Congress Must Stop Enabling Trump’s Crypto Corruption ⁠96%

By Ezra Levin⁠100% Ben McKenzie⁠100%

7/19/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Indoctrination, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 92.2% saturation with 448 hits. Analysis detected 2,459 faulty-reasoning hits from 486 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 93.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠96% (949 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 95.70% of the article peer group.

Defeating Donald Trump’s authoritarian movement requires taking on the largest industry financing it: cryptocurrency. 
We know most people’s eyes glaze over at the mere mention of the word “crypto.” 
The industry’s lobbyists depend on that; they win when the public is kept in the dark. 
But this is the biggest money-and-power story in American politics right now, and it's important we all pay attention. 
We come at this from different directions. 
Ben is an actor, author, and filmmaker who spent years investigating crypto fraud. 
Ezra co-founded Indivisible, a grassroots pro-democracy movement with thousands of local groups across the country. 
From different vantage points, we’ve reached the same conclusion: Crypto is no longer just a risky investment. 
It's a dangerous political machine fueled by corruption. 
The crypto industry is reshaping American politics from the shadows, spending nearly $200 million already to influence the 2026 elections. 
There is an all-too-familiar playbook for buying influence in Washington: Interest groups funnel millions into primaries through super PACs, using outside spending and misleading attacks to defeat candidates and install their preferred policymakers. 
Crypto is deploying that playbook now, because it has billions of dollars riding on the regulatory decisions the federal government makes. 
But Trump isn’t satisfied. 
Congress handed him a printing press, and now he's pushing for a bigger one. 
At his and the industry’s urging, Congress is considering the CLARITY Act, an even more consequential proposal. 
The bill would shift much of crypto oversight to a weaker regulatory body, a move critics warn would soften investor protections, create regulatory loopholes, and further open the door to corruption. 
While Washington cashes in, ordinary Americans bear the risks. 
Crypto's boom-and-bust cycles have left countless consumers exposed to fraud, scams, and market collapses while insiders emerge wealthier. 
The fight over crypto is no longer a niche financial or technology policy debate. 
It is about consumer protection, corruption, and whether our democracy allows concentrated wealth to purchase both elections and the policies that follow. 
It's about whether anything constrains Trump's insatiable appetite for money and power. 
If Democrats are serious about confronting Trump’s corruption, they must challenge the financial interests sustaining it. 
Voters are looking for fighters, not folders — and you cannot fight corruption while cashing its checks. 
That means rejecting legislation like the CLARITY Act while the industry behind it spends hundreds of millions to influence lawmakers in an election year. 
It means rejecting crypto campaign contributions and independent expenditures. 
A party committed to fighting for democracy cannot be dependent on an industry enriching Trump and his allies. 
It is not enough to simply condemn Trump’s crypto corruption. 
We must also recognize that the CLARITY Act is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. 
It would legitimize a corrupt industry and further empower Trump, all at the expense of American consumers and the integrity of our democracy. 
Congress must stop enabling Trump’s crypto corruption. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.7%Ezra Levin: 11.4%Rolling Stone: 2.9%Confirmation Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 3.6%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Ezra Levin: 3.4%Rolling Stone: 3.2%Availability Heuristic10.1%This article: 9.9%Ezra Levin: 3.3%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic9.9%This article: 3.7%Ezra Levin: 1.2%Rolling Stone: 0.8%Hindsight Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 1.3%Rolling Stone: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 55.3%Ezra Levin: 45.3%Rolling Stone: 5.6%Framing Effect55.3%This article: 11.5%Ezra Levin: 3.8%Rolling Stone: 0.6%Loss Aversion11.5%This article: 5.1%Ezra Levin: 1.7%Rolling Stone: 0.8%Status Quo Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Ezra Levin: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 2.0%Optimism Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 59.1%Ezra Levin: 22.8%Rolling Stone: 7.5%Negativity Bias59.1%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Ezra Levin: 4.2%Rolling Stone: 1.3%In-Group Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 1.9%Rolling Stone: 4.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Ezra Levin: 2.5%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Primacy Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Ezra Levin: 5.6%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Ad Hominem6.8%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.8%Ezra Levin: 6.0%Rolling Stone: 3.4%Appeal to Authority5.8%This article: 13.4%Ezra Levin: 13.2%Rolling Stone: 1.5%False Dilemma13.4%This article: 4.7%Ezra Levin: 9.0%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Slippery Slope4.7%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.5%Ezra Levin: 20.7%Rolling Stone: 5.5%Hasty Generalization10.5%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.9%Ezra Levin: 2.8%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Bandwagon4.9%This article: 32.1%Ezra Levin: 30.2%Rolling Stone: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion32.1%This article: 24.3%Ezra Levin: 12.6%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Begging the Question24.3%This article: 18.3%Ezra Levin: 6.1%Rolling Stone: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.3%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.1%Ezra Levin: 0.7%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.1%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.1%Ezra Levin: 2.3%Rolling Stone: 2.4%Anecdotal3.1%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%Ezra Levin: 3.8%Rolling Stone: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.5%Ezra Levin: 1.2%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Special Pleading3.5%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.4%Ezra Levin: 2.1%Rolling Stone: 1.5%Unattributed Quote6.4%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 92.2%Ezra Levin: 36.3%Rolling Stone: 8.6%Biased Writer Voice92.2%This article: 43.6%Ezra Levin: 30.2%Rolling Stone: 1.3%Indoctrination43.6%This article: 36.4%Ezra Levin: 25.1%Rolling Stone: 1.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias36.4%This article: 0.0%Ezra Levin: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Ezra Levin: 1.2%Rolling Stone: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.5%

486 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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