Why We Can’t Have Nice Things Like Healthcare, Childcare, Housing and A Progressive Congress?

Because Of Corporate PACs and Foreign Lobbies

I cannot tell you how frequently I am asked questions such as: 1. If over two-thirds of the nation wants it and it seems like we have all the infrastructure to provide Healthcare-For-Everyone, then why can’t we? 2. Every other nation of the top 30 has universal childcare, why can’t we?  3. What is the real reason Congress has not addressed the housing crisis? 4. Why are we losing so many progressive voices in Congress?

The short answer is:  Corporate PACs and foreign lobbies. Period.

Many people have said it before me, but I agree members of Congress who take corporate PAC money and/or foreign lobby money should wear t-shirts so that we would know who pays for their elections. It would help us understand the blockade against commonsense legislation that would modernize the US, make us healthier and happier, such as healthcare for all, affordable drugs and housing.

The longer answer is most of the members of Congress - roughly 85%, according to End Citizens United - take corporate PAC money and because of that, those members frequently either ignore issues, work against issues or dilute approaches that would address them to appease their corporate donors. Corporatized congressional members often take on one of four modes of operation after receiving corporate support:

1.        Take the money, agree to use the corporate PACs’ or foreign lobby talking points and never veer from them, while agreeing to never create or vote for legislation that would hurt or veer from their benefactors’ agenda in any way.

2.        Take the money, water down their talking points and veer slightly from the lobby’s perspective on several items in their communications, but never really create any legislation that will go against the corporation or lobby providing money to them, even though action is desperately needed.

3.        Take the money, talk about taboo issues and talk a good game on progressive policies, but never introduce legislation or vote for anything that crosses their benefactors’ agenda in any way. Some may even condemn the industry, company or lobby on occasion. By talking a strong game, this allows the member of Congress enough cover to create ineffective legislation that is ridiculously watered down and sounds positive but does nothing at all or sometimes they simply do not create any legislation whatsoever but talks frequently about the problem. This also gives them cover.

4.        Rarely, a few members take corporate money but, bravely, are not beholden to their talking points or their lobbyist’s dictates and creates legislation against their benefactors’ agenda. However, these folks sometimes lose those corporate sponsors and lobbies over time, and at times, consequently lose elections.

Conversely, and happily, those that do not take corporate PAC money or foreign lobbies’ money, are free to:

1.        Always condemn bad industry behavior, inhumane foreign actions and the negative actions of specific companies, such as Big Oil, Big Banks and Big Pharma.

2.        Can work with advocacy rights groups and consumer groups publicly such as Unions, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Medicare For All advocates, Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club etc. in a meaningful way to create change.

3.        Build substantial legislation that addresses these critical issues, such as healthcare for all, universal childcare, reducing the cost of drugs, funding AFFORDABLE housing, creating tax credits and creating real climate legislation that will bring us into the renewable and clean-energy age.

4.        Work with other members of congress to address the issues and not be encumbered in any way.

5.        Condemn foreign lobbies who have taken control of Congress, such as AIPAC.

At the end of the day, those members taking corporate or foreign lobby PAC money frequently claim a few defenses about taking PAC money, that tend to not be true:

a.        “I still vote the way my district wants, and the corporate talking points don’t matter” but then actually do the opposite.

b.        “Taking corporate money saves me time, so I don’t have to fundraise as much” and then vote against healthcare, reducing prices, affordable housing and only support foreign lobbies that donate heavily.

c.        “I do see both sides of this issue, so I just stay neutral and avoid those issues, otherwise, I would not stay elected” and then don’t do anything.

So how does this happen and what can be done?

So, let’s start with healthcare. Even though 69% of the US, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, desperately wants a healthcare system that takes health insurance companies out of control and prevents us from being driven by greedy execs and their shareholders. Remember, when Dems talk a good game but then vote against it, it doesn’t count. Right now, only about 20% of congress members currently would vote for strong healthcare-for-all legislation, vs. 70% of the American population. Baffling yes, but remember these members are beholden to Corporate PACs. Also note, there are dozens of ways to effectively achieve a solid system using Medicare and a wide variety of existing healthcare systems. Reminder: in the most effective models, we would use the former healthcare insurance companies to process, leverage data and other administrative tasks as a vendor, but would not allow them to be placed in control in any way. The control would go to a single payer entity modeled on Medicare or something like it.

That said, over 65% (Open Secrets, 2023) of Congress members receive funding from either healthcare insurance related corporate PACs, groups, lobbies or executive alliances. And at least half of those receive significant funding from Pharma. It is easy to see the donors and lobbyists are calling the shots here. These groups are very powerful and block universal healthcare and reducing the cost of drugs at every turn. Large banks fund members as well (most reporting indicates 30-45% of Congress receives campaign funding from financial institutions of some sort) and have a vested interest in keeping insurance and pharma companies happy because it keeps more money in their pockets. As a result, we have suffocating medical debt, people who are getting sicker and/or die because they cannot afford their meds and ultimately become bankrupt. Small bright spot here: the Biden administration did pass legislation that will reduce a group of top 30 drugs for seniors. It’s a start, we need the same for all ages.

Universal childcare and affordable housing have the same challenge.  Universal childcare is always treated as the forgotten cousin because while there is no formal lobby against it, we don’t have a huge and highly funded force fighting for it. In this instance, a handful of hard-working Democrats in congress and advocates across the nation actually have worked diligently for this issue, but have been overtaken by Republican interests (as with everything, Republicans view childcare as a “handout”). The real estate developers, the National Association of Realtors, REITs (real estate investment trusts), large banks, construction companies and other lobbying groups in this nation have a stranglehold on many congressional members and will fight tooth and nail to keep profits via overpriced, inflated housing practices in place. Now, a bright spot here, it appears VP Harris has a housing plan to address this via first time homeowner credits and funding new affordable housing. Fingers crossed.

Foreign Lobbies such as AIPAC are wildly influential across all of Congress. In fact, their strongarming has created an ugly and divisive fissure in the Democratic party that will need to be reckoned with in order to get coalition work done moving forward. Politico (6/24) reported AIPAC is the biggest source of donations dominating Democratic primaries challenges against both incumbents and open seat situations. All directed at preventing progressives from being elected or reelected. The model has been the same in each of the primaries they play in: Step 1. look for progressives to take out and fund a conservative Dem to replace them. Step 2. Viscously attack the progressive incumbent or challenger via character assignation 3. Win the seat for the conservative candidate and own that member of congress’ every vote and move, forever. AIPAC, themselves reported raising $100 million to use in primaries to support devotees of Israel (remember Israel is a foreign country, so let that sink in) and aggressively go after any candidate that has even a moderate approach on the Middle East, meaning those that call for a ceasefire (which would bring the hostages home), end the occupation and work on permanent peace. Progressives are clear these policies will keep both Israelis and Palestinians safe, but AIPAC has a long history of not supporting a tangibly defined two-state solution while they continue to support illegal land annexation and also opposing measures that would allow both sides be free, prosperous and self-governing.

 AIPAC, because of their immense power in Congress, in just this 2024 cycle alone took out two very popular and well-aligned-with-their district, congresspeople: Rep Jamal Bowman and Rep Cori Bush. In both primaries this year, AIPAC broke historical records on primary spending. In Bowman’s primary, AIPAC spent a never seen before $16 million against Bowman and several million in favor of their highly conservative candidate, George Latimer.

In both instances, there was no reason to “take down” these two incumbents. They were hard working, popular in their districts, highly effective and strongly respected. Bowman and Bush’s sins were being progressive on all issues, wanting peace in the Middle East with an end to the war and for not being conservative. This is the criteria AIPAC uses when choosing the primaries in which to engage. Often, their takedown targets are women or people of color.

But AIPAC’s takedown successes go far and wide. In 2022, they took down Andy Levin (a long-time member well aligned with his district and a synagogue president), Donna Edwards (former congressional member who ran again and beloved) as well as the author of this article. In 2024, they took down primary candidate Susheela Jayapal, Rep Bowman and Rep Bush. They attempted in both 2022 and 2024 to take down Rashida Tlaib, AOC, Summer Lee and Ilhan Omar, unsuccessfully, but again spent millions of dollars. There were several other primary candidates who were annihilated by AIPAC money in primaries up and down the ballot as well just because they were progressive.

As an aside, but important note, AIPAC almost never speaks about Israel in any way in their ads either for or against a candidate. Their campaign communications are without fail, simply character assassinations of their takedown target. This is done so they can concentrate on weakening their target, and is usually highly undeserved, but never actually talk about their mission and their reason for being is never mentioned. Antithetical to working for a mission, yes. Maniacal – absolutely.

AIPAC’s influence stems from the Democratic Leadership in Congress’ unwavering support for them because of their financial resources and notoriety around retribution if you cross them. AIPAC leaders and supporters proudly talk about taking congresspeople down all over social media. It is some next level schoolyard Bully crap. While there is evidence to suggest this is starting to chip away, in that Dem leadership has called for the ending of sending bombs to Israel, we are not anywhere near were we need to be in ending their undue influence and bullying of members. The threat of being primaried and AIPAC funding opponents is a fear most members of Congress live with daily. They will never choose to cross AIPAC for fear of the iron glove organization primarying them and taking them out.

So, what is the answer? There are many things we can do:

-Support legislation that ends corporate PACs and their affiliates (Congressman Ro Khanna has a great bill that would achieve this key step)

-Support a law requiring all PAC and lobbying groups to spend most, if not all, campaign messaging dollars on their stated mission and for their candidate, not character assassinations against their opponents in their campaign communications

-Additional legislation to support would be ending:

-lobbyist’ ability to donate to campaigns

-foreign PACs to be able to engage in campaigns

-super PACs entirely, who literally have no rules around communications, truth in messaging, spending transparency or specific origins of amounts spent by whom

-Of course, keep fighting for healthcare for all, universal childcare, affordable housing and fairness of campaigns.

The number one best action: IN THE 2026 CYCLE, DO NOT SUPPORT CANDIDATES WHO TAKE CORPORATE PAC OR FOREIGN LOBBY MONEY. PERIOD.