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
pramila jayapal
To Hand Power 'Back to the People,' House Dems Propose Amendment to Reverse Citizens United
"In every election cycle since the disastrous Citizens United decision, we have seen more and more special interest dark money poured into campaigns across the country," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Feb 13, 2025
With the impact of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in theCitizens United case becoming clearer by the day as billionaire megadonor Elon Musk spearheads the reshaping of the federal government, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal on Thursday led more than two dozen Democratic lawmakers in introducing a constitutional amendment that would reverse the pivotal ruling.
The Washington Democrat has introduced the We the People Amendment in previous years, but she noted that this year she is proposing the measure after "a billionaire [paid] millions to buy a seat as Shadow President," referring to the more than $270 million Musk spent on President Donald Trump's campaign last year—an effort that promptly made him $170 billion richer and has resulted in new government contracts for his companies and his leadership of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE).
"Corporations are not people and money is not speech," said Jayapal. "In every election cycle since the disastrous Citizens United decision, we have seen more and more special interest dark money poured into campaigns across the country... My We the People Amendment hands power back to the people by finally ending corporate constitutional rights, reversing Citizens United, and ensuring that our democracy is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people—not corporations."
The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down long-held rules on corporate "independent" spending that doesn't go directly to a candidate or political party, eliminating restrictions for money that flows to campaigns through super political action committees (PACs) which purport to be separate from candidates.
The We the People Amendment—which is not supported by any Republican lawmakers—would specify that constitutional rights apply to people, not corporations, "and that artificial entities have no constitutional rights," said Jayapal's office.
It would also mandate that federal, state, and local governments require public disclosure of all political contributions and expenditures.
As Brendan Fischer wrote at Rolling Stone last month, Musk's "astonishing influence over Trump and the Republican Party is not merely a function of his wealth, his celebrity, or his ownership of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). It is attributable to his pouring of at least $277 million into super PACs last year, which purchased enormous influence."
Cole Bennett, legislative co-director of the advocacy group Move to Amend, applauded Jayapal's understanding "that the changes she and many of her colleagues support to advance healthcare, expand economic justice, ensure a livable world, and promote real democracy are incredibly difficult but necessary."
"This is especially true given the unjustifiable Supreme Court decisions declaring corporations as entities with many of the same constitutional rights as human persons and that money spent in elections is equivalent to First Amendment-protected free speech," said Bennett. "The exponential growth of corporate power and corrupting political influence from huge sums of money flooding elections can only be solved with a systemic solution that is equivalent in scale to these systemic problems—the We the People Amendment, which will end all corporate constitutional rights and money as free speech."
Keep ReadingShow Less
NCAA 'Cravenly Caves' to Trump, Banning Trans Women From Female Sports
"Great fucking job, NCAA. You're now a part of Donald Trump's anti-trans hate machine seeking to push trans people out of public life and make their lives as difficult as possible," said one critic.
Feb 06, 2025
The National Collegiate Athletic Association announced Thursday that its board of governors voted to update the NCAA's participation policy for transgender student-athletes in response to Republican U.S. President Donald Trump signing an executive order intended to ban trans girls and women from competing on female sports teams
The NCAA is a nonprofit that regulates sports for 1,100 colleges and universities that collectively enroll more than 530,000 student-athletes. Its new policy says that "regardless of sex assigned at birth or gender identity, a student-athlete may participate (practice and compete) with a men's team, assuming they meet all other NCAA eligibility requirements."
However, the policy says, student-athletes who were assigned male at birth or assigned female at birth and have begun hormone therapy such as testosterone can continue to practice with women's teams but cannot compete with them.
According to The Hill, "Previously, the NCAA policy said transgender participation in each sport depended on guidelines set by the sport’s national or international governing body." NCAA president Charlie Baker, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts, recently told Congress that fewer than 10 trans athletes competed across the organization's three divisions.
Baker claimed in a Thursday statement that "President Trump's order provides a clear, national standard," and the organization's new policy "follows through on the NCAA's constitutional commitment to deliver intercollegiate athletics competition and to protect, support, and enhance the mental and physical health of student-athletes."
While Trump celebrated the policy update on social media Thursday, advocates for LGBTQ+ rights have forcefully criticized both the NCAA and the Republican president.
Responding to the NCAA's decision on the social media site Bluesky, Law Dork's Chris Geidner decried the "unbelievable depths of spinelessness with such cruel, unnecessary ramifications."
"Great fucking job, NCAA. You're now a part of Donald Trump's anti-trans hate machine seeking to push trans people out of public life and make their lives as difficult as possible," he added. "Charlie Baker, this is on you."
Jack Turban said on Bluesky that he was resigning from the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports. The doctor told The Hill that he and other panel members were not notified of the board's vote before the public statement.
[image or embed]
— Jack Turban MD ( @turban.bsky.social) February 6, 2025 at 4:31 PM
"Trump and Republicans are picking out a tiny portion of the population, vilifying them, and stoking fear. That's dangerous and has real consequences,"
said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on social media Thursday afternoon. "I want to be clear: Americans do have concerns about fairness in sports, and it's important that we have those conversations and educate people about the facts. But actions like Trump's are not the answer."
"We should be focusing on the real obstacles that female athletes face, like a lack of financial resources and vulnerability to abuse. Instead, Republicans are attacking a group that represents less than a fraction of 1% of student-athletes," said Jayapal, who has a
trans daughter. "This is a manufactured crisis—one that serves to distract you from the fact that Trump and Republicans ran on raising wages and lowering costs, but have no real solutions to help you build a better life."
"They are trying to get you to look the other way. Don't," she added. "And to the trans community—I know this is all incredibly difficult. I'm so sorry that you have to go through this, but please know that I see you, I stand with you, and I will NEVER stop fighting for you. That's a promise."
The NCAA cravenly caves.
[image or embed]
— Nathan Kalman-Lamb ( @nkalamb.bsky.social) February 5, 2025 at 7:42 PM
The president's order is already having an impact beyond the NCAA policy change. As The Washington Postreported Thursday:
Trump's executive order directs the Department of Education to inform schools they will be violating Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in schools, if they allow transgender athletes to compete in girls' or women's sports. Under the law, schools that discriminate based on sex are not eligible for federal funding.
In response, the Department of Education earlier Thursday announced investigations into the University of Pennsylvania, San José State University, and a Massachusetts high school athletic association over reported Title IX violations. Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association are targeted for allowing transgender students to play on a women's swimming team and girls' high school basketball team, respectively. Several opponents of the San José State women's volleyball team forfeited games this fall because the Spartans purportedly had a transgender athlete on its roster.
The newspaper noted that the NCAA's decision came two days after former teammates of swimmer Lia Thomas filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts federal court claiming Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ivy League, and the NCAA violated Title IX by allowing Thomas to compete in 2022 championships.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It's a Coup': Musk's DOGE Granted Access to Treasury System That Pays Out Social Security
"I can think of no good reason why political operators who have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law would need access to these sensitive, mission-critical systems," Sen. Ron Wyden said.
Feb 02, 2025
Elon Musk and his team at the Department of Government Efficiency—or DOGE—have been granted access to a sensitive Treasury Department payment system that contains the personal information of every American who receives tax refunds, Medicare, Social Security, and other payments from the government.
Newly approved Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent gave Musk surrogates access to the system late on Friday, five people familiar with the situation toldThe New York Times. Bessent's decision came the same day as news that David Lebryk, a career Treasury official who was acting secretary before Bessent's confirmation, would step down after arguing with DOGE members over access to the system run by the Bureau of Fiscal Service that pays out over $6 trillion a year.
"Sources tell my office that Treasury Secretary Bessent has granted DOGE *full* access to this system," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote on social media on Saturday. "Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors, including those that compete directly with Musk's own companies. All of it."
"Americans don't want an unelected and unaccountable billionaire dictating what working families can and cannot afford."
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich also responded with shock to the news: "An unelected billionaire, with no actual congressional authority or governmentt experience, now has access to Treasury payment systems and sensitive information about millions of Americans who receive Social Security checks, tax refunds, and other payments. What could go wrong?"
The news heightens fears that Musk and the Trump administration are attempting to gain authoritarian control over the federal government by ousting or sidelining career civil servants and undermining Congress, which has the constitutional authority to decide how the government should spend its money.
DOGE gained access to the Treasury payment system on the same day that an official at the Office of Personnel Management said that Musk allies had locked career civil servants out of a computer system containing the personal information of federal employees. The news also capped a week in which the Trump administration attempted to freeze all federal grants and loans, a move that has been temporarily blocked by two judges.
Wyden, the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter demanding answers from Bessent on Friday when reports first emerged that Musk's team had tried to gain access to the system.
"To put it bluntly, these payment systems simply cannot fail, and any politically motivated meddling in them risks severe damage to our country and the economy," Wyden wrote. "I am deeply concerned that following the federal grant and loan freeze earlier this week, these officials associated with Musk may have intended to access these payment systems to illegally withhold payments to any number of programs. I can think of no good reason why political operators who have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law would need access to these sensitive, mission-critical systems."
Other Democratic lawmakers also voiced concerns on social media about the news.
"Elon Musk, the richest man on Earth, is rooting around in Social Security and Medicare payment systems. He's reaching his hands into our pockets and firing anyone who tries to stop him. This reeks of corruption—it must stop," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D.-Wash.) wrote.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called the news "alarming' and said that Congress must investigate.
People familiar with the situation told The New York Times that no payments had yet been blocked and that the stated mission of the DOGE team was to review payments, not to stop them. Musk suggested in a social media post on Friday that he was looking for inapropriate expenditures, but also that blocking funds might be appropriate.
"The DOGE team discovered, among other things, that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups," he wrote on social media on Friday. "They literally never denied a payment in their entire career. Not even once."
Former Treasury officials told the Times that funds are dispersed by a comparatively small staff who rely on the agencies that earmark the funds to vet them. Don Hammond, who ran the system at the turn of the millennium, also toldThe Wall Street Journal that, while there were certain automatic safeguards in place, it was not the role of Treasury to approve or reject specific payments.
"Legally, if you want to stop a payment from taking place, the place to do that is at the agency level," Hammond said.
Responding to the article on social media on Sunday, Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens wrote: "The Treasury system makes the payments (cuts checks). It doesn't decide who to pay or how much. A little like an employer using a payroll processor. Musk has infiltrated the system to stop payments. It's a coup."
In an op-ed published by MSNBC on Saturday, Owens went into greater detail about her concerns, outlining three reasons why Musk might want access to the Treasury payment system.
- He could use it to stop payments to certain programs in order to work around the courts' block on the administration's spending freeze.
- He could access the list of blacklisted federal contractors in order to boost his own or his friend's companies and harm his competitors. (One of the DOGE allies granted access to the payment system, Tom Krause, is also a Big Tech CEO who leads Cloud Software Group, according to The New York Times.)
- He could use it to reduce Social Security or Medicare payments as part of DOGE's goal of cutting $2 trillion in federal spending.
Owens noted hat Musk wasn't "chasing these cuts for their own sake. He's helping congressional Republicans attempt to pay for a new round of tax breaks for corporations and the ultrawealthy—including Musk himself."
"It's nice to believe in a fantasy in which Musk and DOGE work alongside civil servants to improve technology and services for Americans and save a few bucks along the way. But all evidence points to the contrary," Owens continued. "The richest man in the world, whom no one elected to any government position, is seeking unprecedented access to confidential information, including information pertaining to his own business interests, and seems hell-bent on cutting off as much funding as possible for the programs that matter to the rest of us."
Owens pointed to a recent poll finding that only around one-third of Americans approve of DOGE, and that 52% disapprove of Musk.
"Americans don't want an unelected and unaccountable billionaire dictating what working families can and cannot afford," she concluded. "If Musk is going to continue running the government like one of his failed businesses, perhaps someone should force his 'resignation' too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular