Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ending racial injustice begins with curbing law enforcement industry's political power

Opinion

Protest against private prison

Protestors in Florida speak out against private prisons, which prefer to house Black people because they cost less than white people, according to Kellogg.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Kellogg is a volunteer in Lincoln, Neb., for Wolf-PAC, which is seeking to build grassroots support for a constitutional amendment that would permit more regulation of money in politics.

"I can't breathe." The panic in my brother's faint voice struck me like a hammer blow. These words have become dreadfully familiar. We were at my uncle's house for an overnight stay and my brother's asthma had flared up. But for Black folk nationwide, these words are far more ominous.

My little cousins and I knew what to do. We set up a nebulizer and gave him medicine — and he could breathe easily again in less than five minutes. Compare that to the way police officers commonly treat unarmed Black men in this country. Imagine the repercussions if we hadn't helped my brother. Then, compare that to the impunity with which officers deal out murder and abuse to Black folk.

Now that everyone has a video camera in hand, the racism of policing and our justice system is starkly obvious. But how did we get here? What made our system so biased, and what is the history behind this?

President Richard Nixon began his drug war in 1971. His effort had racist roots and was based on bogus evidence as well as willful ignorance. Thus, part of Nixon's legacy is that Black people are arrested for drug possession at a far higher rate than whites, even though white and Black people do drugs at close to equal rates.

Because several of Nixon's successors expanded this policy — Ronald Reagan supported no-knock warrants like the one that got Breonna Taylor killed — an entire industry has a profit motive to ensure people of color are arrested more often. The private prison industry, which sprang up during the Reagan administration, prefers housing Black people because they cost less than white people, who are more often older and less healthy. Besides, their contracts with the states often dictate that a high percentage of their prison beds must be filled, or else the company gets paid for the empty beds.

The "corrections corporation" CoreCivic Inc. made so much revenue from its prisons last year that a mechanical counter tabulating a dollar every second would take almost 63 years to finish: $1.98 billion. But in order to keep the gravy train going, the industry participates in campaigns and influences lawmakers by investing some of its profit in candidates. It would take about three weeks for that same machine to tabulate all the money the industry put into the 2020 election: $2.7 million, which was 40 percent more than two years before.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and members of Congress ranging from Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell to Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas, have all taken money from this industry at some point in their careers.

The industry has even influenced judges. This was evidenced by the 2009 kids for cash scandal in Pennsylvania, in which two judges were paid kickbacks by the owners of for-profit juvenile detention centers in return for sentencing hundreds of kids to time in those facilities. The industry does whatever it can politically to keep the inmates coming in and the cash flowing, including pushing for harsher laws and longer sentencing periods.

The undue influence of money in our election system makes it close to impossible for we the people to stop this injustice. So, how do we fix it? We fix it by getting rid of that influence. Amending the U.S. Constitution is the best way to do this. We need language in there to prevent dollars from drowning out the voices of average Americans. Personally, I'm not sure what the exact language should be. We would decide that together at a convention to propose the amendment.

This is why I volunteer with Wolf-PAC. Our plan is to propose real reform of our campaign finance system through a convention of the states. Five states out of the 34 we need have already passed legislation calling for an Article V convention, and our activism contributed to these successes.

Amending the Constitution is the only way to bypass our broken Congress and the Supreme Court. Besides, we must make this change permanent. So join us. We need all of the help we can get.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less