The four debates in Maine’s U.S. Senate race, between incumbent Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Troy Jackson, are over. Early voting is underway. And while Jackson survived the quartet of clashes, the race remains as close as ever.

Debate expectations for Jackson were between middling and low. His down-home style was compared to the senator’s highly polished vibe. He had far less experience in high-profile debates. But ultimately Collins and Jackson both effectively delivered their core messages.

As in previous campaigns, Collins tried to claim the mantle of bipartisanship and argue that only she can deliver for Maine. She shared laundry lists of bills she worked on and specific projects helping towns. (Her campaign also focuses on this in ads; I even received a detailed text to my phone claiming credit for “$59 million for the City of Bangor.”)

“Sen. Collins is like an arsonist who helped set the fire and then she wants credit for bringing a cup of water to put it out,” Jackson said in the first debate.

Jackson took both parts of Collins’ case head on. He again noted Collins’ record of backing Trump 96% of the time, contrary to her assertions of bipartisanship. He contended that Collins’ deliverables are woefully insufficient compared to the cuts she has backed. “Sen. Collins is like an arsonist who helped set the fire and then she wants credit for bringing a cup of water to put it out,” he said in the first debate.

Three debates later, Collins herself helped the case against her bipartisan bonafides. A moderator asked her to identify a time when a vote against Republicans changed the outcome. Collins muffed. She cited opposition she organized to Pete Hegseth’s nomination as defense secretary, which failed after one senator, North Carolina’s Thom Tillis, changed his mind at the last minute. “So that didn’t change the outcome,” one of the moderators replied.

Jackson’s arsonist comparison was not the only memorable image he conjured. After Collins bragged that she stopped Canadian tariffs on road salt, the Democrat replied, “We can’t eat road salt.” Memes proliferated featuring images of a truck carrying road salt labeled as “Meals on Wheels” and Collins pictured as Marie Antoinette saying, “Let them eat road salt.” A Mainer at the Fryeburg Fair confronted Collins with Jackson’s remark.

Beyond its virality online, Jackson’s remark bore real-world heft. Food prices are up and heating oil prices soared 81% since last year. Often using examples about himself and others, Jackson focused on understanding working people, the necessity of a better healthcare system and fighting oligarchic power. He has also challenged Collins’ contention that he would not be able to help Maine like her.

Democrats have often accused the Maine press of catering to Collins, publicizing stories about her securing money for Maine while not covering her contradictions. This year is different.

None of the aforementioned exchanges got the most national attention, though. The one that grabbed out-of-state headlines arose after a protester with a fake press pass interrupted the last forum to rail against the environmental impact of data centers and corporations’ financial power. Collins quickly and without evidence claimed, “So this is obviously one of Troy’s supporters.”

“Oh, shut up. I don’t even know that kid,” Jackson replied.

“Oh, right,” Collins answered.

In a very close race like this election, any moment can matter. But it is striking that, afterward, many Mainers did not find Jackson’s remark problematic. Journalist Kevin Miller of Maine Public Radio wrote that Jackson’s comment was “more flippant than mean-spirited. The two rivals even seemed to exchange snarky smiles before the debate quickly resumed without future disruption.” On a post-debate panel, reporter Rob Caldwell said that, given the negativity of the campaign, the candidates were “going to get ticked off. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be human. … There are a lot of worse things that they could have said.” Callers to a radio show the following day were divided over whether Jackson was rude or had rightly responded with a Maine “shaddup.”

Jackson’s remark was not what the Bangor Daily News highlighted in its front page after the final debate. Instead, the paper focused on Collins saying, “I think our democracy will be just fine,” while Jackson judged American democracy as “at risk” and observed that “Donald Trump is trying every trick in the book to keep power.”

Democrats have often accused the Maine press of catering to Collins, publicizing stories about her securing money for Maine while not covering her contradictions. This year is different. Jackson’s criticisms of Collins’ conflicting votes are getting coverage, and the press is highlighting pay-for-play corruption allegations and examining the dark-money billionaires disproportionately benefiting Collins.

The two campaigns have not been the same and probably will stay that way. Jackson is holding high-profile events with Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Collins’ most high-profile visitor is former Sen. Joe Manchin. Trump has not come and Collins would not want him. While Jackson uses his events to recruit canvassers and grow his field operation, Collins is helped by canvassers paid by Elon Musk.

Maine voters seem sick of the barrage of ads. Jackson’s grassroots operation and earned media look stronger.

Jackson closed with a “who’s on your side” message — the billionaires or the Maine people. Some ads feature past Collins voters who support Jackson now. Some of these voters cite Collins’ vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Collins is defending her Kavanaugh vote by saying that, despite his track record, she could not know he would overturn Roe v. Wade.

National Republicans’ closing message features sharply negative advertising claiming Jackson bullies women, calling him “a creep” and even attacking his relationship with Lana Pelletier, his longtime partner and the mother of his children. (The Collins campaign asked for the ad to be taken down but critics noted that Collins brought up Jackson’s family in a September interview in Politico and Pelletier has spoken out against the personal attack.)

Maine voters seem sick of the barrage of ads. Jackson’s grassroots operation and earned media look stronger, and Republicans are facing the same headwinds in Maine as elsewhere. But it is never easy to defeat an incumbent and Collins’ brand is strong.

Mainers will have to decide if they want to re-elect Collins, who thinks our republic is not threatened by Trump but brings targeted resources to Maine, or if they pick Jackson, a self-described “working-class guy with a funny accent” who pledges to change policies, lift up all Mainers and protect our constitutional order.

The post Troy Jackson survived his debates with Susan Collins. Here’s what to watch for in the final days. appeared first on MS NOW.

As Texas Republicans grow more nervous about their chances of keeping a U.S. Senate seat in November, they are now facing another political burden: members of the Bush family.

Former President George W. Bush’s daughter Barbara and his brother Neil have broken with their family’s political party in the high-stakes race to support Democratic nominee James Talarico, adding to Republican anxiety about the contest.

The Federal Election Commission’s most recent report on PAC donations lists Barbara Bush as donating $2,500 last month to Lone Star Rising, a political action committee in support of Talarico, who is facing Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the midterm elections. Her monetary support emphasizes larger fractures within the Republican Party, which had hoped for an overwhelming victory in the state. (Barbara Bush, who lives in Brooklyn, is registered to vote in New York.)

On Tuesday, in another Bush defection, the former president’s brother said on Facebook that he had cast his vote for Talarico in early voting.

“I have never posted a political message on Facebook not wanting to offend friends whose views may be very different than mine. I’m breaking that tradition because I voted early today, and I voted for James Talarico for the United States Senate,” Neil Bush wrote in a lengthy post. “My vote was motivated by two things: deep concern about Ken Paxton’s record and genuine admiration for the character and principles I see in James Talarico.”

Paxton was endorsed by President Donald Trump during the Texas GOP primary over incumbent Sen. John Corbyn. But he is facing a candidate who has intertwined his Christian faith with his campaign and whose focus on kitchen-table issues has resonated with voters facing econmic headwinds. The Democrat has a slight lead in polling, 48.8% to 46%.

Neil Bush, who calls himself a longtime Republican, said he has been “deeply troubled” by Paxton’s history as Texas attorney general. He cited Paxton’s decision to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election, for which he was investigated by the state, and his impeachment by his own party over misconduct allegations in 2023. Paxton was also indicted in 2015 on charges of securities fraud. His legal team reached a deal for him to take ethics classes, pay almost $270,000 in restitution and complete community service.

In his statement, Neil Bush also took aim at Trump for doing “enormous damage to the Republican Party.”

He said he was “enormously impressed” by Talarico.

“He speaks with respect, seeks common ground, and seems genuinely interested in bringing people together rather than driving them apart,” he said. “His faith appears to be a deeply rooted source of humility, compassion, and conviction rather than a political weapon.”

He added, “I still believe deeply in many traditional Republican principles. But character matters more than party affiliation. Our democracy depends on leaders who respect our institutions, tell the truth, accept accountability, and seek to unite rather than divide.”

Paxton has been a divisive figure within his party. His impeachment attorney, Dan Cogdell, and his former law enforcement director, David Maxwell, have also said they will vote for Talarico.

The post George W. Bush’s daughter, brother throw weight behind James Talarico appeared first on MS NOW.

President Donald Trump's political groups have spent more than one-quarter of a billion dollars to bolster Republicans in the final stretch of this year's midterm elections, an unprecedented amount for a sitting president that underscores the stakes on Nov. 3.

More than 10 million U.S. citizens have already cast ballots for the U.S. midterm elections, and Democrats account for over half of that early turnout as the November 3 vote approaches.

---

General early voting began on Monday, October 19, led by Texas, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut and South Carolina. Hawaii, Louisiana, Utah, Wisconsin, Florida and Missouri have since joined.

Voters will decide seats in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, governorships, state legislatures and local measures on November 3.

RELATED: Texas Early Voting Breaks Records in Key Counties as Senate Race Heats Up

Democratic voters have shown up in force across several districts, a pattern party strategists read as an early effort to blunt the conservative agenda in Congress. That mobilization carries weight because the races will decide control of the Senate, the House of Representatives, several governorships and state legislatures, along with local ballot measures.

The opening surge unfolded amid deep polarization over the federal administration’s record. Turnout in the early states has outpaced expectations even as the national political climate remains volatile.

🎉 Double digits! We've just passed 10 MILLION early votes cast nationally in the 2026 midterms! 🗳️

Democrats 48.9% | Republicans 36.6% | Other 14.5%

And there are still 14 days to go until polls close. pic.twitter.com/0hxKEiMu9T

— E_DataGuy (@E_DataGuy) October 20, 2026

Divided Vote

In Alaska, polls will stay open for 15 days before Election Day. In Arkansas, the Secretary of State estimates early participation of half a million people. In counties such as Saline and Pulaski, early reports show a divided electorate: conservative voters back Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Senator Tom Cotton, who are noted for their alignment with President Donald Trump’s administration.

In Colorado, in-person voting centers opened on October 19 and four million ballots were mailed out. Preliminary records show that 13% of Democrats have returned their ballots, compared with 10% of Republicans and 7.5% of unaffiliated voters. Colorado is electing all of its main executive and legislative offices. Inflation, public safety, defense of social benefits and control of presidential power dominate the priorities mentioned by community organizations and independent voters in Arkansas and Colorado.

Florida prepares to open its mandatory in-person period on October 24, where Hispanic voters make up roughly 29% of the population and carry decisive weight.

Early voting for the midterm elections begins this week in these states:

— Alaska
— Arkansas
— Colorado
— Connecticut
— South Carolina
— Texas
— Hawaii
— Louisiana
— Missouri
— Utah
— Wisconsin
— West Virginia
— Delaware
— Maryland
— Florida
— Michigan
— New Jersey
— New York pic.twitter.com/YPYDIWpkNP

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) October 19, 2026

Elections officials warned that, because of the complexity of the voting system, close races could be resolved only on November 18, when the count of ranked choices ends.

The early surge arrives as surveys show some of the lowest approval numbers of Trump’s current administration. The President’s backers have framed the midterms as a referendum on his governing record, while Democrats describe the contest as a check on executive power.

The record pace of early ballots has already surpassed previous benchmarks, with Texas posting one of the strongest showings. As more states open their voting windows in the coming days, the national count is expected to climb sharply before November 3, when the full scope of the midterm verdict takes shape.

#FromTheSouth News Bits | In the United States, analysts assert that the Trump administration is seeking to destabilize democratic-led states by instilling fear through immigration agents known as ICE, in an effort to manipulate the midterm elections and win them. pic.twitter.com/e5Dal77aj0

— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 20, 2026

Top Democrats and allied organizations filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against President Donald Trump and his administration over their attempts to stymie the midterm elections, including by removing voters from state rolls.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., were among the plaintiffs who filed the suit against Trump, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. The 44-page complaint takes aim at recent demands from DHS — notably in Nevada and California — that states review lists compiled by federal officials of alleged noncitizen voters.

As the complaint notes, state officials have disputed the accuracy of those lists.

The lawsuit points to Trump’s Truth Social threat earlier this week threatening that election officials in LA County “will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!” if they count the votes of alleged noncitizens. It cites another from U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas Aaron Reitz, who said in a social media post on Monday that he would “hunt” and “prosecute” anyone who violates federal election law.

“DOJ’s recent actions confirm that Defendants have settled on a course of intimidating state election officials with threats of criminal prosecution for doing nothing more than adhering to state law and distributing ballots to registered voters,” states the complaint, filed 13 days before the midterms.

The filing alleges the administration’s efforts to wrest control of elections from the states, combined with federal officials’ threats toward local and state officials, violate the Voting Rights Act and constitutional principles that prevent the federal government from forcing states to enact, administer or enforce federal laws.

In addition to Schumer and Jeffries, the plaintiffs include the Democrats’ House and Senate campaign arms, the Democratic Governors Association, the Nevada Democratic Party and Erick Jose Jimenez, a registered California voter who the lawsuit says became a naturalized citizen 20 years ago but fears he could be falsely labeled as a noncitizen and “unlawfully targeted” as a result.

The defendants also include Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has said he would “absolutely” consider taking the issue to the Supreme Court; and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who has said his department will penalize states that do not cooperate with the federal government’s demands. The plaintiffs are asking the court to find the defendants in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act and to block them from continuing those actions.

“None of this is lawful,” the complaint states. “The Executive Branch enjoys no authority to superintend state voter list maintenance, to supplant state determinations of who is qualified to vote, or to dictate who gets a ballot or whose ballot gets segregated — Congress has kept that responsibility with the States, subject only to a narrow civil enforcement power the administration has declined to invoke during its recent efforts.”

The lawsuit represents the latest challenge to the administration’s efforts to compel states to hand over their voter rolls, which federal courts have also unanimously struck down. Democrats and elections experts have said these efforts could undermine trust in the upcoming elections. But federal officials have persisted, including by filing a lawsuit against California election officials last week.

Trump administration officials slammed the allegations included in the latest lawsuit.

White House spokesperson Lauren Bis said “Democrats and the media continue to dismiss concerns about voter fraud,“ adding, “The Trump Administration is taking decisive lawful action to protect our elections including prosecuting election crimes, strengthening election infrastructure security, and protecting vulnerable voters from fraud and coercion.”

DOJ spokesperson Kirsten Pels said “election integrity is a top priority” for the administration, adding, “Every action the Department has taken to protect the integrity of this year’s elections is grounded in the law and being litigated in open court. Ensuring that only eligible citizens vote and that every lawful ballot is counted a requirement of federal law.”

A spokesperson for DHS called the lawsuit “another political stunt by Democrats.”

The case has been assigned to Chief Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg, an Obama appointee who presided over the first lawsuit challenging the deportation and imprisonment of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. During an emergency hearing in March 2025, Boasberg ordered that no additional flights to El Salvador could take off; Trump subsequently called him a “Radical Left Lunatic.”

Boasberg was also the subject of a judicial misconduct complaint filed by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff in July 2025, based on his alleged comments during a panel conversation at the annual Judicial Conference. According to the complaint, Boasberg predicted that the administration “would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’” The chief judge of the 6th Circuit, Jeffrey Sutton, dismissed that complaint earlier this year.

Lisa Rubin and Selena Kuznikov contributed to this report.

CORRECTION (Oct. 21, 2026, 10:31 p.m. ET):
A previous version of this article misrepresented a statement from White House spokesperson Lauren Bis. Bis claimed that “Democrats and the media” dismiss concerns about voter fraud, but she did not herself dismiss voter fraud concerns.

The post Democrats sue Trump for ‘intimidating’ state election officials appeared first on MS NOW.

In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss Vivek Ramaswamy's controversial attack ad against his opponent Amy Acton in Ohio's gubernatorial race. 

If you enjoy Free Media, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in Washington, D.C. Tickets are available here.

The post Vivek Ramaswamy Is Defending Controversial Ad With Amy Acton's Mother appeared first on Reason Magazine.

President Lula of Brazil said that Flavio Bolsonaro must disclose his financial records if he wants to debate him again before the runoff.

The post Brazil’s Lula Seeks Way Out After Debate Disaster: Won’t Face ‘Thief’ Flávio Bolsonaro Again Without Bank Records appeared first on Breitbart.

Meta is finally being forced to pay for its near-decade-old falsehoods about the Cambridge Analytica scandal that saw millions of users’ data harvested for political purposes.

On Wednesday, a judge in New Mexico ordered the social media company to pay a $25 billion penalty following a jury’s determination in late September that the company’s executives broke state laws with knowingly false statements they made in the wake of the scandal.

“The extraordinary number of willful violations found by the jury, the duration and repetition of the conduct, the breadth of subjects on which violations occurred, the involvement of senior Facebook leadership, the size of New Mexico audiences reached, and the clear intentional and systematic nature of Facebook’s repeated misstatements established in the trial record support the highest level of penalty allowed by the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act,” New Mexico State District Court Judge Francis Mathew wrote in a court filing.

To refresh your memory, the scandal involved Cambridge Analytica — a political firm financed in part by pro-Trump benefactors — harvesting private data from tens of millions of Facebook users, which was eventually conveyed to members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and used for political targeting. To be clear, this case was an entirely separate trial from the other landmark trial Meta lost in New Mexico, which found the company liable for placing profits over consumers and knowingly putting children at risk of harms it knew to exist on its platforms.

As Tech Policy Press reported, the false statements deemed willfully deceptive by the jury include comments from CEO Mark Zuckerberg, former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and other executives about things like the company’s response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, users’ data protections, and misinformation and hate speech on its platforms.

For example, the statements include comments from both Zuckerberg and Sandberg about when access to users’ private data was closed off. They also include a comment from Zuckerberg in 2017 saying that Meta — then known as Facebook — had “always taken down any post that promotes or celebrates hate crimes or acts of terrorism.” Another comment deemed willfully deceptive came from Zuckerberg in 2020, when he claimed there were no exceptions for politicians who broke the platforms’ rules about content that “may lead to violence or deprive people of their right to vote.” The jury also found willfully deceptive a 2020 comment from former Meta executive Nick Clegg, who claimed that Meta “doesn’t profit from hate” and that the company applied a “zero tolerance approach” to hateful posts on Facebook and Instagram.

Meta, which has allegedly assisted the Trump administration’s efforts to suppress free speech and target critics of federal officials, disputed the jury’s ruling in September, vowing to appeal it and framing its actions as a free speech matter.

As the Santa Fe New Mexican reported: “‘Meta’s platforms are forums for free expression. We have a First Amendment right to manage those platforms in a way we believe best serves the interests of our community,’ the spokesperson wrote in an email. ‘This means prioritizing free speech, protecting our users’ information and giving them control over their data.’”

The post Meta ordered to pay $25 billion over data privacy deception appeared first on MS NOW.

Most Americans probably understand that politics can be an ugly business. As long as there have been campaigns, there have been candidates and parties trying to appeal to voters’ worst instincts by aiming for the gutter.

But once in a while, a campaign ad comes along that manages to disgust a wide variety of decent people, regardless of party or ideology. MS NOW reported:

In a new, unaired attack ad against Amy Acton, the Democrat running for governor of Ohio, her estranged mother speaks directly to the camera to accuse her of lying about her past.

“Don’t vote for people who lie,” says Donna Arthur — who married a man whom Acton accused of sexually abusing her as a child — in the video.

The campaign team for Vivek Ramaswamy, Acton’s Republican rival, confirmed to The Associated Press that it produced the ad and plans to spend $4 million airing it, apparently indifferent to the condemnations.

“It’s not surprising that Vivek Ramaswamy has stooped to such a despicable low as to attempt to turn the sexual abuse Amy endured at 12 years old from our birth mother’s husband into a political talking point,” Acton’s brother, Philip Stearns, said in a statement.

“After he was arrested and Amy and I were removed from their custody, our birth mother stayed married to Amy’s rapist until he died,” Stearns added. “This desperate, disgusting attack reveals exactly who Vivek Ramaswamy is at his core — a pathetic excuse for a man who is willing to hurt anyone as long as it gets him what he wants.”

Plenty of Republicans also slammed the vile attack, including former GOP presidential contender Nikki Haley, who said via social media that Ramaswamy is “a bad guy.”

One day later, however, JD Vance traveled to Ohio, in large part in the hopes of boosting Ramaswamy, who’s trailed Acton in several recent statewide polls, with time running out in the election cycle. Any chance the vice president might take the high road on the year’s most offensive attack ad?

Evidently not.

On Wednesday morning, Vance, himself an Ohio Republican, initially said the propriety of the ad (or lack thereof) was “not really my concern.” But he didn’t stop there.

Reporter: "Vivek Ramaswamy's campaign put out a controversial ad featuring his opponent's mother…was [that] appropriate?"Vance: "I'm a little bit disgusted when I see Republicans…whining more about that ad than they are about what…Democrats want to do to the United States of America."

— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) 2026-10-21T16:25:47.443Z

“I have to admit that I’m a little bit disgusted when I see Republicans across the country who are whining more about that advertisement than they are about what the congressional Democrats and other Democrats want to do to the United States of America,” the vice president said.

In other words, Vance isn’t disgusted by the ad, which features a woman who sided with her alleged rapist husband over her own daughter, whom she calls a “liar”; Vance is disgusted by Republicans who have a problem with that ad.

Soon after, the vice president headlined a rally and went even further, insisting that the commercial “calls it out like it is.” Vance went on to accuse Acton of somehow controlling independent news organizations, adding that Ramaswamy has never complained about any of the criticisms he’s faced — which might be credible if anyone had ever targeted the GOP nominee with an ad this abhorrent.

We’ll see soon enough whether the commercial ends up backfiring on Ramaswamy, who almost certainly wouldn’t have pursued such an attack if he thought he was likely to win the gubernatorial race. But in the meantime, Vance just faced a test of his personal character, and he flunked.

The post JD Vance is ‘disgusted,’ not by Ramaswamy’s vile ad but by its bipartisan critics appeared first on MS NOW.

In the final weeks of Michigan’s Senate race, the Democratic nominee finds himself facing both ugly attacks and pointed questions about family members. He has pushed back forcefully.

© Zbigniew Bzdak for The New York Times

Ten years ago, ‘Project Fear’ was at the heart of the ‘Remain’ campaign’s inept efforts to persuade Britons not to vote to leave the EU. 

Voting for Brexit, according to David Cameron’s government Doomsday forecasts, would cost every household £4,300 (€5,000) per year from 2030, lead to an immediate recession and mean lower house prices. 

It was a huge mistake. That all the pro-EU camp could say about being members of the club was that it would be very expensive to leave was a jarring admission of failure. And the promised economic apocalypse of instant recession and house price warnings didn’t happen. Most people simply didn’t believe the figures or that the politicians behind them were being honest about them. The result, as we know, is that more than 17m Brits gave the ‘establishment’ – or what they perceived it to be – a big kick up the arse. 

Fast forward to 2026 and newly-minted UK prime minister Andy Burnham has put all options for UK-EU relations – including rejoining – back on the table. 

The UK Treasury, which drew up the prophecies of doom, is now expected to publish a study analysing the potential economic benefits of Britain moving closer to the EU ahead of November’s EU-UK summit.

Personally, I think Brexit and the piecemeal trade and cooperation agreement that governs EU-UK trade has resulted in a small but significant economic hit.

The hope is that the treasury won’t promise milk, honey and gold-paved streets if the UK rejoins the EU or its single market.  

If over-promising increases the speed at which voters get disappointed with governments, the Brexit vote is proof that trying to frighten people is the fastest way to lose an election.  

This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership

They warn of disproportionate restrictions on campaign accounts and urge Meta to ensure fair treatment of candidates.

On Wednesday, United Nations human rights experts expressed concern about restrictions on political freedom of expression occurring in Brazil as a result of the way the technology company Meta is handling its social media platforms during Brazil’s presidential elections.

RELATED:

Brazilian Court Gives Meta 24 Hours to Prove Equal Treatment of Presidential Campaigns

“Reports of restrictions on legitimate political expression on Meta platforms during Brazil’s elections raise concerns for freedom of expression, association, political participation and equal treatment of political viewpoints, UN experts said.

“Online platforms are key actors in democratic debate. Preventing people from speaking or reaching audiences without explanation affects who is heard,” they added.

This assessment is based on findings by international election observers who have reported incidents of political discrimination through electronic media.

🇧🇷 | META ATACA DE NUEVO A LULA

Empleados de Meta admitieron afecciones voluntarias a las cuentas de Lula, mientras favorecían la visibilidad de Flavio Bolsonaro.

👉🏻 Un aporte oportuno para analizar las elecciones en la nueva arena híbrida:https://t.co/oIAXraHGud pic.twitter.com/kHjb9CxlUM

— Adrián Ramírez (@_adrianramirez_) October 17, 2026

The text reads, “META TARGETS LULA AGAIN. Meta employees admitted to intentionally interfering with Lula’s accounts, while boosting the visibility of Flavio Bolsonaro.”

Among those incidents, they highlighted the temporary interruptions of the campaign account of President Lula da Silva, the candidate of the Workers’ Party who is competing against U.S.-backed far-right Senator Flavio Bolsonaro in the runoff scheduled for Sunday, Oct. 25.

Observers have also recorded differences in audience engagement, user feeds, view counts and reach; restrictions on that campaign’s Instagram posts; and differences between the main political parties in AI image generation, WhatsApp channel search results, candidates’ stories and the distribution of political content potentially benefiting Bolsonaro’s campaign.

“Monitoring reports show thousands of accounts and posts have faced suspensions, reduced visibility and sharing limits, including journalists, human rights defenders, civil society actors and content creators,” the UN experts said.

“Information, including from Meta employees, suggests that accounts linked to one side of the presidential race were disproportionately curtailed.”

3 days after Meta was ordered to stop manipulating algorithms to favor Flavio Bolsonaro in the presidential election, two orgs have submitted evidence to Brazil's Superior Electoral Court that the corporation is still violating national election laws. https://t.co/GzJIA8gSjL

— BrianMier (@BrianMteleSUR) October 19, 2026

Last week, due to this discriminatory treatment, the Brazilian Superior Electoral Court ordered Meta to apply the same rules to both candidates until the runoff, prohibiting unequal restrictions on campaign reach, recommendations, and search results.

“Losing reach can mean losing a voice in public debate and the ability to mobilise communities. Algorithms, AI systems and content-moderation decisions must not become invisible arbiters of political discussion. Where political expression appears disproportionately restricted, platforms must explain why, address unequal impacts and ensure effective remedies,” the UN experts warned.

“The responsibility to respect human rights requires technology companies to identify, prevent and address adverse impacts, in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, including in platform governance and content moderation,” they added.

A Meta AI chatbot tells grad student Laura Morgado why Meta is backing Bolsonaro. “Trump & the Bolsonaros are the global political shield for big tech companies against the advance of European regulation & the Latin American left." Another technical glitch?https://t.co/NyVrTkP07d

— BrianMier (@BrianMteleSUR) October 16, 2026

“During elections, delayed remedies may have irreversible consequences. Freedom of expression and information integrity must therefore go hand in hand. Measures against disinformation must not arbitrarily restrict legitimate political expression,” the UN experts stressed, and urged Meta to assess whether its moderation, recommendation, and AI systems disproportionately restricted one side of Brazil’s electoral debate.

“Digital platforms must not become unaccountable gatekeepers of political debate, nor should their systems be susceptible to undue influence by political actors. Democracy and free and fair elections depend on independent and consistent platforms and an open, pluralistic environment where people can access information, scrutinise those seeking power, exchange views and organise without arbitrary interference,” the experts said.

The statement was signed by figures including Leopoldo Maldonado, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; and Gina Romero, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

teleSUR/ JF Sources: UNHRC – EFE

A group of veterans has made very serious claims about contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, a U.S. Marine Corps training facility in North Carolina. The fact that Donald Trump brought this up at his latest campaign rally in the state was unexpected, but more important still is what the president promised to do.

Trump on Camp Lejeune water contamination claims: "If we win the House and Senate, I am directing the Department of Justice to settle all remaining legitimate claims as soon as possible … if we don't win, there's no money."

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-10-21T00:56:42.020Z

“[I]f we win the House and the Senate,” he said, referring to Republicans, “I am directing the Department of Justice to settle all remaining legitimate claims as soon as possible and get it off the books and get it finished.”

Trump added moments later, however, “If we don’t win, there’s no money. If we do win, you’re getting it.”

For now, let’s not dwell on the fact that, in the recent past, it would’ve been considered a real controversy for an incumbent to talk about “directing” his Justice Department to do much of anything.

Instead, what we’re left with is another extraordinary example of Trump’s radical approach to transactional politics: He’ll deliver worthwhile results, the president keeps saying, but only if voters make him happy by delivering the election results he wants to see.

Consider the recent pattern:

Sept. 16: Trump told a North Carolina audience he wouldn’t approve federal disaster relief funds for the state unless they elected former Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley to the Senate. (He seemed to be kidding about this, though it wasn’t funny, and with him, it’s sometimes tough to tell.)

Oct. 3: Trump told an Ohio audience that his administration would “very strongly” consider the state for the Space Force Academy, but only if Republicans win in the midterms.

Oct. 3: At the same campaign rally, the president said he might look unfavorably at the state’s future emergency aid requests if they don’t elect a Republican governor.

Oct. 17: Trump told a Kentucky audience that his administration would invest in a local economic revitalization project, but only if his preferred GOP Senate candidate won.

Oct. 19: Trump told a Kansas audience he was prepared to approve a yearlong waiver for selling fuel blended with 15% ethanol (the E15 policy), but if Kansans elect a Democratic senator, “I’m not doing it.”

Almost daily: At effectively every 2026 campaign rally, Trump vows to send $5,000 checks to every American adult — but only if the election results make him happy. (On Tuesday night in North Carolina, the president explicitly said, “If we lose, you get nothing. You’re going to get nothing. If we lose, you get nothing.”)

The Camp Lejeune comments were outrageous, but they were clearly part of an unsubtle pattern.

In case this isn’t obvious, there’s nothing about a Democratic-led Congress that would prevent Trump from delivering any of these benefits to any of these states. The president made the policy commitments conditional anyway, not because he had to, but because he chose to.

In any normal American election, candidates tell voters about the kinds of priorities they’ll advance if elected. That’s not controversial in the slightest. What Trump is saying is qualitatively different — and vastly worse. The incumbent Republican is effectively telling voters, in state after state, that he could deliver for them, but if he’s not satisfied with the election results, he simply won’t bother.

So they better make sure he’s satisfied with the election results.

Trump has goodies he wants to hand out, and the public will benefit from his benevolence — unless voters dare to hurt his feelings. This isn’t how elections are supposed to work in a healthy democracy. Evidently, the president doesn’t care.

This post updates our related earlier coverage.

The post Trump’s fixation on transactional politics becomes an election-season scandal appeared first on MS NOW.

Neil Bush, the brother of former President George W. Bush, posted on Facebook that he voted for far-left Democrat James Talarico in the Texas Senate race.

The post Neil Bush, Bush Family Back Far-Left James Talarico in Texas Senate Race appeared first on Breitbart.

Wedgewood Polls posted on X Tuesday night that it fabricated its data throughout the 2026 election cycle, claiming it was done as a "social experiment" intended to spark reform of the industry.

The post Polling Firm Admits to Fake Data, Says It Was ‘Social Experiment’ appeared first on Breitbart.

A new migrant caravan of mostly Central American migrants left Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala on Tuesday. Many in the group, according to some reports, intend to posture near the U.S.-Mexico border in hopes that a Democratic win in the midterms might signal a return to a less secure border.

The post New Migrant Caravan Leaves Southern Mexico, Many Hoping for Democrat Win in Midterms appeared first on Breitbart.

With Americans deciding the congressional balance of power in November’s midterm elections, Justice Elena Kagan is reminding the nation of how the Supreme Court’s decisions have shaped the ballot.

It’s an antidemocratic shape, according to the Obama-appointed justice’s remarks Tuesday at Catholic University’s law school in Washington.

Kagan said the court “has kind of blinded itself to the very deleterious effect of their rulings on how the political system works and has created a democracy that does not work as well as it should.”

Her off-bench comments reprised impassioned criticisms she has made in dissenting opinions from the GOP-appointed majority’s rulings on gerrymandering in 2019 and earlier this year on the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance.

In 2019’s Rucho v. Common Cause, the majority said partisan gerrymandering claims present “political questions” that courts can’t answer. Writing the dissent for what was then a four-justice minority, she said the case marked “the first time ever” that the court “refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities.”

Writing for the current three-justice minority this year, Kagan called the six-justice majority’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.” Leading the same trio on campaign finance, in dissent from a ruling that struck down more limits and overturned another precedent in the process, she said the majority “jettisons a rule needed to protect our democracy’s integrity.”

On Tuesday, she said the American people “look around this political system and think that all this money chasing all these political candidates is a nightmare.” She added, “And they’re right.”

The justices are in between their October and November hearing sessions, but they will continue to field any emergency applications that come to them regarding the midterms or anything else. Currently, there is a pending application from New Hampshire Republicans to prevent the use of student IDs in voting.

The justices have weighed in on an array of election disputes already this year — and they haven’t always backed the GOP. But whatever the outcome in the midterms, Kagan’s comments provide a useful backdrop for understanding the political landscape the court has helped set.

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The post Justice Kagan reminds Americans of Supreme Court majority’s antidemocratic actions appeared first on MS NOW.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* With less than two weeks remaining in the election cycle, and with early voting underway in much of the country, a new national poll from The New York Times and Siena University offers nothing but good news for Democrats.

For example, the survey found Democrats with an 11-poing advantage over Republicans on the generic congressional ballot, 52% to 41%. The same poll showed Democrats ahead on every major issue, as well as big leads on questions such as which party “understands the problems facing people like me,” best represents “the working class,” can “fix the problems facing people like me” and “keeps its promises.”

The latest national CNN poll pointed in largely the same direction and showed Democrats ahead on the generic congressional ballot by 10 points, 49% to 39%.

* As if Republican Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas weren’t already struggling enough, an MS NOW analysis of the incumbent’s campaign-finance filings found that the senator still has no one on his campaign payroll, reinforcing ongoing concerns that Marshall is using his taxpayer-funded Senate staff for campaign purposes.

* In Michigan’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, the latest Marist poll found Democrat Abdul El-Sayed with a narrow lead over former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, 50% to 48%.

* Donald Trump held a campaign rally in North Carolina on Tuesday on behalf of Senate hopeful Michael Whatley, though the president seemed to concede that he expects former Gov. Roy Cooper to win the race. “He’s going to become your senator and it’s crazy,” Trump said, referring to the Democratic nominee.

* Though several billionaires have already taken steps to give Republicans a boost in the midterm elections, one notable billionaire is suddenly stepping up on behalf of Democrats: Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a new $80 million investment in support of Democratic efforts to reclaim a congressional majority.

* In case campaign ads created by artificial intelligence weren’t bad enough, Democrats are fighting GOP-led efforts to use AI-generated robocalls ahead of this year’s elections.

* Florida Republicans are so concerned about a new Democratic ad highlighting the Hope Florida scandal that GOP officials are threatening to criminally prosecute television stations that air the commercial.

Meanwhile, in Florida’s gubernatorial race, the Democratic Governors Association is making a new $1 million investment in support of Rep. David Jolly’s candidacy. And on Tuesday, Bill Clinton campaigned with Jolly in the former president’s first appearance of the cycle.

* And in New Hampshire’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, former Sen. John Sununu has a new attack ad that takes aim at House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, despite the fact that the California Democrat hasn’t been a congressional leader in nearly four years, and despite the fact that she’s retiring this year. This won’t help the Republican candidate shake off criticisms that he’s more focused on the past than the future.

The post Wednesday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.21.26: Democrats’ lead grows on the generic ballot appeared first on MS NOW.

The French reporter was set to cover Israel's election, while the U.S. researcher said she was questioned about her criticism of Israel's conduct in Gaza; four foreign journalists were denied entry last week

With polls showing Democrats in good position to retake at least one chamber of the US Congress, several Pentagon insiders are reportedly lining up to offer up damaging information about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in hopes that a new Democratic majority will impeach him. According to a report published Wednesday by The Telegraph, current and […]

The post Pentagon insiders will ‘spill their guts’ to see Hegseth impeached appeared first on Asia Times.