Near the end of its term, the Supreme Court ruled this week in NRSC v FEC that political parties are not restricted in how much they can spend in political coordination with their candidates. The Democratic Party referred to this ruling as “an invitation for corruption” in an official statement, lauding how much more their candidates earn from individual donors. At face value, this is in line with the party’s opposition to Citizens United, which broke limits on PAC spending almost two decades ago. However, if Democrats really hate Super PACs, they should love the political implications of this ruling. Political parties are, currently, very weak institutions. In the post-Citizens United world, politicians are far more incentivized to give into the demands of interest groups, who can spend as much money as they want, than they are to stay in sync with their party’s platform. Before this week’s ruling, Americans who wanted to influence political figures were much better off donating to Super PACs than they were to the Republican or Democratic parties because the parties were limited in what they could do. In the wake of one court decision, however, the incentive to support PACs is slipping away and parties are much bigger players in elections than they were two weeks ago. This benefit for Democrats, admittedly, is more long-term than short-term. Immediately, the DNC’s financial debt looks dire and the RNC—in much better financial standing—emerges with a fundraising advantage. But, there’s no use crying over spilled milk. The Democratic Party, despite any rhetoric regarding the Republican elite, has a lot of rich friends. The DNC can at least try to blitzkrieg a fundraising campaign with the help of their friends in Hollywood. Furthermore, campaigns are not always won and lost on the dollar. Kamala Harris outraised and outspent Donald Trump in 2024, yet she still lost. The amount of money you spend is not nearly as important as how you spend it. The Democrats do not have to shatter fundraising records to win in 2026; they just need to raise some money and capitalize on their current political advantage by spending that money well. They have to use their new financial leverage over their candidates to get their disjointed, dysfunctional party on message. It is no secret that the party is fractured. In New York City alone, there are primary winners like Darializa Avila Chevalier, who is a part of the Democratic Socialists of America, and primary winners like Ritchie Torres, a moderate, pro-Israel Democrat. Voters are confused what platform they are voting for when they vote blue. If the DNC can spend as much money as it can afford on advertisements for these candidates, then perhaps some semblance of a party platform can emerge. The American left’s infamously disjointed party has just been given the gift of organization by the Courts. My advice: make the most of it.
By Jack Jurjans
It is no mystery how the whisper of communism still sends shivers down Americans’ spines. This reaction has been long conditioned and refined since the initial wave of panic following the First World War, coined as the First Red Scare. This innate fear was triggered by two major events: the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in the USSR led by Vladimir Lenin as well as a surge in organised labour strikes and a nationwide bombing campaign led by anarchist groups in 1919. Both these events terrorised the public, perpetuating the idea that communism was indeed a poison—one that welcomed chaos and sought to destroy the glossed image of the American lifestyle. The US government responded quickly with the Palmer Raids, where they arrested thousands of individuals tied to leftist ideologies or believed to be involved in radical movements. Though controversial, this move seemed an adequate proposition as the public trembled in disdain against anything remotely communist, true or not. This fear resurged after the Second World War on a much larger, more paranoid scale. This beckoned the coming of the Second Red Scare (also known as McCarthyism) which was powered by nuclear tensions with the Soviet Union and the rise of communism across China. Though these events seem buried in the past, the impacts have not been so easily forgotten. In modern times, there is still a sour taste in Americans’ mouths when discussing socialism or Karl Marx in almost any context. It has forever driven a wedge in American politics and formulated a political landscape that continues to vilify socialist ideology. Furthermore, the political right continuously heightens hysteria on the left regarding ties to radical affiliations, forcing the Democratic Party towards the centre to avoid, though arbitrary, accusations of harbouring far-left ideologies. The very idea that the seemingly left-aligned political party is pushed to the centre because of the possible associations that could be made seems nonsensical on the grounds of legitimate democracy. Though it appears this idea of legitimate democracy is thus one based on that same notion of communist disdain. What is humorous is not this fact but that the line between left and radical has been so blurred that in modern and post-war America, it equates to identical ideological standpoints. The opposition party, as well as the government, have created such a successful campaign, leaving the supposed left-leaning party too afraid to lean to the left. Why? Because of that same fear that was ignited over a century ago, the unchanging contempt America just cannot seem to shake. This historic anxiety has not collapsed following that of the Soviet Union, but has been carried into a modern environment. Religion has had a part to play in keeping this hatred alive. In response to the “godless” nature of communism, Congress purposely added the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. In 1956, Congress then adopted “In God We Trust” as the official national motto and then accelerated its reach in 1957 by placing the motto on all paper currency. These actions aimed to tie religion to American patriotism and identity to boost morale, but also remind that it would not fall to a communist regime under any circumstances. By introducing religion, the government placed the opposition as not just an enemy of the American people but God himself. This is powerful because it shreds any ideological debate about communism being a mere political regime; it was consequently turned into a direct deviation from Christianity. The fight had been transformed into one of good versus evil, with the Lord as their witness. Modern political rhetoric follows the same framework, frequently labelling progressive social politics as secularist, Marxist, or communist threats. Leftist ideology has become a weapon of unspoken nuance and history that is wielded against almost anything that deviates from the theology of America. Corporate leaders and conservative ministers also joined forces during the Red Scare to fight the invasion of unwanted leftist politics. They framed unregulated capitalism as a divine right and necessary for a functioning America while painting socialism as a sin. This alliance gave birth to modern Christian libertarianism which heavily impacts today’s political relations between the conservative Christian base and free-market capitalists. Through factors such as these, it is no surprise that the average American is still panic-stricken when discussing socialism. The Red Scare did not solely cause temporary fear; it aided the construction of a national identity in which Christianity and capitalism became fused to a common enemy: communism. Modern America was carved from this inheritance of national values, leaving behind a society that treats leftist ideology as something intrusive. The Soviet Union may have fallen, but the shadow it left behind still haunts America today. The lasting influence of The Red Scare is not sustained through memory alone, but also through the language of political grammar today.
By Adia May
On June 28th, the Associated Press released an article that highlighted claims comparing Trump to a monarch. These claims pointed to Trump’s partisan and self-focused plans while in the White House. For example, many Democrats such as House Rep. Maxine Dexter felt that Trump was performing shady activities with money for the bi-partisan “America250” by funneling it into a conservative “Freedom 250” powered partly by the Christian, MAGA-supporting Hillsdale College. Additionally, they point to other actions – such as his earlier demolition of the White House in order to create a ballroom – as very vain and financially irresponsible. To determine a proper stance on the matter, a broad review of Trump’s actions in office must be conducted. During Trump’s second term, compared to other executive orders, foreign policy orders dominated. Of these, many involved actions against the illicit drug trade through placing tariffs on warehouse imports, and others involved designating terrorist organizations. Trump’s foreign policies overwhelmingly reflect conservative fears against drugs and crime from previous presidencies such as that of Richard Nixon. Only now, there is an increased emphasis on terrorism, though this has arguably been a prevalent governmental undertone since 9/11. Trump’s actions align with the conservative agenda, and this is just one example of that. In environmental actions, Trump’s policies have primarily involved removing environmental safeguards to industrialism. The threat of these policies is not unanimous among viewers and his actions indeed reflect partisan goals (as most presidents’ do). What is unusual about Trump’s White House actions is his demeanor, not his policy. Trump has on multiple occasions posted to Truth Social (his conservative-powered social media app) in all capital, emotionally charged modes. Additionally, his sloppy uploading of AI images such as the infamous image of himself as Jesus healing a man arguably decreased public trust. While his executive actions are clear, his personal replies to global events create a shaky ground for Americans to stand on. Naturally, when reviewing his financial and ethical decisions we see a similar view. From him calling a female reporter a pig, to him erecting his own name on the Kennedy Center (which by a court ruling he quickly had to remove), to stating that there would be a Trump Rally on July 4th, our nation’s independence day, at the National Mall. Together, these actions put a bad taste in the mouths of non-MAGA Americans. So is America becoming a Monarchy? Not exactly. However, the claims on Trump’s vain character stand loudly – the very same ones that continue to bring his approval rates further down. This calls into question whether presidential behavior is just as important as their governmental success.
By Megan Fincher
Follow Us