Women Need To Run Things-

Women Have Sacrificed Too Much for the Careers of Powerful Men: Analysis

May 12, 2026, 8:30am

Mia Brett

Cesar Chavez, Eric Swalwell, Justin Fairfax, and the gender politics of keeping their dirty secrets.

News about powerful men committing violence against women has bombarded the United States in recent months.  

On April 16, 2026, Virginia’s former Lieutenant Gov. Justin Fairfax killed his wife, Dr. Cerina Fairfax, and then himself inside their family home. The shocking news came days after Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, resigned from Congress following multiple sexual misconduct allegations. 

A few weeks prior, in March 2026, an investigation about labor movement leader Cesar Chavez revealed a decades-long pattern of sexual abuse, including against another farmworker icon, Dolores Huerta. 

All three of these powerful men had known patterns of alleged predatory sexual behavior. But their secret was protected—in some cases for decades—not only by other men, but also by some of the same women they’d hurt.

Somehow, no matter how much progress we think we’ve made, women keep being sacrificed—or sacrificing ourselves—for men’s accomplishments and legacy. Our lives and futures and mental health are even sacrificed on the altar of their potential political accomplishments and legacy. 

The Al Franken effect

I’m a legal historian and commentator on sexism and gender-based violence. I’ve studied violence against women and the criminal trials that let male perpetrators off the hook. I’m also a woman who experiences sexual harassment so often that it has become a dull hum following me throughout my day. 

This self-sacrifice seemingly stems from what seems to me to be a societal belief that the men who commit harm are more needed than the women who are harmed. Our ideas, organizing, and logistical labor—often dismissed as “secretarial” work—can’t compete with the fear of losing a single powerful man. 

When the allegations against Swalwell first broke, some on the left rushed to defend him. Some on social media claimed it was a Republican smear job because he’s been opposed to Trump’s policies and was running to be the next governor of California. 

Eventually, as more women came forward and D.C. insiders said that they’d heard rumors about Swalwell’s behavior for years,  Democratic leadership called for Swalwell to drop out of the governor’s race. 

Women often come forward with their stories when a man is running for political office because they feel that information is relevant to voters. Or, they may speak out because it’s difficult to see one’s abuser portrayed so incompletely in the news. 

Yet some people cast doubt on the timing of the Swalwell accusations, suggesting people were out to get attention or take a “good man” down before he can further ascend in his career. On social media, posts compared the situation to Al Franken resigning from Congress in 2017 over sexual misconduct allegations. 

Franken’s resignation is often treated as an example of #MeToo going “too far,” because some reporting suggests that the initial accusation against Franken may have been trumped up. But he was sexually inappropriate with women both before and after taking office. His resignation was important to live up to progressive values, and the left didn’t actually lose any political clout over it: Franken’s replacement, Tina Smith, has been a fantastic senator.

It’s relatively rare for members of Congress to resign after being accused of sexual misconduct. According to the National Women’s Defense League, 23 lawmakers with public accusations are running for reelection in 2026 in 16 states, including nine people running for Congress. 

The group held a press conference on April 21, 2026, to discuss two new reports on sexual misconduct in Congress and state government. According to its research, 80 percent of candidates publicly accused get reelected. 

Cesar Chavez’s legacy

The calculus for marginalized women to come forward about sexual assault is even tougher. 

The first line of Dolores Huerta’s public statement about her abuse says she kept quiet for nearly 60 years because she “believed that exposing the truth would hurt the farmworker movement I have spent my entire life fighting for.” 

I believe many women stay quiet when they think coming forward could hurt a movement—in this case, one Huerta helped to build. But they may tell their story if they’re worried not doing so could cause even more harm.

Her story details two incidents of sexual assault that resulted in two hidden pregnancies. She gave both children up for adoption.

Soon after the investigation broke, Chavez’s name was erased from monuments across the country. That’s not necessarily an indication of local leaders taking sexual violence seriously. In some places, it may just as well reflect a desire to erase Mexican American achievements and the progress of the United Farmworkers Union in securing rights for migrant laborers, some of the most marginalized workers in the country. 

I say that because we have the perfect replacement for Chavez’s legacy in Huerta herself. It would be so easy to simply rename every street and monument after her, rather than simply erase commemorations of the movement. 

Huerta was already forced to sacrifice so much by Chavez, must she now watch as her life’s work goes down with him, too?ire News Group is a reader-supported, independent nonprofit newsroom.

Jewish history

In my own Jewish community, there is a long history of pressuring victims of domestic violence and sexual assault to stay quiet—and not air their suffering outside the community. 

Doing so would be an example of “lashon hara,” or evil speech or gossip. If we report our abuse to police, we are contributing to negative ideas about the Jewish men in our community. Some men in the Jewish community even claim that because of Jewish teachings and customs, Jewish men can’t ever actually abuse their wives, because domestic violence is a Christian affliction of gentile culture—that is, a non-Jewish problem. 

This myth persists outside the Jewish community, and it can impact how Jewish women are treated in secular American courts. 

My doctoral dissertation research covered a case of a Jewish woman in New York City murdered in 1875. Both suspects in her killing were Jewish men protected by the community. During the trial, the victim was used as a cudgel against her own people to prove that Jews were dangerous. 

If she had survived and was given the choice to report the violence she faced would she have feared exposing a man from her community to the criminal justice system?

This concern is even more heightened for Black women. If their abusers are Black, they know that reporting them means increasing exposure to a racist criminal justice system. 

Research also suggests Black women are less likely to be seen as victims by the dominant society and more likely to be blamed for harming men of their own community, or accused of trying to “take down a good man.” (Think back to how accusations against R. Kelly, Mike Tyson, Bill Cosby, and Clarence Thomas were greeted.)

As Aishah Simmons, Black feminist and activist, explains, many people “think that exposing and addressing intra-racial sexual violence against Black women divides the community … and we should only focus … on racism since that is the ‘real problem.’” 

This community protection can feel even more important when the abuse comes from a so-called “good Black man,” as author Kaitlyn Greenidge wrote on April 19, 2026, of Cerina Fairfax’s killing. The promise of a Black middle class life with a politician husband like Justin Fairfax is supposed to guarantee a safe and protected life.

Cerina Fairfax stood by her husband even after two women accused him of sexually assaulting them; one alleged incident occurred back when he and his accuser were undergraduates at Duke University.

The accusations against Fairfax came to light during a crisis in Virginia politics when he was poised to possibly take over the governorship from the scandal-plagued Ralph Northam. Fairfax denied any misconduct and refused to resign. No criminal charges were filed. He ran for governor in 2021, and lost. 

Fairfax later sued CBS for defamation (the suit was thrown out) and claimed he was experiencing a form of lynching (taking a page out of Justice Clarence Thomas’ book after Anita Hill’s accusations). 

In this case, Democrats did lose leadership of the state. Before the sexual assault allegations, Fairfax was seen as a rising star in the Democratic Party. Had his accusers not gone public, he might have become the state’s next governor. 

But it’s equally true that had he resigned in 2019, after they did, a new Lt. governor could have stepped in and potentially run successfully in 2021.

Sacrificing for the cause

It irks me that Fairfax ran for governor after being accused of sexual misconduct. It irks me that Swalwell did, too. 

Swalwell’s name remains on the primary ballots in the California governor race, and that will hurt the Democrats’ chances to hold onto that post. It was Swalwell’s hubris and entitlement hurt his party—not the women who came forward to prevent him from accruing more power. 

I wonder: How many young staffers left politics because Swalwell was allowed to prey on his subordinates? What progress could have been made in the labor movement if the women abused by Chavez had instead been in leadership roles? Would Cerina Fairfax still be alive if her husband had been prosecuted in 2019? 

We’ll never know how the world would look if the well-being of the women in these cases had been prioritized over the careers of their abusers. What I know is that the harm done to us as women is more important than the potential of the men who hurt us. And I know that the goals of movements or political gains can no longer rest on our silence and our labor.

How God Made the 10 Commandments

I really enjoy this creator and how he has done this entire series on the Christian god and the inconsistancies of the bible and the figures in it.  In this series the god is a self centered older teenager who only thinks of themselves and their needs/ wants.  The full series starts out with a future highly technological civilization having graduates from school take a psychological test as them an omnipotent being and their assistant is actually their teacher in real life.  But in this case “god” is so narcissistic it causes problems in the simulator they are all connected with.  But the series does show how narcissistic and only thinking of their feelings, wants, and needs this Christian god is.  Sadly the creator has moved on from making the series and the spin-offs from them as his main YouTube product but he still produces these videos which I am grateful for.  But try to remember that God is a student and Jefferies is in reality his teacher still trying to teach him how to be a good person.  Reverse the roles of the characters and you get the joke.  Hugs.  

 

 

Been Wondering About Kat Abughazaleh? Here Is News:

Kat Abughazaleh shows us how to fight fascists

Q+A with one of the Broadview Six, who had all charges dropped against them after grand jury misconduct.

Marisa Kabas

For the last seven months, Kat Abughazaleh wasn’t allowed to go to Alaska. It’s not that she had any particular reason to, but being under felony indictment meant that she was only allowed to travel throughout the lower 48 United States. And forget leaving the country. But on Thursday, those restrictions were suddenly lifted when all charges against her were dropped.

Abughazaleh, 27, woke up Friday a free woman. The former Illinois congressional candidate was charged in October along with five others for conspiring to impede an officer near the Broadview ICE facility just outside of Chicago. In reality, Abughazaleh and her co-defendants were there to protest the federal government’s increasingly public cruelty and the human rights abuses happening inside Broadview specifically, and broadly by ICE. The Trump administration, not surprisingly, did not appreciate their very public pushback and responded with brutality and violence. But with all charges against them now dropped, the only thing they’re an example of is why fighting fascists is good.

With the trial scheduled to begin just after Memorial Day, US district judge April Perry called an emergency hearing Thursday to discuss missing pieces of the trasncript from the grand jury proceedings where DOJ lawyers convinced jurors to indict Abughazaleh, her campaign field director Andre Martin, Michael Rabbitt, Brian Straw and two others who had the charges against them dropped earlier.

The case was already on the decline, with prosecutors dropping the felony charges against the remaining four in April as questions about the grand jury transcripts popped up. They still faced a full trial on misdemeanor charges and up to one year in jail. But Judge Perry ruled the DOJ’s handling of the grand jury and subsequent redactions constituted grave misconduct, making it impossible to move forward. 

I spoke with Abughazaleh by phone Friday morning about right wing fuckery, ridiculous rumors, and how she plans to reclaim her life after the federal government tried to destroy it. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

MARISA KABAS, THE HANDBASKET: How did it feel waking up this morning?

KAT ABUGHAZALEH: I had to get up at like 5am to go on Morning Joe, but I woke up and I was like, oh yeah, I don’t have to go to trial this week—which is not a statement I thought I’d have to say ever in my life.

KABAS: Walk us through what you thought the next week or so was supposed to be like before yesterday’s hearing.

ABUGHAZALEH: I was supposed to have not just trial prep with my lawyers, but having to get my clothes dry cleaned. Going to get a manicure because my nails always always look awful. I spent way too long at a Nordstrom Rack picking out shoes that I thought looked fashionable but also modest and wouldn’t make jurors think I was a bitch. On Tuesday we were supposed to have jury selection. On Wednesday we were supposed to have opening arguments, which is a shame that we don’t get to hear our lawyers spit absolute fire. But yeah, it’s nice not to do it in the first place.

KABAS: Absolutely. So what do you think you’re gonna do instead?

ABUGHAZALEH: I have a 12-hour live stream tomorrow to raise money for our legal funds because, despite not having to go to trial, we’re still picking up the pieces of our lives both emotionally and financially. Every single one of us as co-defendants, we have very real fears of bankruptcy and being in debt for the rest of our lives because of this. And then, I don’t know, sleep a bunch. Get my passport renewed, something that I couldn’t do for the last seven months. I couldn’t even go to Alaska.

KABAS: Are you serious? Could you go to Hawaii?

ABUGHAZALEH: No, just the lower 48. Couldn’t even go to Puerto Rico.

KABAS: So this has really restricted your movement as a human being for the last seven months.

ABUGHAZALEH: Yeah, and it’s something that’s really scary, especially as the government gets more and more aggressive, just being like, oh, you’re stuck here no matter what happens.

“Kat” Abughazaleh speaking after today’s crazy developments in the “Broadview 6” case

Jason Meisner (@jmetr22b.bsky.social) 2026-05-21T18:47:13.356Z

KABAS: So when did you get a sense that things might be changing this week?

ABUGHAZALEH: So we’ve been requesting to see the grand jury transcripts or just have the judge look at them for months. And ahead of trial Chris Parente—Brian Straw’s lawyer—just asked the judge, “Can you just look at the unredacted version?” And her understanding was that the redactions were referring to some IT issues, and the prosecution had never corrected her. So she looked at the unredacted transcript and then called a hearing the next morning. And it was sealed. Now the transcript is public

She was saying “I’m not sure that the charge will get dismissed without prejudice because there’s not a lot of precedent for that, especially for a misdemeanor.” And then we broke for an hour for the government to talk it over, and then they came in. I remember one of my lawyers looking at me as one of the government’s lawyers [Andrew Boutros] started talking, and she just turns to me and says, “Congratulations.” And I went, “What?” And then Boutros said, “dismissed with prejudice.” [Meaning the case was permanently closed.]  And it was just surreal. Absolutely surreal.

KABAS: Did you have a sense of where things were heading or were you totally shocked by the outcome?

ABUGHAZALEH: I truly did not think it would get dismissed yesterday. I did not want to get my hopes up. I thought that we were going to trial for sure, just because it’s very unusual to try a federal misdemeanor. I knew we would win in that case, but I was completely shocked.

KABAS: How do you think this will change or impact anti-ICE protests and prosecutions in the future?

ABUGHAZALEH: I hope that it does have impact. It was meant to intimidate us into silence, and none of us took a deal. None of us sold each other out (not that there was anything to sell each other out on.) But, you know, we were charged with conspiracy. We were facing like 10 years in prison. 

(snip-there is MORE, but this is already a long post, and I’m a free subscriber to Handbasket, and don’t want to just lift their work. Click on through!)

Looking At The Week Ahead With Joyce Vance

The Week Ahead

May 24, 2026

Joyce Vance

It’s 1984 again.

We have read George Orwell since the beginning of Trump’s first administration. Studied him through the eyes of experts like Ruth Ben-Ghiat, whose scholarship is in the field of authoritarianism. But nothing makes his relevance as plain as living through history in 2026.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

― George Orwell, 1984

On Friday, NBC’s Ryan J. Reilly and Kyla Guilfoil reported that “The Justice Department has removed press releases detailing the charges against hundreds of individuals who participated in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol riot from its website.”

DOJ was not ashamed of the reporting on this development; instead, they responded to a tweet claiming they were “quietly” deleting the information by bragging:

Nothing “quiet” about it.



We are proud to reverse the DOJ’s weaponization under the Biden administration. We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes. This includes stripping DOJ’s website of partisan propaganda.

As acting Attorney General Todd Blanche continues his long, slow audition to get the nomination for the permanent job, there is apparently no service the Justice Department he leads will refuse Donald Trump. That includes the effort Trump launched on day one of his second term in office to erase the insurrection. It began with the pardons of Rudy Giuliani and the fake slates of electors. As Ed Martin put it, “No MAGA left behind.” It went on to include virtually everyone who was present at or involved with the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, including those charged with insurrection, some of whom received clemency because even Trump, apparently, didn’t believe he could get away with outright pardons.

Blanche was in place at DOJ as Pam Bondi’s number two, overseeing the firing of prosecutors and agents assigned to work cases and leads in the January 6 investigation. Then, as we discussed last week, he signed off on Trump’s $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization fund,” the repurposing of taxpayer dollars Congress allocated to DOJ’s judgment fund as reward payments to Trump friends and allies who “suffered weaponization and lawfare.

Blanche declined to exclude even defendants convicted of violent offenses in connection with January 6 from eligibility for payment out of Trump’s slush fund. The crescendo of outrage that began with Democrats swelled to include a handful of Republicans. But not all of them. In a mark up meeting before they left town for Memorial Day, every Republican member voted against a measure proposed by California Democrat Mike Levin that would have excluded members of Congress from filing to receive a payout from the fund.

Lawsuits have been filed, and we will be watching to see how quickly the federal judiciary might move to block the payouts from going into effect. Among the lawsuits so far:

  • A lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”), which alleges that “The Slush Fund is a jaw-dropping act of presidential corruption. And it is brazenly illegal. Unlike prior victim compensation funds, it was not authorized by Congress. Nor was the Fund the product of a judicially approved, arm’s length legal settlement.” The complaint is here.
  • A lawsuit alleging that the “anti-weaponization” fund discriminates against a group of plaintiffs who were mistreated by Republican officials, because it only permits redress of conduct by the Biden administration. You can read the complaint here.
  • A lawsuit filed by current and former Washington, D.C., police officers who defended the Capitol on January 6, arguing the plan should be enjoined because the payouts are illegal and could potentially finance violent insurrectionists and paramilitary groups. You can read the complaint here.

The success of Trump’s effort to rewrite history is not a foregone conclusion. But pushback will require our focus. In January of 2025, the Brennan Center’s Michael Waldman, author of The Briefing with Michael Waldman wrote, “It was an insurrection. Pardoning the perpetrators won’t change that.”

On Friday, former Attorney General Pam Bondi will testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Although the topic at hand is her mishandling of the release of the Epstein Files, Bondi could easily face questioning about the origins of the slush fund plan and will undoubtedly be asked about Trump’s single-minded effort to rewrite history to repaint his own efforts to take down democracy.

It’s up to us to make sure Trump doesn’t get away with rewriting our true history. This is an important awareness to carry with us into the weeks and months ahead, especially as we approach the 250th Anniversary of the day the Declaration of Independence was signed, this July 4. In the words of Orwell, “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

As I wrote to you last week on the day we first learned about Trump’s creation of a slush fund he could use to divert taxpayer funds into rewards for his friends, we are at a crisis point. It’s a crisis for many reasons, among them the president’s comfort with outright abuse of public funds and his party’s unwillingness to step in and outlaw their use in the absence of a congressional designation of them for this purpose. Trump, the would-be autocrat, is again trying to enlarge the circle of presidential power he can exercise and it will be up to the judicial branch to tell him no, for now, and the voters to do it resoundingly in November. It’s time to pay close attention to developments this week.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

Randy Rainbow Nails It Yet Again!

Let’s talk about Trump and children and seniors not getting food….

‘Leave or we’ll kill you’: Settler’s warn Palestinians in Jerusalem’s Old City

It’s horrifying that these Jewish settlers who want to eradicate entirely the Muslim population.  One woman described Islam as a cancer and wants the Islamists killed or reeducated.  Muslims who own businesses can’t even open their shops.  But there is a small minority trying to protect the arabs.  Hugs

Dark Money Funding State Redistricting Movement

The same dark money groups keep turning up in redistricting fights

  • By Joedy McCreary
  • The mid-decade fight to redraw congressional lines ahead of the November midterm elections has surged beyond statehouses and into ballot boxes and courtrooms – with millions of dollars pouring in to shape those outcomes, much of it from nonprofits that never have to say who is funding their activities.

Voters in California and, most recently, Virginia have weighed in on new House maps. A Colorado group wants to put its own proposal before voters. Missouri petitioners are trying to stop a new map from taking effect. And lawsuits are stacking up from Florida to Utah.

One through-line: dark money from 501(c)(4) nonprofits. Free from donor-disclosure rules, these groups move large sums with little transparency and have helped turn state-by-state redistricting battles into nationalized, big-dollar fights bankrolled by tight networks of high spenders.

“It’s a perfect example of where money is trying to influence policy outcomes, and redistricting is so high-stakes that now it’s just part of the process,” said Alex Keena, an associate professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth University who has co-authored two books about redistricting.

What began last year with President Donald Trump urging Texas to redraw its map has now gone national, fueled by a surge in dark money that “perfectly encapsulates what’s happening here,” said Doug Spencer, a law professor at the University of Colorado.

“Every single story really feels like a domino in a long chain of events that goes back to President Trump’s cajoling of Texas to start this,” Spencer told OpenSecrets.

‘A tsunami of money’

The latest epicenter of the redistricting fight was Virginia, where voters in April approved a mid-decade redistricting plan that could have helped Democrats win four additional House seats in November. The measure would have bypassed a bipartisan redistricting commission and allowed the state to use new districts drawn by the Democratic-led General Assembly. The state Supreme Court blocked it on May 8, declaring it unconstitutional because of a procedural timing dispute. Democrats filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court on May 11.

Virginia, which has no limit on campaign donations, is “basically the wild, wild west in terms of campaign finance,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a political newsletter run out of the University of Virginia. The three key players in this ballot measure fight combined to raise nearly $100 million since February in large cash contributions alone. The Virginia Public Access Project found it to be the most expensive referendum in state history.

“This was the confluence of all of these variables that resulted in just a tsunami of money in a state with lax regulation, high stakes, a single vote involving redistricting that could lead to four or even five new members of Congress,” Keena told OpenSecrets. “And we just had a ton of money flow into the state in a relatively short amount of time, and the result of all that money was just a blitz coming from every medium.”

And on both sides of the debate, the vast majority of that money came from a handful of dark money groups. window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a){if(void 0!==a.data[“datawrapper-height”]){var e=document.querySelectorAll(“iframe”);for(var t in a.data[“datawrapper-height”])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data[“datawrapper-height”][t]+”px”;r.style.height=d}}});

Virginians for Fair Elections, the main organization backing the redistricting effort, reported $63.2 million in large cash contributions, defined as any single contribution or loan of at least $10,000, between Feb. 6 and April 24. Nearly 97% of that total came from five 501(c)(4)s:

  • House Majority Forward, which is aligned with Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives, contributed $39.3 million across 10 installments from Feb. 6 to April 10, the largest of which was $9.3 million on March 30.
  • The Fairness Project, founded by a California-based healthcare workers union, contributed $11.7 million across five payments from Feb. 18 to April 9, including a $5 million contribution Feb. 18, in addition to $22,950 in in-kind contributions.
  • The Fund for Policy Reform, funded by Democratic megadonor George Soros, donated $5 million on March 12.
  • American Opportunity Action, which has been linked to former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, contributed $3.5 million.
  • The Global Impact Social Welfare Fund, the 501(c)(4) arm of philanthropic organization Global Impact Ventures, donated $1.5 million across two contributions.

The same structure appeared on the opposition side. window.addEventListener(“message”,function(a){if(void 0!==a.data[“datawrapper-height”]){var e=document.querySelectorAll(“iframe”);for(var t in a.data[“datawrapper-height”])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data[“datawrapper-height”][t]+”px”;r.style.height=d}}});

The Virginians for Fair Maps Referendum Committee, which formed Feb. 9, reported $24.1 million in large contributions between March 2 and May 1. One organization – Virginians for Fair Maps, which shares a post office box in Alexandria with the committee – accounted for 98% of it. State records identify the group as a tax-exempt organization, but there is no corresponding listing for it or its classification in the IRS online database. Co-chaired by former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), it donated $23.5 million across nine contributions from March 6 to May 1, a sum that includes $5 million contributions on both March 31 and April 7 along with $4 million on April 6.

The Justice for Democracy PAC – founded by former state Del. A.C. Cordoza (R) and accused of distributing misleading mailers before the election – raised $10.2 million in large contributions between March 4 and April 24. More than 95% came from Per Aspera Policy Inc., a Massachusetts-based 501(c)(4) previously linked to billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel that donated $9.7 million – including four seven-figure contributions between March 26 and April 14.

“There’s a real question. … Who’s actually trying to influence our election, and to what end?” Keena said. “What are they hoping to get out of it and whose interests are hanging in the balance?”

Donor networks in multiple states

Some of those groups also spent big on similar efforts in other states.

Coloradans For a Level Playing Field wants a new House map for the 2028 and 2030 elections before allowing the state’s independent congressional redistricting commission to draw another one for 2032 based on the 2030 census. Under the plan, Democrats would be favored to win seven of the state’s eight House seats.

According to its May 4 report, the organization raised $246,747 between Feb. 18 and April 29. Two of the key donors in Virginia also supplied more than 97% of the Colorado group’s total: House Majority Forward contributed $150,000 on Feb. 25, and the Fairness Project provided $90,000 on April 29. Of the 149 other cash donations made during that time, 148 averaged just $32.

That breakdown reflects the uneven appetite for redistricting in the state, Spencer said. Sometimes, it draws attention; other times, he said, “it really feels like it’s gone by the wayside – or, at least when you dig underneath, you don’t see a big push or a lot of local money.”

And in Missouri, the Democratic-supported group People Not Politicians, which opposes the state’s new GOP-drawn map, in December submitted more than 300,000 signatures for a petition seeking to block the map from being used. In its April 14 campaign finance report, it reported raising $6.1 million during the cycle. Of that total, $1.7 million came from American Opportunity Action, a Democratic-aligned dark money group supporting ballot measures. Additionally, the Fairness Project donated $250,000 on Nov. 17, 2025, along with four $1,000 payments in late 2025 and early 2026 for “strategic guidance.”

“I think, to the layperson, this all just looks like gerrymandering,” Spencer said. “But up close, every state’s doing this slightly differently.”

Massive spending around California’s Prop 50 fight

The biggest spending took place in California – where more than a quarter of a billion dollars was poured into its redistricting measure.

Voters in a November 2025 special election passed Proposition 50, which responded to the Texas redistricting push by redrawing the map used in the 2026 midterms and in 2028 and 2030. It generated more than $256 million in fundraising from both sides combined. Roughly two-thirds came from groups supporting the measure, and 87% of that $171 million came from two organizations, both of which have received noteworthy contributions from dark money groups:

  • Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Ballot Measure Committee raised more than $102 million through Nov. 3, 2025. The Fund For Policy Reform provided its largest single contribution, $10 million on Sept. 18, 2025..
  • HMP for Prop 50, the House Majority PAC, raised $46 million. That group’s largest single contribution in 2024 ($34 million) came from House Majority Forward, which also contributed $11.2 million in late 2025, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

On the opposition side, two organizations combined for an even higher share of the spending – 92% of the $84 million that flowed into the race.

  • The No on Prop 50 Congressional Leadership Fund raised $44.3 million. That group received four separate $10 million donations in 2024, from hedge fund founder Ken Griffin, Aon founder Patrick Ryan, Mellon banking heir Timothy Mellon and Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwartzman. Billionaire megadonor Miriam Adelson donated $10 million on March 11, according to the FEC.
  • Protect Voters First reported $32.8 million, with Charles Munger Jr. – a physicist and the son of a late billionaire – loaning the organization nearly the full amount.

“It does not seem like the states themselves have been going out of their way to clamor for this,” Spencer said. “California responded to Texas. Texas was responding to Trump.”

How dark money fuels the legal fights 

While some states decided redistricting questions in the voting booth, others are fighting the same battles in courthouses – and some groups funding those fights are just as nationalized, donor-driven and opaque.

The National Redistricting Foundation has partnered with the left-leaning Elias Law Group in suing to challenge Florida’s new map. It filed a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to reject Alabama’s request to fast-track its redistricting case and filed a motion to intervene in Utah’s. 

The foundation is the 501(c)(3) nonprofit arm of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. As a 527 organization, it is tax‑exempt and may spend unlimited amounts on issue advocacy. It is chaired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, and in 2018 it received $2.6 million from Soros. Its largest contribution in the 2024 election cycle, the most recent available to OpenSecrets, was $500,000 from PAC to the Future, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership PAC. The committee also provided nearly $20,000 in in-kind contributions to the pro-redistricting group in Virginia.

The foundation makes up one part of an apparatus that also includes the National Democratic Redistricting PAC and a 501(c)(4), the National Redistricting Action Fund. The PAC raised $423,000 in the first quarter of 2026, has raised $2 million during the current election cycle and had $250,000 in cash on hand, according to FEC documents. The 501(c)(3) foundation reported $9.7 million in contributions and grants in 2023, according to its most recent IRS filings, but does not identify those donors. Neither does the action fund, whose latest IRS filing shows $5.2 million in total revenue in 2023 – and the same Washington address as the foundation.

A similar structure is in place at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that on May 4 joined the UCLA Voting Rights Project in suing Florida over its redistricting plan. It has also moved to intervene in the Utah case. It shares a Washington address with Campaign Legal Center Action, a 501(c)(4) dark money nonprofit.

Campaign Legal Center’s most recent IRS documents show $13.9 million in total revenue in 2024, with most coming from contributions and grants, and $36.7 million in net assets. But its donors are not identified. Campaign Legal Center Action also does not disclose donor names on its IRS filings.

On the Republican side, the American Redistricting Project – a 501(c)(3) also known as Fair Lines America Foundation Inc. – has been active in redistricting debates in recent years. Its most recent IRS filing shows roughly $1.9 million in both revenue and expenses in 2024. It maintains an online repository tracking redistricting legislation, but it is unclear whether the organization is providing financial support or filing motions in the current legal fights. OpenSecrets reached out to the group but did not immediately receive a response.

This article was originally published by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. View the original article.

From U.S. Senator Alex Padilla:

Padilla Joins Kelly, Durbin, and Immigration Advocates to Speak on Why Threats to DACA, Dreamers Make Case for Legislative Fix

WASHINGTON D.C. —TodayU.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and lead author of the Dream Act, and Senator Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), joined immigration experts and advocates at a press conference and spotlight forum to highlight examples and implications of the growing threats to Dreamers, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) processing delays and detention and deportation concerns.

At the press conference, speakers highlighted examples of DACA recipients being unable to work and live safely in the United States due to the Trump Administration’s unjustified processing delays on their renewal applications, including a San Francisco-based DACA recipient who is at risk of losing her job. Held directly before the DACA spotlight forum, Padilla and his Democratic colleagues uplifted Dreamers’ stories and called attention to the devastating impact of unnecessary processing delays. Padilla emphasized the importance of passing the Dream Act and the urgent need for a permanent legislative fix that creates a pathway to citizenship to support our Dreamers who significantly contribute to our communities and economy.

“We hear cases of both DACA participants, and Dreamers more broadly, being detained and deported. Many DACA recipients just simply waiting for what used to be, and should be, a routine renewal of their status,” said Senator Padilla. “We’ve heard reports of the Justice Department’s handpicked panel of judges saying that DACA protections, ‘don’t actually protect dreamers from deportation.’ Why the change? This is the entire point of the DACA program – to recognize that young people who are contributing to our country and have no criminal record, who were brough here as children, should not be deported. They deserve protections.”

“Since the beginning of this year, my office alone has seen an increase in requests for help from hundreds of people dealing with delays in getting their renewals and bureaucratic chaos. Let me tell you about one woman named Ariel – a nurse in San Francisco who has lived in the United States since she was just two years old,” continued Padilla. “Ariel filed her renewal paperwork at the beginning of the year, 135 days before her expiration date. She followed every rule. She did everything she was supposed to do just like she always does, every two years like clockwork. But Ariel’s DACA status expired in April, and to this day her renewal status still hasn’t been processed. That’s not her fault! Yet she’s about to lose her job caring for sick people and the promotion she was working towards, because of the failures and cruelty of the Trump Administration. And here’s the thing that they don’t seem to understand in the gilded Oval Office: it’s not just Dreamers who are hurting because of these actions. It’s all of us.”

Following the press conference, Padilla and his Democratic colleagues participated in a spotlight forum on protecting Dreamers, hosted by Senator Durbin, to further highlight the contributions of DACA recipients and Dreamers in our communities, the threats that the Trump Administration has inflicted on DACA recipients, and the importance of a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers.

Padilla discussed the impacts of wrongful detention and deportation exercised by the Trump Administration, highlighting testimony from Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, a DACA recipient who was wrongfully detained at her green card interview and quickly deported, and who Padilla met with earlier this year. As countless stories of wrongful detention and deportation of DACA recipients under this Administration increase, Padilla emphasized the need for permanent protections and immigration reform.

“DACA is so much more than a work permit. It’s a promise. A promise to young people […] who proudly contribute so much to their families, their communities, and their countries,” said Senator Padilla. “A promise that if you come out of the shadows and you work hard and follow the rules, you will be protected. Because this is your home and you belong here. But tragically we’ve seen, in recent months, this administration doing everything they can to break that promise.”

Padilla further discussed the administration’s wrongful targeting of DACA recipients in its mass deportation campaign. In 2025, 261 DACA recipients were detained and at least 86 deported, despite having active DACA protections. DACA renewal processing times have skyrocketed; Padilla highlighted the growing number of Californians who have reached out to his office for assistance. Padilla emphasized the need for DACA and Dreamer protections from detention and deportation and criticized President Trump’s cruel attempt to cease DACA application processing. 

Padilla has long championed permanent protections for Dreamers and DACA recipients and has been a leading voice in Congress for providing long-term undocumented immigrants with pathways to citizenship. In 2025, Padilla joined U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Durbin in introducing the Dream Act of 2025 to provide permanent protections for Dreamers and DACA recipients. The legislation would allow noncitizens without lawful status who were brought to the United States as children and meet certain education, military service, or work requirements to earn lawful permanent residence and a pathway to citizenship. Padilla and his Democratic colleagues have joined immigration experts and advocates to renew their urgent call for the passage of the Dream Act to provide a permanent pathway to citizenship.

Earlier this year, Padilla and his Democratic colleagues demanded that former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow reduce the severe delays in processing DACA renewal applications. In February, Padilla, Durbin, and Senator Kelly blasted DHS for wrongfully targeting and removing DACA recipients in a joint statement. Padilla has called attention to the increased risk of detention and deportation faced by DACA recipients when their renewal applications are not processed before their status expires. He emphasized that these long-term residents — who were brought to the country as children — have been working, studying, and living legally in the United States since 2012 and are vital members of American communities.

Padilla’s remarks at the press conference are available here.

Padilla’s remarks at the spotlight forum are available here.

###

Very Bad Behavior At A School Board Meeting

Tennessee student stands up to school board with fiery speech after a member called her ‘hot’

“I believe that you are all cowards.”

By Evan Porter

An April 2 Washington County School Board meeting in Tennessee took an uncomfortable turn after high school student Hannah Campbell finished delivering her remarks. Seated with the board and directly next to the superintendent, Campbell confidently participated in a discussion with members after presenting research she had conducted on other schools.

That’s when the board member seated next to her, Keith Ervin, reached over, put his arm around her, and said, “God, you’re hot, you know that? Where do you go to school at?

What happened next

The comment is not a baseless allegation. The interaction was caught on video. A few people in the room laughed, Campbell herself quickly brushed off the comment, and the meeting continued as scheduled. Any viewer watching the meeting in person or on YouTube could clearly see what happened.

To many, it was clear that a line had been crossed, and the mood in the room was tense afterward.

The board chair, Annette Buchanan, called an emergency meeting the following week, where members voted to censure Ervin—a public rebuke meant to show that they did not support his comments. But otherwise, as an elected official, Ervin would keep his position on the board.

For his part, Ervin issued a statement apologizing for the incident but insisting that he had not meant any harm.

“I understand why people are reacting the way they are. But that’s not the full conversation, not even close,” he wrote. “When I mentioned she was hot, I meant she was on a roll. It was nothing to do with her appearance.”

The board’s response was not good enough for Campbell, who was also unconvinced by the apology statement.

Student boldly appears at another board meeting to speak up for herself

Campbell refused to shrink or hide. Instead, she returned to a school board meeting on May 7 and confronted not just Ervin, but the entire board, in a courageous four-minute speech.

“I do not forgive you,” she said to Ervin, adding, “The failure to act on the board’s behalf was and is equivalent to his actions, and it has hurt me just as much. To watch the chairperson be so quick to bang her gavel, to control the public, yet not use it once to control her own peer was disgusting … I believe that you are all cowards.”

She sarcastically thanked the board at the end of her speech for showing her that she would do well not to trust adults and authority figures to stand up for her—that she would have to do it herself.

The student’s brave stand earned the support of the community

Campbell was wrong about one thing: There were others in the community who were willing to stand up for her.

One irate father vowed to raise enough money to oust every single board member should they fail to act. “Would you want your kid around that guy without a camera around? I wouldn’t,” he said.

Meanwhile, an online petition calling for Ervin’s removal from the board, along with Superintendent Jerry Boyd’s, has collected nearly 7,000 signatures.

Even more enraging to parents, students, and community members is the fact that Ervin has been accused of inappropriate conduct before. According to WCYB-TV, records show that in 2009, Ervin made a “lewd, juvenile gesture of a sexual nature” in front of students and teachers at a school. He was censured then and barred from school property unless accompanied.

Campbell’s willingness to use her voice may be the difference between a censure and something that makes a real difference for all the students who come before the board after her.