that he had been improperly deported to El Salvador, where a US immigration judge had ruled years earlier he faced direct danger from gang threats against him and his family.
While imprisoned in El Salvador’s infamous Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), Ábrego García’s attorneys allege he was subjected to physical and psychological abuse “including but not limited to severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture.”
Upon his return, the US Department of Justice promptly hit him with human smuggling charges to which he has pleaded not guilty.
President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi have also accused Ábrego García of being a member of the gang MS-13, although they have produced no evidence to back up that assertion.
"This reward to Big Tech is a disgraceful invitation to reckless behavior by the world’s largest corporations," said one watchdog group.
US President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aimed at preventing state-level regulation of the burgeoning artificial intelligence industry, a gift to tech corporations that bankrolled his inauguration and are currently funding his White House ballroom project.
Trump's order instructs the US Justice Department to establish an AI Litigation Task Force with a single mandate: sue states that enact AI laws that the administration deems "onerous and excessive." The order also threatens to withhold federal funding from states that implement AI regulations.
Public Citizen, a watchdog group that has tracked increasingly aggressive AI influence-peddling in Congress and the administration, said Trump's order "grants his greedy Big Tech buddies’ Christmas wish."
"This reward to Big Tech is a disgraceful invitation to reckless behavior by the world’s largest corporations and a complete override of the federalist principles that Trump and MAGA claim to venerate," said Robert Weissman, Public Citizen's co-president. "Everyone should understand why this is happening: During and since the last election cycle, Big Tech has spent at least $1.1 billion on campaign contributions and lobby expenditures. Big Tech corporations poured money into Trump’s inaugural committee and to pay for his garish White House ballroom. A major Big Tech and AI investor is serving as Trump’s 'AI czar' and driving administration policy."
"While Trump has ensured the federal government is doing almost nothing to address the harms that AI is already causing, states are moving forward with sensible AI regulation," Weissman added. "These include efforts to address political deepfakes, nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, algorithmic pricing manipulation, consumer protection measures, excessive data center electricity and water demand, and much more. Big Tech is whining about these modest measures, but there is zero evidence that these rules are impeding innovation; in fact, they are directing innovation in more positive directions."
Jenna Sherman, a campaign director focused on tech and gender at Ultraviolet Action, said Trump's order "only has one group of winners: his wealthy donors in the tech sector."
"Every other person loses from this wildly unpopular move. And not just in theory, as stripping away state AI regulations puts many—namely, women and children—at risk of real harm," said Sherman. "These harms of AI—which the Trump and the tech sector are clearly happy to ignore—are already here: non-consensual deepfake porn sexualizing women and girls, children being led to suicidal ideation by AI chatbots, and AI-powered scams and crimes targeting older Americans, especially women, to name but a few."
The US Chamber of Commerce and other corporate lobbying organizations representing tech giants such as Microsoft and Google celebrated the order, predictably characterizing it as a win for "small businesses."
The leaders of California and other states that have proposed and finalized AI regulations were defiant in the face of Trump's threats of legal action and funding cuts."
"President Trump and Davis Sacks aren’t making policy—they’re running a con," said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, referring to the scandal-plagued White House AI czar. "Every day, they push the limits to see how far they can take it. California is working on behalf of Americans by building the strongest innovation economy in the nation while implementing commonsense safeguards and leading the way forward."
Trump signed the order after the Republican-controlled Congress repeatedly rejected efforts to tuck a ban on state AI regulations into broader legislation.
"After months of failed lobbying and two defeats in Congress, Big Tech has finally received the return on its ample investment in Donald Trump," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement Thursday. "With this executive order, Trump is delivering exactly what his billionaire benefactors demanded—all at the expense of our kids, our communities, our workers, and our planet."
"A broad, bipartisan coalition in Congress has rejected the AI moratorium again and again," he added, "and I intend to keep that streak going. I will use every tool available to challenge this indefensible and irresponsible power grab. We will defeat it again."