Pinellas County Democratic Socialists of America Launch ‘No on 3’ Campaign in Opposition to Amendment 3, Warn of Grave Threat to Local Services

The Pinellas County chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America announced the launch of their ‘No on 3’ campaign at a kickoff event Thursday night at the Clearwater East Community Library in Clearwater. The campaign is an effort to educate Floridians about Amendment 3, and raise awareness of its potential consequences for local governments, public services, and communities across Florida.

Amendment 3 would substantially increase Florida’s homestead exemption for property taxes, from the current $50,000 to $150,000 in 2027 and $250,000 in 2028, while also reducing the annual assessment cap for non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%. The amendment would take effect January 1, 2027 if approved by at least 60% of voters on the November ballot.

While the amendment would provide tax savings to some homeowners, the revenue loss would be deeply felt by local governments. Data from the Florida Revenue Estimating Conference projects that the changes would reduce local property tax revenue by approximately $12 billion annually on a recurring basis [1]. Meanwhile, the amendment provides no dedicated state funding to replace that lost revenue. Lawmakers have also failed to propose an alternative source of funding to cover the shortfall.

The nonpartisan Florida Policy Institute estimates that counties could experience revenue losses of up to 24% if property taxes on homesteads were eliminated, while the Florida League of Cities has estimated an average loss of nearly 38% of municipal property tax revenue under a full elimination scenario [2][3].

“Property taxes are the most progressive form of tax in Florida. The revenue from property taxes account for the majority of the funds used by cities, counties, and other local agencies to provide essential services like fire departments, EMS, parks, libraries, homelessness aversion services, and public transportation,” said Lacey Lingelbach, one of the organizers behind the ‘No on 3’ campaign. “Not only are local government services at risk of being cut, but many local governments are also contemplating raising fees and sales taxes to make up for the revenue loss. Additionally, there are 680,000 to 730,000 workers in the State of Florida at risk of unemployment since property taxes fund local positions. Amendment 3 would result in a significant increase in Florida’s unemployment rate.”

Floridians are facing an affordability crisis, which makes the desire of homeowners to want relief from rising property taxes understandable. But, Amendment 3 does not make those underlying problems disappear. Instead, it shifts the burden onto local governments and leaves communities to figure out how to pay for the essential services that Floridians depend on. Ultimately, those costs will likely trickle down to renters and consumers as taxes on rental and commercial properties increase.

Amendment 3 would also undermine local governments’ autonomy in determining how any property tax revenue that is collected may be spent. Under the proposed amendment, local governments would be required to direct any revenue toward specified categories including public safety, education, infrastructure, natural resource projects, debt service, employee retirement benefits, and government operations. This represents a top-down power grab from the state, significantly restricting local decision-making and the ability of communities to set their own priorities. Organizers with the ‘No on 3’ campaign assert that Florida needs to address the rising cost of living without undermining the ability of our cities and counties to govern themselves and provide essential services.

“Eliminating property taxes is not a tax break, but a tax shift. Working people will inevitably end up paying more through sales taxes and higher fees, often to private corporations for services that are currently public, or by losing services they rely on like road maintenance, parks and libraries, disaster relief, and public transit,” Lingelbach added. “Additionally, property tax elimination does nothing to address the root causes of financial stress in Florida, like increasing property insurance premiums, higher flood and disaster insurance premiums, unaffordable housing, rising utility bills, and increased healthcare costs… [Amendment 3] is a tax break for the wealthy. It will cause irreversible effects for local services and widen the affordability gap in the state.”

Organizers behind the ‘No on 3’ campaign believe Floridians deserve a clear understanding of both the potential tax savings and the potential costs to local communities before voting on the measure.

“We have created a multi-prong strategy to educate residents in Pinellas County on the detrimental impacts of property tax elimination. We plan to host multiple phone banks and canvassing events, share educational materials online, and host a town hall event with St. Petersburg City Councilmember Richie Floyd,” Lingelbach said.

For more information, to arrange an interview, or to connect with a campaign spokesperson, contact the Steering Committee of Pinellas DSA at dsa.pinellas@gmail.com. Visit https://www.pinellasdsa.org/home to learn more about our chapter, and to see how you can get involved.

[1]: https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/florida-property-tax-amendment-ballot-language-summary

[2]: https://www.floridapolicy.org/posts/roughly-18-5-billion-at-stake-for-florida-counties-school-districts-and-municipalities-if-property-taxes-on-homesteads-are-eliminated-think-tank-finds

[3]: https://www.flcities.com/propertytaxstudy/

By AJ

When I left full-time employment in 2019 I had never heard of war tax resistance. I knew about conscientious objection to participating in war, but as someone who did not want to join the military (and whom the military would not want) it felt as though there was no concrete way for me to voice my opposition to war, the military as an institution, and the outrageous amount of money they receive from our federal tax payments. It turned out that one of the side effects of my semi-retirement and greatly reduced income was that I became a war tax resister by default.

A brief history of war tax resistance

War tax resistance is often associated with the Quakers. Participation by individual Friends and entire Quaker meetings in war tax resistance as part of their peace testimony has ebbed and flowed over the centuries. One of the strongest periods of Quaker war tax resistance was during the American Revolutionary War. In 1776, the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting came to consensus that “a tax levied for the purchasing of drums, colors, or for other warlike uses, cannot be paid consistently with our Christian testimony.”

Quaker active war tax resistance rose again following World War II, as part of the Peacemakers movement, which formed in response to the horror and devastation caused by the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and continued throughout the Korean, Vietnam and Cold wars. The Peacemakers bought together Quakers, Catholic Workers, Methodists, Presbyterians, agnostics, and atheists to publicly share practical information on war tax resistance. This work led to real results during the Vietnam War when popular war tax resistance reached its peak with artists, university professors, and thousands of comrades who refused to pay federal income taxes and the federal telephone excise tax, which was earmarked specifically for war expenses.

The momentum for war tax resistance among U.S. Quakers carried through the end of the Vietnam War and into the Cold War. In the early 1980s some Quaker Yearly Meetings assisted their employees in resisting war taxes by not withholding income tax from their paychecks, some instructed all their members to resist war taxes, and some set up programs to help their war tax resisting members deal with any legal consequences.

During the 1990s and the early 2000s participation in war tax resistance waned significantly. Much of the focus of those who oppose war taxes moved towards the electoral goal of establishing a Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act through legislation in the U.S. Congress, with the goal of offering conscientious war objectors a place to pay their income taxes where the money would not be used for military purposes. The Peace Tax Fund Act has been introduced four times (1992, 1995, 2017 and 2021). The current iteration of the bill, H.R. 4529, introduced in July 2021, is still languishing in the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Interest in war tax resistance recently spiked again in response to the U.S. kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, ongoing U.S. military support for the Israeli genocide in Palestine, and the killings of small boat crews in the Pacific by U.S. forces even before the beginning of the U.S./Israel war on Iran and Lebanon. In January 2026, more than 110,000 people visited the NWTCC’s website and conversations on the subject on Reddit receive thousands of views and hundreds of comments.

A brief outline of the costs of war today

As participation in war tax resistance has dropped precipitously, the percentage of our federal income taxes spent directly and indirectly on war, weapons, and the military has increased dramatically. The 2026 Department of Defense budget is $2.08 trillion. This accounts for nearly half of government discretionary spending and is more than the defense spending of the next nine countries combined. In addition, since October 2023, the Biden and Trump administrations and Congress have sent $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel with which it prosecutes its ongoing genocides in Palestine and Lebanon. The U.S. government’s commitment to funding war shows no signs of abating. The War Resisters League’s recently published “Where your income tax money is going” pie chart estimates that 58% of the 2027 federal budget will be spent on past or present military.

War Tax Resistance: Legal Quagmire or Civil Initiative

In a recent article on war tax resistance, CNBC briefly talks about the increased interest in the practice before getting into full scaremongering mode by listing all the various financial penalties and legal actions that the IRS could take against non-filers, frivolous filers, and fraudsters. In reporting an 11% rise in federal criminal tax fraud cases it fails to note that war tax resistance is not fraud, tax evasion, or failure to file a return.

Over on Reddit conversations on the topic veer between discussion on the logistics of war tax resistance, speculation on the potential legal and financial quagmires that could result, some confusion — or maybe willful misunderstanding — between war tax resistance and general opposition to all taxation, and the moral imperative to do something tangible in response to all the warmongerings.

While it is easy to become mired in the quantitative questions of IRS codes and financial repercussions, successful war tax resistance is built on research, contemplation of qualitative questions about our relationship to humanity and the world we want to live in and community support. Unlike other forms of activism which are often focused on influencing other people’s actions like marches, canvassing, tabling at events, and other outward facing activities, war tax resistance is a quiet, deeply personal type of activism. It grows from a conversation with your conscience.

When I am my best self my conversations with my conscience are informed by my understanding of Civil Initiative rather than my impulse to hide as deeply as I can from the government. Civil Initiative requires that citizens intervene to ameliorate harm caused by their governments, that we build human rights into our way of life, and make protecting them an accepted social standard. For as long as our government continues to wage war on Iranians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Cubans, Venezuelans, immigrants, and indeed almost everyone in the world, war tax resistance is a Civil Initiative that should be the accepted norm. The unquestioning paying of federal taxes for the war machine should become the fringe, outlier position.

How to be a war tax resister

It is important to be clear that war tax resistance is NOT blanket opposition to taxation. Most war tax resisters only withhold a percentage of their federal taxes equal to the percentage of the federal budget spends on the military. Often, they give the money they would have paid in war taxes to local peace, anti-militarization, or other community organizations. Sometimes, they save the money in case the IRS comes knocking on their door or on the door of a fellow resister. War tax resisters also pay their state, local, and real estate taxes.

The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee offers resources to everyone who wants to become a resister. Resistance can look as simple as mailing a letter of protest to the IRS when you submit your tax return (note that you cannot email the IRS so letters must be sent via regular mail). It can become as complex as refusing to pay some or all of your federal taxes and informing the IRS directly of your decision and why you made it.

We are all in the position to question our relationship to war taxes. While many of us may not be in a position to accept the risks of more complex forms of war tax resistance, many more of us are than currently do. Each form of resistance has its own risks and rewards, and everyone should think carefully about their capacity for both before engaging in war tax resistance.

Over the past couple of years my relationship with war tax resistance has become more intentional.

There have been ebbs and flows in my capacity to commit to the practice. When I see the cost of gas, groceries, and general living rising, I feel the pressure to take more hours at my job to increase my income. That same pressure arises when I realize I am getting closer to retirement age, when I begin to fear that one day I may no longer be able to work even part-time, and won’t have enough savings for retirement. The pressure to earn more is also subconscious, ingrained through more than 50 years of living in capitalism.

Then I read the news and I am again appalled and ashamed by the actions of my government. My commitment to Civil Initiative comes flooding back. I commit again to keeping my income to a level where I will not be contributing financially to the horror my government is inflicting on the world.

For more information:

National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee https://nwtrcc.org/

Peace Tax Return https://nwtrcc.org/PDFs/PeaceTaxReturn.pdf

War Resisters League https://www.warresisters.org/war-tax-resistance/

War Industry Resisters Network https://wirn.worldbeyondwar.org/

War Tax Resistance: Legal Quagmire or Civil Initiative was originally published in The Detroit Socialist on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Monthly Newsletter of the Rochester Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America

Welcome to the September issue of Rochester Red Star, ROC DSA’s monthly newsletter. This month, we present essays on abolishing the Senate, Canadian militarism, the secrets of a successful organizer, and more. You’ll also find upcoming events and coverage of chapter activities.

Interested in contributing? Send submissions to bit.ly/SubmitRedStar, or get involved with our Communications Committee. Reach out to steering@rocdsa.org and join DSA today!

The post Rochester Red Star | September 2026 | (Issue 29) first appeared on Rochester Red Star.

The post Political Cartoons, September 2026 appeared first on Pine & Roses.

As we enter a new age of imperial wars, internationalism is very much back on the Left’s agenda. But what is internationalism? And why does it matter?

The Left’s preoccupation with “internationalism” stems from the fact that its political project has always been tied in some way to what might be called universal emancipation. To emancipate is to free someone or something from a power, and universal emancipation stands for the liberation of everyone from all domination.

The aim of the Left, in other words, is not simply to redistribute wealth, expand state services, or roll back racial discrimination in one’s own country; it is to abolish every form of oppression and domination everywhere. By definition, universal emancipation has to be global or not at all.

A World of States

But the globe is not a single, smooth, uniform space. The people of the world are not subject to a single administrative entity, set of laws, or police force. Nor are they under the authority of an undifferentiated class of rulers.

The planet is instead divided into many distinct political units that have largely taken the form of nation-states. It is precisely these independent nation-states that have assumed primary responsibility for maintaining domination in the world today. This doesn’t mean that the state is the only source of domination, but rather that states are the main enforcers in this inegalitarian world.

Whether one fights racism, patriarchy, or capitalism, one will ultimately have to confront the laws, police, courts, and prisons of the state. Since state power is distributed across so many different nation-states, the fight for emancipation takes the form of a multiplicity of different struggles within and against each of the many different nation-states across the globe.

This is one of the reasons why the Left has historically tended to speak of “internationalism” rather than, for example, “cosmopolitanism.” The term is a reminder that the ambition to remake the world has to take into account the unavoidable reality that the main political units of the existing world order are nation-states. Even in today’s supposedly globalized world, replete as it is with NGOs, military pacts, transnational corporations, and international institutions, the path to the planetary has to pass through a confrontation with the nation-state.

Internationalism is not a moral injunction to help those in need, and neither is it a single ready-made strategy for freeing the world. It instead names the wide range of political problems that emerge from the tension between needing to make change on a global scale and having to strategically take the many nation-states of the world as the primary battlefields.

Border Crossings

No nation-state has ever governed a single coherent populace. This is largely because states were historically imposed on already heterogeneous populations. These people did not cross into the new nation-states; the recently invented borders of these nation-states “crossed” them.

These nation-states can never be hermetically sealed: millions of people regularly traverse their borders, and many countries are home to immigrants from other states. This adds to the fundamental heterogeneity at the heart of every nation-state. Quite a few countries are now largely composed of people whose ancestors were born in other parts of the world.

Since every state is home to a diverse population, meaningful emancipatory change depends on finding ways to bring different people together in common struggle — people who were born in different nation-states, who speak different languages, reside in different places, live in different communities, and care about different issues.

Yet the ruling bloc in every country always strives to prevent that unity from being forged. Division is how rulers maintain their domination, and the most effective way to accomplish disunity is to mobilize invented political categories such as race, nationality, or especially citizenship to transform these real differences into insurmountable divisions.

Today the ruling blocs that govern the countries of the world are attempting to neutralize popular discontent by channeling political anger into xenophobic nativism. This strategy can even turn immigrants against one another, including those from the same country. The United States is probably the best example of this, but it is by no means unique.

In this way, one can say that internationalism begins within the nation-state itself. Each nation-state governs a heterogeneous population and legally recodes these differences as ones of nationality. Since these “national” divisions are used to turn people against one another within a fundamentally “multinational” state, effective political work within a nation-state is always already international.

Global Solutions

In addition to impeding unification within a given nation-state, the partition of the globe into national borders, national identities, and nation-states make it much harder to organize a unified movement across borders. Although these sharp divisions do not turn everyone into a xenophobe, they tend to narrow the political horizon in a way that encourages people in any given country to prioritize domestic issues over international ones.

This is especially true in the heartlands of insulated imperialist countries such as the United States, where the political system is designed to cultivate a culture of ruthless individualism. If people in these countries do become politicized, it is often — though of course not always — because developments within their own nation-state have had a direct impact on their lives. Gas prices are increasing, groceries are becoming too expensive, employers are monitoring their social media accounts, unprecedented floods are damaging their home, or immigration police are disrupting their neighborhoods.

These are all legitimate reasons to turn to leftist politics, and they are deeply entangled with global processes. But the internationalist dimensions of these grievances are deliberately obscured. The challenge is to connect the dots.

Those who care about emancipation have to explain that local issues are rooted in a global context, and therefore can only be solved globally. They have to convince people that what happens abroad does affect them, and so their fate is bound up with millions of people they will never meet.

A Plurality of Struggles

Once people choose to concern themselves with struggles elsewhere, there is a great deal they can do to help. In almost every case, those who fight oppression and domination will find themselves sorely outgunned by the ruling bloc in their state. This bloc controls vast arsenals, trained police forces, overflowing war chests, and extensive media apparatuses.

Solidarity can shift the balance of power. It can help comrades fighting in other countries feel that they are not alone. It can spread the word about their struggles, focus the international spotlight on the injustices that they face, and prevent other states from intervening. It can supply them with funds, information, equipment, training, bases, advisers, even volunteers.

The best way to help struggles abroad, however, is not just to provide aid, but also to wage struggles at home. When antiwar activists in the 1960s asked what they could do to help the people of Vietnam, Vietnamese revolutionaries used to say: make revolution in your own country. Che Guevara famously translated this idea as creating “two, three, many Vietnams.” Solidarity is not simply about lending a hand to people struggling elsewhere but multiplying struggles at home.

If the only way to change the world is to wage struggles in the many different nation-states that make up the globe, then the question is how to coordinate this plurality of struggles. Different countries have different laws, histories, popular cultures, intellectual traditions, state systems, organizations, institutions, economies, and political forces. Each country, in other words, has its own distinct terrain of struggle, which in turn informs how struggles there will develop.

This is not to say that struggles in different countries are completely closed off from one another. Those involved in such struggles are almost always aware of one another, and sometimes in touch. But the unification of these heterogenous struggles on so many distinct national terrains into a common international movement is never a given. How can the Left coordinate them?

Internationalism From Above

Leftists are not the only ones who have organized across borders. The ruling blocs of the various states have also historically coordinated their efforts, especially when faced with revolutionary threats.

The challenge of communism after World War II, for instance, compelled the many different ruling blocs of the world to put aside their differences and assist one another. To contain the common threat, they established a number of interstate economic, financial, diplomatic, and military alliances coordinated by the United States.

Many of these rulers willingly accepted US leadership as the primary guardian of the inegalitarian capitalist world order. The United States not only created the conditions for the endless expansion of capitalism, but also propped up vulnerable states fending off liberation struggles, directly intervened against emancipatory movements, and overthrew revolutionaries after they seized power.

The United States is no longer as powerful as it once was, but it is still the dominant military force in the world, and it still has the ability, and will, to intervene anywhere in the world to crush emancipatory struggles. So long as this US-led imperialist alliance exists, emancipatory struggles everywhere will be imperiled.

Even if leftists succeed in bringing down a repressive state, they will still be menaced by coups, sanctions, sabotage, air strikes, and diplomatic isolation. The need to survive these threats will likely force them to adopt draconian measures, which will in turn undermine their emancipatory aims. This might lead them to restrict civil liberties to prevent subversion, reallocate limited resources into defense, and treat dissent as conspiracies organized from abroad.

What, then, must leftists across the world do to successfully hold off the inevitable onslaught of this US-led imperial alliance?

Interstate Rivalries

Although virtually every ruling bloc today is committed to preventing a future without domination, and although these blocs often coordinate to keep emancipatory movements everywhere at bay, this does not mean they are on the best of terms. One of the functions of the postwar US-led imperial alliance was to impose discipline on these constantly competing ruling blocs so that they could better resist the common menace of emancipatory movements. Today that alliance is fracturing, and wars between rival ruling blocs are becoming more frequent.

Moreover, there are some nation-states today that are capitalist, patriarchal, inegalitarian, and in some cases authoritarian but which nevertheless oppose the United States and its imperial alliance. This presents a dilemma for those committed to universal emancipation. On the one hand, the goal of ending all domination requires the overthrow of these inegalitarian states, even if they happen to reject US imperial hegemony. On the other hand, the United States remains the single greatest threat to emancipatory movements everywhere.

Although leftists are presently too weak to decisively intervene in these interstate rivalries, their internationalist commitments raise the question of how they should relate to such thorny political situations. Does supporting popular uprisings against states at odds with the United States inadvertently create pretexts for Washington to invade their countries? Does the need to resist the shared enemy of US imperialism end up giving succor to these inegalitarian anti-US regimes? Is there another way out?

The Problem of Internationalism

The nation-state is incompatible with emancipation. The state’s primary function is to maintain the inegalitarian status quo, which it does by sustaining the ruling bloc, absorbing internal challenges, repressing liberation struggles, dividing the populace, and extinguishing the space for political experimentation. Anyone who fights for emancipation must therefore find a way out of the nation-state.

Internationalism therefore points to a final fundamental strategic problem inherent to emancipatory politics today. As Richard Seymour summarizes: universal emancipation means overcoming the state, but the division of the world into sovereign nation-states means strategically taking those states as the principal site of struggle.

***

This article originally appeared on Jacobin Blog on August 07, 2026. It is reprinted here with permission from the author.

The post The Left Can’t Win Without an Internationalist Vision appeared first on Pine & Roses.

DSA San Francisco stands in strong opposition to Mayor Lurie’s three proposed charter amendments for November 2026 which seek to limit San Franciscans’ ability to place measures on the ballot, reduce democratic oversight over city spending, and further centralize power under the Mayor. The measures are funded by a set of tech and real estate capitalists, to the tune of $8.6 million so far. All of these measures undermine the working class’ ability to govern ourselves and hold our officials accountable for their decisions while cynically being marketed as an effort to “clean up City Hall,” despite most of San Francisco’s recent corruption emanating from the Mayor’s Office. 

In the last 1.5 years as mayor, Daniel Lurie has continued the legacy of his “moderate”, corporate-backed predecessors. Under his administration, we’ve seen: 

• Cuts to crucial services in his austerity budget, while police spending continues to surge 
• Attempts to slash taxes on luxury real estate sales, and the Mayor’s opposition to our chapter’s endorsed Proposition I to guarantee funding for affordable and social housing
• The criminalization of vehicular homelessness
• A dangerous drunk tank that flies in the face of evidence-based public health solutions
• A refusal to release details of his communications with Donald Trump and with the leadership of PG&E, in violation of public records laws
• A backroom deal handing a no-bid government contract to a tech company with ties to his donors

But this is about more than just one Mayor. In the name of “efficiency” and “accountability”, the measures serve to directly and permanently undermine grassroots democracy while shielding current and future administrations from oversight. 

No on Prop D: Restricting Ballot Access

Prop D  makes it harder for measures to reach the ballot, by raising the signature threshold four times, increasing from 2% of voters to 8%. Instead of requiring around 10,700 signatures, any citizens’ initiative would now require about 42,000. It also requires a majority of the Board of Supervisors, rather than just 4, to place a measure on the ballot, and removes the Mayor’s ability to unilaterally place measures.

Prop D will make it so that only the wealthy can reliably bring measures to the voters. While it’s easy for billionaires to pay an army of signature gatherers to reach these thresholds, as Lurie did for his charter amendments, measures without big money backing will struggle to qualify.

This is a blatant attempt to prevent measures that tax the rich and benefit the working class from ever reaching San Franciscans’ ballots. We know that when these measures are on the ballot, they are likely to pass – and that’s what Lurie and his allies are so afraid of. DSA San Francisco just helped gather over 20,000 signatures to place one such measure on the ballot, Proposition I (the Affordable Housing Guarantee Act), which will make sure that taxes on mega real estate sales go to fund affordable and social housing.

DSA SF has previously gathered signatures to place several major citizens initiatives on the ballot like 2022’s Prop M Empty Homes Tax, 2018’s Prop C tax on corporations to fund homelessness solutions, and 2018’s Prop F providing free attorneys to tenants facing eviction – and all passed with strong voter support.

The raising of signature thresholds threatens to deprive San Franciscans of the ability to bring future ballot measures that would provide solutions to the serious issues our city is facing, whether that is affordable housing, public transit, tenants’ rights, clean energy, or workers’ rights. Instead, only a handful of billionaire donors, and the politicians they fund, would be able to bring legislation to voters. We reject this attack on democratic ballot access and say NO on Prop D.

No on Prop E: Slashing Contract Oversight

Prop E reduces oversight of major spending contracts by the City. It allows the City Administrator, appointed by the Mayor, to unilaterally approve expenditure on contracts of up to $25 million. Previously, contracts over $10 million required approval by the Board of Supervisors.

While the Board of Supervisors itself is far from perfect, its oversight role allows for more public scrutiny over these kinds of contracts, improving transparency and accountability.

We have recently seen corruption in the city contracting process, with the Mayor’s awarding of a major contract to OpenGov, a firm with close financial ties to him, against the recommendation of city employees for a lower-cost option. Weakening oversight of large contracts for this administration opens the door to further corruption.

Our city money going to huge private contracts, with little oversight, can mean less money for transit, housing, health care, and other key services working people rely on. With no Board inquiry into contracts under $25M, working people will be less informed and have less input into the decisions. We stand against this attempt to slash democratic accountability over our city’s spending. No on Prop E!

No on Prop F: Removing City Hall Checks and Balances

Prop F would give the Mayor sweeping power to hire and fire department heads, as well as to greatly alter departments’ core objectives, and merge departments together at will. Essentially, this would place the leadership, direction, and structure of all departments at the Mayor’s discretion.

Prop F would also give the Mayor authority to fire appointed commissioners at-will, undermining independent citizen oversight. We are currently seeing the consequences of unchecked Mayoral appointees on the SFMTA Board of Directors, who are privatizing car-free Market Street to hand over to Waymo. This measure would further entrench Mayoral control over SFMTA and other appointees, removing crucial checks and balances that can prevent corporate power grabs like the Market street debacle.

Given Mayor Lurie’s record, Prop F would open a dangerous pathway for the further slashing of public services, giveaways to the rich, and criminalization of homelessness and poverty.

This measure would place unprecedented power in the hands of a single executive. Any future Mayor would have the ability to dramatically reshape City Hall with little check from independent departments & city commissions, whether that be for unpopular political ends or even for personal corruption. Say NO to Prop F.

Oppose Undemocratic and Unaccountable City Governance, Protect Working Class Power

By reducing ballot access, democratic oversight, and executive guard rails, these proposed charter amendments would exacerbate corruption and remove power from working San Franciscans. DSA SF joins a growing coalition of organizations opposing this attempt to diminish the ability of San Franciscans to shape the government that is supposed to represent us.

Join DSA SF to help us fight this undemocratic power grab and say NO to Prop D, E and F: dsasf.org/join

Votes are being counted in Massachusetts. Evan MacKay came within 50 votes of unseating a Cambridge state representative in 2024. Tonight, Boston DSA takes another run at the prize.

The post Live Blog: Rematchachusetts appeared first on Democratic Left.

By Jill Glass

The Las Vegas Democratic Socialists of America (LVDSA) fight to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and build a future where all people can live, work, and move safely and with dignity. Our fabulous Las Vegas is an iconic world-class destination because of its diversity and immigrant contributions; we should celebrate and invigorate this workforce. Yet, today’s young and diverse workers are subject to vicious, violent ICE raids where agents are rewarded for exceeding quotas of captured humans, never mind how these numbers are attained. Our neighbors are not tally marks to meet ICE agents’ monthly goals, and we are appalled that our local workers face this reality. As ICE activity ramps up in the Las Vegas Valley, we heed the call to action in supporting vital immigrant-led resistance.

LVDSA volunteers are proud to participate in the Nevada Immigrant Coalition’s (NIC) Fourth Amendment Know-Your-Rights Campaign, which includes ongoing canvassing of Las Vegas businesses to prepare owners and workers for unlawful ICE searches. LVDSA is eager to meet the needs of neighbors who are most vulnerable to these sweeps – nonwhite workers in bustling, diverse business districts with warehouses, big-box stores, and corporate chains. As Las Vegas’s young and diverse workforce shows up each day to get the job done, they are expected to serve customers with a smile while ignoring the fact that ICE could and has shown up at any moment to take people away. 

Pounding the pavement

Last month, LVDSA joined NIC for another round of canvassing local businesses. The goal of these interactions is to clarify workers’ rights, provide useful information, and encourage the staff to have a plan should ICE arrive. 

”Although we have not seen the same level of enforcement activity in Nevada like in Minneapolis, Chicago, or Los Angeles, our neighbors and our families are being kidnapped,” NIC coordinator Noé Orosco tells the group of canvassers before they head out. Orosco continues, “Last year there was an increase of over 200 percent in detentions in Nevada, and 60 percent of people detained have no criminal convictions. That’s why we are working with DSA—so our neighbors and communities know what to do if they are impacted by the deportation machine.” 

Orosco explains what resources organizers are providing businesses, such as large ACLU-published know-your-rights signs to keep in the staff room, a stack of red wallet-sized know-your-rights cards at the cash registers for customers and employees, and No ICE Allowed signs that businesses can put in their windows. 

LVDSA applauds local businesses standing up to ICE.

Read carefully: only judge-signed search warrants allow ICE in private areas.

Unfortunately, a No ICE Allowed sign does not guarantee that ICE agents will keep out. They are indeed allowed in public spaces, such as the entrance area or the counter where one orders food, like all of us. The business can, however, refuse to serve or interact with ICE agents without a judge-signed search warrant. In restaurants and food chains across the country, employees stand up to ICE and refuse them service. Las Vegas workers can do the same.

Poster by ACLU Nevada

In cities that experienced intense “blitz” raids, reports abounded of masked, armed ICE agents storming into businesses flashing blank administrative warrants to gain entry to private areas, such as the staff room, manager’s office, or locker rooms. ACLU and NIC stress the importance of staff calmly and carefully examining all documents for the specific markings of a judicial search warrant, especially noting the date and whether a judge has signed it. A search warrant signed by a judge is the only document that permits ICE to go beyond public areas.  

Envisioning a safe, inclusive, and aspirational Las Vegas Valley for the next generation 

The group of canvassers breaks into teams, each assigned to a business district where recent ICE pickups were reported, each with a tote bag full of literature and a list of establishments to hit.

While it’s a relief to know constitutional rights protect employees and customers, meeting the young Las Vegans working in these businesses every day still leaves canvassers uneasy. In a popular nationwide sandwich store near Craig and Losee, two teenage cashiers–both nonwhite– study the volunteers with polite suspicion as they introduce themselves. In the clean, familiar atmosphere ubiquitous to corporate food chains, it’s hard to imagine the two young cashiers encountering a group of masked ICE agents carrying guns. 

“Hi, I’m Anthony. I’m an organizer here with my friends on behalf of the Nevada Immigrant Coalition to let you know that ICE has been in the area. There was just a pickup right there,” says Anthony Lambert, a member of LVDSA, as he points out the window to the intersection. The teens nod –they have heard. “You have rights, and we want to make sure you know them.” The youths exchange glances, eyebrows raised, as Lambert hands them information and highlights the most important points. “If ICE comes in without a signed warrant, are they allowed behind the counter? In the staff room? How about the manager’s office? No. And you don’t have to talk to them.” By the time Lambert and team leave, the teenagers smile and thank the organizers.

Most of the businesses the team enters have young employees –many teens of color–working behind the counters. They may be learning how to navigate the pitfalls of capitalism in the real world for the first time – rude customers, outlandish complaints, discrepancies in the accounting at the end of a long day. Working in the service industry as a teenager is a rite of passage in American culture, yet leaving these teens to fend for themselves against hostile, masked, armed ICE agents waving phony warrants seems terribly wrong. How does this cultivate the sense of autonomy, aspiration, and community spirit among our youths? How does this prepare them to be the next generation of leaders?  Watching these teens’ faces turn from frustration to gratitude is satisfying. “Even just for today, these guys know there are people here trying to help, who know this isn’t right,” reflects LVDSA organizer Mikey LaFrambois. Hopefully, these workers will rely on their Fourth Amendment rights when the time comes.

Visit LVDSA.org to get involved with ICE resistance and immigrant advocacy today.

References

Moeller, J. (2025, June 17). Las Vegas hospitality industry braces for impact as ICE raids resume in workplaces. KTNV Channel 13 Action News. https://www.ktnv.com/news/las-vegas-hospitality-industry-braces-for-impact-as-ice-raids-resume-in-workplaces 

Nevada Immigrant Coalition. (2026). https://nvimmigrantcoalition.org/about/

News 3 Staff. (2025, July 16). Nevada leaders respond after airport ICE detention attempt sparks disturbance. News 3 Las Vegas. https://news3lv.com/news/local/nevada-leaders-respond-after-airport-ice-detention-attempt-sparks-disturbance-ice-ice-arrests-ice-agents-department-of-homeland-security-harry-reid-international-airport-federal-agents-government-catherine-cortez-masto-senator-jacky-rosen-joe-lombardo 

Pierini, D., & Hanson, A. (2026, January 13). Security guard stands firm against ICE agents at north Minneapolis McDonald’s. Sahan Journal. https://sahanjournal.com/news-partners/mcdonalds-security-guard-stands-up-to-ice-10-toes-down/ 

Winger, E. (2026, January 27). ICE’s secret policy to forcibly enter homes without a judicial warrant threatens all Americans. American Immigration Council. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/ices-secret-warrantless-home-entry-policy/ 

https://sahanjournal.com/news-partners/mcdonalds-security-guard-stands-up-to-ice-10-toes-down/

At a September 2 meeting, Portland City Council will decide if Zenith Energy, the notorious law-breaking corporate polluter based in the waterfront CEI hub, can skip town by selling assets and transferring its franchise agreement to I Squared Capital, a $60 billion Miami-based private equity firm. 

I Squared has a record of safety, employment, consumer protection, and environmental violations at least in the United Kingdom if not elsewhere. I Squared is also heavily invested in data centers, with a commitment to invest $2 billion in “digital infrastructure” in Saudi Arabia and $1 billion in US data centers. I Squared says it will expand the Portland terminal — already the largest fuel storage and transfer facility in Portland — into a regional fuel terminal. That means more oil trains, more risk of spills and explosions, more profits for giant corporations, and more risk for Portlanders and our environment.

Like Zenith, I Squared seems to have no compunction about subverting our own democratic norms, and they are enjoying support and collaboration from the preeminent PAC of Portland’s right-wing, the Portland Metro Chamber/Portland Business Alliance.

I Squared and Mayor Wilson are shoulder-to-shoulder with city administrators and conservative city councilors to ram through the transfer, over the objections of Portlanders.

Historic Corruption 

Zenith’s city council puppetry is well-documented. Freedom of information requests revealed a back-room deal with Zenith to reverse course on the city’s denial of Zenith’s bid to operate the waterfront oil-by-rail facility:

“Elected city officials who position themselves as climate champions defended the decision as a routine administrative matter, repeatedly claiming their hands were tied.   

But internal email communications and documents obtained by DeSmog suggest that the process was heavily influenced by two city commissioners and their staff, who met with the oil company on multiple occasions — including at a private in-person meeting at the rail site — and seem to have helped usher the company’s land use permit through the regulatory process.”

Cunningham, N. (2023, August 23). DeSmog. Portland City Government Compromised with Oil Industry in Private, Documents Suggest.

The City Auditor found that Zenith violated local laws during that period and advocates allege that city officials broke city rules.

Two of the main architects of the dirty deal are still at the city: Dan Ryan (Councilor, District 2) and Deputy City Administrator Donnie Oliveira, whose demonstration of corporate fealty launched  meteoric rise from a Bureau of Planning and Sustainability communications staffer to the Deputy City Administrator for Community & Economic Development.

The public pays Olivera more than $250,000 per year for the pleasure of his “service” as ombudsman for the city’s largest corporations and the Portland Metro Chamber.

Street Roots reporting last year demonstrates that Olivera isn’t bashful about his role as liaison to the city’s capitalist class:

“Get in there and get me a sazerac!”

That’s the opening salvo from Donnie Oliveira, deputy city administrator, in a text message to Jon Isaacs, Portland Metro Chamber executive vice president of public affairs, just before the two met and talked about Zenith Energy on Jan. 22. 

The meeting took place at Paddy’s Bar the day after a City Council work session on Zenith’s need for a city land use compatibility statement, or LUCS, thanks to a penalty DEQ imposed on the Houston-based fossil fuel company for illegally modifying and operating pipes at its facilities for over three years.”

Hayden, J. (2025, February 26). Street Roots. Metro Chamber privately discussed Zenith with Wilson admin staff before sending letter supporting LUCS.

Despite efforts by the DSA-affiliated City Council minority to curtail corrupt practices around the Zenith transfer, it’s clear the Mayor and his staff are emboldened. They are now going all out to facilitate a seamless transfer for I Squared Capital, by blocking public access to key information about the franchise transfer, running interference on behalf of Zenith and I Squared Capital, and changing the rules of procedure during the process.

Rigging the Game

The Portland Mercury recently reported that I Squared’s lawyers have been working with City Attorneys to “manage potential public opposition” to the franchise transfer since early 2026. This has meant hiding key documents from the public, conducting a pathetically inadequate review of I Squared Capital’s qualifications, inaccurately telling city councilors behind the scenes that they have no choice but to approve the franchise transfer without modification, and otherwise trying to frustrate public involvement in the process.

On July 23, the city held its first hearing on the franchise transfer at the Committee of the Whole. After over 50 Portlanders signed up to testify and dozens of organizations sent letters to complain about the process, Zenith Energy sued the City in an effort to pressure them to move faster. On August 6th, dozens of Portlanders testified that they still hadn’t received documents about the city’s review of I Squared’s qualifications. Incredibly, even with the community up in arms about these dirty tactics, 7 City Councilors voted the franchise transfer through committee.

Then, after the committee, the City Attorney announced that although they had previously said the franchise transfer would need 9 votes to pass at City Council, now it would only need 7, meaning that the moderates and the Mayor could just force the transfer through. In other words, the City Attorney (at the behest of the Mayor and Oliveira) changed the rules mid game to make it easier for I Squared Capital to get their transfer.

What explains these dirty tactics and a majority of city councilors ignoring community outrage? Corporate machine politics and straightforward corruption.

The Fossil Fuel Money Machine

Like with most corporate corruption in Portland, the Portland Metro Chamber is right at the center of this effort to grease the wheels for a fossil fuel company. Not only are they directly lobbying for I Squared (and have heavily lobbied for Zenith in the past), their Board Member William Rasmussen (notorious for representing the fossil fuel industry in lawsuits against the city) is also I Squared’s attorney. TJ McHugh, the PMC’s Director of Government Relations, is a former Dan Ryan staffer. The PMC’s Executive Vice President Jon Isaacs (a notable public critic of DSA and purveyor of red scare push polls) has a close personal relationship with Donnie Oliveira that he has leveraged in the past for $20 million of Portland Clean Energy Fund money to go to a “Clean Industry Hub” that includes the Chamber, and, as mentioned above, to secure land use permissions for Zenith in 2025.

On July 1, the Working Waterfront Coalition entered into formal partnership with the Portland Metro Chamber. Although many of the companies represented in the Working Waterfront Coalition are members of the Portland Metro Chamber, this merger signals that advocating for polluting industry is an even greater priority for the PMC. 

The Port of Portland is also important in this advocacy. The Port — a public agency with its commissioners appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Oregon Senate — manages three airports, three marine terminals, and six business parks. The Port Commission is haunted by local power players who use their power to make profits for business and industry. Michael Jordan, who until last year was the City Administrator at the City of Portland, was just appointed to the Port Commission. Rukaiyah Adams of Albina Vision Trust is another member. The Port, a member of the Working Waterfront Coalition, is supportive of Zenith and now I Squared because they are engaged in a large-scale greenwashing effort to promote “Sustainable Aviation Fuel” which they use to justify continued expansion of jet flights during a climate crisis.

Another important player is Jules Bailey, former legislator, mayoral candidate, and board president of the Oregon League of Conservation Voters (OLCV). Bailey now works as a consultant for Skyline Renewables, and is lobbying heavily for I Squared’s acquisition of the Zenith facility. Like Doug Moore — who formerly was the Executive Director at OLCV and now runs United for Portland, the Metro Chamber’s PAC — Bailey is apparently cashing in on his former environmental credentials and access to power in order to greenwash for polluting industry. Jules Bailey also gave the maximum campaign donation to Councilor Eric Zimmerman on May 7, 2026 while lobbying for I Squared’s franchise transfer.

Aside from lobbying, United for Portland, the PMC’s Political Action Committee, endorses candidates including six of the seven councilors who voted to advance the franchise transfer out of committee. Three of these candidates (Eric Zimmerman, Olivia Clark, and Steve Novick) are up for re-election and angling for another endorsement from United for Portland.

This ongoing debacle at the City has been a source of extreme frustration for Portlanders for many years now. Despite Mayor Wilson’s assurances on the campaign trail, he and his city administrators have only given us more of that same frustration.

But we have allies on City Council in our DSA Councilors. Help them hold Zenith, the Mayor, and I Squared accountable by sending a letter before Wednesday.

Take action now! Send letters to city council here: https://actionnetwork.org/letters/voice-your-concern-on-zenith-energys-franchise-agreement-transfer-to-i-squared-capital

DSA should use media to promote its socialist vision and counter corporate media’s distortions.

The post Telling Our Story appeared first on Democratic Left.