Tuesday, August 20, 2024

Republicans Will Weaponize Rural Suffering as Long as Democrats Ignore It

JD Vance is a poser, but he’s telling a dangerously compelling story about rural America that Democrats are doing nothing to defuse.

IN THESE TIMES
August 19, 2024
  
J.D. Vance is a poser, but he knows how to tell a story.Photo by Alex Wong via Getty Images

The last couple months in U.S. politics have felt like a bad dream — the kind where you’re in a boat drifting toward a waterfall and your arms feel like limp sausages, useless on the oars.

In this waking nightmare, the waterfall is the impending rise to power of the U.S. far right. And your floppy wiener arms are the only things standing between us and that fate: the Democrats and their spineless politics.

Things have gotten slightly less bleak in the weeks leading up to the Democratic National Convention. Joe Biden left the field, and the half-buried carcass of the Democratic Party began to show signs of life. Even a political barbarian like myself couldn’t help but feel little whooshes of excitement when the party’s new standard bearers — Kamala Harris and Tim Walz — proved capable of denouncing the Right with fully-formed sentences.

What terrified me about the Republican National Convention terrifies me still: The Republicans are effectively wielding rural suffering as a political weapon, telling a potent story that—in classic fascist style—deflects the blame onto immigrants and other out-groups.


But let us not confuse this giddiness with evidence of a winning politics. What terrified me about the Republican National Convention terrifies me still: The Republicans are effectively wielding rural suffering as a political weapon, telling a potent story that — in classic fascist style — deflects the blame onto immigrants and other out-groups. Democrats could demolish these racist lies with a compelling story of their own — one that defuses the Right’s fascist messaging and shows how rural whites and immigrants (many of them in rural areas, of course) are actually being robbed and exploited by the very same profiteers, the same rigged economic system. Is this what the Democrats are doing? Of course not — that’s what makes it a bad dream.

In human form, this nightmare of mine has a name, and its JD Vance.

Despite the internet mockery and couch jokes, Vance is one of the Trump Right’s best messengers yet — and not because he has a stranglehold on rural, working-class authenticity. If Vance — a Yale-educated venture capitalist who, in the un-toppable words of my colleague Hamilton Nolan, ​“looks like he sleeps in a vat of lotion” — manages to pass for ​“authentic,” it says more about this comatose strip mall of a country than it does about him. He’s a poser, but he’s good at it — and he’s telling rural America a dangerously compelling story.

A street in rural Pennsylvania’s ​​Schuylkill Haven named “Forget Me Not”Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein via Getty Images


In his RNC speech, Vance spoke to the pain of small towns and rural areas ​“cast aside and forgotten by America’s ruling class,” places where ​“jobs were sent overseas and our children were sent to war.” As prosperity bled out of these communities, he says, drugs poured in, and he talks about losing people he knew to the overdose epidemic. Then he’s on to lambasting stagnant wages and the rising cost of housing and the growing impossibility, for many people, of buying or even renting a place to live. Who among us can’t relate to this pain? Who has not struggled with opioids or shitty wages or finding affordable housing or has not at least known someone who has? These are defining features of modern American life, especially in rural parts.

And, critical to the story he’s telling, Vance names the cause of this misery, the villains responsible for it: ​“America’s ruling class” (so far, so good) and the ​“millions of illegal aliens” they let into the country to steal your jobs and houses and deal drugs to your kids (and there’s the dark, fascist twist we were waiting for). This story also includes a hero, a savior named Donald Trump, who if reelected will take revenge on the ruling class and embark on a campaign of mass deportations.

Mainstream Democrats have responded with weak sauce, attacking Vance and Trump for the swindlers they are but failing to offer a compelling alternative story.

On immigration, they too often mumble about secure borders and try to sound like Republicans. Harris, for example, has tried to position herself as tougher than Trump on the border, citing her time as attorney general of California and her support for the bipartisan border security bill that Trump helped undermine. And as to what’s causing the rural suffering Vance is speaking to directly, they don’t offer much of an answer at all (unless you count selling camo campaign hats).

This is a grave mistake — politically because more than a third of rural voters could actually be persuaded, and morally because this suffering is very real. And the villains, too, are real, but they have much more in common with Vance and Trump than the immigrants they demonize. Because the truth is that rural areas haven’t been so much ​“left behind” as systematically raided.


A farmhouse sits abandoned and decaying in rural Arkansas.Photo by Rex Lisman via Getty Images


In a 2021 essay called ​“Hollowed Out Heartland, U.S.A.,” Marc Edelman, a professor in the Department of Anthropology at Hunter College, documents how, since the 1980s, ​“financial capital has developed imaginative new ways to strip and seize” rural assets, ​“whether these be mutually-owned banks, industries, cooperatively-owned grain elevators, local newspapers, hospitals, people’s homes or stores located in towns and malls.”

At the same time, the merciless logic of capital continues to drive small-scale farmers off the land in favor of bigger and bigger operations — massive monocrop biodiversity deserts dependent on expensive machinery and drenched in the fertilizers and pesticides peddled by massive agribusiness companies. Less farmers means less kids in the local school system, less customers for struggling local businesses, less of a town. And the people who remain do so at great risk to their health: A recent study found that, because of heavy pesticide use, merely living in a farming town is as dangerous as smoking.
Capital has treated many rural areas as resource colonies, places to plunder and cast aside.


“The lion’s share of the vast wealth that rural zones produced and continue to produce has accrued to shareholders in corporations and financial institutions headquartered in a handful of distant, economically dynamic urban centers,” writes Edelman. Capital has, in short, treated many rural areas as resource colonies, places to plunder and cast aside. It’s no mystery why rural people might feel they’ve been cheated and robbed — they have been.
 
This process has spread banking, news, food and maternity-care deserts across vast swaths of rural America. The consequences are dire: Banking deserts mean less access to credit, newspaper closures are associated with increased government corruption and community disintegration, and lack of access to maternity care contributes to the United States’ soaring rates of maternal and child mortality. The rate of drug overdose deaths in the United States has quadrupled since 2002, and drug overdoses now kill more Americans every year than were killed in the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined.


A couple waits before receiving lunch at the Hope Center, which has been a staple in Hagerstown, Md., since 1955, providing shelter for the unhoused and resources for those struggling with addiction.Photo by Spencer Platt via Getty Images


“As once vital communities and neighborhoods hollowed out, losing their institutions and the capacity to appropriate the wealth they produce, despair and anxiety triggered violence and addiction,” Edelman writes. ​“Scholars and the media have underestimated the human toll of this crisis.”

This pain, given direction by a story, can easily become rage — and a potent weapon in the hands of Republicans (who have no intention of solving these problems, of course, but know an opportunity when they see one). The Left must defuse this weapon by telling the true story of the plundering of rural America.


The Farmers Who Can’t Afford Farms
Thirty-eight percent of young farmers—including 62% of young Black farmers—have student debt, which can make it impossible to take on farm loans.
Joseph Bullington
 

  


J.D. Vance’s Appalachian Graveyard
The Republican VP nominee’s politics of blame were never meant to help the working class.
Elizabeth Catt
 


Trump, Vance and the Right-Wing Counter-Revolutionaries
The Right’s perennial call for ​“order” doesn’t necessarily mean affirming the existing order.
Matt McManus



Given direction by a new story, this pain could cease to successfully wedge off rural whites, as Vance and company are betting it will. It could instead be a source of unity that offers rural people a place in a shared struggle against the real villains. Against the drug companies that exploited the dead-end emptiness of American life and fueled the overdose epidemic that’s killing our friends from West Virginia to Chicago. Against the private equity funds and corporate landlords and vacation-rental companies and land speculators that are driving us from our homes in small towns and big cities alike. Against the chemical companies poisoning the Midwest with their pesticides and the Gulf Coast with their factories. Against this system that creates profit by feeding people and their beloved places into the meat grinder of the economy. Against the logic of the sacrifice zone itself, and all those who push it and profit from it.

As Democrats gather in Chicago this week to build out a platform, that’s the story I’ll be listening for. But I won’t be holding my breath, because the villains in this story — the villains plundering us all — also write some pretty hefty campaign checks, and the Democratic Party, by and large, seems more willing to let the boat flounder toward fascism than to name them.


Joseph Bullington grew up in the Smith River watershed near White Sulphur Springs, Montana. He is the editor of Rural America In These Times.
Why Is the UAW’s Federal Monitor Involving Himself in the Union’s Stance on Gaza?

The monitor tasked with overseeing the union’s compliance with a federal consent decree is inappropriately challenging the union’s call for a cease-fire in Gaza.
August 8, 2024
IN THESE TIMES
UAW President Shawn Fain calls for a cease-fire in Gaza at a news conference in Washington D.C. on December 14, 2023.Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

As Michigan lawyers involved in labor law and policy, we were shocked to see that the federal monitor overseeing the United Auto Workers’ return to good governance has twice commented on the union’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That matter is completely outside of the monitor’s scope, and his improper interference in the union’s affairs calls into question his ability to continue to serve effectively in this role.

Let’s look at how we got here. In January 2021, a U.S. federal judge entered a consent decree—a negotiated, court-authorized settlement — to resolve fraud and corruption charges filed by the Department of Justice against the UAW, several of its officers, and management figures at Chrysler (now Stellantis). The civil and criminal charges concerned kickbacks, bribery and other wrongdoing among certain union officers and corporate managers, constituting clear misuse of union funds and members’ trust.

That matter is completely outside of the monitor’s scope, and his improper interference in the union’s affairs calls into question his ability to continue to serve effectively in this role.


That consent decree led the court to appoint a private lawyer to serve as a monitor to oversee compliance with the decree. It also led to the ​“direct election” of UAW leadership for the first time, after members voted to exercise this right pursuant to the decree. That election resulted in victory for a self-defined reform slate, as current union President Shawn Fain and his running mates won a majority of executive board positions.

Fain was immediately faced with bargaining to renew contracts at Detroit’s Big Three automakers, the heart of the union’s historical and current membership and one of the central pillars of unionized work arrangements in the United States. Fain took a radically different approach to bargaining than his predecessors and emerged with a historic contract with each automaker, winning massive gains in wages, benefits and pensions, ending ​“tiers” that pitted workers against each other, and even creating avenues to bring workers in the automakers’ emerging battery plants under the master contract.
The UAW announcement was politically significant, as the union has been a powerful messenger supporting President Joe Biden’s economic agenda.


The new leadership then launched a wave of ambitious organizing drives — practically before the ink on these contracts had dried — while embracing the union’s storied social justice legacy. (For example, the UAW helped bankroll the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.)

On Dec. 1, 2023, the UAW joined other unions in calling for a ​“ceasefire in Israel and Gaza” and announced that its executive board had voted to ​“form a Divestment and Just Transition working group to study the history of Israel and Palestine, the union’s economic ties to the conflict, and to explore how to achieve a just transition for US workers from war to peace.” The union explicitly tied this move to its social justice history, including ​“mobilizing against apartheid South Africa and the CONTRA war” and standing ​“for justice across the globe.”

UAW President Owen Bieber (right) in 1986 cuts up a Shell credit card a news conference to announce the union's support for a boycott of Shell products as part of an international protest against apartheid South Africa.Bettmann

The UAW announcement was politically significant, as the union has been a powerful messenger supporting President Joe Biden’s economic agenda. Biden made history by joining striking autoworkers on the picket line, while Fain has been steadfast in criticizing former President Donald Trump and rebuffing Trump’s attempts to present himself as a friend of workers. That the union took an antiwar stand implicitly critical of the president may have carried extra weight

Of course, whatever positions the union might take on social justice issues has nothing to do with the mandate of a monitor appointed to ensure compliance with norms of financial and organizational probity. What’s more, the legitimacy of the monitor’s position depends on his own probity in sticking to his mandate, lest it seem a federal official is interfering in a union or other organization’s internal affairs or trying to influence it inappropriately.

Yet the Detroit News reported that the monitor could not help taking advantage of his position of power to meddle in a policy matter evidently of personal interest to him but unrelated to the court order. According to emails between the union’s attorney and the monitor, the monitor called Fain to express concerns on a ​“strictly personal level” about the union’s position on the crisis in Gaza.

RELATED TO THE UAW


UAW Endorses Cease-Fire, the Largest U.S. Union to Call for an Immediate End to the Violence
The announcement at a news conference where protesters have been on a hunger strike outside of the White House marks a major development for labor and the larger call for a cease-fire.
Mindy Isser



Let’s dispense with any notion of a communication about union policy being ​“strictly personal.” The monitor and Fain had, and to our knowledge have, no personal relationship outside the scope of the monitor’s duties. They did not grow up together, work together, socialize together, or anything of the kind. Even if they had such a personal relationship, once the monitor was appointed, communicating about union business outside the scope of his mandate could not be characterized as ​“personal,” given his immense power over the union and its leaders.

In February, the monitor again raised concerns, this time about a statement issued by one UAW Local. He emailed a letter from the Anti-Defamation League (sent to the monitor’s hotline, set up to detect violations of the consent decree) to the union’s legal department, again acknowledging ​“this issue is outside of the monitor’s jurisdiction” while characterizing the issues raised in the letter as ​“serious.” What can it possibly mean for a federal monitor to admit that an issue is obviously outside his jurisdiction but is ​“serious”? How could the union’s leadership treat this as anything but a demand to conform to the monitor’s view or face unknown consequences? As the union’s outside counsel wrote to the monitor, these acts showed ​“a surprising lack of integrity.”


A major escalation during the UAW's historic Stand-Up Strike in fall 2023 was when the union went on strike at Ford's Kentucky Truck Plant.Photo by Michael Swensen/Getty Images


We concur and note the irony of the situation: the consent decree that defines the monitor’s work is aimed at rooting out precisely the sort of distortions of organizational integrity that could result from the monitor’s meddling. The monitor has acknowledged that the union’s position on U.S. policy in the Middle East is beyond his purview; there is no dispute about this. The impropriety results from the combined effects of this fact with the massive and largely discretionary power he holds over the union and its ability to function in other ways.

Duke law professor Veronica Root Martinez, one of the country’s foremost authorities on monitorships, wrote in the Harvard Law Review in 2023 about the critical need to ensure proper oversight and monitoring of monitors, given that monitors’ activities ​“directly impact[] the public in a variety of ways.” Root Martinez has shown that the variety of monitorship arrangements may require greater regulatory standardization to ensure such oversight in the public interest.

IMPORTANT IN THESE TIMES INVESTIGATIONS 

     
As Fentanyl Overdoses Soar, LA City Crews Toss State-Funded Narcan from Encampments
“After sweeps, late at night when there’s no providers here, when there’s no one to give the Narcan to people, people are running up and down the street screaming, begging for Narcan.”
Jack Ross



In this case, fortunately, there can be little doubt that the court already has the authority to provide the necessary oversight. The court has expressly retained the ongoing jurisdiction and authority to implement and oversee its decree as needed, e.g., by handling appeals from the decisions of its appointed agents, including the monitor. Implicit in this retention of authority for immediately foreseeable issues — and also inherent in its more basic powers — is the court’s broader authority to ensure the integrity of the institutional arrangement it has authorized and continues to empower. Other courts too have ​“maintain[ed] supervisory power of [] implementation” in similar situations.

Given the obviousness and severity of the violation, that it was repeated twice, that the speech involves a matter of pressing public concern and the likelihood that other supervised organizations may be chilled in the exercise of legitimate speech rights as a result, we believe the court should seriously consider replacing the monitor.


The court must exercise that supervisory power to curb and remedy the improper conduct that has already occurred. At a minimum, this should include a clearly worded declaration from the court that the union’s speech on issues of global justice and peace (or other domestic or foreign policy matters) cannot be the subject of communications from the monitor, and that he must not seek even indirectly to influence any matter beyond his purview. Given the obviousness and severity of the violation, that it was repeated twice, that the speech involves a matter of pressing public concern and the likelihood that other supervised organizations may be chilled in the exercise of legitimate speech rights as a result, we believe the court should seriously consider replacing the monitor.

The court must craft a remedy that dissuades this or any other monitor from misusing monitorship opportunities to engage in extracurricular arm-twisting — acts of inappropriate influence that are ironically very much in the same genus of interference with union democracy and integrity that the complaint in this case sought to root out, and that the union seemed to be well on its way to resolving.


Andy Levin served as staff attorney to President Bill Clinton’s labor law reform commission and has worked on labor law and policy at the AFL-CIO, for the state of Michigan and as a member of Congress.


Sanjukta Paul is a law professor at the University of Michigan specializing in labor and antitrust law. She previously represented workers, civil rights plaintiffs and labor unions in Southern California.

What Sex Workers Want from Kamala Harris

In an open letter, sex workers laid out how a Harris administration could rein in danger and criminalization
August 19, 2024
IN THESE TIMES
At the top of sex workers' list is decriminalization. Here, sex workers and their allies march at the Third Annual Slut Walk (Marcha De Las Putas) in Queens, organized by Colectivo Intercultural TRANSgrediendo and Lorena Borjas Community Fund, demanding an end to transphobic violence, criminalization and discrimination, on Sept. 18, 2020
.Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

Much has been made of the stark contrast between Republicans’ darkly authoritarian message and the ​“happy warrior” approach of Vice President Kamala Harris and her new running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. But the Harris-Walz juggernaut remains heavy on vibes and light on policy; the campaign’s website currently hosts only the candidates’ bios, donate and ​“take action” links, events listings and a merch store.

The perceived malleability of Harris’s platform has encouraged some progressive activists to push her towards specific positions. Harris met with leaders of the Uncommitted movement in Detroit on August 7, who pushed for an arms embargo on Israel. But protesters calling for an end to genocide were escorted out of her campaign rally the same day; the day after that, her national security adviser stated publicly that Harris opposes an embargo. It remains to be seen how much potential there is for people outside the campaign to shape Harris’ approach, but many groups are making their wishlists public.

Among them is SWOP Behind Bars, a branch of the national grassroots nonprofit Sex Workers Outreach Project-USA (SWOP-USA). SWOP Behind Bars provides legal and practical support for incarcerated sex workers and survivors of trafficking, sexual assault, intimate partner violence and forced criminality.

No matter which of the candidates ends up sitting in the Oval Office, it is a stark truth that the workers and survivors these organizations represent will remain at risk of exploitation, abuse and worse. But in a July 30 open letter to Harris signed by sex workers and by advocates for sex workers and trafficking victims, SWOP Behind Bars has laid out its vision of how a Harris administration could rein in the widespread repression, criminalization and dangers that sex workers face.


Protesters in London oppose a U.K. version of SESTA-FOSTA, the U.S. laws supported by then-Sen. Kamala Harris that put sex workers at higher risk, on July 4, 2018.Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing via Getty Images


With an eye towards harmful past positions by Harris, the organizers wrote, ​“There are some concerns we need to address before stepping into the voting booth and checking the box next to your name.”
SESTA-FOSTA: Pushing workers into danger


First among their concerns was Harris’ support as a senator for a package of disastrous laws passed in 2018 under Trump: the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act and Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, which together are colloquially known as SESTA-FOSTA. While the laws were intended to fight sex trafficking, extensive research as well as sex workers’ lived experiences have shown that SESTA-FOSTA actually hurt the people it aimed to help.


SESTA-FOSTA changed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to allow internet platforms to be held responsible for hosting content advertising sexual services. As a result, websites like Backpage and CraigslistPersonals, which sex workers had long used to advertise, were yanked offline. This was disastrous because the ban on these pages didn’t just limit advertising, but also curtailed a main avenue sex workers used to share information, privately screen clients and work for themselves.



Sign up for our special daily newsletter during the DNC in collaboration with The Real News Network. We’ll be providing on the ground coverage and analysis corporate media won’t show you.
Sign up now


“The ability to work independently online had reduced the need for sex workers in dire financial situations to work on the streets or through an exploitative agency or third party,” independent researchers Danielle Blunt and Ariel Wolf explained in their 2020 report, ​“Erased: The impact of FOSTA-SESTA and the removal of Backpage on sex workers,” published in the Anti-Trafficking Review. ​“Not only did working online previously allow sex workers to mitigate harms, it provided some degree of financial security.”

After the ban, sex workers were forced to find alternative means of communicating with clients and planning meetings, including working with pimps who sought to control and exploit them. Without the ability to screen out potentially dangerous clients, workers were left to arrange meetings however they could, cross their fingers and hope to make it home from work unscathed. As one survey respondent told Blunt and Wolf, ​“Everything I know about being safe in sex work is because I was able to speak to other sex workers online.”


SESTA-FOSTA changed that, and Harris’ work as California’s top prosecutor was a major precursor. Harris went after Back​page​.com with gusto, arresting the CEO on pimping charges in 2016. (The charges were later dismissed.) Her lawsuit, along with another in Texas and a parallel Senate investigation, led to federal charges and the site’s shutdown by the FBI in 2018.

In the meantime Backpage had become the boogeyman targeted by SESTA/FOSTA when the bills were introduced in 2017. As a senator, Harris was not publicly involved in drafting or advancing the bills, instead reportedly handling behind-the-scenes negotiations with opposition in the tech industry. Eventually, she signed on as a co-sponsor of the Senate version, SESTA.

The senator may have believed her intentions were good, but the impact SESTA/FOSTA has had on sex workers is devastating — and there is no evidence that it has made a meaningful dent in reducing sex trafficking.

RELATED TO THE DNC


How to Listen to Michigan at the DNC in Chicago
From Dearborn to Benton Harbor, working people in the Great Lakes State are building progressive power. One of the efforts that emerged transformed into the Uncommitted national movement.
Eman Abdelhadi



“SESTA has inadvertently encouraged the abuse it sought to eradicate, as often happens when labor regulations are passed without consulting workers on how to best combat exploitation,” declares the national organization Decriminalize Sex Work on its website. ​“If this law has had an effect on rates of trafficking in the United States, it has evidently only increased the risks sex workers and trafficking survivors face.”

The SWOP Behind Bars letter brought up another disappointing episode from Harris’ tenure as California’s top cop, when she allegedly ignored rampant sexual abuse committed by members of the Oakland Police Department against an underage sex worker. In 2016, a teenage girl using the pseudonym Celeste Guap went public about her treatment at the hands of dozens of Oakland police officers, who knew she was a sex worker and took advantage of their position to initiate sexual contact. Her attorney repeatedly appealed to the attorney general’s office, asking that they intervene in the complex case, but no response came.

“Celeste had tried to report multiple police officers, some of whom she claimed had sex with her while she was a minor and you did not take enough action to investigate or hold the involved officers accountable,” SWOP Behind Bars wrote. ​“The case is a significant example of the potential for abuse of power and the importance of accountability and transparency in policing but you have never made a public statement about it and that is troubling.”

The organization’s letter ends with a list of requests for a possible future Harris administration to consider.

Activists and sex workers demonstrate to bring awareness of sex workers rights in Miami Beach, Florida on Dec. 16, 2023.Eva Marie Uzcategui/AFP via Getty Images)


Sex Work Is Work


At the top of the list is a clear call for the full decriminalization of sex work. ​“Consensual adult sex work and trafficking are distinct issues,” the letter explains. ​“The criminalization of adult consensual sex work pushes us into the shadows, making us vulnerable to violence, exploitation, and human rights abuses.”

In a 2019 interview with The Root, Harris was asked point-blank if she supported decriminalization. ​“I think so; I do,” she replied. ​“When we are talking about consenting adults, I think that, yes, we should really consider that we can’t criminalize consensual behavior as long as no one is being harmed. But at the point that anyone’s being harmed or exploited, we have to understand that that’s a different matter.”

“The criminalization of adult consensual sex work pushes us into the shadows, making us vulnerable to violence, exploitation, and human rights abuses.”


The statement showed a marked evolution from 2008, when Harris served as district attorney of San Francisco and dismissed the idea of decriminalization, saying it would welcome ​“pimps and prostitutes to come on into” the city. So perhaps here is the potential for movement toward full decriminalization and away from a position more in line with the so-called Nordic model, which treats sex workers’ clients as criminals. In a sweeping 2016 report, Amnesty International found that Norway’s criminalization of clients seven years prior had led to policing of sex workers and an ​“increased risk of stigmatization, marginalization and violence.”

The letter’s other asks concern improving sex workers’ working conditions and addressing the risks they face from clients, law enforcement, stigma and discrimination. Protection from violence and exploitation is a major priority, and SWOP Behind Bars calls for stronger laws to hold abusers accountable and proper training for law enforcement to improve their behavior towards the community and create safe, respectful avenues for reporting abuse.

The same stigma that complicates sex workers’ relationship with the police — who are (in theory) meant to offer protection — can also follow sex workers into healthcare and social services settings, especially for those who have multiple marginalized identities. ​“We need policies that ensure our right to health, including non-judgmental and inclusive healthcare, mental health support, and social services,” the group writes. ​“This includes addressing the specific needs of transgender sex workers, who face additional layers of marginalization and health disparities.”

“Recognizing sex work as legitimate labor also means ensuring our labor rights."

In addition, the group zooms out to emphasize the need for economic justice and labor rights, noting that many sex workers become involved in the industry due to a lack of economic opportunities and systemic inequalities, and calling on Harris to address those root causes. ​“Recognizing sex work as legitimate labor also means ensuring our labor rights, including the right to organize, unionize, and work under fair conditions,” the letter adds, wisely tying in sex wokers’ lack of representation in the organized labor movement with their broader exploitation.

While many sex workers are classified as independent contractors and thus ineligible to formally unionize, some not only can but have organized themselves for collective bargaining. In the 1990s, when workers at the Lusty Lady in San Francisco successfully unionized with SEIU, supported by the National Organization for Women and a strong local sex work advocacy community, they were outliers. Other sex workers union campaigns around the country fell victim to successful union-busting. But workers have won change through other kinds of organizing, including legislative advocacy; just this March in Washington, the advocacy group Strippers Are Workers won a Strippers’ Bill of Rights that creates necessary new protections for the state’s dancers. And the recent unionization wave has swept up the sex work industry: As of 2023, the Star Garden in Hollywood, California, and Portland, Oregon’s Magic Tavern are now represented by the Actors’ Equity Association, a 50,000-member union for live performance professionals.
MORE FROM KIM KELLY  


Tyler Childers’ New "In Your Love" Video Marries the Joy of Queer Love With the Horrors of Black Lung
Childers' new music video for "In Your Love” is a striking portrait of queer resilience—and coal baron greed.
Kim Kelly



Finally, the letter asks that Harris do something to address the whorephobia, harmful narratives and overall stigma that sex workers face, noting that dehumanizing language and policies increase the likelihood that these workers will experience discrimination and violence.

Any administration or politician who professes to care about vulnerable workers must make it clear that they include sex workers in that category — and listen to them when they explain what their community needs. The presidential bully pulpit is a powerful tool, and SWOP Behind Bars is hoping for a future in which a President Harris uses it to recognize their work as legitimate and emphasize respect and dignity that all workers deserve. As they wrote, ​“We need to know that our lives matter to you and that you are committed to learning from past missteps.”

“There are an estimated 2 million criminalized sex workers and another estimated 2 million online content creators (That’s a lot of votes!) who need to know that you are going to be inclusive and respectful regarding their safety and dignity,” the letter reminds her.

Given Harris’ record, it wouldn’t be surprising for advocates to come in hot, but SWOP Behind Bars’ communique maintains a respectful, even friendly tone — while still reminding Harris that millions of sex workers will be watching closely as Election Day draws nearer.

“There are an estimated 2 million criminalized sex workers and another estimated 2 million online content creators (That’s a lot of votes!) who need to know that you are going to be inclusive and respectful regarding their safety and dignity,” the letter reminds her. ​“We see you coming so close to supporting our bodily autonomy — but we’d like to help you frame your narrative to ensure we make forward progress on this very important issue.”

Thanks to the public-facing work of organizations like SWOP Behind Bars, SWOP-USA and others, no one — even someone working on a high-profile presidential campaign — can pretend they haven’t gotten the message. Now it’s on Harris to prove that she cares enough to listen.

Want to know what’s going on at the DNC?

Looking for high-quality independent media to bring you all the information you need? Sign up for our daily DNC newsletter! It’ll land in your inbox each morning through August 25.

In These Times and The Real News Network will be curating essential DNC coverage and analysis from movement media to help surface the stories that corporate media will ignore—or spin.

We’ll be delivering the latest on not only what’s going on inside the convention hall, but scenes from Gaza solidarity protests and the looming shadow of Project 2025. You’ll get to hear from storytellers like Maximillian Alvarez, Eman Abdelhadi, Hamilton Nolan, and many others.




Kim Kelly is a freelance journalist and author based in Philadelphia, PA. She is a labor writer for In These Times, a labor columnist at Teen Vogue and Fast Company, and regularly contributes to many other publications. Her first book, FIGHT LIKE HELL: The Untold History of American Labor, is now available from One Signal/​Simon & Schuster. Follow her on Twitter at @grimkim and subscribe to her newsletter, Salvo, here.

Two Years In, These “Progressive” Companies Still Haven’t Negotiated First Union Contracts

The union wave at big U.S. retailers hasn’t yet resulted in first contracts for workers at Trader Joe’s, Starbucks and REI. But unions are proving their value in other ways.
April 12, 2024
IN THESE TINES
Union workers protest outside their REI store.REI Union / Facebook

Claire Chang and Steve Buckley knew it wasn’t going to be easy. But the two retail workers-turned-union organizers had been heartened by progress made during the first year of contract negotiations with REI, the outdoor gear and apparel chain. By June 2023 — more than a year after Chang and Buckley’s store in Manhattan became the first REI location in the country to unionize — the bargaining committee on which they serve had reached a number of tentative agreements with the company. ​“It seemed like we were building up a rhythm,” says Chang, who has worked at the REI store in SoHo for more than six years.

Then, negotiations quickly went south, Buckley says. REI began working with Morgan Lewis, a management-side law firm known in union circles for hardline, union-busting tactics. The company sent its lawyers to bargaining sessions alone, without any corporate managers, which Buckley saw as part of a new strategy to stretch out negotiations and sap the union’s strength. As of April, there’s been no progress toward a first contract for nearly a year. ​“Blatant disregard and openly hostile negotiations aren’t productive,” Buckley says. The company has ​“continued to get worse and worse because they’re embracing their worst impulses.”

Talk to union members at Trader Joe’s, which (like REI and Starbucks) also has unionized retail stores across the country pushing for a first contract, and you’ll hear similar things. Four Trader Joe’s stores have unionized since July 2022 (and another has filed for union election), 9 REI stores have unionized since March 2022 (with another store election coming later this month) and nearly 400 Starbucks stores have unionized since December 2021. The efforts at these companies, which have all tried to burnish progressive reputations, provide a window into the challenging process of negotiating a first contract more than two years after a wave of unionizing first hit the retail industry.

Trader Joe’s Union (TJU) Vice President Sarah Beth Ryther describes contract negotiations this way: ​“Every single bargaining session is excruciatingly long. Eight hours where almost nothing happens.” The company’s strategy, she says, is: ​“We will waste all of your resources as much as possible, we will dangle tiny little treats that won’t come to fruition.”

Ryther and Chang are heartened by the recent news that Starbucks and its union, Workers United, would resume in-person bargaining in late April after a lengthy break. For the first time, the company has signaled support for a potential national labor accord, agreeing to meet with workers from union stores across the country. But the apparent breakthrough at Starbucks has yet to alter the bargaining dynamic at Trader Joe’s and REI. Workers at all three retail companies learned a painful truth over the past two years: Just because a corporation cultivates a progressive veneer doesn’t mean it will welcome a union.

The recent Starbucks news is ​“promising,” Ryther says. ​“But we’ve seen these enormous corporations make many of the same promises before.”

John Logan, a professor of labor history at San Francisco State University, is not convinced Starbucks’ new union rhetoric will lead to a strong first contract anytime soon. The company has said it wants to complete bargaining and contract ratification this year.

“It’s hard to imagine the company agreeing to a contract that provides an incentive for workers in non-union stores to unionize,” Logan says. Still, workers and their union will continue pushing for better wages, benefits and working conditions when bargaining sessions finally restart.

Waiting workers out

In lieu of progress at the bargaining table, the three unions that have kept organizing momentum going after initial historic victories — Trader Joe’s United, Workers United and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (which REI workers joined) — have spent a lot of time in court.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency charged with enforcing federal labor law, has ruled in the unions’ favor dozens of times on various matters, including illegal retaliatory firings and finding that Starbucks has failed to bargain in good faith. The NLRB has ruled similarly against Amazon, which still refuses to recognize the validity of Amazon Labor Union’s (ALU) sole warehouse union victory in April 2022.

In fact, the NLRB has filed more than 125 complaints against Starbucks. Late in 2023, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union filed 80 unfair labor practice charges against REI with the NLRB, alleging a ​“concerted, multi-pronged union-busting campaign” including retaliatory firings, schedule changes and disciplinary actions. TJU has filed similar charges against the grocery store chain. Starbucks, REI and Trader Joe’s have denied all wrongdoing, although they have settled specific charges. An REI spokesperson said in an email that the company ​“is committed to and engaged in good-faith bargaining.” Starbucks and Trader Joe’s did not respond to emailed questions.

It’s amazing how much — and yet how little — can happen in two years, when it comes to first contract negotiations. It has long been a slow process, and it appears to be lengthening. Economic Policy Institute research found that between 1999 and 2003, 37% of newly unionized workplaces didn’t have a first contract after two years, while 30% didn’t have one after three years. A study of union elections in 2018 found that 63% didn’t reach a first contract in the first year after organizing and 43% still didn’t reach one after two years. That study also concluded that employer obstruction through unfair labor practices served as a major impediment to negotiating a first contract.

Such lengthy delays would likely increase if the courts side with anti-union forces’ latest tactics. In January, Morgan Lewis introduced a new innovation to the corporate anti-union playbook. The firm, which (along with REI) represents Trader’s Joe’s, Amazon and SpaceX, began arguing before the NLRB that the 89-year-old agency’s structure is unconstitutional. The argument, which challenges long-standing legal precedents, claims that the NLRB ​“violates constitutional separation of powers and due process protections by wielding different types of authority in the same case,” Bloomberg Law reported. Starbucks began making a similar argument in February in a case that will head to the Supreme Court for oral argument later this month. If the court rules in favor of Starbucks, the NLRB’s ability to reinstate workers fired during a union campaign could be curtailed.

These companies are ​“so frustrated that they’re working to basically take down the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the NLRB,” says Seth Goldstein, who represents both TJU and the Amazon Labor Union. ​“Because they can’t defeat us any other way. This is an attack on the American labor movement.”

During a contract bargaining session in February, Goldstein says he asked Trader Joe’s Deputy General Counsel Nancy Inesta whether she recognized the validity of the NLRA and the NLRB’s jurisdiction over the company’s practices. ​“She refused to agree to that,” Goldstein says. ​“It’s not normal to talk to someone like it’s 1920.” The NLRA, passed during the height of the New Deal in 1935, enshrined the idea of workers’ collective bargaining rights into federal law and created the NLRB.

Through their efforts to delay bargaining, including retaliation and litigation, companies are trying to turn time and employee turnover into an ally, hoping that worker morale drops, solidarity erodes and union decertification efforts multiply.


Two years into the retail unionization wave, and even with the most pro-union NLRB in decades calling companies out for their illegal tactics, corporate intransigence in the sector appears as strong as ever (with the exception of Starbucks). Through their efforts to delay bargaining, including retaliation and litigation, companies are trying to turn time and employee turnover into an ally, hoping that worker morale drops, solidarity erodes and union decertification efforts multiply.

In the face of opposition, how are unions proving their value to members and staying strong as the contract fight drags on?

Bringing embattled unions to life

Barista Parker Davis has one answer to that question: protect and defend the day-to-day and month-to-month needs of members whenever necessary.

In November 2022, just a few months after Davis’ San Antonio Starbucks store unionized, the building’s drains backed up, forcing a three-day closure. While the drainage problem was being fixed, management reduced shift lengths and sent many workers home. The union then asked for workers to be paid for their scheduled shifts, citing a ​“catastrophic pay” policy in the company’s employee guide that stipulates employees will be paid if a store is closed due to a natural disaster.

“We knew that other stores had gotten catastrophic pay when their power had been cut temporarily,” says Davis, who played a lead role in unioning his store two years ago. Similarly, ​“our water services weren’t working, essentially.”

But the company refused to pay the workers and, in response, the union demanded to bargain over the impacts of the store closure decision. Starbucks flew lawyers from union avoidance firm Littler Mendelson into San Antonio for a five-hour bargaining session. It was contentious, but the company ended up agreeing to compensate baristas for their scheduled shifts.

“It was such a small amount of money compared to the company’s overall profits,” Davis says. ​“It seemed like an odd thing to fight over. But it definitely strengthened [the union at] my store.”

That’s just one tangible win achieved without a contract at a unionized Starbucks store. Davis and his colleagues have banded together to defend their interests in other ways as well, such as pushing back against a manager’s plan to reorganize storage in the front and back-of-house. The union made clear such changes to working conditions would need to be negotiated with the bargaining unit, Davis says.

The ability to have a say in how supplies are stored is not the primary reason that around 400 Starbucks stores have unionized. But it’s an example of how the union is a tangible and valuable presence, even without a contract in hand. ​“At the end of the day, a union is workers coming together to care for each other,” Davis says.


Ste
orters in holding signs in support of a strike, outside of a Starbucks store in Arlington, Virginia, on November 16, 2023.(Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)


TJU’s Ryther says that after it became clear Trader Joe’s was slow-walking contract negotiations, her union began framing conversations with workers differently. ​“A contract is the ultimate goal, but we’re focusing more on small wins, empowering folks, unfair labor practices and training media ambassadors,” says Ryther, a Trader Joe’s crew member in Minneapolis.

Without a contract in place, TJU can’t collect dues from members to fund its operations. But that hasn’t stopped the union from building a ​“kind of advocacy network” for unionized grocery stores. Each store has a Discord channel on which workers can post about problems with managers and disciplinary actions, learn about their rights as a union member, or just chat about shift swaps, Ryther says. (One example of a right that TJU members have taken advantage of: under federal labor law, union members can request union representation whenever an employer’s investigatory interview could lead to discipline.)

“A bunch of people will say, ​‘Here are your rights. This is legal or illegal. Here’s what it says in the Trader Joe’s handbook,’” Ryther says.

This is how a culture of unionism is being built at Trader Joe’s — member to member, one Discord chat or in-person conversation at a time. Ryther doesn’t see high store turnover rates as a big impediment to sustaining the union’s strength. ​“Sometimes folks’ lack of knowledge of unions plays to our favor,” she says. ​“Some people don’t even know what a contract is. But they start working at a store and say, ​‘This is great.’ People underestimate the power of an established store culture.”

Sustaining and growing the union in the face of steadfast corporate opposition starts with conversations that build relationships and trust. ​“You have to meet people where they’re at,” Ryther says. In-store organizing and member engagement is not transactional and it’s not about persuasion: ​“90% of the time, you should be talking about weather, sports, holiday plans, family traditions — it’s social skills 101.”

Buckley and Chang at REI echo the importance of whole-member organizing as contract fights continue. ​“We see our co-workers as whole people, not just who they are at work,” Buckley says. ​“We show up in each other’s lives. We’re building a community so that when the hard times come, we have each other’s backs.”

Having each others’ back can mean covering a shift that a coworker can no longer work, or connecting someone with a union lawyer to file an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB. But it’s also about helping a coworker get through a tough financial spot. Workers at the REI SoHo store created a REI Union Hardship Fund to support each other. In San Antonio, Starbucks union members have set up mutual aid systems, Parker says.

“Sometimes, it’s as simple as someone needing $20 for gas money,” he says. ​“Of course we’re going to offer that to them. It’s about always being there for someone.”

Marathon fights continue

Union workers at Starbucks, REI and Trader Joe’s know they’re running a marathon. Any initial optimism that contracts could be negotiated (relatively) quickly is now gone. In its place? A steely determination that comes from knowing exactly who they’re up against. And in workers who have now spent years pushing for change, an awareness of how leaning on each other can help prevent burnout.

“It’s a real issue,” Ryther says. ​“Most of us are working full-time jobs, right? This is an incredible amount of work. It gets easier in terms of knowledge over time, but it doesn’t get easier in terms of having to build new relationships constantly.”

When you consider what the retail unions are up against — high employee turnover rates, an array of illegal union-busting tactics and now an apparent effort to dismantle the legal infrastructure that has governed businesses and labor in this country for generations — their willingness to go on offense becomes more improbable. Unionized workers have staged walkouts and a string of short, targeted strikes, including thousands of Starbucks workers at more than 200 stores in November 2023.

In the REI, Starbucks and Trader Joe’s campaigns, unions are calling attention to the gaps between the companies’ supposed progressive values and the way workers are being treated when they organize collectively.


In March, REI workers from across the country showed up uninvited at the company’s corporate office in Issaquah, Washington. They protested outside carrying signs bearing messages such as ​“Ask me about my raise (REI took it away).”

In the REI, Starbucks and Trader Joe’s campaigns, unions are calling attention to the gaps between the companies’ supposed progressive values and the way workers are being treated when they organize collectively. That’s particularly true of REI, which is structured as a member-owned cooperative, and whose leadership views climate change as an existential threat and has committed to becoming an ​“anti-racist” organization. There’s ​“tremendous opportunity for customers to be engaged and push for changes inside the co-op to be the kind of place they know it should be and they assume that it is,” Buckley says.

That kind of public pressure has yet to be seen. Still, Starbucks’ new stance may be partly an attempt to repair damage to its reputation, Logan says, as well as the result of unofficial boycotts over union-busting efforts and the appearance of a new, more pragmatic CEO. (Starbucks in February said it now wants to resolve outstanding litigation and come to agreement with Workers United on a ​“fair process for organizing.”)

“It’s not entirely clear why Starbucks decided to reverse course — assuming this is what has happened,” Logan says. A realization that the union wasn’t going away may have also been a factor, he adds.

It may not be a coincidence that, compared with REI and Trader Joe’s, Starbucks now has many more unionized stores. Store-based organizing may be the strongest argument to corporate executives that workers’ demands won’t dissipate any time soon. For these campaigns to succeed, they’ve ​“got to be based on empowering workers to organize their own stores,” Logan says. ​“That’s what young people want to do, and that’s the only way you can win against these companies.”

The fights continue. In February, baristas at 21 Starbucks stores informed the company they intended to organize. In mid-March, REI workers in Santa Cruz, Calif. announced their intention to unionize; they’ll vote later this month. And on April 8, Trader Joe’s employees in Chicago followed suit.

“We’re responding to [the company’s] legal onslaught with our own, while also trying to organize new locations,” Buckley says. ​“Any time we’ve seen massive changes in union density in this county, it’s when workers lead the campaigns and lead the shop floor.”
How the morbidly rich are sabotaging the very system that made them wealthy

Thom Hartmann, AlterNet
August 20, 2024 

Rich man lighting cigar with $100 bill (Shutterstock)

Recently, a reporter spoke with one of the chief architects of Project 2025 using a hidden camera and microphone and learned they’re still in tight with Trump, still planning to run his administration if he’s elected, still planning to gut the guardrails America has placed around capitalism over the past 100 years, and even planning to “pull the ladder up” to make it harder for entrepreneurs and small business people to succeed in America.

Their plan relies on a major reinvention of modern capitalism and is being pushed by people suffering from an identifiable metal illness. To see how they’re hoping to pull this off, it’s important and necessary to first understand that there are two types of capitalism: raw and regulated.

Raw capitalism — sometimes referred to as Laissez-faire (“leave alone”) or “unregulated” capitalism — reflects the very essence of predatory activity. As any Libertarian can proudly tell you, the only rule is that no capitalist can commit fraud against another capitalist and the only role for government is to provide a stable currency and a court system to prosecute fraud.

Raw capitalism could be called the law of the jungle; only the strong survive, and those who are the most ruthless and cutthroat end up with all the money and power while everybody else stands on the outside looking in. It favors psychopathy in the executive suite.

A handful of families, typically one for each industry, end up fabulously wealthy while their companies monopolize market sectors to keep new entrants and entrepreneurs out.

Workers, at the bottom of the hierarchy, are screwed: no unions are allowed, wages reflect how desperate working people are, and consumers live in a caveat emptor (“buyer beware”) world where ripoffs are common, food and products are often dangerous, and the environment is poisoned to keep cleanup costs low and thus profits high.

Raw capitalism is how most of the world ran until the first decades of the 20th century. You can read the story of it in most of Dickens’ novels. By the 1880s-1920s era, it had made a handful of families (Rockefellers/oil, Carnegie/steel, Vanderbilt/railroads, Astor/real estate, Armour/meatpacking, Morgan/banking, DuPont/chemicals, etc.) mind-bogglingly rich and succeeded in limiting the middle class to about 10 percent of Americans, mostly doctors, lawyers, and shopkeepers. Everybody else was dirt poor.

Regulated capitalism is an altogether different animal that expands a capitalist system to aid workers and consumers as well as capitalists.

With regulated capitalism, the rules of capitalism are expanded to benefit all of society, rather than exclusively the capitalists themselves. While it was championed in Adam Smith’s books A Theory of Moral Sentimentsand Wealth of Nations(1776), and highlighted repeatedly by David Ricardo five decades later, it didn’t really come into fruition until the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. His embrace of Keynesian economics transformed America and, ultimately, the entire free world.

President Roosevelt, when accepting his renomination in 1936, took on the advocates of raw capitalism — which had run the world just four years earlier — head-on:
“[O]ut of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital—all undreamed of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.”

It was a radical separation from the old order, and his audience cheered wildly as they realized FDR wanted to make capitalism, and America, a fairer and more compassionate nation.

“There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.”

He challenged the most powerful men and companies in America, promising to strip them of the power to write laws and control politicians that they’d enjoyed for over a century. He called them out and took them on.
“It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.”

And he pointed out how this corrupt system of raw capitalism had destroyed opportunity in America for average people while making a small group of “princes” richer than the kings of old.
“Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.”

Roosevelt beat the oligarchs and was successful in bringing regulated capitalism to America. His policies included the right of workers to unionize, aggressive enforcement of the nation’s new anti-monopoly laws, high levels of taxation on profits and great wealth, and consumer and worker protections guaranteed by government.

The result was the world’s first middle class that included more than half of all citizens.

Donald Trump, JD Vance, their billionaire donors, six Republicans on the Supreme Court, and Project 2025 have declared war on Roosevelt’s regulated capitalism; they want to turn the clock back to the raw capitalism Gilded Age of the 1920s by stripping regulatory agencies out of government, cutting taxes on the morbidly rich, and ending protections for labor.

Russell Vought was the guy who put Donald Trump's executive order banning the teaching of Black history (“CRT”) and other diversity training for federal employees into place when he was director of the Office of Management and Budget. Now he’s a principal architect of Project 2025 and the lead cheerleader for ending regulated capitalism and reverting to raw capitalism.

“Eighty percent of my time is working on the plans of what’s necessary to take control of these bureaucracies,” Vought said in the secretly-taped recording. “And we are working doggedly on that, whether it’s destroying their agencies’ notion of independence.”

In this effort, and the Supreme Court’s recent destruction of the Chevron Deference that authorized regulatory agencies to protect workers, consumers, and the environment, these reactionary (arguably “revolutionary”) Republicans are trying to pull up the ladder so a new generation of entrepreneurs will face a wall of monopolies and other barriers to achieving business success.

They are trying to gut the very system that created a large enough middle class to provide customers for their products, thus making them rich. They want to return us to the era of FDR’s libertarian “economic royalists,” an effort that will impoverish America just as it has every other country that’s tried it (Russia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, etc.).

When psychologist Eric Fromm identified people as having either a “doing” or a “being” orientation, he nailed the personality characteristics of the billionaires and their well-paid toadies who’re promoting this dystopian future for America.

He argued that there’s a specific “hoarder” personality afflicted with a compulsion to constantly accumulate more, more, more stuff. When they’re poor, their apartments fill up with newspapers and tin cans. When they’re rich, their money bins fill up with cash.

In either case, they’re mentally ill and perpetually miserable. If they’re rich enough, their mental illness causes them to mercilessly exploit others for their own gain.

This is the psychology of this generation of wannabee economic royalists, and their plan to replace regulated capitalism with the old laissez-faire system will also destroy the remnants of the American middle class that FDR created.

We can’t let them get away with inflicting their mental illness on the rest of us. Double-check your voter registration and show up this fall!

 

 ‘Guardian angel’ megadonors give $196M to influence 2024 elections  


U.S. President Joe Biden awards the Medal of Freedom to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on May 3, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Contributions from “guardian angel” megadonors totaled about $196 million between the start of the 2023-2024 election cycle through June 30 — a total expected to grow even more as the November election approaches.

Of the 31 donors who are considered guardian angels, a term for big donors who supply 40% or more of a committee’s funds and are a political group’s top contributor, 19 supported conservative candidates while eight contributed to liberal-leaning groups.

Conservative megadonors not only outnumbered their liberal counterparts but also gave more overall between the start of the election cycle and the end of June. But guardian angel contributions to nonpartisan and third party groups outpaced donations to liberal groups despite the latter attracting twice as many donors, OpenSecrets’ analysis of Federal Election Commission data found.

With less than four months until Election Day, Senior Counsel for the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program Ian Vandewalker said that he wasn’t surprised the flood of money megadonors have poured into 2024 elections. 

“That number doesn’t strike me as enormously high for what’s going to be the most expensive election ever, but I predict it’s going to go up a lot,” Vandewalker said.

Some of 2023’s biggest megadonors continue to top the list of guardian angel donors, including billionaire investor Jeffrey Yass, who contributed more than $37.6 million to conservative political groups as a guardian angel donor through June 30 .  

Conservative groups received $36.8 million from Yass who also donated to help oust anti-school voucher Republicans in Texas earlier this year

 The billionaire contributed $8.7 million to AFC Victory Fund – about 70% of the committee’s total funding. He also gave $5.2 million to School Freedom Fund, making up 59% of the super PAC’s total contributions. Yass’ biggest angel donation was $14 million which accounted for 97% of Protect Freedom PAC’s total funding.

Yass also gave $800,000 to Moderate PAC in support of Democrat Bhavini Patel’s failed primary challenge against incumbent Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa).

Billionaire shipping supply magnates Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein were also among the top megadonors, pouring $32.5 million into conservative political groups. The billionaire founders of Uline, a Wisconsin-based manufacturer of cardboard boxes and other packaging supplies, have a sweeping web of financial influence from super PACs to “dark money” groups, and activists spreading disproven theories about former President Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 election.  

The Uihleins’ biggest contributions of the 2024 cycle include $20.9 million to Restoration PAC, which accounted for about 89% of the committee’s total funding this cycle. 

Liberal billionaire Michael Bloomberg was also on the list of top guardian angel megadonors, with his $7.5 million putting him in the top 10 donors on the list during the 2023-2024 cycle. The former presidential hopeful, media mogul and longtime New York City mayor gave $7 million to Everytown-Demand a Seat PAC, accounting for nearly 88% of its funds. The PAC launched in 2021 as part of Everytown, a gun control advocacy operation launched and largely funded by Bloomberg. Everytown for Gun Safety Victory Fund, the group’s main political arm, is largely funded by Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, which is also funded in part by Bloomberg.

During the 2024 cycle, Bloomberg also accounted for the bulk of funding to Neighbors for Results, a super PAC that helped support former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo in his ongoing bid for California’s 16th Congressional District. 

Another guardian angel donor, billionaire and transportation executive Timothy Mellon, gave more than $25 million to American Values 2024, accounting for almost 50% of the super PAC’s total receipts. Although Mellon has previously been a conservative donor, American Values 2024 supported Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Looking forward to November and at the current rate of giving, Vandewalker said that a continued rise in guardian angel donations should be expected and that there are reasons why megadonors who are the main support for a committee give in large amounts.

“A lot of outside money comes in relatively late and guardian angel donors you would think are going to be the biggest slice of it,” Vandewalker said. “These megadonors tend to want to be the biggest donor to a super PAC, and then they can tell the super PAC what to do.”

Senior Researcher Doug Weber contributed to this report.