Corporate Political Spending Surges to Record-Shattering Levels ⁠76%

By Newswire Editor⁠94%

6/30/2026, 3:46:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Negativity Bias, and Loss Aversion, with Slippery Slope as the most egregious example at 31.4% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 1,146 faulty-reasoning hits from 344 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 68% and a BS Rank of ⁠76% (5,112 of 21,175 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.90% of the article peer group.

Nearly one third of all corporate political spending on elections since the 2010 Citizens United decision has occurred in the current election cycle – months before the general election, a new report from Public Citizen finds. 
Since the U.S. 
Supreme Court greenlit direct corporate spending to influence election outcomes in 2010, corporations have spent $1.58 billion on federal elections. 
In the 2026 election cycle alone, they have spent $517 million, a figure sure to soar as the November general election approaches (these totals reference disclosed political spending, not any contributions from Dark Money organizations that keep donors secret). 
The 2026 cycle spending already far exceeds the $461 million corporate spending during the 2024 presidential cycle. 
Driving this unprecedented surge of political spending are crypto, Big Tech and online betting corporations. 
Altogether, those three sectors are responsible for 57 percent of the corporate spending in the 2026 midterms. 
The new corporate spending is going primarily to corporate supremacist super PACs, which, unlike most super PACs, prioritize the interests of specific corporate sectors over either major political party or any particular candidate. 
The report, “The Rise of Corporate Supremacist Super PACs,” also finds that the biggest beneficiary of corporate contributions besides the industry-prioritizing super PACs is the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc. 
MAGA Inc. received $120.6 million in direct contributions from corporations including Crypto.com, Energy Transfer Partners, UnitedHealthcare, and Reynold’s American. 
“A decade and a half after Citizens United, corporations are starting to spend on politics like never before,” said Rick Claypool, Research Director at Public Citizen and author of the report. 
“Crypto corporations shattered norms against corporate spending in elections last cycle and now many others are following suit – and still more are sure to follow.” 
“This corporate spending is a disaster for democracy,” said Claypool. 
“If the current, broken campaign finance system remains unchallenged – and corporate spending is allowed to drown out the voices of real voters and real people – these corporate campaigns will keep multiplying, even as voting rights for individual Americans face escalating attacks.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.1%Newswire editor: 9.9%Common Dreams: 8.1%Confirmation Bias8.1%This article: 4.9%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 0.9%Anchoring Bias4.9%This article: 30.8%Newswire editor: 6.2%Common Dreams: 5.0%Availability Heuristic30.8%This article: 4.4%Newswire editor: 1.1%Common Dreams: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.7%Common Dreams: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 18.9%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias18.9%This article: 11.6%Newswire editor: 20.8%Common Dreams: 17.7%Framing Effect11.6%This article: 23.8%Newswire editor: 1.4%Common Dreams: 1.0%Loss Aversion23.8%This article: 4.4%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.3%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.6%Optimism Bias11.3%This article: 20.1%Newswire editor: 3.1%Common Dreams: 2.8%Pessimism Bias20.1%This article: 30.2%Newswire editor: 22.3%Common Dreams: 20.7%Negativity Bias30.2%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 3.1%Common Dreams: 2.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 4.3%Common Dreams: 3.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.6%Common Dreams: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 1.4%Halo Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.6%Common Dreams: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.0%Newswire editor: 1.7%Common Dreams: 1.4%Recency Bias14.0%This article: 10.5%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.5%Primacy Effect10.5%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 5.4%Common Dreams: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.0%Common Dreams: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 6.9%Common Dreams: 5.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 4.0%Common Dreams: 3.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 31.4%Newswire editor: 3.7%Common Dreams: 3.3%Slippery Slope31.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.4%Newswire editor: 10.4%Common Dreams: 8.7%Hasty Generalization13.4%This article: 8.1%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Red Herring8.1%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.6%Common Dreams: 2.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.4%Newswire editor: 20.5%Common Dreams: 18.7%Appeal to Emotion15.4%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 5.0%Common Dreams: 3.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.8%Newswire editor: 5.4%Common Dreams: 4.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.8%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.2%Common Dreams: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 1.5%Common Dreams: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.3%Common Dreams: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.6%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.4%Composition/Division9.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 2.5%Common Dreams: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.5%Newswire editor: 2.1%Common Dreams: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.5%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.1%Common Dreams: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.4%Common Dreams: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.5%Common Dreams: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.3%Newswire editor: 1.6%Common Dreams: 1.8%Unattributed Quote11.3%This article: 2.9%Newswire editor: 2.9%Common Dreams: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection2.9%This article: 11.6%Newswire editor: 16.6%Common Dreams: 17.5%Biased Writer Voice11.6%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 11.9%Common Dreams: 8.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 20.3%Common Dreams: 17.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newswire editor: 0.7%Common Dreams: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Newswire editor: 1.2%Common Dreams: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.5%

344 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker32%attributed speech234writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRick Claypool • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRick Claypool • 26 words • 0.0% coverageRick Claypool • 10 words • 100.0% coverageRick Claypool • 43 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rick Claypool

100%flagged-word coverage
110 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-17.1 ptsWriter: 17.1%Rick Claypool: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-16.7 ptsWriter: 16.7%Rick Claypool: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.4 ptsWriter: 15.4%Rick Claypool: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+9.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Rick Claypool: 9.1%9.1%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.