If it's Halloween, it's time for politicians to include ghosts and goblins and ghouls in their rhetoric. It's an ageless formula for campaign season: The calendar nears October 31 and out come all manner of menacing metaphors, mentions of masks and costumes, and a cacophony of cringeworthy Halloween language.
What have been the scariest Halloween mentions in politics? What have been the silliest? And which Senate candidate said in an ad: "I'm not a witch"?
President Donald Trump says Americans’ financial struggles matter “not even a little bit” as inflation rises, gas prices surge, and a controversial $1.7 billion taxpayer-funded compensation plan for political allies emerges.
Perhaps the most effective ad in the 2024 campaign was “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” Since that ad ran, the American people have learned that it is anything but true.
With gas prices having surged 28% in two months, inflation climbing to a three-year high of 3.8%, and the average family is spending an estimated $5,000 more this year than last due to rising costs across the board, a reporter asked Trump a simple question: To what extent are Americans’ financial situations motivating him to reach a deal to end the war in Iran?
Trump's answer was startling in its candor.
“Not even a little bit,” the President said. “The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran — they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.”
But perhaps the most clarifying lens through which to view those words is what emerged just days later: Trump was suing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for $10 billion in damages over an IRS contractor’s leak of his tax returns but is now expected to drop that $10 billion lawsuit, not because justice has been served, but in exchange for the creation of a $1.7 billion fund to compensate his political allies.
The money would come not from any congressional appropriation but from the Treasury Department's Judgment Fund, a public fund funded by taxpayers that exists to pay legitimate court judgments against the federal government.
Under the proposed terms, a five-member commission with total authority to disburse that $1.7 billion would operate with no obligation to disclose its procedures or decision-making. Trump himself would retain the power to remove commission members without cause.
The beneficiaries? Among them: the nearly 1,600 individuals charged in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack, some of whom pleaded guilty, and people Trump already pardoned upon returning to office, as well as allies who claim they were targets of “weaponization” of the legal system under former President Joe Biden. Entities associated with Trump himself are not explicitly barred from filing claims.
The contrast here is not subtle. When asked directly whether the financial pain of working Americans factors into his decision-making, the president answers “not even a little bit.”
Yet within the same week, a deal surfaces in which $1.7 billion in public funds could flow to Trump allies, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and potentially Trump-linked entities — all under a commission the president controls, with no transparency requirements.
While ordinary Americans are losing ground financially, the president himself is doing remarkably well — and the numbers are staggering.
According to Forbes, Trump's net worth jumped from roughly $2.3 billion when he returned to the White House in January 2025 to an estimated $6.3 billion by April 2026 — nearly tripling his fortune in little over a year.
A New York Times investigation found that he personally gained approximately $1.4 billion in 2025 alone, a single-year increase that approaches the combined net worth of every other U.S. president while in office throughout American history.
The primary engine of that growth has not been real estate, the business that built his brand over five decades, but rather cryptocurrency ventures, meme coins, and media deals, all industries he has simultaneously deregulated from the Oval Office.
The American people are not the constituency this president governs for. The data bears that out. Real wages are losing ground as energy costs surge. The personal savings rate has dropped to 4%. Small businesses have shed hundreds of thousands of jobs under the weight of tariffs. Gas sits at over $4 a gallon. And the president's answer to the question of whether your financial pain is even in his mind is: no.
There is, of course, an argument to be made that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is a legitimate and serious national security priority that may justify some economic disruption.
But that argument is entirely separate from whether a president should care about the daily financial suffering of the people he was elected to serve. One can hold two things in mind at once. Trump apparently cannot — or will not.
We clearly have a portrait of a president whose conception of governance begins and ends with him and his loyalists. And when ordinary Americans ask if their struggles even register, they get the most honest answer this administration has offered: not even a little bit.
Lynn Schmidt is a columnist and Editorial Board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. She holds a master's of science in political science as well as a bachelor's of science in nursing.
Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.
On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:
Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”
One week earlier, on April 22, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY-8) said, “The Republicans are dummymandering their way into the minority before a single vote is cast,” after learning that Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee are all taking steps to redraw their congressional maps following the Supreme Court’s Callais decision. “They started this war, and we’re going to finish it.”
This oversight can be traced back to the last day the Senate held a filibuster-proof majority on February 4, 2010, when the Democratic Party did not advance redistricting reform. At that time, the party prioritized other major legislative goals, such as passing the Affordable Care Act and responding to the economic crisis, which left election reform issues like redistricting lower on the agenda. Big political differences within the party and concerns about jeopardizing their congressional gains also contributed to the inaction, making this a missed opportunity for systemic change.
As an expert on the Hypocrisy of Gerrymandering, I urge you to use the Issue One post as clear evidence that redistricting reform is urgently needed. Congress’s failure to act shows that it is not prioritizing fair representation. Take direct action: Contact your representatives now and demand they champion comprehensive redistricting reform. Your call can make a difference.
Recently, Columnist Jamil Smith wrote in his Guardian column, “The next Voting Rights Act must outlaw gerrymandering.” Yet since the 93rd Congress (1973–75), no federal legislation specifically aimed at reforming or regulating congressional redistricting has passed both houses of Congress, often failing to advance beyond committee or subcommittee referral.
In 2005, Representative John S. Tanner, a Democrat from Tennessee, was the first to introduce his redistricting reform legislation, the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act (FAIR Act), during the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. He then reintroduced it in the next two sessions during the Democratic-controlled House.
Beginning in 2005, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California introduced a bill in each of the last eleven Congresses, except the 118th (2023-2025), to stop gerrymandering by allowing each state to establish an independent redistricting commission. It was rejected in committee each time because it lacked sufficient support from Democratic leaders to move forward. Some leaders were concerned that national reform might weaken their party’s advantage in states where Democrats controlled redistricting, and worried that pushing the issue too aggressively could create divisions within the caucus or risk existing seats. Note: During the 117th Session (2021-2023), her 2021 version was included in the House version of the For the People Act (H.R. 1) as part of the redistricting provisions, but it failed to pass the Senate. Ten sessions in total!
Barack Obama briefly held a 60-seat Senate majority in 2009, lasting about 72 working days from July 7, 2009, to February 4, 2010. During those 72 days, Democrats did not advance election reform, including bills on gerrymandering, the Electoral College, or voting rights.
Lofgren’s redistricting bill, H.R.5596, came four months after the 60-vote majority ended, with 12 co-sponsors—all California Democrats. Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not support it, expecting Democrats to win the 2010 midterms and control redistricting.
At that time, Democrats held 57 Senate seats with two allied independents, and 255 of 433 Representatives. The Supreme Court was split 4–4, with Chief Justice Roberts as the swing vote.
The 2010 midterms saw Democrats lose 63 House seats, 6 Senate seats, 6 governorships, and approximately 726 state legislative seats.
At least nine distinct bills to regulate congressional redistricting—specifically, to ban mid-decade map redrawing—have been introduced in the 119th Congress (2025-2026). Click each bill number to read its summary and a list of co-sponsors.
Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting bills:
On July 10, 2025, Rep. Marc Veasey [D-TX-33] introduced H.R. 4358, the Anti-Rigging Act of 2025, with nine co-sponsors.
On August 5, Rep. Kevin Kiley [I-CA-3] introduced H.R. 4889, titled To prohibit States from carrying out more than one Congressional redistricting after a decennial census and apportionment, with two co-sponsors.
On October 28, Rep. Donald Davis [D-NC-1] introduced H. R. 5837—Restoring Electoral Stability to Enhance Trust (RESET)—without any co-sponsors.
On October 31, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez [D-TX-34] introduced H.R. 5879, the Save American Democracy Act, with six co-sponsors.
Require Independent Redistricting Commissions bills:
On July 25, Rep. Donald Beyer [D-VA-8] introduced H.R. 4632, the Fair Representation Act, with six co-sponsors.
On September 17, Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN-9] introduced H.R. 5426, the John Tanner and Jim Cooper Fairness and Independence in Redistricting Act. Imagine that it has no co-sponsors!
The next day, September 18, Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA-18] reintroduced H.R. 5449—Redistricting Reform Act of 2025. House Minority Leader Jeffries is not among the 58 co-sponsors. On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Alex Padilla [D-CA] proudly introduced S. 2885—Redistricting Reform Act of 2025, with three co-sponsors.
On January 26, 2026, Rep. Mike Lawler [R-NY-17] introduced H.R. 7219, the Fair Apportionment and Independent Redistricting for Maps that Avoid Partisanship (FAIR MAP) Act, with one co-sponsor.
The low number of co-sponsors shows that these bills have little chance of passing without immediate pressure from constituents like you. When lawmakers hear directly from the people they represent, especially in significant numbers, they take notice and often reconsider their priorities. Your call, letter, or email signals to your representative that voters are paying attention and care deeply about redistricting reform. Act now: call or write your representative and insist they support redistricting reform. Your engagement is vital.
As I approach my 82nd birthday in July, I realize that ending gerrymandering may not happen in my lifetime. But I stay committed—and urge you to do the same. Take an active role: demand your representative support federal action against gerrymandering. Together we can lead meaningful change.
Howard Gorrell is an advocate for the deaf, a former Republican Party election statistician, and a longtime congressional aide. He has been advocating against partisan gerrymandering for four decades.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could reshape presidential elections as Midwest states debate Electoral College reform, political polarization, and the future of winner-take-all voting in America.
The Midwest served as the vanguard and ideological heartland of the Progressive Era, acting as a crucial laboratory for political, social, and economic reforms that later adopted national significance. Midwestern states (the cradle of the movement) pioneered anti-monopoly efforts, democratic, and social improvements.
After 770+ failed proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendments (the most on record for one issue) to remedy the factionalism (21st century polarization) feared by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), a creative legal workaround, without requiring a U.S. Constitutional amendment, will be deliberated in (2027-2028) in many Midwest legislatures, with great emphasis on Michigan and Wisconsin, with fifteen and ten electoral votes, respectively. As the compact needs 48 more electoral votes to hit the 270-vote threshold, these purple or contested states are key battlegrounds where legislative control could determine whether they join the 19 jurisdictions already signed on.
The winner-take-all (WTA) electoral system, now utilized by 48 states and the District of Columbia, is the catalyst for the extreme political polarization (or "factionalism") that characterizes 21st-century American politics, a dynamic the Framers of the Constitution specifically sought to prevent.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution, particularly James Madison and George Washington, feared that political factions—groups united by common interests contrary to the rights of others would tear the new nation apart, leading to corruption, instability, and the erosion of liberty. They believed factions would prioritize narrow, partisan goals over the common good. 21st-century case in point: Project 2025! Prior to the formation of the author of Project 2025, many proposed Electoral College amendments had bipartisan support, with some failing to invoke closure in the Senate due to the filibuster.
NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.
With Virginia’s adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, which collectively hold 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.
In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a small group of 12 battleground states functioned as "magnets," attracting virtually all campaign resources, with candidates concentrated 99% of their advertising and 94% of physical visits on these "up for grabs" territories. Electoral college wins have ranged from 100% (George Washington) to barely more than 50%. Elections in the 21st century have been closer, on average, than most prior elections.
Efforts to reform or abolish the Electoral College (an institution of “minority rule” in and of itself) have historically failed due to institutional features that empower political minorities, a phenomenon frequently described as the "triple tyranny of the minority" within the U.S. constitutional system. These are: the U.S. Senate (Malapportionment), the Senate grants two seats to every state regardless of population, the Senate Filibuster, and the Constitutional Amendment Process. These institutions allow a small fraction of the population to block changes favored by the majority.
Historical Failed Amendments
• On September 18, 1969, the House passed a direct election amendment with a strong bipartisan vote (338-70). While heavily bipartisan, the effort died in the Senate in 1970 due to a filibuster led by Southern senators. Despite roughly 80% public support and a 338-70 House vote in favor, the proposal died when the 91st Congress ended.
• 1979: A proposal to abolish the Electoral College failed in the Senate with a 51-48 vote, falling short of the required two-thirds majority.
• Post-2000/2016: Despite the winner of the popular vote losing the presidency, subsequent attempts to pass constitutional amendments have failed to gain traction, due to the partisan perception that the system favors Republicans.
Institutional "Tyranny" and Reform
Experts argue that the combination of these elements creates a system where popular majorities cannot easily alter the foundational mechanisms of government. Because a formal amendment is so difficult, reformers have shifted to initiatives like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which attempts to change the system without amending the Constitution.
Hugh J. Campbell, Jr., CPA, is a Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) professional and a student of W. Edwards Deming, the American statistician often credited as the catalyst for the Japanese economic miracle after WWII.
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Key Takeaways
What is the Gas Tax?
Transit funding in California comes from a variety of sources, including the gas tax. In fact, most state funding comes from the state tax on gasoline. The revenue is distributed to support the maintenance of city streets, bridges, state highways, and more.
In 2017, former Governor Jerry Brown signed the Road Repair and Accountability Act (Senate Bill 1) into law. This legislation marked a significant investment in California’s transportation infrastructure, and was the first time the state’s gas tax was increased since 1994.
Overview of the Gas Tax Debate
Although the state charges the tax to gasoline suppliers, this cost tends to get passed on to drivers through higher gas prices. Additionally, since the passage of Senate Bill 1, the state gas tax is set to increase annually with inflation. California’s tax on gasoline is the highest in the country — one of several factors contributing to the high prices California drivers typically pay at the pump.
(Image Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration)
Gasoline prices in California consistently exceed the national average. Along with the gas tax, compliance with the state’s environmental regulations adds costs for fuel suppliers, often leading to higher prices.
Despite the high prices, the amount of funding collected from the state gas tax has been substantially decreasing. Some research projections indicate that with increased electric vehicle use, the state may soon face a significant decline in gas tax revenue if the current revenue structure is not revised or replaced.
Pros and Cons of California’s Environmental Regulations
Many have urged policy changes to bring gas prices down. In 2025, the California Republican congressional delegation called for Governor Gavin Newsom to hold off on implementing new updates from the California Air Resources Board. These amendments would tighten some existing requirements under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with “aims to accelerate the adoption of zero-emission infrastructure.” Many republicans opposed these changes out of concern that they would further strain suppliers and thus increase retail fuel prices.
Critics of California’s environmental policies also argue that these strict gas tax rules have led to refinery closures, creating a worsening gasoline supply crisis. Some economists have estimated that in 2026, the closures of two major refineries “will result in an additional $1.21 increase in gasoline prices, which could result in California gasoline prices being over $2.50 higher than in the rest of the country.”
However, proponents of the state’s regulations argue that the long-term benefits are significant, both environmentally and financially. For example, the LCFS has been described as an evidence-based effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollutants, improving air quality. Governor Newsom’s office has also stated that “in the long term, LCFS is estimated to reduce fuel costs for Californians per mile by 42% – translating to savings of over $20 billion in gasoline costs every year by 2045.”
A Mileage-Based Alternative?
With the rise in electric vehicle usage and the closures of several in-state refineries, recent conversations have turned to alternative methods of raising funds for transportation services instead of the gas tax. One of these proposals is a road usage fee, based on miles driven. The state has considered potential models of road charge systems for some time. In 2017, the Road Charge Pilot Program explored considerations like the complexity, feasibility, and functionality of road usage models. The study “confirmed the viability of many aspects of a user-based transportation revenue mechanism,” and the California State Transportation Agency has encouraged continued research.
Supporters argue that charging based on miles driven would increase fairness, as drivers of both gas and electric vehicles would contribute. Analysis has shown that a flat-rate road usage charge would help to reduce some inequities in the burden of transportation fees. For example, such a model would “generally shift the fuel tax burden from lower-income to higher-income households” according to researchers with the Mineta Transportation Institute.
Others have raised concerns about unintended side effects of a usage-based model. Currently, electric vehicle drivers in California pay additional registration fees to help make up for lost gas tax revenues. If a road usage charge was added, these drivers might face excessive costs, which could potentially disincentivize electric vehicle usage and its intended environmental benefits. Similarly, if usage fees were to be implemented in addition to the gas tax instead of replacing it, gas vehicle drivers would experience higher costs as well. Concerns have also been raised about the administrative burden of switching to a new program, and the potential for government overreach with the monitoring of drivers’ road usage.
Looking Forward
Ultimately, much of the discussion around a road usage charge can be considered preliminary. California lawmakers have not passed a mileage tax, despite some claims online. In March 2025, the Assembly and State Senate Transportation Committees held an informational hearing regarding declining gas tax revenues and potential paths forward. More recently, the State Assembly approved a measure for the California Transportation Commission to continue a long-term study of possible mileage-based models.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the gas tax pay for?
How does the gas tax affect gas prices?
How would a road usage charge work?
Is California switching to a road charge model?
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t