In my home state of Michigan, where we are days away from a hotly contested primary, you can’t turn on the TV without sitting through a deluge of political ads. Campaign flyers are cluttering our mailboxes, and text blasts are blowing up our phones. Midterm season is in full swing, and it seems we’re at the epicenter.

But with all of the noise around political spending, it’s easy to forget what this money means—or how unusual it is. After all, the United States is an island when it comes to campaign finance. The sheer cost of US elections outpaces the world, and what’s considered commonplace here is outlawed in other countries. Our neighbor to the north, for instance, bans businesses from spending in Canada’s elections. Here, corporate PACs are among the biggest political donors.

In this year’s midterms, ad spending is projected to set a new record of $11.6 billion. Much of that is not from the campaigns themselves, but from super PACs.

While individuals and traditional political action committees are subject to contribution limits, super PACs can raise and spend as much as they want to promote or attack candidates as long as they don’t coordinate directly with campaigns (although there are ways around that, too).

This category of political spending is relatively recent in the grand scheme of US politics. Super PACs were born out of the Supreme Court’s infamous 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The court essentially held that corporations are people with First Amendment rights, building on the doctrine of “corporate personhood,” and that political spending is protected free speech.

The ruling unlocked a floodgate of outside spending into elections. For context, the historic 2008 election cost $5.3 billion, which shattered records at the time. The ad spending alone in this year’s midterms is expected to cost more than double of that, which would break the latest record set in the 2024 presidential election.

If you want voters, not donors, to determine who is elected to public office, the answer is simple: tune out the noise of advertising and rely on your own research before you go to the ballot box.

Three ways to learn more about candidates:

Check your local papers for voting guides, which include candidate profiles of everyone on the ballot. The profile should tell you about a candidate’s background and stance on key issues.

Campaign websites will have info on a candidate’s agenda and background. Of course, it only shows what a campaign wants voters to know, but it’s a good starting point. And there should also be a tab for events if you want to meet a candidate face-to-face.

Check for recordings of previous debates or forums. Especially in lower-profile races, sometimes events happen and get buried in a busy news cycle. You can also try asking your local faith space, union, or advocacy group to consider hosting a forum.

Subscribe now

How to learn more about a specific ad:

Find out who’s funding the ad by looking for the disclaimer, which often appears at the bottom of the screen. If the ad is directly from the campaign, it’ll tell you that.

If a campaign is not funding the ad itself, that means an outside group is behind it. The funder’s name will appear in the disclaimer, usually accompanied by their website, which is sometimes enough to figure out what the group is.

But don’t be fooled by generic-sounding names. For example, “United Democracy Project” sounds like a pro-democracy advocacy group, but it’s actually AIPAC’s super PAC. Or “A Stronger Michigan,” another super PAC, is largely funded by a dark money group led by corporate lobbyists. But you wouldn’t know that from the super PAC’s name or even its website.

Share

As for attack ads, it’s worth remembering that they can (and do) distort the truth. While federal rules prohibit deception in commercial advertising, political ads are essentially a free-for-all. If you’re curious about a specific claim an ad is making, try pulling up the full report it’s citing yourself.

And if you still have a burning question you can’t find the answer to, try reaching out to a reporter who’s been covering the race. It’s our job!

Thank you for being here. To share questions, comments, or tips, email me at minnahfarshad@protonmail.com or reach out on Signal at minnah.38.

People across the globe rallied for peace and labor rights on May Day, in a demonstration of working class solidarity in the face of war and seismic inequality.

In the US, a coalition of pro-democracy groups called for a nationwide economic blackout on Friday to flex the working class’s power and send a message to the Trump administration that they do not accept business as usual.

The coast-to-coast demonstrations drew workers, teachers, students, activists, and elected officials. Protesters rallied outside the New York Stock Exchange in Manhattan, the San Francisco International Airport, Elon Musk’s xAI supercomputer in Memphis, and an Amazon warehouse in Chicago.

In Detroit, on an unseasonably cold and drizzly afternoon, demonstrators peacefully marched through the streets to protest outside a DHS office. The protest included demands for abolishing ICE, safeguarding labor rights, and ending foreign wars.

“We are told there’s no money for housing, healthcare, or education, but somehow, there’s always enough money to kill our families in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran,” one speaker said.

(Trump admitted as much just one month ago, saying on camera: “We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare.”)

The protest also celebrated the labor movement’s role in fighting for civil liberties and shunned billionaires for sowing division for profit.

Share

“Solidarity is our greatest tool, and together we will win,” one speaker said.

The diversity of Friday’s “May Day Strong” movement is the latest show of the growing consensus against Trump’s authoritarian takeover. The three “No Kings” demonstrations were among the largest protests in US history, with the latest March 28 rallies drawing a record 8 million people.

But organizers are gearing up for an even bigger flex of working class power. United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain called on the labor movement to participate in a general strike on May Day in 2028, months ahead of the presidential election.

“It’s our opportunity to create a crisis for the billionaire class to win more for all of us,” the UAW said.

Subscribe now

Thank you for being here. To share questions, comments, or tips, email me at minnahfarshad@protonmail.com or reach out on Signal at minnah.38.

Masked agents in unmarked cars are waging Donald Trump’s war on immigrants. ICE detentions have broken records. Some families without papers are afraid to leave their homes. As one federal lawsuit challenging the immigration raids said, the “startling pattern of abuse” is “fundamentally altering civic life” in Minnesota and the Twin Cities.

And in the wake of an ICE agent’s fatal shooting of Renee Good last week, the White House has brazenly stood by its false account of the murder (even as some Trump allies and ICE officials worry behind closed doors about the GOP’s hostile response, per Politico).

But the administration’s anti-immigrant attacks, broader militarization efforts, and public bravado have been met with growing defiance. While ICE’s brutality predates Trump’s descent on Washington, his broadcasting and expansion of it is triggering opposition against the 22-year-old agency:

Here are four ways the fight is playing out:

Bad for business

ICE is losing corporate collaborators over public outrage.

Avelo Airlines, a Houston-based commercial fleet, said it will no longer operate ICE-related flights after months of protests over the government deal, estimated at $150 million. CEO Andrew Levy said in an email to staff obtained by CNBC that the contract placed the company in a “political controversy.” According to Human Rights First, Avelo operated nearly 1 in 5 of “immigration enforcement” flights between May and December 2025, which includes domestic transfers.

Subscribe now

In Colorado, the Denver City Council rejected a contract between Key Lime Air and Denver International Airport because the airline operated flights for ICE, potentially losing $90 million in federal funding for the airport as a result.

And Spotify confirmed this month that it’s no longer running ICE recruitment ads after the Department of Homeland Security reportedly paid the music streaming platform $74,000 to run them, per Rolling Stone. The development follows calls for a nationwide boycott of Spotify over the ads, initiated in October 2025 by Indivisible Project. (The company maintains that the ads did not violate its policies.)

For more on ICE’s corporate collaborators, I recommend this story from The Nation.

No Secret Police Act

The first statewide ban on masked federal law enforcement went into effect on Jan. 1 after California’s Democratic trifecta passed it last year in defiance of the Trump administration.

The state’s No Secret Police Act prohibits law enforcement officers from concealing their faces except in hazardous conditions. It also requires most officers to display their names or badge numbers on their uniforms where it can be seen by the public. If more states pass similar legislation, it could throw a wrench in ICE kidnappings.

Trouble in court

In some cities, Trump’s prosecutors are facing hurdles from an unlikely source: grand juries.

Securing a grand jury indictment is one of the first steps required to convict someone of a federal felony. It’s often seen as a perfunctory task as it’s exceedingly rare for grand juries to decline to indict, referred to as returning a “no bill.”

In Los Angeles, The LA Times reported last summer that federal prosecutors filed felony charges against at least 38 people in relation to alleged misconduct at protests or near immigration raids. Grand juries returned indictments in only seven of them.

Grand jurors in the Chicago area did not return indictments against at least three people facing charges in connection to activity at ICE protests or raids. A federal judge in Illinois said “no bills” were “virtually unheard of in this district until Operation Midway Blitz,” and the last and only one he could remember was from the “early part of this century.”

The constitutional requirement for a grand jury in serious criminal cases was intended as a safeguard against unfounded prosecutions.

This lever of democracy, to some extent, appears to be working as intended.

‘ICE Out For Good’

Over 1,000 demonstrations sprang up last weekend as part of a national “ICE Out For Good” advocacy campaign in the wake of the Minneapolis shooting.

The widespread protests – spanning from coast to coast – were a clear sign that the Trump administration failed to rewrite history, and truth prevailed.

For more on ICE…

Know Your Rights

The ACLU has six key reminders if confronted by ICE, and an in-depth guide is available here.

Will Democrats Vote to Give Trump More Money for ICE?

Democrats might fork over even more cash to ICE even as they publicly call for reforms. I asked Rep. Rashida Tlaib about whether her colleagues will vote with Republicans on budget increases. Read what she and other Democrats have to say, from Prem and I in Zeteo.

EXCLUSIVE: Poll Finds Americans Don’t Believe ICE Murder of Renee Nicole Good Was Justified

I reported on a poll conducted for Zeteo that shows where Americans stand on ICE after Good’s murder.

Thank you for being here. To share questions, comments, or tips, email me at minnahfarshad@protonmail.com or reach out on Signal at minnah.38.

A federal judge in Boston penned a dramatic court opinion that admonished the government’s unlawful crackdown on pro-Palestine advocates and, more broadly, called attention to the public’s capitulation in the face of a democracy under siege.

The American Association of University Professors and Middle East Studies Association filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration earlier this year to challenge what they call an “ideological deportation policy” that has targeted Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri, Yunseo Chung, and Mohsen Mahdawi. Attorneys for the government defendants have denied that any new policy was created.

Judge William Young, appointed by former President Ronald Reagan in 1985, wrote that this was perhaps the most important case to come across the District Court of Massachusetts. In his 161-page opinion released last week, Young affirmed the existence of the policy and found that it worked “as intended” – to scare pro-Palestine noncitizens into silence in ways that go beyond “its closest analogues in the Red Scare.”

Young’s ruling comes after a nine-day bench trial in July uncovered shocking details of how ICE responded to two of President Donald Trump’s executive orders purporting to combat antisemitism and foreign terrorists. Officials testified the agency used pro-Israel doxxing groups, Canary Mission and Betar U.S., to generate leads on noncitizen college students protesting for Palestine.

“If ‘terrorist’ is interpreted to mean ‘pro-Palestine’ or ‘anti-Israel,’ and ‘support’ encompasses pure political speech, then core free speech rights have been imperiled,” Young writes.

First Amendment advocates celebrated the result of this lawsuit, which the government will likely appeal. But Young candidly begs the question: what comes next?

“In the golden age of our democracy, this opinion might end here. After all, the facts prove that the President himself approves truly scandalous and unconstitutional suppression of free speech on the part of two of his senior cabinet secretaries,” Young says in his ruling, referring to defendants Kristi Noem and Marco Rubio. “One would imagine that the corrective would follow as a matter of course from the appropriate authorities.”

The judge highlights the need for a court-ordered solution to the consequences of the deportation policy and ends his opinion with a promise to schedule a hearing on remedy. He grimly predicts that nothing will happen without intervention – he does not expect the government to self-correct, nor does he anticipate meaningful dissent from the public.

Young’s court opinion is a departure from dry legalese. He speaks with great candor about the president – his unprecedented crackdown on free speech, general apathy to law, and “fixation with ‘retribution.’”

He is also frank about the American people. Young suggests implicitly that “outcry” is power, yet he expects that the public will largely choose to stay quiet.

Young suggests this is in part because ICE has convinced the public it is the nation’s principal criminal law enforcement agency, and Americans have an “abiding faith” in the criminal justice system. (Young expressly rejects ICE’s claim, arguing that the agency carries a civil law mandate, has nothing to do with criminal law enforcement, and in fact seeks to avoid the courts.)

But the judge’s bleak outlook extends beyond the bounds of this case. Young appears to speak not just to the targeting of student protesters or even the entire pro-Palestine movement in the U.S., but of the Trump administration’s unprecedented crackdown on the First Amendment as a whole – the bedrock of America’s democracy.

In this effort, Trump has ruthlessly attacked the establishments that have stood in his way. And many of them, the judge notes, have bent the knee in response.

“Behold President Trump’s successes in limiting free speech -– law firms cower, institutional leaders in higher education meekly appease the President, media outlets from huge conglomerates to small niche magazines mind the bottom line rather than the ethics of journalism,” Young writes. “But not all of them,” he remarks in the footnotes.

Young suggests that widespread fear of backlash among the public will quell their outcry in the deportation policy case and beyond. After all, if the president can unconstitutionally weaponize the mighty Homeland Security Investigations against a small group of noncitizens, so too can he arm himself against his supposed enemies with other sectors of government, from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation to the IRS audit divisions and the Social Security Administration, Young writes.

But perhaps a deterrent even greater than fear is apathy.

The judge ends his opinion with a quote from Reagan: “Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.”

Young reflects on this passage in a formidable closing message:

As I’ve read and re-read the record in this case, listened widely, and reflected extensively, I’ve come to believe that President Trump truly understands and appreciates the full import of President Reagan’s inspiring message –- yet I fear he has drawn from it a darker, more cynical message. I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected.

Is he correct?

This case certainly shows the current administration is emboldened and shameless. But it also demonstrates that speech is power – and anyone can buy in.

Read Judge William Young’s full opinion on the AAUP v Rubio case here.

If you have any questions, comments or tips, I’d love to hear from you! Email me at minnahfarshad@protonmail.com or reach out on Signal at minnah.38.

Leave a comment

From the coffee we buy to the Facebook posts we click on, our choices fuel and fail those in power. News corporations closely track which articles are read (and not read) to determine tomorrow’s headlines. Big chains and local restaurants in your neighborhood compete for your lunch order. Politicians spend billions every year to get your vote. And whether or not you care about politics, politics cares about you.

Our choices to speak up or stay silent, act or stand still, engage or tune out, add up to determine our world.

But too often, the news feels like a distant blackhole of chaos that will inevitably wreck our quiet corner of the world. Especially now, it feels easier to stop following the headlines and wait for what feels like a series of unwinnable moral battles to reach their grim conclusions. But whether we realize it or not, we all play in hand in determining what tomorrow will look like.

Subscribe now

This platform is about unveiling the patchwork of our choices and spotlighting the power of the people. Together, we’ll meet changemakers from all walks of life often underrepresented in the mainstream narrative, and we’ll explore how today’s headlines not only impact you but are shaped by you.

And if we haven’t met yet – hello! My name is Minnah Arshad, and I’m an independent journalist based in Michigan. I hope this can be your space as much as it is mine. So reach out with tips, questions or Detroit coffee recs : )

Welcome to Patchwork.

Share