America, We Have a Super PAC Problem
On Monday, Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller challenging incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) in the race for New York’s Tenth District, added his name to a list of candidates staging a revolt against special-interest groups spending big to buy this year’s Democratic primaries. In a video posted to X, Lander called on Goldman to join him in signing the People’s Pledge, a campaign finance agreement designed to curb the pervasive influence of dark money in politics. The Lever was the first to report the story.
Under the agreement, candidates essentially offset that influence by agreeing to donate campaign funds to charity, equal to 50 percent of the cost of outside advertising from a registered political action committee (PAC) or 75 percent of the cost of dark-money super PAC advertising. This gives candidates the incentive to reject super PAC ads, instead of the current situation where they practically beg for outside money to put them over the top.
Instead of accepting the People’s Pledge, Goldman responded with a proposal to “cease all negative messaging” and “publicly denounce super PAC spending,” which is not a binding agreement to put campaign money at stake if super PACs run ads. This public rejection is likely to be a big story in the heavily engaged Tenth District, which is part of the way that the pledge can work.
“I challenged Dan Goldman to keep dark money out of NY-10 and leave this race up to the people, and sadly he refused,” Lander said in a statement. “The People’s Pledge works because it holds both candidates accountable, but Dan Goldman just made clear who he is accountable to: the dark money trying to buy this race.”
Since 2020, outside spending by a handful of super PACs has dominated Democratic primaries, whether the pro-Israel forces led by AIPAC or moneyed interests representing the crypto and artificial intelligence industries. These PACs, whose ads almost never have anything to do with the causes they support, have swamped mostly progressive candidates for the past several election cycles, though there are indications that their welcome is wearing thin.
The People’s Pledge tries to leverage public attention to neutralize super PAC dominance.
Although super PACs cannot directly fund or coordinate with candidates, they can raise unlimited cash for ads that can change the outcome of a race. Millions of dollars have propped up candidates like Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) and former Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) this year. Often candidates use “red box” messages to tell super PACs what messages to use on their behalf, and often they pawn off attacks on their opponents to super PACs while they can claim to be running a positive campaign.
The People’s Pledge tries to leverage public attention to neutralize the super PAC dominance. Short of banning super PAC influence, which would be a tough road in a post–Citizens United world, the pledge is one of the few alternatives to give candidates without a rich outside benefactor a chance.
But Lander didn’t come up with the idea. In fact, the People’s Pledge has been around for over a decade, and it’s been the favored tool of a union leader and longtime official of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who has made it his crusade in life to blunt the impact of big money.
THAT CRUSADER IS LARRY COHEN, the former president of the Communications Workers of America. According to him, “the only way we’re going to make headway on this” is by pushing Democratic primary candidates to disavow super PAC spending in their races. He told the Prospect that this spending is “polluting the primaries.”
The People’s Pledge first gained traction in 2012 after a Democratic candidate from Massachusetts named Elizabeth Warren and her Republican opponent Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) signed on to the pledge, significantly reducing outside spending on targeted ads in their race.
Cohen’s efforts to renew support for the People’s Pledge have borne some fruit. In Maine, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Troy Jackson made the pledge earlier this year, urging his primary opponents to follow suit.
“If Democrats are serious about winning back the working class and rebuilding trust in candidates, elected officials and government, then we need to band together and reject outside dark money in our primaries,” Jackson said at the time. “That starts with the People’s Pledge.”
In Maryland, Wala Blegay, who is running to replace longtime Democratic House leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, has also signed the pledge and encouraged the other candidates in the crowded field to do the same. “It is time to put the power of government back into the hands of the people—not the highest bidder,” Blegay said on Facebook in the announcement.
But an even louder voice in the Democratic Party has aligned with the goals of the People’s Pledge. Before he was elected DNC chair in February 2025, Ken Martin campaigned on the need to increase small-donor engagement while reducing the party’s reliance on big-money benefactors. “I give him huge credit for running on that,” Cohen told the Prospect.
At its meeting in August 2025, the DNC approved Martin’s resolution to eliminate “unlimited corporate and dark money in our presidential nominating process beginning in the current 2028 cycle.” The DNC is expected to implement that resolution before the end of the year. But that has no bearing on the midterm election primaries that are happening right now.
Both the Arizona Democratic Party and North Carolina Democratic Party have adopted resolutions to restrict big money’s influence in the Democratic primaries. But North Carolina’s primaries took place earlier this month, and super PACs were instrumental in the re-election of Rep. Foushee, who won by one point on the back of millions of dollars in outside ads.
The progressive candidate in that race, Nida Allam, also had super PAC funding helping her. A recently founded organization called American Priorities vowed to offset AIPAC spending and gave over $1 million to Allam, for example. Goldman has accused Lander for his support from the Working Families Party, which has a super PAC.
Cohen sees progressive super PACs as “one step forward, three steps back,” in large part because it legitimizes the very mechanism that enables big money to crowd out small donors.
Among his many tactics, Cohen has rallied a group of donors and activists in an open letter to call on all state Democratic parties, national organizations, and primary candidates to take the People’s Pledge. “As donors and supporters, we have seen too much money wasted on protecting primary candidates against special interest attacks,” the letter reads. “While such funding may be necessary in general elections to compete with Republicans, there is no justification for outside spending in Democratic primaries. These contests should reflect the will of Democratic voters, not the influence of unregulated, high-dollar interests.”
Many of the donors who signed the letter give large amounts of money to state parties and candidates, and are saying through the open letter that the bank may be closed to those who don’t sign the pledge.
No super PAC money has been spent yet in the Goldman-Lander race; the primary is June 23. But the fact that the People’s Pledge has been invoked could give pause to any big-money group, which may fear that putting money in to support their favored candidate will now backfire.
That potential power, rooted in education and grassroots organizing, is what Cohen wants to leverage.
“I’ve come to the conclusion that … it’s hopeless if we don’t stop the super PAC spending,” he told the Prospect. “The key is to connect it to the people we love and the issues that affect them.”
The post America, We Have a Super PAC Problem appeared first on The American Prospect.