LATEST VIDEOS

Donald Trump is more unpopular than ever — and he’s scared.

So he’s trying to protect himself from the wrath of voters by demanding that Republican states rig Congressional maps ahead of this November’s midterms.  

Remember back in 2018, when Republicans lost 40 House seats under Trump? Republicans do — so now they’re chopping up Congressional districts to hold onto their razor-thin House majority. 

This gerrymandering war started when Trump begged Texas Republicans to draw new maps to get FIVE more GOP seats. California responded by approving new maps to counter the Texas power-grab seat for seat.

But now Republicans have gotten an additional boost from the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court, which gutted key parts of the Voting Rights Act that civil rights activists fought — and died — to secure. 

The high Court gave the greenlight to even more Republican-controlled states, like Tennessee and Louisiana, to draw new maps eviscerating districts where voters of color made up the majority, and had elected Democratic representatives.

All told, Republicans could end up netting themselves an up to 14-SEAT ADVANTAGE ahead of the 2026 midterms purely through this redistricting plot. 

So what can be done about it?

Republicans have an advantage on paper today, but there’s no guarantee that they hold onto the House in November. A huge blue wave could stem this red-gerrymandering tide — and remind Donald Trump just how unpopular he is. 

Plus we know Republican states aren’t going to stop there — the gerrymandering war will continue into 2028 and beyond. This is important.

Democrats must respond by fighting fire with fire — counterbalancing any future moves by Republicans.

Now, I’ll admit — I opposed gerrymandering in the past. And I’d continue to oppose it during normal times. But these are not normal times. 

If Republicans are changing the rules of the game, why should Democrats keep playing by the old rules?

What blue states must do is deter red states by neutralizing any political advantage they might get from redistricting by matching them seat for seat. No more. No less.

Blue states like Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Colorado should all redraw their Congressional maps by 2028. Others like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania could do the same as long as Democrats win state trifectas this fall — which is all the more reason to head to the polls. 

This isn’t a race to the bottom. It’s a means of avoiding the bottom. 

Please share this video to help spread the word.  

Trump is trying to rig the midterms because he’s scared.

And because Trump’s scared, he’s trying to scare Americans with an imaginary boogeyman.

Every study shows voter fraud, including noncitizen voting, is so rare that a person is more likely to get struck by lightning  than to cast a fraudulent ballot. Or as Trump’s own attorney general put it when Trump asked him to spread lies about the 2020 election:

But Trump’s using this boogeyman to sabotage our elections. Here are three things I’m worried about — then I’ll tell you how we fight back.

#1 New voting restrictions

Trump is pushing for strict voter registration laws that would require eligible voters to prove their citizenship. But a state ID or drivers license won’t do. Voters would need to show either a current passport or a certified birth certificate from the state they were born in to register. 

Yet, more than 21 million Americans cannot easily provide those documents, either because they simply don’t have them or they can’t afford to get them. Do you know where your birth certificate is?

And even if you do have it, about 80% of married women and 30% of trans people have legal names that don’t match the name on their birth certificates — which makes it even harder to register.

Trump isn’t stopping there, he also wants to restrict mail-in voting, 

…Despite frequently voting by mail himself:

Trump’s hypocrisy would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. 

45 million votes were cast by mail in the 2024 general election (which he won, and doesn’t say was rigged, by the way). Restricting mail in voting, along with instituting harsh voter ID laws is blatant voter suppression.  

The second part of Trump’s plan to sabotage the midterms? Voter Intimidation

Trump insiders say he might deploy armed ICE or border patrol agents to polling sites.

Trump’s violent ICE agents have run rampant in our streets, abusing both noncitizens and citizens alike. The presence of armed agents of the state at polling places would almost certainly have a chilling effect on voter turnout — which is exactly what Trump wants.  

The third part of Trump’s midterm sabotage? Denying election results

Trump’s latest big lie is that any Democratic victory is illegitimate.

What if Republicans lose the midterms, but follow Trump’s 2020 example and try to hold onto power? A few years ago, this would have been unthinkable. But after what he tried doing in 2020, it’s frighteningly plausible. 

The bottom line is Trump is deeply unpopular, which is why he is trying to suppress the vote. But here is how we can fight back.

Press your state and local leaders to protect our elections right now. Your state attorney general and local election officials still have authority over our voting system. Urge them to develop a plan to protect our elections. Call on them to sue the Trump administration if it tries to seize ballots. Tell your state legislature to ban armed federal agents from polling places, like New Mexico just did.

Second, VOTE — and help turn out the vote! We need to show up in such large numbers that no amount of voter suppression can change the result. Go to vote.org right now and check your registration. Then reach out to three friends and make sure they are registered to show up. 

Lastly, SOUND THE ALARM. Share this video. Help spread the word that the boogeyman of voter fraud is just a cover for Trump’s election sabotage.

Trump’s strategy to sabotage the election depends on fear, confusion, and division. 

We must respond by being brave, focused, and united.

Shady political groups are trying to trick you into voting against your interests.

Three special interest groups — the Israel lobby, cryptocurrency, and AI — have wildly unpopular policy goals. So they’re trying to hide their intentions from voters like you by disguising their political action committees and running ads that don’t seem to have anything to do with their own policy goals.

Let’s look at the crypto industry. Their main PAC is called Fairshake, which spent over $14 million on Illinois primary races in March and has nearly $200 million on hand to keep dumping into our elections.

Now, here’s one of Fairshakes’ ads against Democratic Illinois Senate candidate Juliana Stratton, who was endorsed by crypto critic Elizabeth Warren and whose main primary rival was strongly pro-crypto.

Who is Juliana Stratton? Corrupt criminal Mike Madigan’s handpicked politician, that’s who.

It doesn’t mention crypto or her commitment to rein it in because her position is so popular. 65 percent of voters are concerned about the lack of crypto regulations and believe using it hurts local economies.

The AI industry is following the same playbook. Their biggest spenders are Leading the Future PAC, funded by OpenAI’s president and top investors, and Public First Action, funded by rival Anthropic. These PACs, in turn, have benign-sounding names like Think Big and Jobs and Democracy PAC.

Anthropic’s Jobs and Democracy PAC poured $1.6 million into a North Carolina Congressional primary to boost incumbent Valerie Foushee, who is friendly to AI.

Valerie Foushee is standing up to Trump every single day. She’s leading the fight to hold ICE accountable, pushing to impeach those responsible for raids on our neighborhoods and abuses of the Constitution.

You see, AI companies want politicians who will let them write their own regulations and keep building data centers, even though most Americans overwhelmingly oppose building new AI data centers in their communities.

Finally, the biggest spender: the pro-Israel lobby, led by AIPAC. These groups spent over $2.3 million in a single New Jersey Congressional primary and a whopping $21 million in Illinois races.

In Illinois, AIPAC constructed shell PACs with names like Elect Chicago Women, Affordable Chicago Now, and Chicago Progressive Partnership to further disguise their involvement. 

Now, look at this ad from Chicago Progressive Partnership attacking former candidate Kat Abughazaleh (CAT AH-boo-guh-ZAH-lay), who opposes sending military aid to Israel and supports a free Palestine.

I mean, this is getting ridiculous. There’s no reference to the candidate’s opposition to Israel, or the group’s own ties to AIPAC.

The reason this ad doesn’t even mention Israel is because 60 percent of Americans disapprove of sending military aid to the country.

In other words, these groups are spending millions to deliberately deceive voters because they know they can’t run ads that focus on their own policy goals that are hugely unpopular with voters. Instead, they rely on shady tactics and a broken campaign finance system to elect politicians they want, but are opposed to what most Americans want.

The stakes in the 2026 midterms couldn’t be higher. It’s up to us to elect politicians who will fix our broken system and show Big Money that our democracy is not for sale.

Please share this video to spread the word.

Most Americans rightfully believe that money corrupts our politics — and they want to overturn Citizens United. 

And yet, in two little-noticed cases — including one spearheaded by Vice President J.D. Vance — the Supreme Court could soon do the opposite, eliminating the last restrictions on campaign donations and bribery. To explain, investigative journalist David Sirota of The Lever. 

Do you feel like your voice matters when it comes to our politics?

No? I’m not surprised. The public effectively has no impact on legislation.

That’s because rich and powerful interests and their right-wing political allies have been executing a decades-long master plan to buy our political system. And it could get a whole lot worse due to several recent court cases. If that sounds depressing, it’s because it is. But there are ways to fight back.

You probably know about the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United case that opened the floodgates to unlimited election spending by outside groups, like corporations. In the case, justices ruled that corporations were people whose speech, including their political spending, could not be limited — gutting campaign finance laws established to rein in corruption and restore public trust after the Watergate scandal.

With this ruling, the conservative justices conjured the legal fiction that unlimited spending by those seeking to shape public policy “do[es] not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” I think the 75 percent of Americans who oppose Citizens United would disagree.

But Citizens United is far from the only Supreme Court case that has corrupted our democracy.

In Snyder v. United States, decided in 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the corruption conviction of an Indiana mayor who pocketed thousands of dollars from a local business tycoon after ensuring the tycoon’s company got a big municipal contract. The push to overturn the conviction, which was backed by powerful business groups and conservative think tanks, resulted in the high court ruling that such payments to government officials are not illegal if they are made after an official action takes place. 

Yes, it’s as absurd as it sounds. Through this ruling, the Court’s conservative justices ruled that these kinds of payments to politicians are not bribes, they are now “gratuities” — like, you leaving a nice tip for your waiter at a restaurant.  

It just so happens that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito backed this ruling after they accepted lavish gifts and trips from billionaire benefactors. Funny how that works, huh?

But all of this isn’t enough for conservatives and the oligarchs bankrolling them. The MAGA legal world is pushing two other cases that would make it even easier to buy elections, politicians, and public policy. 

The first case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, has already been accepted by the Supreme Court. Originally brought by then-Senate candidate JD Vance, this case aims to get rid of limits on political parties’ coordinated spending with candidates. The restrictions were put into place to prevent big donors from using political parties to get around individual donation limits.

This case is the next step in the right’s master plan to remove all limits on campaign spending, and builds on the absurd logic used in Citizens United. JD Vance and the Republican Party are claiming that this type of political spending, by definition, can’t be corrupt or even appear to be corrupt, because political parties pool money from many contributors. They argue that this means no single donor can exert “corrupting influence” and so the money shouldn’t be restricted. 

In essence, they’re asking the Supreme Court to believe a bank CEO’s donation to a political party coordinating with a lawmaker’s campaign can in no way influence how that lawmaker then drafts banking legislation.

The other case, Sittenfeld v. United States, concerns federal anti-bribery laws. It’s already hard enough to prosecute bribery, thanks to the Snyder case and decades of similar cases that have slowly chipped away at anti-corruption laws. Over the years, the Court has overturned corruption convictions of Democrats and Republicans alike.

This case, however, could take the Supreme Court’s legal assault on anti-bribery laws even further. 

Former Cincinnati Councilman P.G. Sittenfield is asking the Supreme Court to overturn his bribery conviction after he was convicted for accepting $20,000 worth of campaign contributions in exchange for supporting a local development project. 

Even though Sittenfield is a Democrat, he was actually already pardoned by Trump. And his appeal is being backed by major conservative groups, while his lawyer is Trump’s former solicitor general. So this case isn’t just about absolving one local official, it’s about absolving an entire system of corruption — and their arguments make that clear.

Sittenfield’s lawyers are arguing that pay-to-play culture is now so widespread that it shouldn’t even be considered a crime. They literally write that the situation is like “donor interactions undertaken every day by politicians at every level of government” and therefore it shouldn’t be prosecutable. They specifically cite reports of Donald Trump soliciting oil executives for $1 billion of campaign cash in exchange for pro-oil policies. They argue that that’s the kind of thing that could be prosecuted if Sittenfield’s conviction is allowed to stand – as if that would be a bad thing. 

Now, they’re not wrong that pay-to-play culture is pervasive in government. But the solution is stronger enforcement of anti-corruption laws, not less.

Corruption is the crisis creating every other problem. Again, do you want to know why it feels like Congress can never get anything done that actually helps regular people? It’s because of everything I just described.

We can’t rely on the Supreme Court, or Donald Trump, or any politicians corrupted by Big Money to overhaul this broken system. But there are real solutions that we can fight for.

Nationally, we can push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. This may seem unrealistic because it requires 38 out of 50 states to ratify it, but momentum is growing. 

And some states aren’t waiting for a national solution. Montana is pioneering a way to stop the flood of Big Money by changing how the state defines corporations’ powers. It’s a template other states can follow.

The Supreme Court has ruled many times that corporations are granted their powers by the states in which they operate. The Montana proposal would use that existing authority to change its law to no longer grant corporations the power to spend on any elections inside of Montana.

If Montana passes this, it’s not alone a national solution — but it does solve a big part of the Citizens United problem inside of Montana. Other states can do the same inside of their states - and the more states that do it, the more Citizens United is neutered — profoundly changing all of American politics.

The holy grail is public financing of elections, which gives qualifying political candidates public money for their campaigns, so that they do not have to rely on money from big donors seeking government favors. This isn’t some pie-in-the-sky idea — dozens of states and cities already do this, which means every other state and city can too. Sure, self-financed billionaire candidates and super PACS can still outspend publicly funded candidates. But public financing gives grassroots candidates enough resources to run competitive campaigns — and sometimes even win them.

These policies should be a no-brainer. But remember: oligarchs have an interest in undermining democracy. They know that in a functioning one-person-one-vote system, they could never pass the unpopular self-enriching policies they want. So they’re working hard to maintain the corrupt status quo that lets them buy political outcomes. 

They can still be stopped — but only if we finally make anti-corruption the central focus of our politics.

Stop doomscrolling. I have some good news…

We can get rid of Citizens United. 

A very unlikely state is leading the way with a first-of-its kind plan to curb corporate spending in elections —  Montana! Yes, Big Sky country is taking on Big Money.

Organizers in Montana have drafted a ballot referendum for voters to consider in 2026 that would no longer give corporations the power to spend on Montana’s ballot issues or in its local, state, and even federal elections.  

The best part? It would not require the Supreme Court to overturn its Citizens United ruling, which said the government cannot put any limits on independent political spending by corporations. Nor would this plan require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution — which would likely take years, if ever. 

If this referendum passes in deep red Montana, it could easily spread to other states — including yours — whether through the ballot or in your legislature. So how does it work?

You see, corporations are creatures of state law. States create them, define them, and redefine them. The Supreme Court has held time and again that corporations are granted their powers by the states. As the Court itself said in 1819, “A corporation is an artificial being…invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.”

A state doesn’t have to give its corporations the power to issue stock, or acquire a smaller competitor, for example. 

And a state doesn’t have to give its corporations the power to spend in politics — which is exactly what Montana is trying to change.

With Citizens United, the Supreme Court said that the government cannot stop corporations from spending independently in elections. But unlike other corporate powers, the states never clearly decided to give corporations political-spending powers in the first place. 

When a state exercises its authority to define corporations as entities without the power to spend in politics, it’s no longer relevant whether corporations have a right to spend on politics — because without the power to do so, the right to do so has no meaning.

And here’s another important point. If Montanans vote to no longer grant their corporations the power to spend in elections, that decision would also keep the corporations chartered in the other 49 states out of Montana’s politics.

State by state, this would effectively neuter Citizens United, which by the way, is enormously unpopular. 75 percent of Americans disapprove of it — and it’s no wonder why. It has allowed corporations (and the billionaires that control them) to hijack our elections and distort our democracy while drowning out YOUR voice.

But this plan out of Montana will go a long way to putting power back where it belongs — in the hands of the people.

I urge Montana to pass this referendum denying corporations the power to spend in politics — and hope your state will follow Montana’s lead.

Please share this video to help spread the word.

Most “David and Goliath” stories don’t end well for the little guy. Goliath usually just stomps on David and goes on to destroy Tokyo. 

Maybe I’m mixing my cultural references. The point is, it’s hard to fight the big guys and their money when it comes to politics.

That’s why it’s so incredible that Zohran Mamdani got elected Mayor of New York City. And one of the big reasons for his victory was the city’s public financing of elections. 

How does public financing work? These programs provide a limited amount of public funds to candidates to help with their campaign expenses. In exchange for funding, candidates must agree to abide by certain limits on how large contributions to their campaigns can be.

Public financing helps prevent Big Money interests from totally dominating our politics. Candidates can run for office without having to rely on a network of wealthy donors to help fund their campaigns. They can instead do the work of representing the interests of their constituents, and not the monied interests.

Currently, over 30 state and local governments have some form of public financing program for elections, enacted either by legislation or ballot referendum.

New York City’s program, for example, provides matching funds for small dollar donations to candidates who opt into it. For every individual dollar contributed, up to $250, the city of New York matches with eight dollars in public funds. Again, candidates in NYC must agree to spending and contribution limits. 

This goes a long way to leveling the playing field for everyday Americans whose voices are being drowned out by the ultra-wealthy who can afford to buy off politicians.

Which brings us back to Mamdani: There were some powerful forces lined up to stop him.

At least 26 billionaires chipped in to fund outside super PACs that spent a total of $55 million to defeat Mamdani. Even Trump weighed in to support Cuomo. 

But ultimately, the billionaire backed Cuomo machine was defeated, in part, thanks to New York City’s public financing of elections — which boosted Zohran’s campaign and gave him the freedom to run on the issues that mattered most to New Yorkers. 

Public financing of elections gives the little guys the ability to compete with the mega-donor class. It encourages working-class people to run for office and helps them afford the expenses of campaigns. And it frees candidates to run on the issues that matter to their communities, without being beholden to the interests of the ultra-rich. 

In short, public financing helps put democracy in the hands of the people, not in the wallets of the wealthy. 

Maybe you should advocate for it where you live?