分类： politics

The United States stands alone among global democracies in the massive scale of money that flows through its political elections. Washington D.C.’s political ecosystem is uniquely molded by cash infusion and lobbying influence, and the billions poured into state and federal contests are not merely used to cover administrative costs for voting access — they are deployed to control public narrative and swing electoral outcomes.

According to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan organization that tracks U.S. campaign finance, total spending by individuals, organized groups, and independent outside spenders for the 2024 presidential and congressional election cycle is approaching nearly $5 billion — a staggering jump from pre-2010 levels when the figure never exceeded $1 billion.

This explosive growth in campaign spending traces directly back to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court *Citizens United v. FEC* ruling, which eliminated longstanding caps on independent political spending by corporations, labor unions, and special interest groups. The court’s majority argued that political spending qualifies as protected free speech under the First Amendment, writing that “the Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity” and that “no sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

The ruling cleared the way for the creation of Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs), independent groups that can raise and spend unlimited sums from corporations, wealthy individuals, and organizations to support or oppose political candidates. While traditional PACs face strict federal contribution caps of $5,000 per election cycle from individual donors and cannot accept corporate funds, Super PACs face no such limits — they are only barred from formally coordinating spending with the candidate they support, a restriction that campaign finance experts say is often loosely enforced.

“Basically they can take over $100 million if they wanted to from a single individual, and spend all that money in support of a candidate,” explained Anna Massoglia, a campaign finance expert, in an interview with Middle East Eye. “And as long as they disclose the spending, and whoever the donor is — at least the immediate donor — then that is perfectly legal.”

Direct individual donations to official candidate campaigns remain capped at $3,500 per federal election cycle, and individual contributions to national party committees are capped at $44,300. But earlier this year, the Supreme Court further loosened campaign finance rules by allowing candidates to control independent party funds allocated to their races, a decision former President Donald Trump hailed as a major victory for political speech.

Even with disclosure rules on paper, a massive share of independent political spending comes from so-called “dark money” groups that hide their original donors. Since the *Citizens United* decision, these anonymous actors have spent more than $4 billion on federal elections alone, according to Massoglia’s research. Dark money groups often avoid formal disclosure requirements by running issue ads that praise or criticize candidates without using explicit phrases calling for a vote for or against them, allowing them to shield their funding sources. Many route donations through nonprofits or shell companies to further hide the identity of major contributors.

The role of unlimited independent spending played a central role in a stunning 2024 Democratic Senate primary upset in Michigan, where progressive first-time candidate Abdul El-Sayed defeated centrist incumbent Congresswoman Haley Stevens. If El-Sayed wins the general election in November, he will become the first Muslim U.S. senator in American history.

Stevens, backed by the Democratic Party establishment and Michigan’s sitting governor, attracted more than $50 million in outside corporate and special interest spending to defeat El-Sayed — with the pro-Israel lobby’s United Democracy Project (UDP), a Super Pac affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), alone contributing $30 million to her campaign. By contrast, El-Sayed received just over $5 million in outside spending, mostly from progressive advocacy groups. That figure does not include direct donations raised by each candidate’s official campaign, all spent on a single primary contest rather than the general election.

Conventional political wisdom holds that overwhelming spending almost always guarantees victory: Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for consumer advocacy non-profit Public Citizen, notes that candidates who outspend their opponents win roughly 95% of the time. El-Sayed’s victory, therefore, marked a rare exception to the rule that has defined post-*Citizens United* U.S. elections.

In the 2024 cycle, outside spending by Republican-aligned groups has already far outpaced Democratic spending, accounting for 65% of total independent expenditures compared to 29% for pro-Democratic groups. The Make America Great Again Super PAC, formed to support Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential bid, has raised more than $410 million, making it the cycle’s top fundraiser. Nearly 91% of all 2024 outside spending comes from ideological or single-issue groups focused on causes ranging from gun rights and anti-abortion policy to oil and gas development and defense policy.

For years, consistent top spenders in U.S. elections have included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which advocates for corporate interests, the National Association of Realtors, which works to shape property law, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which lobbies on health policy. Big tech giants including Meta and Amazon have rapidly increased their election spending in recent cycles. AIPAC, already the third highest-spending PAC in the 2024 cycle, counts its Super PAC arm UDP among the top 15 highest-spending independent groups across all industries — making it the most influential foreign interest-focused group in U.S. electoral politics. For the 2026 election cycle, an Americans for Tax Fairness report found that as of March 1, nearly 80% of all billionaire contributions to Super PACs go to Republican candidates and causes, with top donors including Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Wall Street fund manager Jeffrey Yass, and tech entrepreneur Greg Brockman.

Critics argue that the current system of unlimited campaign spending fundamentally undermines American democratic representation. Because U.S. House terms last only two years, presidential terms four, and Senate terms six, elected officials are forced to fundraise continuously from the earliest days of their terms to prepare for their next campaign. “It allows wealthy individuals, wealthy groups, corporations, and even foreign interests to invest heavily into who is elected to our government. If [candidates] want to remain in office, they know where the money is coming from,” Holman said.

Northwestern University law professor Michael S Kang, who studies campaign finance regulation, noted that while fundraising can help grassroots unknown candidates get on their feet, the outsized role of money systematically favors wealthy interests. “There are people who say that fundraising is kind of a proxy for popularity, but that’s not really true, because we come from different communities and different communities have different amounts of wealth, and so the way that the role and the importance that money plays in politics has a way of favouring the wealthy [gives them] outsized influence,” he explained.

Not all analysts agree that money distorts election outcomes: a 2016 paper from conservative think tank the Manhattan Institute argued that political donations rarely change candidates’ policy positions, noting that donors typically give to candidates who already share their ideological views and are already positioned to win.

In the wake of El-Sayed’s Michigan primary win, grassroots groups such as Mop Up Michigan have gained traction pushing for campaign finance reform, calling for bans on corporate donations to candidates and greater transparency for political ad funding. A small number of U.S. states, including Arizona, have implemented stricter disclosure rules to shine a light on dark money, but experts say these efforts have had limited success, as dark money groups continuously develop new tactics to hide their funding sources.

While both major political parties have introduced campaign reform bills in recent Congresses, no major federal reform legislation has been signed into law. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law has proposed small donor public financing, a system that would match small individual campaign contributions with public funds to incentivize candidates to court widespread grassroots support rather than a small number of wealthy mega-donors. Still, the system requires more outreach work from candidates, who often find it easier to rely on unlimited ad spending from supportive Super PACs.

Holman argues that current U.S. campaign finance regulation is effectively useless, pointing to the large legal loophole for unlimited spending by independent nonprofit groups opened by Supreme Court rulings. “The biggest effort is to reform the court system, because it’s the courts that have destroyed our campaign finance laws,” he said.

A high-profile legal challenge has been brought against Columbia University by a cohort of current and former Palestinian students, faculty, and staff, who accuse the elite Ivy League institution of systemic anti-Palestinian discrimination and targeted repression of pro-Palestinian speech and organizing on its New York campus. The lawsuit was formally filed this week with the New York State Supreme Court, centered on allegations that unequal and punitive treatment of Palestinian community members began after the October 7, 2023 attacks led by Hamas in southern Israel and the subsequent Israeli military campaign in Gaza.
In the legal complaint, plaintiffs argue that Columbia has actively taken part in and amplified what they frame as racially, ethnically, and politically targeted targeting of Palestinians connected to the university. Prominent Palestinian activist and former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil publicly amplified the lawsuit via social media platform X, confirming that the action is rooted in the university’s discriminatory response to demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians and Gaza. In his public post announcing the suit, Khalil expressed solidarity with fellow plaintiffs, noting that Columbia chose to reward critics of pro-Palestinian speech and silence campus community members while Gaza faced Israeli bombardment and widespread food insecurity.
Core allegations in the filing outline two contrasting failures by the university: that administrators declined to adequately shield Palestinian students, faculty and staff from on-campus harassment, while simultaneously subjecting pro-Palestinian activists to disciplinary processes riddled with bias and inequity. One key incident cited in the suit is the 2024 “Resistance 101” campus event, where Columbia reportedly hired private investigators to conduct surveillance on participating students. Following that surveillance, six students were suspended and removed from university-owned housing, per the complaint.
The legal filing also calls out Columbia’s failure to respond meaningfully to documented physical targeting of Palestinian students on campus. These incidents include multiple cases where students had their traditional keffiyeh scarves forcibly removed, and a January 2024 incident where a irritant, foul-smelling substance was sprayed at a peaceful pro-Palestinian gathering. Additionally, the lawsuit challenges Columbia’s controversial 2024 decision to request deployment of New York City Police Department officers to campus to clear pro-Palestinian protest encampments and arrest participating demonstrators.
The list of plaintiffs includes a range of current and former university affiliates: Hadeel Assali, a lecturer and former anthropology graduate student; Bahia Munem, a former lecturer; Mahdi Sabbagh, a current PhD candidate; Maryam Alwan, a 2025 graduate and former student organizer; and Layla Saliba, a 2025 graduate of Columbia’s School of Social Work. Saliba is no stranger to accusations of anti-Palestinian discrimination at the institution: she was among the students who brought an earlier federal civil rights complaint against Columbia in 2024, when she stated Palestinian students faced disparate poor treatment and called on the university to formally recognize anti-Palestinian racism on campus.
This new legal action comes after years of growing controversy surrounding Columbia’s management of pro-Palestinian protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. In July 2025, Columbia struck a deal with the U.S. federal government to end multiple federal investigations into alleged violations of anti-discrimination law and unfreeze billions in federal research funding that had been paused by the administration. Under the terms of that agreement, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million to the U.S. government and an additional $21 million to resolve investigations opened by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over antisemitism allegations from Jewish employees. Notably, the university did not admit to any wrongdoing nor accept the federal government’s finding that it had violated Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act.
Columbia had also previously resolved a separate 2026 lawsuit brought by Jewish plaintiffs, who alleged the university failed to protect Jewish and Israeli students from antisemitic harassment on campus. Despite these settlements, Palestinian activists and free speech advocates have consistently argued that Columbia imposes disproportionately harsh punishment on students and faculty who voice opposition to Israeli policy. Reuters reporting has confirmed that over the course of the university’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian organizing, dozens of students have faced arrests, suspensions, expulsions, and even revocation of their earned degrees.
The new lawsuit pursued by the Palestinian plaintiffs seeks monetary damages under the New York City Human Rights Law, a local statute that explicitly prohibits discrimination and harassment based on protected characteristics including race and national origin. As of press time, Columbia University has declined to issue any comment on the ongoing litigation, per local New York media, and did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Reuters.

In early August, a landmark yet highly controversial military agreement was signed by Major General Claude Tudor, head of U.S. Special Operations Command Africa, and Saeed Abdullahi Deni, president of Somalia’s semi-autonomous northeastern region of Puntland. The core of the deal is an agreement to expand the existing U.S.-utilized military facility at Bosaso, a strategic port city sitting along the Gulf of Aden. In a short official announcement released by the Puntland government, the expansion is framed as a critical upgrade to enhance counterterrorism operations and bolster regional maritime security. The statement reaffirmed Puntland’s long-standing commitment to countering extremist threats that endanger security, stability and development across the region, Somalia as a whole, and the broader Horn of Africa.

Prior to this new deal, the U.S. had operated out of an air base in Bosaso originally constructed by the United Arab Emirates, which was primarily used by the Puntland Maritime Police Force (PMPF) — a regional counter-piracy force backed by the UAE that received partial training from Xe, the infamous U.S. private military contractor once known as Blackwater. Before the United Nations Security Council voted to lift its long-standing arms embargo on Somalia in late 2023, both the PMPF and the unlicensed Bosaso Air Base operated by the regional administration were in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1425 and the embargo terms.

An October investigation by Middle East Eye into the facility, which sits adjacent to Bosaso International Airport, uncovered a wide range of UAE-owned military infrastructure on site. These assets include a fully operational radar facility, reinforced ammunition depots, a dedicated cargo handling zone built to accommodate IL-76 heavy transport aircraft, a field hospital, a vehicle storage yard holding dozens of tactical pickup trucks, multiple aircraft hangars, and the original dedicated hangar for the PMPF. The investigation also revealed that a large portion of weapons and heavy logistical materials transiting through Bosaso from the UAE are ultimately bound for Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces (RSF), the paramilitary group that has been engaged in a brutal civil war with Sudan’s official armed forces since April 2023, and faces widespread accusations of war crimes and acts of genocide.

Analysts widely view the expansion of U.S. military presence in Bosaso as directly linked to growing tensions around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the critical waterway connecting the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden that has become increasingly dangerous amid escalating regional confrontation linked to the wider Iran-Israel conflict. Many experts also interpret the move as reflecting Washington’s goal of launching more direct operations against Yemen’s Ansar Allah movement, more commonly referred to as the Houthis. The Puntland deal came shortly after the Houthis announced a maritime blockade of Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea ports, a retaliatory measure following Saudi airstrikes on Yemen’s Sanaa International Airport.

Currently, the U.S. maintains its largest permanent African military base at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, but Djibouti’s government has adopted strict policies to protect its own national security, refusing to grant Washington permission to launch strikes on Yemen from its territory out of fears that such action would put Djiboutian civilians at risk. This restriction has pushed the U.S. to pursue alternative footholds in the region, making the Puntland agreement strategically attractive.

The deal also carries significant legal and political ambiguity, as it directly bypasses the U.S.-backed Federal Government of Somalia in Mogadishu. Puntland has refused to recognize Somalia’s federal system since Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud pushed through controversial 2024 constitutional changes that concentrated greater political power in the Mogadishu-based central government. Tensions boiled over into open conflict between June and July of this year, when at least seven armed clashes broke out between federal government forces and Puntland’s regional administration. Just days before the Puntland deal was announced, U.S. Africa Command (Africom) officials also held high-level meetings with leadership from Jubaland, another semi-autonomous southern Somali state that also rejects Mogadishu’s central authority.

Notably, the U.S. continues to publicly affirm its commitment to Somalia’s territorial integrity and national sovereignty, a stance it has maintained in the face of Israel’s formal recognition of the breakaway Somaliland region and Somaliland’s subsequent opening of a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem. Despite this public posture, the U.S.’s separate negotiations with breakaway Somali states are widely interpreted as exacerbating existing political divisions within the country.

Washington’s military footprint in Somalia has grown steadily since the 2001 launch of the global War on Terror, starting with the deployment of special operations forces, followed by the introduction of conventional troops, attack helicopters, surveillance aircraft, remote operating outposts, and armed drones. For over two decades, Africom has carried out drone and airstrikes against al-Shabaab leadership and Islamic State affiliates in Somalia in coordination with the federal government, while also providing training and equipment to the Danab Brigade, the elite special forces unit of the Somali National Army that has led most of Mogadishu’s major ground offensives against extremist groups.

During his first term in office, former President Donald Trump oversaw 219 airstrikes in Somalia under the banner of counterterrorism. Since his second inauguration, the U.S. has seen an unprecedented escalation of military activity in the country, with 205 strikes carried out to date. The Bosaso base expansion comes alongside a major shift in operational authority, as the Pentagon has delegated greater strike authority to Africom leadership. During a February 2025 visit to Africom headquarters, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth signed a classified directive eliminating the requirement for White House approval prior to carrying out drone strikes in Somalia.

This July, the U.S. also ended all financial and logistical support for the UN Support Office in Somalia, effectively discontinuing the African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in the country.

Analysts argue that the decision to pursue a separate base expansion deal with Puntland represents more than just a continuation of the U.S.’s long-running counterterrorism campaign in the Horn of Africa. When considered alongside Washington’s withdrawal from multilateral peacekeeping missions in the country and the loosening of operational constraints on Africom, the expanded Bosaso facility signals that the U.S. is intensifying its strategic foothold in Somalia, and increasingly willing to exploit the country’s existing political fragmentation to advance its own regional security goals, rather than working to unify actors around a shared counterterrorism agenda.

On England’s sunbaked east coast, the seaside constituency of Clacton is preparing for an unprecedented by-election this Thursday, widely regarded as one of the most unconventional electoral contests in modern British political history. At the center of the race is Nigel Farage, leader of the right-wing Reform UK party – which held a commanding lead in national opinion polls for more than a year before a recent seismic shift in UK politics – and his most prominent opponent is Count Binface, a novelty candidate known for performing his entire campaign while dressed as a waste bin.

The by-election itself is a carefully engineered contest: Farage won the Clacton parliamentary seat for Reform UK in the 2024 general election, but stepped down from the role just last month to force the early vote. The resignation came in response to a growing parliamentary financial controversy over an undeclared £5 million ($6.74 million) gift Farage received from Christopher Harborne, a Thailand-based cryptocurrency billionaire. A formal parliamentary investigation into the unreported gift was launched before Farage’s exit, and was paused following his July 7 resignation – but the inquiry will immediately restart if voters return him to Westminster.

Farage has repeatedly defended his actions, arguing the gift was received before he took office as an MP and had no connection to his parliamentary work. “Let me be absolutely clear: I have done nothing wrong,” Farage stated during his resignation announcement. “I have decided that the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions.” The following day, he doubled down on his position, saying: “The media are judging me to be a dishonest person, so it is only fair to say to the voters, ‘you judge’.”

In a rare show of cross-party agreement, every major established political party in the UK has chosen to boycott the by-election, with the centrist Labour Party dismissing the contest as nothing more than a calculated political stunt by Farage. This boycott cleared the path for Count Binface, a perennial novelty candidate who runs in high-profile by-elections across the UK to emerge as Farage’s most recognizable challenger. Count Binface’s platform leans into its lighthearted, satirical identity: key promises include constructing at least one new affordable home, nationalizing iconic British singer Adele, and cutting taxes for his voters while raising them for everyone else.

The ballot paper for Thursday’s vote features a total of 34 candidates. Alongside Count Binface, three contenders from the satirical Official Monster Raving Loony Party are standing, as is well-known far-right commentator Laurence Walker, who leads the small Reclaim Party, and a large group of independent candidates. While most political analysts predict Farage will secure a landslide victory, the contest carries a key risk for the Reform UK leader: if Count Binface manages to win more than 5% of the popular vote, a result that would be almost unheard of for a joke candidate, Farage will face widespread public derision that could further weaken his already battered political standing.

The by-election comes at a critical moment for Reform UK, which dominated national opinion polling for more than 12 months until Keir Starmer stepped down as Labour leader and was succeeded by Andy Burnham, who became prime minister last month in a post-election leadership reshuffle. Since Burnham took office, Labour has seen a sharp, sustained upward bounce in national polling, leaving Farage and his party on the defensive ahead of what is already shaping up to be a tense electoral test.