Latest news with #CitizensUnited
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump-Musk feud shows what happens when unregulated money floods politics
Elon Musk said, very loudly and very publicly, what is usually the quiet part of the role of money in US politics. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate. Such ingratitude,' he wrote on his X social media platform amid an ongoing feud with Donald Trump. When rightwing commentator Laura Loomer wrote that Republicans on Capitol Hill had been discussing whom to side with in the inter-party feud, Musk replied with a nod toward the long tail of his influence. 'Oh and some food for thought as they ponder this question: Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years … ,' Musk wrote on X. Billionaires in the US often seek to influence politics in big and small ways, throwing their money and influence around to extract what they want from the government. But few are as explicit and influential as Musk has proven in the past year – and it's showing just how transactional and broken US governance has become. The Trump-Musk battle exemplifies the post-Citizens United picture of US politics: the world's richest person paid handsomely to elect his favored candidate, then took a formal, if temporary, role with a new governmental initiative created for him that focused on dismantling parts of the government he didn't like. We're sitting ringside to a fight between the mega-rich president and the far richer Republican donor to see who can cut more services from the poor. As one satirical website put it: 'Aw! These Billionaires Are Fighting Over How Much Money to Steal From Poor People.' Fifteen years ago, the US supreme court ruled that corporations and outside groups could spend as much as they wanted on elections. In that ruling, conservative justice Anthony Kennedy said: 'The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.' In the years since, it's become clear that these infusions of wealth have eroded democracy, with Musk's ostentatious example accelerating an already out-of-control level of money in politics. Musk spent nearly $300m to elect Trump in 2024. It's the billionaire's government now. 'Fifteen years after that decision, we're seeing the full culmination of living under a Citizens United world – where it's not just elections that are for sale, but it's that our entire government, and the apparatus of our government, is up for sale,' Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United, told the Bulwark earlier this year. Musk isn't alone here: in races up and down the ballot, ultra-rich donors are throwing around their cash to get their favored candidates elected. This is the standard state of play for politics in the US now, in both political parties. Bernie Sanders confronted Democrats at their convention last year to say: 'Billionaires in both parties should not be able to buy elections, including primary elections.' Earlier this year, Musk poured big money into a Wisconsin judicial election, but lost to the Democratic candidate. And he's sent small-dollar donations to Republicans who wanted to go after judges who ruled against the Trump administration. The threat of his money, even if it is uneven and has an inconsistent success record, looms large for both political parties. But, by virtue of his unelected role, Musk couldn't do as much as he wanted to stop Trump's signature spending bill – or so it seems so far. Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' didn't cut enough spending or favor Musk enough or otherwise meet his litmus test for a budget. And when the administration stopped working for him, he turned on it, blazing out the door in a chaotic fashion. It's a fitting coda to the uneasy alliance between Trump and Musk that started with a warm embrace and front-row status for the ultra-wealthy when Trump took office. The fact that Musk holds such sway over the budget process is in itself corruption. Trump has said Musk knew what was in the bill, the undertone being that the administration sought his approval before the public explosion. Musk embraced a brawling style of political spending that is rare among the uber-wealthy, who tend to let their money speak louder than their public words. One expert in philanthropy previously told the Guardian Musk stood out because of his 'complete eschewal of discretion as a mode of political engagement'. Musk is now rallying his followers on X to reach out to their members of Congress and kill the bill, a quest that could be successful, depending on how Republican lawmakers shake out when they're forced to decide between their ideologue president and a megadonor known for his vindictiveness. In rightwing media, the feud has created a chasm. On Breitbart, one commentator noted how Trump was 'sticking his finger in the eye of his biggest donor and that never happens'. In the American Spectator, one writer opined that Musk did not elect Trump: 'the American people did.' But in the pages of the Washington Examiner, Musk's stance on the bill was praised because Trump's budget plan 'deserves to die'. 'I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago,' Trump wrote to cap off a series of posts and public comments about Musk. Musk has 'lost his mind', the president said in a TV interview Friday. So far, Republican officials are lining up behind Trump. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads,' JD Vance said. If Musk ultimately loses, he could take his money and run elsewhere. He floated the idea of creating a third political party, a prospect that's been tried many times before but without the wealth infusion and bully pulpit he'd offer to the cause. Democrats, themselves quite reliant on rich donors, will lobby for him to switch sides. The Democratic representative Ro Khanna suggested the party should 'be in a dialogue' with Musk. Although Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley and has called for the left to embrace economic populism, saw intense backlash against his comments from his party, he doubled down. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day,' he wrote on X. 'When we refused to meet with @RobertKennedyJr, Trump embraced him & won. We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority.'
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Should Doom the GOP. But It Will Doom Many Americans Too
The good news is that the GOP's budget bill is a political suicide pact. And more power to them. Oblivion could not happen to a more odious bunch of people. The tragically bad news, however, is that it is not just a suicide pact. It is a murder-suicide pact. It may end Republican careers, but it will also end tens of thousands of American lives. Many more will suffer. The bill is, in fact, proof that we no longer live in a functioning democracy. Because if we did, Republican office holders would be concerned about the well-being and reaction of their constituents when proposing or passing legislation. But they don't care about voters. Instead, they care far more about the dark money donors and power players who fund their campaigns—people who, thanks to the Supreme Court (also purchased with dark money), hold hugely disproportionate power in our elections. Trump and Musk and Thiel and Zuckerberg and Bezos have proved that with the right amount of money—and they have all the money in the world—a terrible candidate can be sold to enough voters to win. With enough money lies can be spun into truth on the networks and social media outlets they control. With its calamitous Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech and that therefore those with the most money would have the most say in our society. But long before that, the GOP had been putting together a coalition of America's wealthiest and most powerful to fund a systematic take-over of our democratic institutions. Why? To help the rich get richer by cutting taxes and regulations—and by limiting the tools the government has to rein them in. Am I saying that democracy in America has fallen victim to something as base as greed? Yes. Yes, I am. In fact, I will go further and say that American capitalism destroyed American democracy. American capitalism is a perversion of capitalism, a system which favors the rules of the jungle over the rule of law, and suggests the one metric that matters for a successful society is how rich its richest members are. The Gordon Gekko 'greed is good' creed of the Reagan era has led directly to Trump's cabinet of billionaires and the gilded bordello redecoration of the Oval Office. Our system today clearly favors oligarchy over democracy. There are, of course, healthier and wiser forms of capitalism that recognize that the role of business and the creation of wealth is to serve society at large. These societies actually respond to the needs of their citizens. And is a harsh reality that today, in 2025, every single developed democracy in the world does a better job of serving their citizens than does the United States. That's why in none of these societies would you ever see bills like the one passed this week by the Congress—bills that deny millions of Americans healthcare and ravage social programs so that the billionaire friends of the billionaire president and his billionaire cabinet can have one more estate, one more yacht, one more offshore trust fund for their heirs and mistresses. In the next year, thanks to the Republican commitment to serving the richest among us, not only will millions lose their healthcare resulting in bankruptcy, poverty and suffering, but many without healthcare will die. More will die because of cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services, and an end to medical research compounded by anti-science policies. Others will literally waste away as food and other vital assistance programs are cut. This is not hyperbole. There will be real casualties in this war being waged against average Americans by the MAGA-aided superrich for whom too much is never enough. I hope the media take their responsibilities seriously enough to report it. I remember sitting in a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House when I was in the Clinton Administration. A very prominent member of the president's economic team was deriding Europe. He called it 'a museum, living in the past.' And we all laughed smugly. After all, we had just won the Cold War. Now, here we are 30 years later and it is clear, Europe is racing ahead of us in forming effective, functioning, decent democracies and economies. Yes, yes, their societies are imperfect—and many face Trump-like threats from within. But none of their citizens go to bed at night worrying about how they will pay the doctor. None go bankrupt from medical costs. None worry about the cost of education. None worry about how they will feed themselves when they retire. If we were wise—certainly, if we were really a democracy—we would study them and learn from them rather than rejecting their wisdom and lessons as we so often do. Rather than focusing on how we should preserve a broken system, we should devote our energies to restoring the America we deserve. Perhaps we can start with this: The Big Beautiful Bill is the worst example of American exceptionalism. It is a low point in our history. I do understand that forty years of apathy, inertia and the accumulation of ever more power in the hands of the point .001 percent might lead one to fear it is too late. But this bill is so egregious, and its consequences will hurt so many so deeply, regardless of party, that it will, I believe, serve as a turning point. Despite MAGA efforts to put a thumb on the scale, the GOP are now poised to lose control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate in 2026. If they do, Trump's agenda will be stopped. The demands of Americans to restore basic services will be immense. The openness to reconsidering our path and embracing the kind of 21st century social contract will be there. A new pact can be forged that places the well-being of citizens first, promoting real opportunity and innovation rather than monopolies and billionaire-rule. And we can regain our footing. All that can and I predict will happen thanks to the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' which is actually, obviously and egregiously the ugliest piece of legislation produced by the U.S. Congress in this century.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine PACs say campaign finance lawsuit is about free speech. The state says it's about corruption
May 22—The U.S. Supreme Court changed campaign finance law significantly when it ruled in 2010 against efforts to limit spending by political action committees, calling it an infringement of free speech. But does that apply to how much money these groups receive in contributions to pay for protected expenditures such as TV ads and text messages? U.S. District Court Magistrate Karen Wolf plans to answer that question by July 15. Lawyers for two of Maine's conservative political action committees, or PACs, were in federal court in Portland on Thursday asking her to stop the state from enforcing a new law that caps PAC contributions at $5,000. The law was approved in a referendum last fall, but state officials agreed to delay its implementation until May 30. The plaintiffs' attorneys urged Wolf to consider the Supreme Court's 2010 decision, Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission, and what they argue is a serious threat to the First Amendment. The state's attorneys pointed to the popularity of the new law and suggested voters are concerned with corruption. Wolf has also allowed numerous people to intervene in the legal case to defend the law, including the Mainers who started the citizens' initiative, state Sen. Richard Bennett, R-Oxford, and a nonpartisan fair elections organization called EqualCitizens. POPULAR INITIATIVE Roughly 75% of voters last fall agreed to restrict how much people can donate to PACs. It was put on the ballot because of a citizen initiative that required 68,000 signatures. The effort received at least 84,000 signatures, making it one of the most popular citizens' initiatives in Maine history, the state's lawyer said. The measure sets a $5,000 limit on contributions to PACs that make independent expenditures to elect or defeat candidates for public office. It also caps contributions to candidates and requires the disclosure of small-amount donors. The Institute for Free Speech, a nonprofit law firm based in Washington, D.C., known to oppose campaign finance reform, sued the state in December. They represent both the Dinner Table Action Committee and For Our Future, two PACs that would be hindered from raising funds under the new law. Their attorney, Charles Miller, argued that the Citizens United decision must be applied "one step further" to contributions. Miller said there's a process in place to ensure that contributions to PACs are ethical. He's not against having a system to regulate that. He argued these contributions should be presumed independent from influence, despite the state's claims that even the appearance of corruption merits restrictions. Miller also had concerns with the law's disclosure provisions for small donors who contribute less than $50. "I'm not standing here today to say that disclosure requirements, writ large, aren't appropriate," said Miller, but, he argued, it's unlikely these small donations are bribes. He said disclosure could put donors at risk of harassment if they give to unpopular causes. CORRUPTION CONCERNS Miller argued that capping donations could also be seen as punishing those with unpopular, but constitutionally protected, views. When Wolf pointed to the law's popularity, Miller suggested it didn't matter how many votes the referendum got, because the law still violates the First Amendment. "They don't want to hear the speech. That's the visceral reaction they have," Miller said. "(That's) why we have the First Amendment." Lawyers for the state argued that Mainers were more concerned about corruption, not free speech. Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Bolton pointed to clear, publicized instances in other states where he said PACs have been tied to massive corruption. He referenced former Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who was convicted in 2024 of accepting bribes from businessmen and acting as an agent for the Egyptian government. Menendez had gone to trial several years earlier, facing similar but unrelated allegations, including one charge that he solicited bribes for a PAC. That ended in a hung jury. "This is a real thing that can happen," Bolton said. "It's not hypothetical. He was convicted, and we went to court documents that show there was a super PAC that was involved in the scheme, that was making expenditures in support of the candidate." Copy the Story Link
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The sins of the 1% class, Utah style
The Capitol in Salt Lake City is pictured on Thursday, Feb. 6, 2025. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch) In the 21st century our newly visible wealthy elite aristocracy, together with a few super-wealthy oligarchs leading the way, have essentially 'come out' as a political class openly working to subvert American democratic values/processes and install themselves as America's untouchable ruling class. The 2010 'Citizens United' court decision allows them to use their unlimited resources to purchase politicians willing to bend the knee to their every legislative wish, essentially turning the Congress into homeless beggars shining shoes and licking boots for a living. American democratic culture has always understood that unregulated accumulation of capital makes for anti-democratic corruption of wealth holders. Not long ago, we imposed luxury taxes on everything from yachts to mansions to cars to airplanes to keep people from believing that they were special above all others. However, we no longer seem to care about the corrosive effects of huge piles of money because we repealed many of those taxes. In Utah the wealthy class aligns with evangelical religious interests, which encompass certain Protestant, Catholic, and Latter-day Saint sub-groupings, as is the case nationwide. The idea is that the considerable private resources of the 'kingdom of God,' together with regular encouragement to individual and familial self-sufficiency provided by church education systems, allows the public sector to clip its own wings by cutting back on state and local taxes. The Utah legislature has cut the state income tax five times in recent years under the guise of promoting upward mobility for all Utahns. Their efforts constitute a reduction of the overall resources available for public uses in Utah without providing for regularized replacement sources of income. In Utah, the Republican-controlled legislature recently attempted to allow a constitutionally mandated 'earmark' of income tax funds for public schools, higher education, children and disabled people to be freed up for other purposes when needed. One might argue this amounts to a shift away from the priority that Utah's ancestors established by instituting the 'education earmark' in 1948 in the first place. After successfully concluding World War II, soldiers came home fully recognizing that they had fought for a more democratic world. They wanted to see progress in education for all of Utah's citizens, not just the wealthy portion of the citizenry or a religiously partisan portion of it. At a time when the national MAGA party is decimating long-standing federal education commitments, traditional Republican party theory says state governments are obligated to pick up the slack by means of federal block grants or at very least maintain local commitments. However, Utah is trying to deep-six the most important of those local commitments, further strangulating resources devoted to marginalized populations. In October 2024, the court ruled that the legislature had failed to meet the informed notice requirements of a proper constitutional amendment, so the measure was voided for this year by the court. The Sutherland Institute, Utah's conservative think tank, ably summarizes the evangelical notion of private sector sufficiency by touting 'the Utah Miracle.' This miracle is Utah's heavy and purportedly successful dependence upon 'economic growth, high religious attendance, and unmatched rates of married families.' However, this tripartite private focus is clearly not broad enough to 'lift all boats,' or to provide for 'trickle-down' resources from the rich to the poor, as evidenced by Utah's exploding unhoused population. Nationwide, unregulated capital has trashed the U.S. Constitution at every turn, including working to unhinge America from its progressive income tax structure and also rely on regressive sales and fuel taxes; end business competition by means of industry-wide monopolies in restraint of trade; diminish corporate taxation; lower tax rates on capital gains; prohibit government bargaining on drug prices; discriminate against lower-income renters by way of the home mortgage interest deduction provision of the tax code; double the exemption for estate taxes for the rich; push debt spending through misleading advertising so as to keep the middle class and the working poor in a perpetual state of debt servitude; engage in stock buybacks to line their own pockets. For 3,000 years the Judeo-Christian culture in Europe and America kept interest rates charged on borrowers in the single-digit range, but now the American aristocracy has succeeded in charging 20% and more on credit card rates for the middle class, and anywhere from 100-300% on annualized short-term payday-type loans to the working poor. Utah recently had the second highest short-term consumer loan rates in the nation. Since World War II the wealthy have also promoted the long-term decline of unions capable of collective bargaining. Utah wants to add to this negative trend by prohibiting public unions from collective bargaining. Utah voters are currently working on an initiative to reverse this legislative policy.
The Guardian
07-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
We can't just be against Trump. It's time for a bold, progressive populism
Demonstrations against Donald Trump Trump are getting larger and louder. Good. This is absolutely essential. But at some point we'll need to demonstrate not just against the president but also for the the United States we want. Trump's regressive populism – cruel, bigoted, tyrannical – must be met by a bold progressive populism that strengthens democracy and shares the wealth. We can't simply return to the path we were on before Trump. Even then, big money was taking over our democracy and siphoning off most of the economy's gains. Two of the country's most respected political scientists – professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University – analyzed 1,799 policy issues decided between 1981 and 2002. They found that 'the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.' Instead, lawmakers responded to the demands of wealthy individuals (typically corporate executives and Wall Street moguls) and big corporations – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns. And 'when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose.' Notably, Gilens and Page's research data was gathered before the supreme court opened the floodgates to big money in Citizens United. After that, the voices of typical Americans were entirely drowned. In the election cycle of 2016, which first delivered the White House to Trump, the richest 100th of 1% of Americans accounted for a record-breaking 40% of all campaign donations. (By contrast, in 1980, the top 0.01 percent accounted for only 15% of all contributions.) The direction we were heading was unsustainable. Even before Trump's first regime, trust in every major institution of society was plummeting – including Congress, the courts, corporations, Wall Street, universities, the legal establishment and the media. The typical family's inflation-adjusted income had barely risen for decades. Most of the economy's gains had gone to the top The entire system seemed rigged for the benefit of the establishment – and in many ways it was. The typical family's inflation-adjusted income had barely risen for decades. Most of the economy's gains had gone to the top. Wall Street got bailed out when its gambling addiction caused it humongous losses but homeowners who were underwater did not. Nor did people who lost their jobs and savings. And not a single top Wall Street executive went to jail. A populist – anti-establishment – revolution was inevitable. But it didn't have to be a tyrannical one. It didn't have to be regressive populism. Instead of putting the blame where it belonged – on big corporations, Wall Street and the billionaire class – Trump has blamed immigrants, the 'deep state', socialists, 'coastal elites', transgender people, 'DEI' and 'woke'. How has Trump gotten away with this while giving the super-rich large tax benefits and regulatory relief and surrounding himself (especially in his second term) with a record number of billionaires, including the richest person in the world? Largely because Democratic leaders – with the notable exceptions of Bernie Sanders (who is actually an independent), AOC and a handful of others – could not, and still cannot, bring themselves to enunciate a progressive version of populism that puts the blame squarely where it belongs. Too many have been eating from the same campaign buffet as the Republicans and dare not criticize the hands that feed them. This has left Trump's regressive populism as the only version of anti-establishment politics available to Americans. It's a tragedy. Anti-establishment fury remains at the heart of our politics, and for good reason. What would progressive populism entail? Strengthening democracy by busting up big corporations. Stopping Wall Street's gambling (eg replicating the Glass-Steagall Act). Getting big money out of politics, even if this requires amending the constitution. Requiring big corporations to share their profits with their average workers. Strengthening unions. And raising taxes on the super-wealthy to finance a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and paid family leave. Hopefully, demonstrations against Trump's regressive, tyrannical populism will continue to grow. But we must also be demonstrating for a better future beyond Trump – one that strengthens democracy and works on behalf of all Americans rather than a privileged few. Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at
