Tag: citizens united
Beyond Birthright Citizenship, Justices Prove Case For Supreme Court Reform

Beyond Birthright Citizenship, Justices Prove Case For Supreme Court Reform

He still hasn't given up. In the wake of the 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court tossing out his Executive Order abolishing birthright citizenship, President Donald Trump was back at it, insisting that Congress should act. He cared enough about the case that he took the unprecedented step of attending the oral argument. But he brushed off the historic loss in the Court.

He posted on Truth Social: "The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President ... No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!"

In fact, according to five of the six Justices in the majority, a long and unwieldy process would be required because Trump's Executive Order violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution specifically provides: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." All persons born in the United States are citizens. It couldn't be clearer, which hasn't stopped Trump from harping on it for the last decade.Two-thirds of both houses of Congress must pass a proposal to amend the Constitution, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. It is a cumbersome process and rightly so, certainly in this case.

The argument — or maybe the polemic — against birthright citizenship focuses on what are called the "anchor babies" — the children of illegal immigrants who are born here and then used to secure legal residence for their families. It's mostly a myth: the anchor babies have to wait until they are 21 to sponsor their parents for green cards, which then becomes a nightmare because they have to return to their home country and wait years to complete the process — and the fear that, if they leave, they will not be permitted re-entry into the country.

There will be bills introduced in Congress, but they should go nowhere. The constitutional obstacle, which had been assumed, has now been established. It's one of Trump's two big losses — the other being tariffs — before a conservative Court that has mostly done his bidding.

The Supreme Court also ended its term, ending the careers of transgender girls in school sports across the country and allowing political parties to pour even more money directly into candidate campaigns, taking the swamp that is electoral politics and just expanding it.

The issue of transgender girls in sports may be ahead of its time, as the late Barney Frank suggested, but the individual stories of girls being forced to give up their passion to satisfy politicians are compelling.As for the freedom of the political parties to pour more money into the process, is that even possible? The answer to the question is yes, and the reflecting pool turned green because that is the color of money, and since the landmark Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, there is no stopping the corruption of the system.

The landmark 2010 decision struck down restrictions on independent political spending by corporations, labor unions, and other organizations, allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections. The Super PACs came next, and the expansion goes on. The Republicans went to the Court for this one because their party committees have more money set aside. This committee will spend hundreds of millions alone; no wonder so many people are voting to get the bums out, even the bums they agree with.

And no wonder constitutional law scholar and Congressional leader Jamie Raskin has his eye on restructuring the Supreme Court.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Nearly 100 Out-Of-State Billionaires Donated To Susan Collin's Re-Election Campaign

Nearly 100 Out-Of-State Billionaires Donated To Susan Collin's Re-Election Campaign

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins announced her reelection campaign in February by posting a video that showed her opening a box of New Balance running shoes.

“This is perfect for 2026,” she said to the camera as she held up a sneaker. “Because I’m running.”

The video didn’t mention that New Balance’s owner and chairman, billionaire Jim Davis, gave $1 million to the super PAC supporting Collins’ campaign seven months prior. The company is based in Boston and has manufacturing facilities in Maine. It was one of four donations Davis made last year to the network of committees raising money for Collins.

Davis, who is worth an estimated $6.1 billion, is one of at least 79 billionaires who donated to Collins’ network between January 2025 and May 20, 2026, according to a Maine Monitor analysis of Federal Election Commission campaign finance data. If billionaires’ spouses are included in the tally, the number rises to 97.

Collectively, the group of nearly 100 billionaires and spouses has donated $9.8 million to the Collins network since the start of 2025, representing a third of what groups supporting Collins raised from all donors.

The total from billionaires stands in stark contrast with the fundraising of her opponent, Democrat Graham Platner, whose campaign has mostly attracted smaller amounts of funds but from many more people. Platner, who won his party’s primary election Tuesday, has received at least $24,000 from five billionaires, a fraction of 1 percent of his total haul.

The breadth of billionaire funding for Collins shows how the race, which could decide control of the U.S. Senate, has drawn national interest and funding from some of the wealthiest people in the world, a group that has made up a growing share of election spending in recent years. Billionaires accounted for 19 percent of all federal election contributions in 2024, up from just 0.3 percent in 2004, according to a New York Times analysis from earlier this year.

Billionaires and their spouses gave $529,000 to the Collins campaign directly; $370,000 to the Collins Victory Committee, a joint fundraising committee that has disbursed funds to the other committees; $100,000 to Dirigo PAC, the leadership committee Collins uses to raise money for other candidates; and $24,000 to Susan Collins for Maine, a joint fundraising committee. But the billionaires have mostly opted to send their donations, nearly $9 million, to Pine Tree Results PAC, a super PAC dedicated to electing Collins that, unlike the others, is not subject to contribution limits.

Pine Tree Results PAC has financed attack ads against Platner since April and has booked $24 million in ads leading up to the general election in November, according to data from AdImpact.

The network of five groups supporting Collins is linked through a series of joint fundraising agreements, which are legal arrangements that allow them to raise money together and then disburse the funds according to a predetermined formula. For the first time in Collins’ career, a super PAC — Pine Tree Results — is linked to her fundraising apparatus through those agreements, an arrangement made possible thanks to a 2024 advisory Federal Election Commission opinion. The super PAC also shares a treasurer with the Collins Victory Committee and Dirigo PAC.

Counting all her donations, including both from billionaires and others, the Collins network has raised about $30 million since the beginning of last year, with $12 million going to her campaign.

The Platner campaign, meanwhile, raised $16.3 million over that time. The total does not include the $200,000 his campaign said it raised in the 24 hours after The New York Times published a story last week detailing what it described as Platner’s “unsettling” behavior with three former girlfriends. The Platner campaign has no joint fundraising agreements with any other committees, according to federal campaign finance filings, and no super PAC dedicated to supporting his candidacy. (Platner has said that super PACs “should be outlawed.”) Experts speculated, however, that big outside money will likely move toward Platner now that he has clinched the Democratic nomination.

The Monitor counted billionaire donors by comparing the names on the Forbes 2026 World’s Billionaire List to Federal Election Commission donor information, which included reviewing location and occupation information to eliminate the possibility of erroneous matches based on similar names.

The Collins campaign did not respond to a request from The Monitor for an interview with the senator and then declined to answer questions over email.

The amount billionaires gave in support of Collins is similar to the amount that small-dollar donors — those giving $200 or less — contributed to the Platner campaign. Billionaires gave $9.8 million in support of Collins, while small-dollar donors gave $9.6 million to support Platner. The Collins campaign raised about $980,000 from small-dollar donations.

“While Susan Collins’ campaign is backed by billionaire donors, our campaign is built on a movement funded by the people, with an average donation of $26,” wrote Ben Chin, Platner’s campaign manager, in an email.

The majority of the billionaire donations to Collins this cycle are from billionaires who made their money in alternative investments, including hedge funds and private equity. Ken Griffin, founder and CEO of Citadel LLC, donated $2.5 million to the Pine Tree Results Super PAC, the largest individual donation backing Collins since 2025. Stephen Schwarzman, the founder and CEO of Blackstone dubbed “the king of private equity,” donated $2 million. Schwarzman and the private equity industry were some of Collins’ biggest boosters in her last campaign in 2020.

Other billionaire Collins donors include Palantir co-founder Alex Karp; Melinda French-Gates, ex-wife of Microsoft founder Bill Gates; New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft; and Elizabeth Uihlein, husband of Richard Uihlein, the main financial backer of the effort to place a referendum question about trans athletes on Maine’s ballot this year.

The billionaire donors supporting Collins have a net worth of $888 billion, or nearly nine times Maine’s entire economic output in 2025. None are Maine residents.

The Platner campaign received donations from at least five billionaires. It received $1,500 from Jennifer Pritzker, a cousin to fellow billionaire and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker; a total of $12,000 from Jon and Pat Stryker, heirs to the Stryker medical equipment empire; $3,500 from Christy Walton, who married into the Walton family; and $7,000 from Democratic megadonor and hedge fund founder George Soros. Together, they are worth an estimated $42.3 billion.

The difference between billionaire contributions to the two candidates is not surprising given Collins’ long Senate tenure, her position as chair of the powerful appropriations committee and Platner’s anti-billionaire message, said Mark Brewer, a political science professor at the University of Maine.

“We generally know that, in contemporary American politics, big money from wealthy donors generally tends to head in the direction of Republicans more than Democrats,” he said.

Meanwhile Democrats dating back to Howard Dean and Barack Obama have shown the possibility of raising huge sums from small-dollar donations, he added.

“It’s two different ways to get there, but you both get there,” Brewer said.

Just three percent of the total that Collins’ groups raised came from donors who gave $200 or less. In comparison, about 60 percent of donations to Platner’s campaign came from those smaller donations.

It’s not possible to track the state where smaller, “unitemized” donations came from. Committees are required, however, to provide the Federal Election Commission information about donors who contribute more than $200 across all federal campaigns, including their state of residence. These donations are called “itemized donations.” Both campaigns have relied heavily on out-of-state money for their itemized donations.

Of those larger donations to the Collins network, about 3 percent came from Maine.

Platner’s trackable donations were more likely to be from Maine: About 22 percent were from the state, according to the Federal Election Commission.

That’s actually a large percentage of in-state donations for a Senate campaign, said Nicholas Jacobs, a professor of American government at Colby College who has studied out-of-state donations in Senate campaigns. Maine contributed more itemized funding to Platner than any other state through May 20, according to the Federal Election Commission.

“That’s rare in general and exceptionally rare for a small state,” Jacobs said.

But now that Platner has won his primary, big money may start flowing his way. Jacobs predicted that Platner will likely get the backing of a super PAC at some point this summer.

“That’s just the way politics works,” Jacobs said.

In the wake of Citizens United

This is the first time that Collins has been running for reelection since the Federal Election Commission issued an advisory opinion that allowed super PACs to join joint fundraising efforts, and Collins has taken advantage of the change.

Before 2024, campaigns — which are subject to donor limits — could not be connected to super PACs, which are not subject to limits on donor contributions. Super PACs were created in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which ruled that groups independent of campaigns have a First Amendment right to raise and spend money supporting or attacking candidates without limits, so long as they aren’t coordinating with campaigns.

In 2024, the Federal Election Commission issued an advisory opinion allowing South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham’s campaign to enter into a joint fundraising agreement with the super PAC supporting his candidacy. Commission members voted, 5-1, to permit the arrangement because Graham and his campaign told the commission they “will not discuss the nonpublic campaign plans, projects, activities, or needs of Senator Graham or his campaign with [the] Super PAC,” according to the advisory opinion.

Critics, including the Democratic Party’s House and Senate fundraising arms, argued the arrangement was a clear violation of the ban on coordination, a ban that they argued has been regularly circumvented since the creation of the super PAC in 2010.

In her dissent, former Democratic Federal Election Commission member Ellen Weintraub wrote that “the Commission has already created far too many holes in what should be a solid wall dividing candidates and their committees from the super PACs that support them.” In 2025, Trump fired Weintraub from the commission shortly after she became chair and didn’t name a replacement. Shortly after that, the agency lost a quorum of commissioners, effectively sidelining it from its election watchdog duties since April 2025.

The 2024 advisory opinion opened the door for the Collins campaign to connect with the Pine Tree Results Super PAC. The campaign and the PAC each have a joint fundraising agreement with the Collins Victory Committee, which has transferred funds to both organizations. Most of this money, a total of $2.4 million, has gone to the Collins campaign.

The Pine Tree Results Super PAC and the Collins Victory Committee share a treasurer, and all three groups have paid the same fundraising and event planning consultant, the Morning Group, based in Washington, D.C., Federal Election Commission records show.

Other outside groups are also spending large amounts on the race. For example, the Senate Leadership Fund, which is the main fundraising vehicle for Senate Republicans, has raised $175 million since the start of 2025 and has booked $29 million in ads for the race pitting Collins against Platner.

Many of the donors to the Senate Leadership Fund also donated to parts of the Collins fundraising network, including Schwarzman and hedge fund manager Paul Singer. Other billionaires have donated large sums to the Senate Leadership Fund as well, including casino magnate Miriam Adelson, who donated $30 million, and Elon Musk, who gave $10 million.

On the other side of the aisle, Democratic super PAC WinSenate has booked $25 million in ads in Maine’s Senate race. WinSenate is funded by the Senate Majority PAC, the main fundraising vehicle for Senate Democrats. It has raised $115 million this cycle, and includes funds from billionaires such as Cable TV magnate Amos Hostetter Jr., who gave $2 million, and Netflix cofounder and chairman Reed Hastings, who contributed $1 million.

Both the Republican Senate Leadership Fund and the Democratic Senate Majority PAC are beneficiaries of large amounts of funds contributed by 501(c)4 nonprofits that aren’t required to reveal their donors. That type of funding has been dubbed “dark money” due to the lack of transparency about its sources.

This cycle, the Senate Leadership Fund has raised $46 million from conservative dark money group One Nation, while the liberal dark money group Majority Forward has donated $33 million to the Democratic Senate Majority Fund. It’s unclear how much of that money came from billionaires.

This story was originally published by The Maine Monitor, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. To get regular coverage from the Monitor, sign up for a free Monitor newsletter here.

These 'Conservative' Grifters Will Be The Death Of Our Republic

These 'Conservative' Grifters Will Be The Death Of Our Republic

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet. This article was first published on The Hartmann Report.

Trump just unleashed an unhinged, barely coherent rant about the possibility President Biden might reveal what was going on in the White House on January 6, the day Trump tried to finally end, once and for all, any possibility of governmental oversight of his ongoing criminal career. He believed he could follow in the footsteps of grifters before him who've taken control of and then drained dry countries from Hungary to Russia, Brazil to Turkey and The Philippines.

Thus it surprises nobody to discover that when Donald Trump and the people around him learned, in mid-November of 2020, that there was absolutely no meaningful voter fraud in that month's election, they chose, instead of acknowledging the truth, to go ahead with a plan to raise over $200 million dollars (and counting). That even today "President Trump" is sending out one or two fundraising emails a day, each one with the tiny "make this a recurring donation" box pre-checked.

Grifters occupy a unique niche in the world of criminals: they avoid direct violence, but live and act only to enrich themselves, whether it's with money, sex, power or all three. They're typically high-functioning sociopaths who sneer at the rules of civilized society the rest of us take seriously.

Republican appointees on the US Supreme Court cracked open the door for professional grifters in 1976 when, for the first time in American history, the Court redefined politicians taking money from billionaires away from being "political corruption" and "bribery"—what such behavior had been called since the beginning of the republic—to instead say it was a mere "exercise of free speech" on the part of the morbidly rich.

Two years after the Buckley decision, in 1978, Justice Lewis Powell (author of the infamous 1971 Powell Memo) pushed the door even farther open when he wrote for the Republican majority a decision granting giant corporations the same "free speech right" to own politicians in Boston v Bellotti.

And in 2010, with Citizens United, Republican appointees on the Court didn't just blow the doors open; they tore down the entire building of "good government" in America, reaffirming that any billionaire or corporation that wanted to own their very own pet politician—or, if rich enough, own an entire political party—was totally legal and not at all corrupt.

Which is why Richard Nixon, who resigned in 1974, was one of the last Republican politicians who actually believed that politics in America had something to do with governing the nation (even if he did it poorly). Ever since then, the GOP has been composed almost exclusively of professional grifters (which is a somewhat different type of cat from an ordinary criminal like Nixon who just took bribes, blackmailed people and lied about it all).

Grifters occupy a unique niche in the world of criminals: they avoid direct violence, but live and act only to enrich themselves, whether it's with money, sex, power or all three. They're typically high-functioning sociopaths who sneer at the rules of civilized society the rest of us take seriously. They combine the not-uncommon skill set of being charming and great salesmen and storytellers, but have no conscience or respect for the truth.

Grifters believe they're the only "real" people in the world and all the rest of us are here for their entertainment, satisfaction or to pluck clean of whatever we have that they want. They view us as cardboard cutouts; their pains and loves and desires are real while ours are merely background noise.

And the entire Republican Party has become one giant in-crowd of professional grifters, most all of them getting rich, getting famous, and/or getting laid in the process.

Ronald Reagan grew up during the Great Depression, became a Democrat who loved FDR, and once believed in government and that hard work and talent would get him ahead. Then Nancy Davis introduced him to her wealthy father, who let Ronnie in on the grift. Shill for General Electric and the GOP and he could marry Nancy, get rich, and might even have a bright political future. He was the first professional grifter president of the modern era.

Newt Gingrich was primed for the grift, screaming about Bill Clinton having an affair with Monica while porking Calista down the hall and fending off calls from his then-second wife. He got into the grift in a big way when he rolled out his "Contract With America" that was almost entirely tax cuts for giant corporations and the morbidly rich. Hell, he's still in on it; I'm getting an email almost every week from Trump with Gingrich's picture and signature asking for money.

Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia both knew that if any other federal judge were to go quail hunting with a defendant before the Court three weeks before trial or allow his spouse to take hundreds of thousands a year from a think tank with business before the Court, there would be hell to pay. But they were in on the grift and simply exempted themselves from the Federal Code of Judicial Conduct. Hell, they helped write the grift with Citizens United.

Since Citizens United the Republican grift has fully gone party-wide and even picked up a few Democrats along the way.

Some members of Congress get rich with money from Big Pharma, others choose to make their money with Big Oil or Big Coal, others are deeply in the pockets of airlines, telcom companies, the tobacco industry, banks, insurance companies or the food and hospitality monopolies.

Some Republicans even ran day-trading operations on insider information out of their offices until then-Democratic Congressman Brian Baird tipped off the world on my show and Air America's Majority Report 14 years ago.Paul Ryan pimped tax cuts for the obscenely rich his entire career, knowing when he left office there's be massive paychecks waiting for him the rest of his life.

Dick Cheney knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein not only had nothing to do with 9/11 but actively hated and hunted down Bin Laden's Al Qaeda operatives so he could imprison or kill them. But Cheney had run Halliburton into trouble, betting that if he picked up Dresser Industries on the cheap that the Clinton administration would cover their asbestos liability. When he lost that bet and Halliburton was in trouble, a nice war with billions in no-bid contracts for the oil-company-turned-defense-contractor was just the grift he needed to both bail him out and make him fabulously rich.

They all believe, as Bob Dylan famously sang, "You've gotta serve somebody." And the "somebody" they all choose to serve are always the ones who pay the most.

Which is why it only makes sense that the Republican Party would put up a lifelong grifter as their nominee for president in 2016. And that he'd surround himself with grifters like Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who Forbes magazine said would, by any measure, "rank among the biggest grifters in American history," having scammed business partners out of at least $120 million.

Everybody in the GOP is either stuffing their "Leadership PACs" with money they can dip into after they leave office, living high on the hog, using their position to become famous or get into the pants of underage girls, or preparing for their well-feathered-nest after leaving politics.

I've been running a contest on my radio show since it started in 2003 offering a prize to anybody who can identify even one single piece of legislation that was originally sponsored by a Republican, passed Congress with a Republican majority, and was signed into law by a Republican president that primarily helped average working people or poor people instead of the rich or giant corporations.

Nobody has ever won the prize, and I'm betting nobody ever will.

This is not to say the Democratic Party doesn't have its share of grifters (two publicity-hungry senators come to mind). After all, when the Supreme Court legalized political grifting they didn't limit it to one party or the other.

But the single largest caucus in the Democratic Party is the Congressional Progressive Caucus (co-founded by Bernie Sanders) and its members generally refuse corporate PAC money and don't usually hang out with lobbyists. Former co-chair of the Caucus, Representative Mark Pocan, has joked on my show that "they say there are three Big Pharma lobbyists for every member of Congress, but I have no idea who mine are."

While Democrats are trying to legislate around the corrupting landmines laid by conservatives on the Supreme Court, Republicans are expanding on Donald Trump's "voter fraud" and "antifa" grifts to raise money and consolidate their own power in the face of an American electorate that's starting to figure out their game.

Trump and a handful of his grifter buddies who were up for full-out treason thought they could pull off the ultimate grift and seize the trillions in assets of the entire country. They only failed, we're learning, by a whisker.

Next time we may not be so lucky. Congress must grift-proof our politics by getting billionaire and corporate money out of politics, as Democrats tried to do when the House of Representatives passed the For The People Act that arguably Democratic grifters Manchin and Sinema are blocking in the Senate.

Perhaps the 2022 election will bring Democrats a large enough progressive majority that they can work around their own grifters. Or maybe it'll signal the death knell of the republic.

To an extent largely unprecedented in American history, that decision will be in the hands of activists and voters like you and me. We have a big job ahead of us.

Bernie Sanders Exposes Glaring Falsehoods In Trump’s ‘Unifying’ Address

Bernie Sanders Exposes Glaring Falsehoods In Trump’s ‘Unifying’ Address

Reprinted with permission from AlterNet.

Former Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear issued a formal Democratic response to Trump’s address to Congress Tuesday. But the most blistering reply may have belonged to Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT), who took to Facebook shortly thereafter. “I wanted to say a few words about what [Trump] didn’t say, because when you analyze the speech sometimes what is more important is what somebody does not say as opposed to what they actually say,” he began.

Below are 12 glaring omissions, contradictions, and lies Sanders spotted in Trump’s address:

1. Social Security and Medicare

“At at a time when all over half of older Americans have no retirement savings, I did not hear President Trump say one word not one word about Social Security or Medicare,” Sanders pointed out.

“During the campaign, as we all remember, President Trump promised over and over and over again that he would not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid,” he explained. “But in his first address [to Congress], he didn’t even mention Social Security or Medicare once, not a single time.”

While Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin insisted the programs would not be touched in an interview this past weekend, President Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, has defended such cuts.

“I urge President Trump, keep your promises tell the American people tweet to the American people that you will not cut Social Security Medicare and Medicaid,” Sanders said.

2. Income and Wealth Inequality

Trump’s speech to Congress briefly touched on poverty in America. However, Sanders “did not hear President Trump mention the words ‘income and wealth inequality’ or the fact that we now have the widest gap between the very rich and everyone else since the 1920’s.”

3. Campaign Finance

“I did not hear President Trump mention the fact that as a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, a five-to-four decision. We now have a corrupt campaign finance system that is allowing billionaires to buy elections and undermine American democracy,” Sanders was eager to point out.

To the first-time politician who has repeatedly boasted about funding his own campaign, Sanders asked, “How could you give a speech to the nation and not talk about that enormously important issue?”

4. Voter Suppression

In his speech, President Trump used the phrase “guided by the well-being of American citizens.”

“[But] not only did President Trump not mention the issue of voter suppression, what Republican governors are doing all over this country to make it harder for people to participate in our democracy, but the truth of the matter is his administration is now working, working overtime, with Republican governors to make it harder for young people, low-income people, senior citizens, and people of color to vote,” Sanders explained. “That is an outrage.”

5. Climate Change

“Perhaps most astoundingly, and a time when the scientific community is virtually unanimous in telling us that climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity, that it is already causing devastating problems in our country and all over the world, I did not hear President Trump say one word, not one word, about the need to combat climate change, the greatest environmental threat facing our planet,” Sanders hammered.

Not only did Trump not mention climate change, “he pledged to increase our dependency on fossil fuels,” Sanders added.

6. Criminal Justice

“At a time when we have more people in jail than any other country on Earth, disproportionately African-American, Latino, Native American, I did not hear President Trump say one word about how he was going to fix a broken criminal justice system,” Sanders pointed out.

“Yes, we must support the hard work of men and women in the police departments, in the sheriff’s departments all over this country, but we must also end the disgrace of having more people in jail than any other country on Earth,” he added.

7. Higher Education

“At a time when we need the best-educated workforce in the world to compete in a highly competitive global economy, I did not hear President Trump say one word, not one word, about the need to lower the cost of college and to do what countries all over the world are doing, and that is to make public colleges and universities tuition free,” Sanders said.

8. “Drain the Swamp”

“During his campaign, President Trump told us that he was going to take on Wall Street and ‘drain the swamp’,” Sanders reminded viewers. “Well, the swamp, big time, is now in his administration, which has more millionaires and billionaires than any presidential administration in history.”

“Amazingly enough, for somebody who was going to ‘drain the swap’, who’s going to take on Wall Street, his chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn, is the former president of Goldman Sachs, one of the major financial institutions that take billions of dollars in fines for their illegal activity,” Sanders added.

9. Glass-Steagall Act

“I did not hear President Trump say one word about another campaign promise that he made to the American people, and that was to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act,”

In his speech, President Trump proposed a $1 trillion investment in American infrastructure, “but the specifics of the financing plan that he has provided us with so far are absolutely wrong,” Sanders concluded. “We cannot rebuild our infrastructure by providing billions of dollars in tax breaks to Wall Street and large corporations.”

10. Clean Water Rules

“Donald Trump said tonight that we need to ‘promote clean air and clean water’… I had a difficult time not laughing out loud when he said that,” Sanders admitted, since “On this very, very day, he signed an executive order rolling back President Obama’s clean water rules and has appointed the most anti-environmental EPA administrator in our nation’s history.”

11. Military Spending

“President Trump said [Tuesday night] that he wants to substantially increase funding for the Pentagon,” Sanders recalled. “What he didn’t say tonight is that he will come up with that $84 billion dollars in increased funding for the Pentagon by slashing programs that benefit the working people of this country, that benefit the elderly, that benefit the children, the sick and the poor.”

12. Prescription Drug Costs

“As he did during his campaign, Donald Trump claimed that he would bring down the cost of prescription drugs,” Sanders told viewers. “A few weeks ago, he even said that the pharmaceutical industry was ‘getting away with murder’, but if Donald Trump really wanted to take on the pharmaceutical industry, he would have told his Republican friends in the House and the Senate to pass legislation, which I [re]introduced today with 20 senators allowing Americans to import safe low-cost medicine from Canada.”

Alexandra Rosenmann is an AlterNet associate editor. Follow her @alexpreditor.

IMAGE: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders delivers a speech on “Democratic Socialism in America,” to students at Georgetown University’s Gaston Hall in Washington. November 19, 2015. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World