H L FIRST

Most Americans have no idea how differently the rest of the developed world treats money in politics.

France bans corporations and unions from donating to political campaigns entirely, and caps what a single person can give to a party at roughly €7,500 a year. Canada outlaws corporate and union donations outright, with a hard individual limit near $1,700 a year. South Korea prohibits companies from making political contributions at all. The common thread: in much of the democratic world, unlimited private money in elections is treated as a problem to regulate — not a right to protect.

America went the opposite direction. In 2010, the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision opened the door for corporations, unions, and outside groups to spend unlimited sums through SuperPACs. The result was the most expensive election in history — total 2024 spending climbed past $15 billion.

Supporters of strict limits argue that big money buys disproportionate access and drowns out ordinary voters. Defenders of the U.S. system call political spending a form of free speech that the government has no business capping.

Seven countries have already made their choice. Now the question is being put directly to Americans.

SHOULD THE U.S. MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR CORPORATIONS AND BILLIONAIRES TO FUND POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS?

President Trump wanted to flip one of the safest Democratic seats in Congress before the 2026 midterms — and his own party just stopped him cold.

The South Carolina Senate voted Tuesday to adjourn their special legislative session until June 10 — the day after the state's June 9 primaries — without ever taking a final vote on a proposed new congressional map. A cloture motion that would have forced a floor vote failed 20-24. They needed 26. It wasn't close.

The map would have redrawn district lines around Rep. Jim Clyburn's seat — one of the most prominent Black Democrats in Congress. Trump had personally pushed South Carolina Republicans to redraw the lines mid-decade, framing it as a loyalty test. But when early voting for the June 9 primary had already begun, enough Republicans balked at the optics of rewriting the rules while people were actively casting ballots.

Several senators who had initially backed the effort quietly reversed course, citing the timing as legally risky and politically chaotic. With the session now adjourned past the primary, the window to draw new maps before November appears definitively closed.

It's a rare public defeat for Trump within his own party — and a signal that Republican state legislators will occasionally pump the brakes when the timing doesn't work in their favor.

"Off Campus," the new romantic drama series about college hockey players, is the third most-watched debut series in the history of Amazon Prime Video.

The only debut series to ever outperform it have been “The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power” and “Fallout.” That means “Off Campus” is tracking above heavyweights like “The Boys,” “Reacher,” “The Summer I

Alabama has made history. Governor Kay Ivey signed the Child Predator Death Penalty Act on February 12, 2026, and starting October 1st, child r*pe in Alabama becomes a capital offense — one that can be punished by death.

The law targets the worst of the worst. It classifies first-degree r*pe, first-degree so**my, and first-degree s*xual assault against victims under the age of 12 as capital crimes eligible for the death penalty. Alabama is now one of only a handful of states in the country willing to go that far.

The legislature was nearly unanimous. The Alabama House voted 73-6 in favor, and the Senate passed it 33-1. Those aren't political margins — they're a statement. When both parties agree this overwhelmingly on anything, it signals the kind of public demand that doesn't get ignored.

The law does raise a constitutional question. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kennedy v. Louisiana that executing someone for a non-homicide crime is unconstitutional. Alabama's new law puts that ruling directly in the crosshairs — and legal challenges are all but certain once the first prosecution moves forward under it.

Starting October 1st, Alabama will be one of the toughest states in the country on child predators. Whether the courts allow it to stand is the next fight — but for now, Ivey has made her position crystal clear.

A federal judge just handed down one of the harshest sentences in the history of COVID pandemic fraud. Aimee Bock, the founder and executive director of a Minnesota nonprofit called Feeding Our Future, was sentenced to nearly 42 years in federal prison for masterminding a scheme that stole $250 million from a government food program designed to feed hungry children during the pandemic.
Bock's operation exploited the USDA's Child Nutrition Programs, which were expanded during COVID to feed low-income kids when schools closed. Instead of feeding children, Bock and her co-conspirators submitted fraudulent claims for millions of meals that were never served, pocketing the money through a web of shell companies and fake vendor invoices. The Department of Justice called it the single largest COVID-19 fraud scheme in American history.
More than 70 people have been charged in connection with the scheme, and dozens have already pleaded guilty or been convicted. Prosecutors presented evidence that Bock and her network fabricated meal counts on a massive scale, falsely claiming to be feeding hundreds of thousands of children at sites that were often little more than vacant lots or homes. The money went to luxury cars, real estate, and overseas transfers.
Bock faced up to 20 years on each of the multiple fraud and money laundering counts she was convicted of. U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel sentenced her to 41 years and 8 months — a term that effectively means she will spend the rest of her life in prison. Prosecutors had argued for a maximum sentence, pointing to the scale of the fraud, the fact that it targeted a program meant to help vulnerable children, and evidence that Bock showed no remorse.
The case has drawn national attention as one of the most egregious examples of pandemic relief fraud in American history. For the children the program was supposed to feed — and the taxpayers who funded it — the sentence sends a clear message: stealing from the most vulnerable won't just cost you money. It'll cost you your freedom.

Most major democracies don't let billionaires do what they do in America. France banned corporate donations to political campaigns in 1995. Germany, Canada, Brazil, and the United Kingdom all have strict limits or outright bans on the kind of large-scale private political spending that American law not only allows but actively protects.
The gap has never been more visible. Since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010, the floodgates have been open. In the 2024 election cycle, a small number of ultra-wealthy donors collectively spent well over a billion dollars trying to shape the outcome of U.S. elections. None of it was illegal.
The argument for restrictions is straightforward: allowing the ultra-wealthy to pour unlimited money into politics gives them an outsized voice in a democracy that's supposed to count every person equally. The argument against is real too — courts have ruled that political spending is protected speech, and restricting it raises serious constitutional questions.
Other democracies have decided the risk to democracy from unlimited billionaire donations outweighs the free speech concerns. America hasn't.
SHOULD THE U.S. BAN OR HEAVILY RESTRICT BILLIONAIRES FROM FUNDING POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

Senator Josh Hawley has introduced a bill that would strip the taxpayer-funded pension from any member of Congress convicted of a felony s*x crime — closing a loophole that currently lets convicted lawmakers keep collecting.

The measure, called the No Pensions for Congressional Predators Act, targets a gap in existing law. Right now, members of Congress forfeit their federal pensions if convicted of certain felonies — including fraud, treason, bribery, and perjury. But there is no equivalent rule for s*x crimes, meaning a lawmaker convicted of felony s*xual abuse can still draw a government pension for life.

Hawley called that "unacceptable," arguing that taxpayers should never be forced to keep paying a lawmaker who has committed that kind of offense.

The legislation arrives during a period of intense scrutiny of Congress, after a wave of misconduct allegations against House members led to high-profile resignations.

Whether the bill advances or stalls, it forces a pointed question — should anyone convicted of a s*x crime ever collect a taxpayer-funded pension?

Stephen Colbert closed out The Late Show with the biggest weeknight audience the program has ever recorded — 6.74 million viewers tuning in to watch the host sign off for the final time.
The number is striking. It topped the show's own series premiere from September 2015, which drew 6.55 million, and it towered over the program's 2026 average of roughly 2.69 million viewers a night. For one last night, a late-night show pulled the kind of crowd that has become increasingly rare in the streaming era.
The finale leaned into the moment. Paul McCartney joined Colbert on stage to sing the Beatles' "Hello Goodbye," and the broadcast was packed with famous faces — Bryan Cranston, Paul Rudd, Ryan Reynolds, and a lineup of Colbert's fellow late-night hosts among them.
The send-off caps a run that began in 2015, when Colbert took over the desk David Letterman had occupied for more than two decades.
The massive finale number raises an obvious question about the genre's future: if a farewell can still draw nearly 7 million people, what does it say about why those audiences don't show up every night?