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
southern poverty law center
Here's the 'Fire Elon Musk' Ad the Washington Post Refuses to Run
"Is it only okay to run things in The Post now that won't anger the president or won't have him calling Jeff Bezos asking why this was allowed?"
Feb 17, 2025
Critics of the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post are targeting the newspaper over its "gutless" refusal to run a paid wrap-around advertisement that makes a prominent demand for President Donald Trump to fire mega-billionaire Elon Musk from his cohort of inner-most advisers.
The special ad, at a cost of $115,000, was orchestrated by the pro-democracy watchdog Common Cause, a progressive advocacy group, and scheduled to be delivered to members of Congress and subscribers at the Pentagon and White House on Tuesday. On Friday, however, the newspaper notified the group that it was backing out of the arrangement.
"Elon Musk is attempting to run our government like one of his companies, and it's hurting the American people," reads some of the language of the campaign on which the ad is based. "Even more concerning is that President Donald Trump is allowing it to happen. It's time to say enough and FIRE Elon Musk from any role within our government."
The campaign, like the ad refused by the Post, points people to an online petition where they can back the demand Musk be fired and information to contact their members of Congress.
"Our elected officials are totally abandoning their duty to their constituents while Elon Musk does as he pleases," reads the call to action. "Whether your senators are on the right, on the left, or in the center, they ALL need to hear from everyday Americans like us today."
The Hill, given an exclusive for the story, reports that one of the ironies of the situation is that when the Post gave Common Cause a sample look at how the advertisement would appear, the example was a previously run ad by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), an industry lobby group, highlighting the new president's promise to "end the electric vehicle mandate on Day 1," which included an image of a smiling Trump with his thumbs up.
"They gave us some sample art to show us what it would look like," Kase Solomón, president of Common Cause, explained. "It was a thank-you Donald Trump piece of art."
According to The Hill:
The ad’s design features a large picture of Musk with his head tilted back, laughing, along with a cutout image of the White House and large white text: “Who’s running this country: Donald Trump or Elon Musk?”
Lower down on the page it features smaller font text stating: “Since day one, Elon has created chaos and confusion and put our livelihoods at risk. And he is accountable to no one but himself.”
“The Constitution only allows for one president at a time. Call your senators and tell them it’s time Donald Trump fire Elon Musk,” it says, followed by the URL FireMusk.org.
Here's what the ad was supposed to look like:
Solomón said it was not clear why the newspaper made its decision, but it seemed very much to do with the nature of the ad's content and possibly with the political leanings of the Post's owner, the second-richest man in the world after Musk himself. Both men have significant business interests that could be injured if they run afoul of President Trump.
"Is it because we’re critical of what's happening with Elon Musk?" asked Solomón. "Is it only okay to run things in The Post now that won't anger the president or won't have him calling Jeff Bezos asking why this was allowed?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Michigan GOP Is Campaigning on Hate
Its campaign mailers showcase the logo of a political advocacy group called FAIR and a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, both anti-immigration hate groups with ties to white nationalists.
Sep 20, 2024
Although the Michigan Republican Party experienced a severe cash shortage under ex-chair Kristina Karamo, that appears to have been solved for the time being. Karamo was removed as chair this year due to her poor fundraising ability. With current chair Pete Hoekstra, the state GOP found the money to begin flooding inboxes with campaign mailers.
Some houses in my neighborhood in Hazel Park received six pieces of campaign mail or more per week. Most of these mailers contain the standard accusations, that Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris is “failed, weak, and dangerously liberal.” Some showcase the logo of a political advocacy group called FAIR and a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, both anti-immigration groups with Michigan connections and ties to white nationalists.
FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) is quoted on these mailers alleging “Harris Hints Big Amnesty Bill on the Way.” The mailer summarizes an argument from the FAIR-affiliated think tank the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) that amnesty for undocumented immigrants “would cost Social Security $1.3 trillion, destroying benefits for American seniors.” Part of this cost would come from immigrants who had been paying into the system through payroll taxes suddenly receiving citizenship. The CIS admits that many undocumented immigrants “are currently paying into the system without accruing any benefits in return...” Many publications have criticized the center’s methodologies and conclusions in previous reports, such as Snopes,Factcheck.org, and NBC News. Wiredran an article classifying the group as a “fake think tank.”
Putting out mailers with two hate groups prominently cited is a clear example of dogwhistle politics.
FAIR was founded by a Petoskey ophthalmologist named John Tanton in 1979, who also co-founded CIS in 1985. He had been active in the environmentalist group the Sierra Club, but shifted his focus to restricting immigration. Tanton, who died in 2019, promoted eugenics—the idea that the human race could and should be perfected through selected breeding and sterilization. While some anti-immigrant activists couch their arguments in terms of economics or nation security, Tanton made his arguments explicitly in terms of race. He was against immigration from non-white countries and was quoted in The New York Times to that effect. “One of my prime concerns,” he explained, “is about the decline of folks who look like you and me... for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.”
That emphasis on racial opposition to immigration at FAIR and CIS was not unique to Tanton. Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR, defends the 1924 Immigration Act, a piece of legislation enthusiastically supported by the Ku Klux Klan. Stein argues that the replacement of that law by the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act was done as a way to “retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance and hubris…” Stein would prefer an immigration system modeled on the 1924 act, one that explicitly favored not just whites, but Anglo-Saxon ones at that.
The CIS, which is also on the advisory board of the Donald Trump-affiliated Project 2025, has recommended notable bigots to supporters. In its weekly listerv, it has promoted Holocaust deniers, Islamophobes, and white nationalists. Both FAIR and CIS are listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-immigrant “hate groups.” When an offended CIS filed suit against the law center over this designation, the lawsuit was dismissed.
The inclusion of FAIR and CIS on campaign mailers comes at an awkward time for Michigan Republicans, who have been trying to make inroads with Arab, Black, and Hispanic voters. They are trying to balance appeals to those groups with a commitment to their base, who are overwhelmingly white. Putting out mailers with two hate groups prominently cited is a clear example of dogwhistle politics. Most will think nothing of the presence of the two groups, but anyone with ears properly attuned will get the message.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Liberal Justices Grill Attorney in Supreme Court Case on Criminalizing Homelessness
"Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves not sleeping?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor of unhoused people who have been barred from sleeping outside in Grants Pass, Oregon.
Apr 22, 2024
As housing rights advocates and people who have been unhoused themselves rallied outside the U.S. Supreme Court Monday to demand an end to the criminalization of homelessness, the court's three liberal justices demanded to know how the city of Grants Pass, Oregon can penalize residents who take part in an act necessary for human survival—sleeping—just because they are forced to do so outside.
After an attorney representing Grants Pass, Thomas Evangelis, described sleeping in public as a form of "conduct," Justice Elena Kagan disputed the claim and reminded Evangelis that he was presenting a legal argument in favor of policing "a biological necessity."
"Presumably you would not think that it's okay to criminalize breathing in public," said Kagan, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. "And for a homeless person who has no place to go, sleeping in public is kind of like breathing in public."
Evangelis is representing the city in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case stemming from a 2018 lawsuit filed by an unhoused woman, Debra Blake, who accused officials of "trying to run homeless people out of town."
"On any given day or night, hundreds of individuals in Grants Pass, Oregon, are forced to live outside due to the lack of emergency shelter and affordable housing in their community," the original lawsuit stated.
The city has passed ordinances banning people from sleeping or camping on publicly owned property, with violators subject to fines of hundreds of dollars.
A lower court ruled that the city's bans were in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bans excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment, "when there was no other place in the city for [unhoused persons] to go."
The city's only homeless shelter, Gospel Rescue Mission, has 138 beds, and the plaintiffs have said there is frequently no room for many of the hundreds of unhoused people in Grants Pass.
On Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared inclined to agree with the plaintiff in the original lawsuit who claimed Grants Pass ultimately wanted unhoused people to leave the city. She pointed to comments city officials have made about their aim "to remove every homeless person and give them no public space."
"Wasn't Grant Pass's first-attempt policy choice to put people, homeless people, on buses so they would leave the city?" she asked Deputy United States Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler. "Police officers would buy them a bus ticket, send them out of the city. But that didn't work because people came back because it had been their home... So then they passed this law, and didn't the City Council president say, 'Our intent is to make it so uncomfortable here that they'll move down the road,' meaning out of town, correct?"
Kneedler acknowledged that the statement was made at a City Council meeting.
"Not only is [sleeping] something that everybody engages in, but it's something that everybody has to engage in to be alive," Kneedler said in response to a question from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "So if you can't sleep, you can't live, and therefore by prohibiting sleeping, the city is basically saying you cannot live in Grants Pass."
The city argued in its case that prohibiting local officials from regulating and banning homeless encampments in public places would cause more people to sleep outdoors—an argument U.S. Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), speaking at the rally outside the court, said exposed "how absurd our country's approach to the unhoused crisis is."
"Instead of enacting real solutions to the unhoused crisis, Grants Pass has taken this case all the way to the Supreme Court and is calling for the court to overturn a landmark decision from 1962 that says the government cannot punish people based on status. So we're here today to demand the Supreme Court support humanity, adhere to constitutional precedent, and protect the rights of our unhoused neighbors," said Bush, who has spoken about previously being unhoused herself and sponsored related legislation.
"A person should never be punished for not being able to afford rent or a home," Bush added. "A person should never be punished for sleeping outside or in a car when they have no other place to go. A person should never be punished for simply existing. We need universal housing, universal housing vouchers, and a permanent federal rental assistance program—these are all tangible steps that would actually solve this crisis."
The case arrived at the high court four months after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development released annual data showing a 12% increase in homelessness last year from 2022, largely due to a sharp rise in the number of people who were without housing in 2023 for the first time in their lives. Experts often argue the federal figures are an undercount.
On Monday, the Eviction Lab at Princeton University released new data showing that in 25 of the 32 cities it analyzed, an increase in eviction filings was seen between 2022-23.
"The country lacks millions of units of affordable rental housing, and in those units that are available, a record number of tenants are paying well beyond their means," reported the Eviction Lab. "High interest rates prevent younger, middle-class renters from buying homes, which in turn increases demand in the rental sector."
Considering the dynamics contributing to a growing unhoused population, Sotomayor asked of people facing homelessness in Grants Pass: "Where are they supposed to sleep? Are they supposed to kill themselves not sleeping?"
The conservatives on the Supreme Court, who make up the majority, signaled a willingness to rule in favor of the city, with Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledging that the case is centered on "a policy problem because the solution, of course, is to build shelter to provide shelter for those who are otherwise harmless," but noting that "municipalities have competing priorities."
The answer to the questions being asked at the Supreme Court Monday "is not complicated," said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.). "Unhoused people need housing. Housing is the answer. Housing NOT Handcuffs."
Ramirez repeated a phrase that was seen on many signs held by rally attendees, who included the national grassroots economic justice group VOCAL and organizers with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC).
"What the Supreme Court decides in this case will say a lot about what kind of country we are and what country we want to be," said Efrén Olivares, director of strategic litigation and advocacy at the SPLC. "We demand a future without policies like the one before the court and a government that instead works to ensure that the right to affordable housing is guaranteed for all."
A ruling in the case is expected in June.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular