Politics

The government officials who can’t wait to clean out stadium toilets

Published

3 hours ago

June 14, 2026

INGLEWOOD, Calif. — Those in charge of SoFi Stadium have two days to clean out SoFi Stadium between the United States’ thumping of Paraguay on Friday and a face-off on Monday between Iran and New Zealand. They can count on the L.A. County Department of Health to help with the grossest part.

County health officials are already removing wastewater from the stadium before, during and after every match played at SoFi Stadium, to test for the presence of various viruses. The county health department — which is responsible for the well-being of ten million residents — developed its syndromic-surveillance capacity during the Covid pandemic, but is now deploying it for the first time it at a sports facility.

You can read more in a fascinating report from Blue Light News health-care reporters from coast to coast, led by my Sacramento-based colleague Rachel Bluth, about how public-health authorities have prepared for a World Cup unfolding amid an Ebola outbreak, rising measles cases in the United States, and continued fears of hantavirus.

Click here for the whole story.

Politics

Perceived corruption of World Cup countries

Published

35 minutes ago

June 14, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Haiti has the highest level of perceived corruption of any country taking part in the World Cup, with Norway and New Zealand scoring lowest (something New Zealand might have to get used to!). These figures came from Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.

Politics

UK and US voters are highly cynical. They express it differently.

Published

1 hour ago

June 14, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

It’s not just football versus soccer. Britain and America share a language and deep historical ties, but their political systems are an ocean apart.

That could be good news for President Donald Trump.

As Republicans in the United States search for clues about the political mood ahead of November’s crucial midterm elections, a parliamentary by-election in Makerfield, England, is demanding attention. It’s not just that the special election could kick off a chain of events ending in Keir Starmer being ousted as prime minister — the contest itself serves as an early test of whether the anti-incumbent anger that upended Western democracies in 2024 remains a potent force.

But a new analysis of POLITICO Poll results suggests British and American voters respond to that political frustration in different ways. While cynicism about politics is widespread and persistent in both countries, British voters, with an array of political parties across the ideological spectrum, are willing to abandon their party in search of an alternative.

American voters, by contrast, remain largely constrained by the two-party system — limiting just how far they can go in channeling their frustrations.

In the U.K., just half of those who voted for Starmer’s center-left Labour Party in 2024 plan to vote the same way in the next election, according to the survey conducted by Public First from May 8 to May 11.

Meanwhile, strong majorities of Americans — including 75 percent of Trump 2024 voters and 86 percent of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris — plan to stick with their party, underscoring just how little voter movement there tends to be in the U.S.

“We have a far, far more fluid system, I think, even than in the U.S., so people will switch parties,” said Mark Shanahan, an associate professor of political engagement at University of Surrey in Guildford, England.

That could be a saving grace for Trump and the GOP as they brace for a midterm landscape more difficult than initially expected, a change fueled in large part by voters’ persistent economic anxieties. It’s easier for the British voters who elected Starmer in 2024 to move to a different party in the country’s multiparty system, but disaffected Trump voters have no real choice.

Trump’s rise to the White House in 2016 was powered by a coalition that included independents, disengaged voters and Americans who felt alienated from the political establishment. They helped him again in 2024.

Republicans trying to stave off a difficult midterms have since warned that the biggest danger for the party in November is not that those voters suddenly defect, but that they become disillusioned enough to simply not vote. It’s a turnout election, strategists and candidates from both parties keep saying, that will likely come down to whether Trump voters show up for the party even when he’s not on the ballot.

What they’re less worried about is Democrats finding a way to move large numbers of persuadable, frustrated Republican voters back into the fold, or to pick up steadfast partisans. That’s true even as voters keep making clear that they’re looking for change.

The Blue Light News Poll reveals just how deep the sense of cynicism and pessimism runs among voters in both countries. In the U.S., 71 percent of adults say politicians only look out for themselves, including 79 percent of those who backed Harris in 2024 and 71 percent who voted for Trump.

There are similar frustrations in the U.K., where majorities of voters blame the politicians — not the system — for the country’s current political problems. In a poll conducted earlier this month by London-based Public First, a 45 percent plurality of U.K. adults say that the country keeps changing prime ministers because none of them are any good.

But the analysis from Public First finds an important distinction in how voters in the two countries channel their frustration at the ballot box. British voters appear much more willing to cross party lines.

In the U.K., the Labour Party rode to power in part by tapping into the support from cynical voters. But two years later, the Labour Party is hemorrhaging supporters. Fewer than half — 49 percent — of those who voted with the Labour Party in 2024 plan to do so again, while 13 percent plan to vote for the Green Party to its left and 13 percent for leading hard-right party Reform U.K., while the rest are divided among other parties or unsure according to The Blue Light News Poll.

“What we are seeing, particularly since Brexit over in the U.K., is a dissatisfaction in what was never formally a two-party system, but had been a de facto two-party system pretty much since 1916,” said Shanahan.

The Conservative Party — the Tories, the party of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher that battled with Labour for a century — has fallen out of favor, losing support to Nigel Farage’s Reform U.K. party. That break is similar to the MAGA vs. traditional Republican split in the United States — but the two-party American system forces the GOP to stay together in an at-times tense coalition on the right, while British voters can simply switch from Conservative to Reform.

That also spells trouble on the left for Starmer, whose popularity has plummeted and who is eager to quash an internal revolt that could eventually lead to his ouster. The Makerfield by-election on Thursday will determine whether Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester and Starmer’s chief internal rival, is elected as Labour’s representative in Parliament, giving him the chance to challenge Starmer for the party leadership and potentially replace him as prime minister.

“As the electoral politics of the U.K. fragments, it can only take a few thousand cynical voters in each of a few hundred constituencies to switch a majority to a devastating defeat,” said Seb Wride, head of polling at Public First, Blue Light News’s polling partner. “This is how, in 2024, Labour got into government with fewer votes than it got in 2019, and why most election modelling would now say they’ve lost that majority as quickly as they gained it.”

The Blue Light News Poll in June found 64 percent of U.K. adults say they don’t trust Starmer and, in a separate question, 62 percent say he is not someone who keeps his promises. Labour suffered massive losses in last month’s elections, prompting the calls from Starmer’s own MPs for him to be replaced.

But as Starmer stares down that threat — fueled by some of the very voters who elected him into office in the first place — the challenges before Trump and the GOP are much different.

In the U.S., even the most cynical and disaffected voters still tend to stick with their party identities. Even among non-MAGA Republicans — the conservatives least loyal to the president, who do not self-identify with his MAGA movement and ideology — highly cynical voters are just as likely to stick with the GOP in the midterms as less cynical voters are, according to Public First.

“In the U.K., voters who are dissatisfied with the main party tend to have a third or even fourth option. In the U.S., they have one alternative, or the option to not show up,” Wride said.

Poll after poll shows early signs of Trump’s 2024 coalition fracturing, on issues including the cost of living and the Iran war, but when faced with the prospect of choosing between one main party on the left and one on the right, voters tend to hold their noses and pick the same one they have before.

Politics

Secretive super PAC funding is skyrocketing in primaries

Published

3 hours ago

June 14, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A record number of groups are exploiting a gap in campaign finance law to flood this year’s primary elections with money — without disclosing their donors until long after the race is over.

More than $48 million has already been spent on House and Senate primaries this year by super PACs that did not have to reveal their donors before elections took place, according to a Blue Light News analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission. That is more than double the total at this time in the 2024 cycle, and 10 times higher than in 2018.

The groups are taking advantage of the campaign finance calendar. A super PAC formed after the last pre-election FEC deadline can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in the crucial final days of an election without disclosing its donors until afterward. The practice has been used for years, but never to the degree of this year’s midterms.

Roughly 1 in 10 dollars in outside spending that has flowed into primaries so far this year has been through these secretive groups.

In some cases, the pop-up super PAC spending has the characteristics of one political party meddling in another’s primary to help boost a candidate seen as more beatable in November, which is what happened in competitive races in Texas’ 35th District, Maine’s 2nd District and most recently New York’s 17th District. In other cases, groups sought to hide their connection to controversial sources, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

“It’s certainly a very strategic effort to avoid providing transparency for voters,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. “So even if they’re acting within the letter of the law, they are ultimately undermining in spirit. Because disclosure requirements exist so that voters — when they’re deciding who to cast their ballot for — have the information about who has spent money backing these candidates.”

The path for secretive spending on primaries is relatively straightforward. New groups launch after a monthly or quarterly FEC deadline. They spend millions of dollars to support their preferred candidates, bombarding voters in the final days when they are most engaged with an election. And by the time they have to report their money, weeks after the end of the month or quarter, the election they were aiming to influence is already over.

The tactic is more common in primaries than general elections because outside groups have to file pre-general reports in mid-October, leaving only a relatively small window before the November election where they would be able to launch and spend without disclosing financial information.

The efforts to hide sources of funding have happened across the country this cycle and to support and oppose candidates of widely varying ideologies. More money has been spent in Democratic primaries than Republican ones so far.

Since the beginning of May, two super PACs widely suspected of being tied to Republicans — Lead Left and Real Change — have spent $4.3 million across Democratic primaries in five competitive House districts to boost progressive candidates that are seen as weaker in the general election. Neither group will have to reveal their donors until mid-July.

In Kentucky’s 4th District, where GOP Rep. Thomas Massie was seeking reelection after President Donald Trump endorsed his challenger Ed Gallrein, a newly created super PAC spent a whopping $6.7 million to attack Gallrein. The PAC shut itself down shortly after the primary, revealing only then that most of its funds came from a Texas-based firm. (The PAC is now facing an FEC complaint alleging it was a straw donor scheme.)

In Illinois’ March primaries, three newly created groups tied to AIPAC spent $16 million on House races. While news reports linked AIPAC to the groups throughout the primaries, it wasn’t revealed until afterward that United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s main super PAC, was the leading funder. That allowed AIPAC — which has become politically controversial in Democratic primaries — to attempt to influence the elections without officially declaring its involvement as ballots were being cast.

In the special primary election to replace the late Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) last year, a newly launched super PAC called Fight for Virginia’s Future backed Connolly’s former chief of staff, James Walkinshaw. After the election, which Walkinshaw won, it was revealed that the group’s funding was transferred from Connolly’s campaign account.

Not every newly launched super PAC is inherently secretive. In some cases, new groups are clear about their affiliations even if they don’t immediately report their donors to the FEC.

And there are other ways for super PACs to hide their sources of funding beyond taking advantage of the FEC’s timing. Many get transfers from 501(c)(4) nonprofits, which face far fewer disclosure requirements.

As the practice of pop-up super PACs has become more common, it’s also become more sophisticated.

In past cycles, new super PACs that hid their sources of funding were sometimes linked to existing interests through the little information they do have to share when they are formed or spend money: their vendors, address and treasurer name and contact info. But many groups have developed workarounds and now use unknown treasurers or new vendors that also popped up around the same time as the PACs themselves.

In a handful of Democratic primaries in competitive districts this year, pop-up super PACs that have been linked to Republicans through PO boxes and website metadata have run ads that closely mimic the logos and official materials of Democratic campaigns in the race.

In one case last month, the Republican-linked Lead Left PAC spent nearly $1 million backing Democrat Maureen Galindo over Johnny Garcia in Texas’ 35th District. Galindo had been widely condemned by her own party for calls to turn a local ICE detention center into a “prison for American Zionists.”

The spending on her behalf led to the moderate Blue Dog PAC leading a rescue mission for Garcia: It spent more than $1 million to boost the former Bexar County sheriff’s deputy.

Neither Real Change or Lead Left responded to requests for comment sent to the emails listed on FEC filings. Other groups, including Fight for Virginia’s Future, Kentucky 4th PAC and UDP also didn’t respond to requests for comment. Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC tied to House GOP leadership that is widely speculated to be behind some of the pop-up PACs, did not respond to a request for comment.

Phil Gardner, a senior adviser to the Blue Dog PAC, said the Lead Left ads were “literally trying to impersonate other campaigns.”

Garcia — who ultimately won his race by more than 20 points — said in an interview that news reports linking Lead Left to Republicans helped show voters the importance of the race.

“It showed just how scared they were of our campaign, that they were willing to invest in a candidate that was clearly antisemitic that they knew they would defeat very easily in the general election,” Garcia said.

A similar pop-up PAC also spent heavily for progressive Matt Dunlap over state Sen. Joe Baldacci in Maine’s battleground 2nd District, which Trump won in 2024 and is open this cycle because moderate Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) opted not to seek reelection.

Ian Russell, a national Democratic strategist who is working on Baldacci’s race, said the GOP-linked ads could trick voters who don’t realize they aren’t coming from Dunlap’s campaign.

“They’re literally running a positive ad for Matt Dunlap,” Russell said. “They’re using his campaign logo. They’re using B-roll off of his YouTube page.”

That race is still uncalled as it goes to a ranked-choice count this week.

In recent years, some Democratic and Republican lawmakers have pushed for tightening campaign finance law, saying sources of funding should be more readily disclosed. But there have not been meaningful advances in campaign finance legislation.

Just last week, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) introduced a bill that would require super PACs to disclose every large donation they receive in the final 20 days of an election — which would make it harder for pop-up PACs to hide their sources of funding.

“All this dark spending money is just skyrocketing,” Crow said in an interview. “Super PACs, corporate donations, pop-up PACs. It’s out of control and it’s getting worse every cycle.”