I’m Thankful for Senator Fetterman’s Health Care, but he’s Not as Thankful for Mine

/ Rich Wilkins / 2 Comments

John Fetterman was hospitalized last week, and has since been discharged. Thank goodness he’s ok. I think he’s a bad apple as Senators go, but we don’t cheer for people to die or be seriously hurt here. Apparently he was on a walk in Braddock and had a heart issue that made him light headed, then he fell, and he had wounds to the face. Again, we’re glad he’s alright.

Thankfully, John Fetterman has outstanding health insurance as a United States Senator. I think that’s a good thing. We invest tremendous actual power of every part of our lives in these 100 people, and we should want them to perform their duties at a healthy, high level and always get the care that they receive. A lot of people complain about the benefits the public *gives* to these 100 people. I don’t. We should want good people to want those jobs, and this is part of what you give good people to take them. Also though, everyone should have access to quality health care.

The government doesn’t give me care though, and that’s ok with me. Look, if we had national health insurance mandated on everyone, I’d probably be getting lesser care than I get for buying health care on the Affordable Care Act created exchange for Pennsylvania, Pennie. I pay full price (In 2025, $427 a month) for my plan, I’ve hit my deductible in consecutive years because of my health issues, and in exchange I have received first rate insurance that has saved my life and well being a couple times now. You get what you pay for, and that’s what I got. I don’t take the premium subsidies, because it then impacts your tax returns, and I don’t want them more complicated than they are. I just want access, and frankly this is much cheaper than I’d have been buying care for myself without the passage of Obamacare. I know what I’m getting into.

I do care about those people on the subsidies though, and there’s two reasons for that. One, I’m not some ghoulish nut who wants people in need to die. Second, self interest. Insurance companies set their rates based on how many people they think will buy for the year. When the subsidies became endangered this year, insurers assumed that less people will buy care for next year and keep it for the whole year. Because they thought they’d have less customers, but they wouldn’t pay out any significantly less amount, they raised rates on the people who are buying. Those rates are now set in stone for 2026. The subsidies are still a question. If those subsidies are not continued, more people will drop their care either before or during the next year. That will drive 2026 premiums up even higher. That will impact me a lot. It is in my interest that these folks get their subsidies.

The best chance for those subsidies to be continued was in the continuing resolution passed by Congress last week that ended the government shutdown. Eight Democratic Senators voted to pass the resolution without the subsidies. Now Democrats are hoping for a vote in December on a stand alone bill to fund those subsidies. Only the Senate is committed to even voting on that bill, and now it is not attached to any Republican priorities that they would *need* to care about. So Republicans in the Congress can kill it several different ways. Even 41 of the 53 Republicans could kill the vote by never allowing it to the floor. They could get 50 Senators to just vote it down and kill it at final passage. They could attach a bunch of amendments, such as on abortion, and damning the subsidies to be voted down even by Democrats. They could pass the bill in the Senate and House Republicans just never give it a vote. House Republicans might just decide to vote it down. Or they could pass it, and Donald Trump could just veto it. And it almost certainly won’t be able to be over rode in either house of Congress. So really the only chance Democrats have of getting the subsidies continued is to give the Republicans something else for it. That’s what the shutdown was supposed to be about. Republicans don’t need anything in December now, so Democrats will have to offer Republicans something they won’t like to pass this bill before the year ends. It was strategically stupid.

John Fetterman, who deservedly has great health care, was a leading proponent of voting to re-open the government. I’m glad he has great health care. If he is actually glad that I have good health care, he showed he doesn’t care very much. Protecting what 20 million of us have was not a priority for him like making sure the Trump government was funded. We can see his priorities. They are not priorities that apparently take the rest of us into account.

Guridy Joins the Race to Replace Siegel

/ Rich Wilkins / 2 Comments

I’m seriously putting the over/under at 2.5 State Legislators standing behind Julian Guridy when he announces his campaign for PA-22 tomorrow. I’m sure all the regulars will be there. But here’s the thing- Julian seems to have his own resume to sell though. He’s been an aide to State Senator Nick Miller and has a great reputation for that. He’s been building up for this. He seems like a very strong candidate and I think he’ll make a good representative for center city Allentown.

While the party will pick who runs in the special election to replace County Executive-Elect Siegel, there will be a primary in May, and it looks like it might be crowded. CeCe Gerlach, a city councilwoman who runs with the support of the Working Families Party, will be a formidable candidate in that race. CeCe has detractors, but I doubt anyone will say with a straight face that anyone will out work her as a campaigner. Allentown activist Jessica Ortiz also has a Facebook page for a campaign for this seat, but I haven’t seen a formal announcement yet. Ortiz has people who will show up to back her. Neither of these ladies will lay down and play dead for Guridy in this race.

There are already some hate merchants out there leading whisper campaigns here, and unfortunately this race could get ugly. I hope not though. I doubt we’ve heard anywhere near the end of this one.

NFL Power Rankings, 11/18

/ Rich Wilkins / 5 Comments

It’s fun when your team is the defending champions. Even if your media is trying hard to create drama around them, let’s just be honest- we don’t care. We know it’s grasping at straws for a story, and we know the problems are of a first world nature. Everybody is happy when you win.

The NFC is the good child. It’s going according to plan. The Eagles and Rams are living up to expectations. The North is a very good division. The west has some good teams. The AFC is way off script. The Chiefs are on the brink of implosion, the Bills aren’t the best team in the conference, the Ravens are overrated when healthy, and the South is trash. In other words, the AFC is fun. It’s also making the rankings fun. I mean, do you really think these teams are the best teams, or are the results making you rank them this way? If you’re at this point too, don’t worry, we all are.

Off to the rankings.

11/11 rankings. 11/4 rankings. 10/28 rankings. 10/21 rankings. 10/15 rankings. 10/8 rankings. 9/30 rankings. 9/24 rankings. 9/16 rankings. 9/9 rankings.

  1. Denver Broncos
  2. New England Patriots
  3. Philadelphia Eagles
  4. Indianapolis Colts
  5. Los Angeles Rams
  6. Buffalo Bills
  7. Chicago Bears
  8. Green Bay Packers
  9. San Francisco 49’ers
  10. Seattle Seahawks
  11. Detroit Lions
  12. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
  13. Pittsburgh Steelers
  14. Carolina Panthers
  15. Jacksonville Jaguars
  16. Los Angeles Chargers
  17. Baltimore Ravens
  18. Houston Texans
  19. Kansas City Chiefs
  20. Dallas Cowboys
  21. Minnesota Vikings
  22. Miami Dolphins
  23. Arizona Cardinals
  24. Atlanta Falcons
  25. Cincinnati Bengals
  26. Washington Commanders
  27. Cleveland Browns
  28. New Orleans Saints
  29. New York Giants
  30. New York Jets
  31. Las Vegas Raiders
  32. Tennessee Titans

The Epstein Truth Has to be Much, Much Worse Than We Think

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Let’s just take the Epstein situation in context for a moment. For many years, my belief is what they had his contact book and maybe some emails with some not famous rich guys who were pedophiles. People like Epstein, or Jerry Sandusky before him, love having other famous people around them, partially for cover, partially to be able to blackmail them if they’re in trouble. That’s basically what I made of Epstein’s relationship with Trump and other famous people. It was no different than Sandusky’s relationship to Andy Reid or Peyton Manning. So I expected that if we ever saw the files, we’d be greatly disappointed by what was in them. After all, this is what happens every time a major conspiracy theories government files get released.

Well, I am wavering in that opinion. If that were the case, Trump would have released them to clear himself and taunt his enemies. If the files contained damning information about Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, or any of the other Democrats he claims were Epstein friends, Trump would release them. Trump could release all the files with an executive order today. He’s not. Even if the files cleared Clinton or anybody else, he’d still be releasing them and claiming otherwise. There’s only one reason plausible for why Donald Trump is not weaponizing the actual Epstein files- it’s suicide. If he releases these files, he’s opening himself up to trouble.

Let’s be clear, the government has not released anything so far. The House Oversight Committee Dems released a couple of e-mails in which Epstein flat out says Trump knew what was going on, and the estate of Jeffrey Epstein released 20,000 or so pages of e-mails. The e-mails dampened speculation that Clinton and some others went to Epstein Island or were involved, but I wouldn’t say the book is closed there. The e-mails were clear as day on Trump though- whether he took part or not, he knew. And Epstein told Maxwell to use that to her advantage, to blackmail him. Trump isn’t disputing the authenticity either. Hell, the only argument coming from his supporters is that “Bubba,” who Trump gave a blow job, was not Bill Clinton. I mean cool, that’s big to know. How about the rest of it?

We don’t know enough to know how bad this story is. If there are really files implicating Trump, God knows who else they are going to drag in. Every “CC” on an e-mail is being combed through now. It could get ugly. The e-mails are the tip of the iceberg. We need the rest of the emails, and not redacted. We need all of the other seized evidence, which was most of this guy’s apartments. We need all the texts too. We need everything. I think it’s becoming at least partially obvious where it would lead. I think we need the real important question answered though- when it’s obvious that Donald Trump at least knew what was happening, will anyone actually change their minds on him?

Let’s Talk About Marjorie Taylor Greene for a Moment

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

For the last decade or so, Democrats have pretended we would welcome MAGA fans to the tent if they just denounced Donald Trump. This is both nonsense and also pretty awful, as we don’t really agree with them on much as a matter of policy. For instance, it was a mistake to embrace Liz Cheney. Her fight against Donald Trump was admirable and honorable, but let’s be serious for a second- she’s a Neo-conservative hawk on foreign policy, pro-life, refused to even embrace her LGBTQ sister’s marriage, and no friend of the environment, unions, or expanded access to health care. What exactly did we agree with her on in 2024 besides Donald Trump’s personally being awful. That’s fine in the context of a campaign, where voters have to choose between two options. Voting against Trump because he’s a pig is reasonable. There are people though that wanted to make Cheney Defense Secretary, and still others who said she should be on a “unity ticket” for President. What exactly is that kind of administration going to do? Sort of ban abortion? Kind of drill for oil in protected lands in Alaska? Attack a Middle Eastern country “in a way?”

Words I never thought I’d write- I respect Marjorie Taylor Greene’s opposition to Trump lately, be it on Epstein or other political matters. I do think she’s bothered by the Epstein situation (I think out of some misconceptions, but that’s fine because she’s morally right here), and her opposition to Trump and Johnson is at a personal and political cost to herself. Do I think she is also trying to rebrand herself because she either thinks or knows (God knows what she’s seen) that Trump is potentially toxic, but I don’t hate that as much as I should. Again, we spent a decade telling them we’d welcome them. Now we’re sort of stuck at least defending her against threats of violence and retaliation from Trump and his followers.

Don’t mistake MTG’s areas of sanity with agreement though. She’s right in the above meme, creating a 50 year mortgage to deal with housing problems is just piling more debt onto consumers to solve the issue. MTG still doesn’t agree though that the issue is that workers are getting a smaller and smaller share of a bigger and bigger pie, and that the wealthy, corporations, and bosses are pocketing too much money. Don’t kid yourself, she won’t call on taxing Elon Musk at a higher rate, creating a windfall tax, or raising wages. So sure, I appreciate her being kind of right on housing and opposing really bad policy decisions. I’d even work with her on that if I were a member of Congress. She’s not ready to embrace good policy though either.

Democrats should at least welcome that MTG and hopefully other Republicans might consider abandoning the most regressive portions of Trumpism, and maybe even Trump himself. We should defend them from his cronies and crooks who attack them. We shouldn’t forget that this woman once talked about Jewish space lasers and wild fires together in the same sentence. I’m glad she sees the light and respect whatever humanity is in her. This isn’t the beginnings of an alliance though.

Some Truth on Gaza

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Let’s have a little truth for a second- the kids are not alright. The war in Gaza may be a lot of things- maybe there are some war crimes, it is inhumane, it is awful, it is not good- but it is not a genocide. If it were a genocide, Gaza would be gone. Population before the war began was 2.2 million. A simple Google tells you that it is basically unchanged. What is happening in Gaza is awful, and it should end. It is a war though, not a genocide.

Hamas caused this war when it attacked Israeli civilians on October 7th, 2023. There is no equivocation on that, no room for debate. Netanyahu has lied though throughout this war. He stated his goal was the removal of Hamas, a complete regime change. He has had several chances to do that, and he doesn’t follow through. For that reason, this war should end. He has no interest in actually following through to any objective, so this is just a waste of human life now. The reality is that most Palestinians in Gaza are not Hamas. They are not terrorists. They are being killed in the war though, and through starvation and disease caused by the war. This is inhumane and should end. There is actually no point to this war continuing.

Netanyahu and Hamas have used each other to justify their continuing existence. Hamas uses the human suffering caused by Netanyahu to not only justify their continuing governance over Gaza, but even to justify killing Gazans they deem as traitors. Netanyahu uses the threat of Hamas to justify voting for his right-wing coalition in Israel. Staying in power at this point keeps Netanyahu out of legal trouble, so he is even more obnoxious with his rhetoric. Netanyahu has also made a future “two state solution” more difficult to impossible with his policies allowing settlers into the West Bank. He is not a friend to the United States, unless you think American policy should be the subjugation or displacement of Palestinians.

Hamas is worse than Netanyahu though. They are a terrorist organization. They do not in anyway make difference between targets of war and civilians in their attacks. They openly say they will not recognize Israel as a nation, even in a two state solution, and that Jews should be hunted and killed. They do not support a democratic Palestine, and they have not held elections in Gaza since they won in 2006. They openly oppose the United States of America. They violate the human rights of their own citizens. They kill and torture people for being LGBTQ. They have no belief in a separation of church and state, or free speech, or even the right to eat for their own citizens. They are redeemable and must be wiped from the face of the Earth. They are not good for Israelis or Palestinians.

Here’s the big things though to remember about Israel. It is a democracy, they elect their government like we do. It is not a “colonizer state” of white Europeans, in fact the majority are not white or European. Israelis could vote out Netanyahu in a future election (they have before), unlike the Palestinians in Gaza with Hamas. In short, these two things are not quite the same.

Neither the Israelis or Palestinians have some absolute right over the other to that land, which is why any call for a single state solution is wrong. Even European Jews trace their ancestry to Israel in most cases, and their families left because of violence and unrest against them centuries ago. Both groups have non-white, indigenous ancestry to the area, and a claim to living there. There was no Palestine before 1948, they had never had self rule. There had not been a kingdom of Israel in centuries either. The UN proposal in 1948 was to create two countries there. One side accepted it, the other did not. The nation that accepted the plan was then attacked by it’s neighboring nations, fought a bunch of wars, and won. The neighbors did not accept Palestinians who wanted to flee. Hence, we have arrived where we are today.

What needs to happen is the removal of Hamas. It is the priority, and it must be the first thing that happens. Then Israel needs to remove Netanyahu at the ballot box. A new Israeli government must cease settlements in the West Bank and work with neighboring nations and allies to bring aid to the Palestinian people. Once they have rebuilt, they need elections, once they have elections, they need to be recognized. If we get that far, Oslo I should be restored as much as possible, and Oslo II should begin to be negotiated again. Arafat’s decision to walk away from Oslo II remains the single biggest blunder in that region to date. Will this happen? Not likely. We’re well beyond this point right now. For now the goal should be the removal of Hamas and a return of democracy in Gaza. Those are the only first steps that can move us towards any stability.

Why the “Engaged Voter” Gap?

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Turnout was really high in this year’s election. Here in Northampton and Lehigh Counties we topped 90,000 voters for the first time in a municipal election. While Donald Trump carried the 7th Congressional district last year, this year high turnout was really bad for Republicans. Democrats won by damn near 20% in both Executive races and won every other county office too, in addition to winning every blue and contested municipal race too. Two years ago we were talking about 70-75,000 voters in each county. Democrats wildly seemed to over perform with the additional voters, whether they were Democrats or independents. Virtually all Democrats voted Democratic, and the margins among independents were wildly beyond the norm (at least from the most complete evidence we have, which was over performance beyond registration in the mail). Why was higher turnout pretty good for Joe Biden, bad for Kamala Harris, and amazing for Democrats basically everywhere this year?

For the most part since LBJ left Washington, the only Democrats who have won national elections were generally personally popular at the time (Carter and Biden were both popular when they won and not as popular when re-election time came). In general, midterms and elections where less personally popular Democrats lead the ticket had not been very good. Basically Democrats won elections where they could massively mobilize the electorate behind a charismatic figure, really until Trump became a political force. From 2017 forward, Democrats have actually done very well in lower turnout elections that they used to lose. Democrats have done remarkably well in special elections. Democrats are winning odd number year Governor races (Virginia, New Jersey, Kentucky, and Louisiana) at an 80% clip in the Trump years. Democrats won a landslide in 2018 and lost just single-digit seats in Joe Biden’s midterm. Democrats are doing really well in elections where only people who are super engaged and really care how government operates are voting. They’re doing less well in electorates with lower education levels and where voters are largely motivated by large scale cultural issues, and less by “how things will run.”

Even in 2024 we saw signs of this. Harris became the first Democrat to carry college educated white men for President in my lifetime. She did see declines among Black men and Latinos, but once you account for education levels, that is entirely confined to voters who had a high school education or less. The most important data point for guessing how a voter will vote is becoming education. Someone with a graduate degree is probably voting Democratic, regardless of race. Increasingly a high school educated (male in particular, but really in most female groups too) voter is probably not voting Democratic.

This is not about “smart vs. stupid,” which would be a lazy and overly simplistic way to break it down. This actually comes down to how important government *seems* to be in your every day life. Many people in jobs that require some sort of advanced degree, or in fields where a college degree is mandatory for entrance (You could think of this as doctors and lawyers, but I’d argue this gets down to some more traditionally blue collar jobs like nurses and teachers) either interact directly with or deal with regulatory decisions by the government. Almost everything in education, from busing and school lunch regulations, to minimum competency standards for teachers, to spending at research institutions involves the government. Everything in a lawyers world involves the government, from the courts they argue in to the laws they argue about, to the court system and it’s services for those involved in it, to their own ability to practice law, it’s set by the government. Even in the health care field, the government is involved in everything from minimum competency for doctors and nurses, to insurance companies and what they must cover, to research and development dollars that fund development of the drugs they use to save lives. People in fields that legally require a degree, or for that matter practically demand you have a certain level of education, interact with the government a lot. Some of the smartest people I know work as bartenders, or in retail, or in a trade- they’re savvy and they often times do pretty well at making money. The government is less ever present in their jobs, and many of them feel as though the government is a hinderance. Find me a bartender that loves when LCB comes around. Find me a guy that paves driveways that thinks the government helps their lives. Friends of mine who lay concrete frankly think the government takes their tax money too much, and gives them way less in return than they deserve. Many of these people don’t have overly positive interactions with the government at the times that they have to interact with it, and they’re not huge fans.

It would be a mistake to think this is the only factor. I know plenty of professors who have a negative point of view of the government, even if they do interact with it a lot. God knows that can be true of teachers, nurses, doctors, and lawyers too. The thing is, again, they’re in fields that there is no choice but to care about what the government does, it impacts their every day life. Of course they’re going to vote more, and they’re going to be motivated to do so even in relatively “minor” (bullshit term) elections, because many of them care about the consequences. Now, add on that people with college degrees and even more so graduate degrees are increasingly voting Democratic, and what you have is a world in which Democrats are winning the voters with the highest engagement in the political system. This is helping them in “low turnout” elections. It’s also helping them even when turnout goes up in those elections, because the additional people who show up are much more alike to their voters than the GOP’s current base.

This doesn’t mean Democrats are going to win every non-Presidential election moving forward, or that their electoral problems in rural America will take care of themselves (less of their voters live there), or that they can’t win Presidential elections anymore. In 2020, Joe Biden won as a really old white man, who leaned into identity politics quite a bit, but was generally viewed as a moderate. That’s probably a pretty good place for a Presidential candidate to be if they want to win, but it’s a really hard space to occupy. There is no candidate for 2028 that really makes it to that spot. For what it’s worth, I think Biden might have reached peak saturation for Democratic voters running at least somewhat under the Obama paradigm. Any more voters we may find will cause us to turn off an equal number of people and turn them out for Republicans. We probably have to offer someone for President who is not a generic Democrat. I’m not suggesting this as a midterm strategy, or even as a regular strategy to win seats in the Senate, the House, or Governor’s mansions. What I mean is that maybe giving our base everything they can ever dream of has a ceiling in a national election, where a lot of voters have varying degrees of animus towards the government. The base Democratic voter may not be moving forward more “like” the median voter in a Presidential race than a Republican base voter. It’s too early to say that with absolute certainty, I’d like to see how things look after Trump is gone. It does seem though that Democrats are becoming the party of the engaged, and that is quite a change from even a few decades back.

Chuck and the Democrats Bad Deal is Actually a Potential Disaster for Abortion Access in America

/ Rich Wilkins / 2 Comments

They really didn’t need to do it. I guess if you think keeping the government open was crucial, maybe you think they did. If you’re a federal worker, maybe you’re happy they did. Maybe if you’re on SNAP, you’re happy to get what you can here. It wasn’t necessary though. Republicans could have re-opened the government themselves by ending the filibuster. Eventually, when the government re-opened, federal workers would get back pay and SNAP would be restored at that time. Republicans could have done it and eventually would have to turn off the pressure on them from the public. Then they would have owned all the terrible things in this bill. They would have owned pricing a large chunk of the 20 million or so people insured under ACA plans out of the health insurance market. They would have owned the closing hospitals from their Medicaid cuts AND the cuts to the ACA subsidies. This is their government. They fought hard to win it and give it to President Trump.

Instead, the Democrats got absolutely nothing. The “promise” of a Senate vote on subsidies for ACA buyers in December isn’t worth the air used to utter it. It’s not a promise to pass it through the Senate, it’s not a promise to vote on it in the House, it’s not even enforceable to get a vote in the Senate. It’s a promise that is worthless and made for the naive. There are now those saying it’s brilliant because Speaker Johnson was forced to swear in Adelita Grijalva, thereby giving the signatures to force the discharge petition on the “Epstein Files.” Number one, we got the smoking gun without the vote even happening, but also, even Epstein’s own words implicating Trump are probably not going to move Republicans, and we are a day later and absolutely zero Republicans are calling on him to step down. We got everything we needed from a leak, the actual vote in Congress will probably be turned into a circus. We didn’t need to trade health care for it.

What’s worse is now the Democrats will get beat at their own game. Namely, Republicans are going to use health care to gut reproductive health services for women to the bone. By passing the CR, Democrats have acquiesced Medicaid spending levels set in the “Big, Beautiful Bill.” Those are going to gut reproductive health care for all Medicaid recipients. Of course, it doesn’t stop there. Republicans are demanding tougher abortion rules in exchange for voting for the ACA subsidies, which will probably kill the bill, but it might even be worse if it ends up passing. Namely, they want to stop states who mandate reproductive health care in their ACA plans. Basically they’re going to make the major blue states accept their version of “pro-life” health care. If Democrats say no, they’ll torpedo the bill. There are also discussions about just handing out the subsidies as cash, which could destroy the entire ACA system.

Insurance companies set rates mostly based on whether they think there will be less or more consumers in the market for the next year. Based on already passed legislation and executive orders in 2025, insurance companies raised their rates, because they think less people will buy next year. Those 2026 rates are set in stone. With the ACA subsidies that are in question, which cover people who just missed qualifying for subsidies in the original ACA, less people will drop their coverage for 2026. That would do a lot to help keep rates in line for 2027. The Democrats best chance to force Republicans to fund those subsidies for 2026 died with the passage of this Continuing Resolution to keep the government open. Their time to pass these subsidies with little to no strings attached has now officially expired.

Chuck Schumer is apparently calling 2028 Presidential contenders (his idea of contenders, but whatever) and begging them to not attack the deal. Gentlemen, unsolicited, free advice- bury the deal. Democrats should be hanging their entire brand on expanding health insurance access, bringing down housing and food costs, and childcare costs. Essential, building block things that people absolutely need to live. Keeping the government open is not the important thing. Keeping the focus on fixing real people’s problems should be the entire focus. Chuck, Fetterstein, a couple of future retirees, a dude from Virginia, and a couple of random Senators I didn’t expect to cave all failed the test. It’s time for a change.

Bernie Grifters Have to Grift

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

Oh Graham Platner… you’re quite a dipshit. I’m on the record hoping for Janet Mills to beat him. Then of course he got caught with the Nazi tattoo and a bunch of bad social media posts, and of course he won’t drop out now. Honestly, Platner is just like the rest of these leftist crooks Bernie pushes on us.

Turns out Graham Platner is employing his wife. He’s paying her biweekly as a “volunteer coordinator.” They’re paying her instead of him because they were worried it would affect his disability payments from the VA. This sounds a lot like Bernie. The Institute in his name founded by his wife and son, that paid his son, shutdown in 2019. Jane Sanders however was paid as a senior advisor to his campaigns. Then there’s the mystery firm his 2016 campaign gave millions to, lord knows who was involved with that.

This is just who these guys are. They run these populist campaigns and get people to give them $10 at a time until it adds up for them. If they win, great. If they lose, it’s another lake house, right?