Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

New House Democrats see difference between corporate PACs and K Street cash

Less than six months after winning seats in Congress partly on pledges to stay clear of corporate campaign cash, many new members of the House Democratic majority are violating the spirit if not the letter of those promises.

The swift movement away from their vows, and toward the special interests they previously spurned, is as clear a reminder as any of this truism of today's threatened democracy: The relentless drive for donations often plows through a politician's promises, including to finance their ambitions without the traditional reliance on the quid-pro-quo-implied generosity of big business.

At least 43 House Democrats, nearly one in five members of the caucus, have pledged not to accept donations from corporate political action committees, according to End Citizens United PAC, which seeks to reverse the Supreme Court's decision that largely deregulated the world of federal campaign finance. So have nine Democratic senators, several of them presidential candidates.


But many of those lawmakers have decided they can rationalize a decision to forswear the corporate PAC money while at the same time seeking contributions from the lobbyists advocating for those companies' interests.

Politico details today a series of fundraisers hosted for House newcomers by the K Street denizens who press the cases for such corporate behemoths as AT&T, Comcast, Microsoft, Pfizer, Verizon, Wells Fargo, Boeing, Citigroup, Johnson & Johnson, Nike and United Airlines. Many of the lawmakers took seats away from Republicans last fall in districts sure to be highly competitive again next year.

And they are being joined by a growing roster who have promised not to take corporate PAC money as they seek Democratic nominations for Congress in 2020, but are happily accepting checks from business lobbyists.

"This campaign is about the people of Arizona, not corporate PACs and the mess they've created in Washington," Mark Kelly, the former astronaut challenging GOP Sen. Martha McSally, says on his website. But, according to an invitation obtained by The Intercept, he was feted at a fundraiser last month at Capitol Counsel, which represents ExxonMobil, JPMorgan Chase and Lockheed Martin.

Some Democratic lobbyists are trying to persuade candidates and members who haven't yet sworn off corporate PAC money not to do so. "We are trying to educate members about the importance of employee-funded PACs to the campaign finance system," National Association of Business PACs President Catherine McDaniel, who leads a trade group for corporate PACs, told Politico.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less