Check

WASHINGTON — California is sometimes described as the ATM of Democratic politics.

That’s certainly been the case in the most divisive Democratic races this year.

Donors from California have given more to far-left candidates and their moderate opponents in congressional races and U.S. Senate contests than donors from any other state — more than $17 million combined, according to a Times analysis of the most recently available campaign finance filings.

More of that money — nearly $11 million — went to more progressive candidates. That giving came from more than 95,000 individual donors, which was more than double the number of California donors who gave to their more moderate opponents. That includes 18,000 donors who gave to both progressive and moderate candidates.

There was a geographic divide in giving by Californians. The largest share of cash to progressive candidates came from donors in the Bay Area, while the largest share of financial backing to moderate candidates came from donors in the Los Angeles area.

The Times looked at competitive races outside California in which one of the candidates had been endorsed by either the Justice Democrats or the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, as well as key Senate races in Michigan, Minnesota, Florida and Maine that featured a stark ideological divide between top Democratic contenders.

Although these races represent a small fraction of the electoral contests across the country, they were the races in which the future ideological direction of the Democratic Party was most fiercely contested.

Progressive candidates fared better in the majority of these contests.

California donors helped fund the Senate primary victories of progressives Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan and Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota — second only to in-state donors in providing cash to each of those candidates.

Progressive House candidates such as Melat Kiros in Colorado and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York were able to defeat more moderate incumbents with heavy support from California donors.

Their efforts weren’t always successful, however.

Former Rep. Cori Bush raked in more cash from California donors than in-state supporters in her bid to unseat incumbent Rep. Wesley Bell in Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, the seat she had held previously. But Bell easily cruised to victory in this year’s primary.

And then there was Graham Platner.

California donors gave nearly $2.5 million to his Senate campaign in Maine before he withdrew after he was accused of sexual assault by a former girlfriend. He has denied the accusation.

The Times analysis looked at direct contributions to campaigns, which are capped at $7,000 per election cycle. It did not include contributions to party committees or independent committees that could also be spending in these races. The analysis included both bigger contributions required to be disclosed by campaigns as well as small-dollar contributions through the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue.

Flipping the script

Progressive donors said they were motivated to give to candidates who would shake up the Democratic Party’s status quo.

“The Democratic Party has to understand that they can’t keep doing the same thing,” said Rehan Alvi, a real estate investor in El Dorado Hills.

He gave the maximum allowable to support the campaigns of El-Sayed and Bush, and also supported Junaid Ahmed’s failed primary bid in the Illinois 8th Congressional District, as well as Platner’s campaign.

Harry Saddler, a retired designer who lives in San Francisco, said that the state of the party is “enraging.”

“That leads me to think about people who can actually flip the script,” he said.

Joshua Saltman, shown in his Los Angeles home, is one of many Democratic donors from California who have given in divisive Democratic races across the country.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Saddler has written checks to a number of more progressive candidates, including Flanagan, Chevalier, Ahmed and Nida Allam, who lost her primary bid to unseat incumbent Rep. Valerie Foushee in North Carolina’s 4th Congressional District, though he has also supported some moderate candidates in other races he sees as crucial to Democrats chances at retaking control of one or both chambers of Congress.

That pragmatic approach is part of the reason Joshua Saltman said he has supported a number of moderate candidates.

“The reality of the map is that if Democrats are going to retake the House, it’s not just winning super blue districts,” said Saltman, a former entertainment industry lawyer who now runs a Broadway music festival.

Saltman said that he considers himself to be a more moderate Democrat and is also inclined to give to moderate candidates who he believes “get a little less love” from other donors, particularly in California.

He has written checks to Rep. Haley Stevens, who lost to El-Sayed in Michigan; Rep. Angie Craig, who lost to Flanagan in Minnesota; Bell in Missouri and Gov. Janet Mills in Maine, who was Platner’s main competition in the Democratic primary before dropping out of the race.

Alan Burye, a retired accountant who lives just outside San Diego, said he prefers more moderate candidates because he thinks they are more productive politicians.

“The ones who are out on the edges, like Bernie Sanders, really don’t get much done,” Burye said.

He cut checks to Craig in Minnesota and Stevens in Michigan.

Israel’s impact

American support for Israel — in the wake of wars in Gaza and Iran — has been a major point of division among more progressive and moderate candidates and is a key fault line among many donors.

Progressive candidates have been increasingly critical of the actions and influence of the Israeli government as the public, broadly, has adopted a more negative view of the Israeli government.

Politicians who have drawn support in the past from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, have been a particular target of progressive challengers.

“The problem with the Democratic Party is that they’re all just beholden to AIPAC and to corporate interests,” said Alvi, the real estate investor in El Dorado Hills. “I want a candidate who has the courage to speak.”

In Michigan, El-Sayed described AIPAC’s support of Stevens, his moderate opponent, as “legalized bribery.”

El-Sayed has made no secret of his criticism of American foreign aid for Israel and said that he “doesn’t believe in ethno-states” in response to a question in the summer about whether he supports the right of Israel to exist.

El-Sayed’s comments and similar sentiments expressed by other more progressive candidates are part of the reason some donors have given to moderate candidates.

“I feel that people who fundamentally aren’t big fans of Israel aren’t necessarily people I want to give money to,” said Saltman, who gave to Stevens.

Saltman, who was born in Michigan, said that he would still vote for El-Sayed if he lived in the state.

Other donors said they were inspired to give to moderate candidates because of concern that anti-Israel rhetoric could veer into attacks on Jews more broadly.

Los Angeles investor Steve Emerson said his motivation in writing checks to moderate Democrats such as Stevens is “to fight antisemitism.”

El-Sayed, for his part, said in the summer that his criticism of Israel is about foreign policy, not Jewish people.

“Judaism and the Jewish people are a light onto the world,” he said.

DENVER — The office of Colorado’s attorney general is a perch 10 stories above downtown Denver. From his aerie, Phil Weiser has a sweeping view of the city skyline, the gold-domed Capitol and, occasionally, a red hawk on the wing.

But looking toward November, Weiser sees something darker.

Federal agents swarming polling places. Voters intimidated or blocked from casting their ballots. A tyrannical president using his powers, real and imagined, to undermine or try to overturn the Nov. 3 election.

“With this administration what we have seen is it’s important that we not limit our imagination to what … type of harm could happen,” Weiser said during a sunny noon hour in the Mile High City.

For that reason, Colorado’s attorney general and his Democratic peers around the country have spent more than a year strategizing — by phone, via Zoom, sometimes in person — on ways to Trump-proof the midterm election.

They’ve researched history and the law, war-gamed what-ifs, divvied up responsibilities and drafted emergency lawsuits and temporary restraining orders so they can be hurried into court at a moment’s notice.

“We have prepared for a range of contingencies … so that we’re ready to act,” Weiser said.

“We’re not going to be reacting in real time” or pulling all-nighters, he added. “We are going to be following through on plans we’ve made, having looked at what’s possible.”

The efforts of Weiser, California’s Rob Bonta and more than 20 other Democratic attorneys general are part of a mass mobilization aimed at thwarting Trump’s unprecedented efforts to pervert and subvert November’s midterm balloting.

It’s remarkable that kind of man-the-barricades action is needed to preserve and protect the voting franchise in this, the land of the free and home of the brave. But having weighed the threats, Weiser said his greatest fear of election interference comes not from a bad overseas actor or some terrorist group, but rather our own federal government “and what this administration might do.”

So here we are.

To fend off that threat from within, state Democratic parties across the nation are aiming to recruit 10,000 volunteers to guard polling places in the event armed federal agents show up.

Various sponsors have launched education campaigns to explain election rules and offer hotlines for voters who have trouble casting their ballot.

Civil rights groups and democracy-defending organizations have staged their own tabletop exercises brainstorming and rehearsing various scenarios. A group of Democratic U.S. senators has done the same.

“What we’re doing is preparing for the fact that Donald Trump, in 2020, lied about the election in advance, lied about it in the aftermath, went to court … and then he instigated a violent insurrection in this very building,” Marc Elias, a Democratic elections attorney, told MS NOW in a July interview at the Capitol. “So I think we need to take these threats in the 2026 midterm run-up … both seriously and literally.”

In a more courageous, less heedlessly partisan world, Republicans would be working with Democrats to keep the power-drunk Trump in check. (The House and Senate supposedly comprise a separate and equal branch of government, with its own power, prerogatives and such.)

But, as Weiser noted, this Republican-led Congress “has been lacking in backbone, lacking in the role of checks and balances. That has left it to state attorneys general to fill that vacuum, going to court and essentially playing the role of a check on a lawless and often bullying president.”

The nation’s 24 Democratic attorneys general have filed more than 125 lawsuits in Trump’s second term alone, fighting his moves on trade and tariffs, energy and immigration policies and efforts to gut or eliminate programs and whole government agencies. They’ve prevailed in the overwhelming majority of cases that have been adjudicated or settled.

Even before Trump was elected again, some attorneys general began conferring on ways to fight the excesses they anticipated in a second administration. Anyone who didn’t see them coming wasn’t paying attention, said Weiser, who, most likely, will be elected Colorado’s next governor on Nov. 3.

(His victory in Colorado’s Democratic primary stemmed in good part from Weiser’s record battling Trump in court.)

“The worst-case scenario was that a Trump presidency would work to implement Project 2025 and would do things like try to end birthright citizenship, try to interfere with the delivery of ballots in the mail, would seek to use ICE in ways that were a basic affront to the rule of law,” Weiser said. “All those things have happened.”

So why not expect more of the same come November?

Trump is constitutionally (small “c”) incapable of acknowledging the result of any election he didn’t win. He’s openly urged supporters to “cheat like hell.” Thus, one can only assume malign intent when the president tries to wantonly purge voter rolls, hijack the U.S. Postal service to gum up mail balloting and override the Constitution (capital “c”) by federalizing November’s election.

Some might call such fears melodramatic, or overblown.

But as Weiser said, “We need to stay nervous and stay vigiliant because [of] what this president has shown, Jan. 6 being one of the telling examples.”

Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome of elections “is historic,” the attorney general said. “It is unique. It’s a threat. And it’s why we have to stand our guard.”

Vote, to bring this rogue president to heel. Stay vigilant, to make sure that vote counts.

Two good watchwords for this midterm election.

Brits going on holiday this autumn have been urged to check their luggage for an item that can no longer be used on planes – and it could mess up your travel plans

If you’re going on holiday this year, you need to make sure you follow a new travel rule that bans the use of one common item on planes. With summer behind us and the kids back at school, many Brits will be looking to book a holiday in the hopes that prices for flights and hotels have dropped.

Before leaving for your trip, it’s important to make sure you understand all the rules in place for everything from your flight to airport security, as you don’t want to get caught out with something that can ruin your holiday. One woman recently said her travel plans were almost scuppered by one little-known rule she didn’t know, as it only came into effect recently.

In a video on TikTok, a woman uploaded a video that captured the moment passengers on her Jet2 flight were told they could not use power banks while on the flight, due to a new rule.

Passengers were told: “As of the first of August, it is now illegal to use power banks on European aircraft, so if you’ve got a power bank with you, it should remain switched off, as these are forbidden for use on flights.”

The woman could be seen shaking her head and exchanging a confused look with her daughter, as she seemingly had no idea that the rule was in place. This was made even clearer with her video’s caption, where she admitted she had been hoping to use her power bank to charge her phone during the flight.

She wrote: “My phone’s about to die.”

It is not illegal to bring power banks on planes, but current aviation rules ban using them to charge devices or recharging the banks themselves during flights. This is because they carry a fire risk if the battery inside overheats, which can be dangerous to passengers on board – so it’s best to charge your device before you get on the plane.

Power banks must never be stored in your hold luggage, and should instead go in your hand luggage. This helps to reduce the risk of fire, as it can be quickly dealt with if something does go wrong and the battery does overheat.

Several commenters on the woman’s video said they agreed with the new rules for safety reasons, as they said they had heard horror stories of power banks catching fire on flights in the past.

One person said: “I can understand as they get really hot. Should really ensure this is known to people as it’s really important.”

Another added: “I brought a new power bank on a plane last year, and when I got off the plane, it had split the casing and was very hot.”

A third wrote: “About time!”

New rules, which came into force in March this year, aim to reduce the likelihood and impact of incidents involving power banks. The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is asking travellers to familiarise themselves with these rules, which are:

• Power banks must be carried in hand luggage only
• Each power bank must be individually protected when not in use, using a pouch, its original packaging or a separate bag to prevent short circuiting
• You can take a maximum of two power banks per person
• Power banks must not be recharged on board, including from an in-seat power outlet
• Power banks up to 100Wh are permitted, while those between 100Wh and up to 160Wh need approval from the airline

Whether you can use your power bank to charge your phone on an aircraft actually depends on the airline. While you cannot charge the power bank itself on any flight, some airlines may allow it to be used as a portable charger.

Ryanair allows them to be used, except during taxi, take-off, and landing, while easyJet, Jet2, Emirates, and Virgin Atlantic do not allow power banks to be used on board at all.

OASIS are warning fans to be wary of ticket scams ahead of the band’s huge ‘Live ’27’ world tour.

Genuine access codes for the highly anticipated shows are due to start dropping in email inboxes from today, September 24.

In a statement posted on social media, the band warned fans to remain vigilant over the next few days.

They said: “Important: We have been made aware of possible Oasis ticket scams.

“As ticket information and unique codes are about to be distributed, please remain vigilant. 

“Scammers may attempt to impersonate Oasis, our mailing list or our ticketing partners.”

DON’T LOOK BACK

Why you haven’t got an Oasis tour ticket code yet – and when one might come

SOME MIGHT PAY

Oasis announce TWO further UK 2027 tour dates due to ‘phenomenal demand’

The band stressed that anyone promising a code which has not been sent directly by Oasis is “not genuine”, and said legitimate emails will come only from oasis@openstageit.com.

“Any codes that are offered for sale are fraudulent and will not enable you to buy tickets,” they added.

Oasis also clarified that code emails will only be sent to fans between today and Sunday, September 27.

Fans who have been randomly selected will receive an email using the same name and email address with which they registered. 

It will contain a unique, personal and non-transferable code and will direct them exclusively to Ticketmaster.

The warning comes as the band add extra dates to the tour, including additional concerts in the UK, Munich, Rome and Paris.

Two additional Knebworth shows have been confirmed for September 25 and 26. This takes the band’s run at the historic site to six nights.

A hotel housekeeper has shared the one thing she always does when staying in a hotel room and it’s left many people spooked by the idea. So have you done this before?

You check in, drop your bags, and collapse onto what appears to be an immaculate, freshly-made bed. But beneath the perfectly plumped pillows and crisp white sheets, it might not actually be as clean as it looks.

Regardless of how much guests splash out on their hotel room, most will have one non-negotiable expectation – the room has been spotlessly cleaned since the previous guest checked out. From fresh bed sheets to a sparkling bathroom, a housekeeper’s workload can be gruelling. But guests have been left stunned to discover that some everyday hotel room items are virtually never washed – including a common item on the beds.

Taking to TikTok, a housekeeping manager named Margarita left her followers shocked after posting a video demonstrating the very first thing she does upon arriving at a hotel room during her own personal stays.

“POV: You’re a Housekeeping Manager staying at a hotel,” read the on-screen text, as two women were filmed standing inside a hotel room.

Armed with tissues in each hand, the pair proceeded to remove the bed runner from the foot of the bed, placing it on the luggage rack well away from where they’d be sleeping. One of the women couldn’t disguise her look of revulsion as they carried out the task.

People disgusted to learn some items are ‘never cleaned’

Numerous hotel housekeepers have previously revealed that bed runners are rarely laundered, unlike the rest of the bed linen, which is washed thoroughly after every guest checks out.

Experts have previously voiced their concerns about bed runners, explaining that their purpose is to catch dirt, shoe scuffs, and germs from luggage, bags, and outdoor clothing placed at the foot of the bed.

Because it serves as a dedicated barrier against outside grime, it can accumulate dust and microscopic dirt left behind by previous guests staying in the room.

Margarita was far from alone in her views, as the comments section quickly filled up with others sharing that they always do exactly the same thing, with one person questioning: “I mean, why aren’t they washed after every guest?”

Another argued: “If it’s a hassle to clean or replace they just shouldn’t have them in the rooms. I don’t need decorative pillows or bed runners.”

A third person added: “Should be a law that all decorative décor like pillows or bed runners need to be washed after each guest or just not provided.”

DUBLIN — President Trump on Sunday again played down the need for his administration to check the development of artificial intelligence, saying he worried about ceding America’s edge over China in a global competition and that winning would help address the risks from the advancing technology.

While acknowledging the need for some regulation, Trump provided no specifics about potential rules and attributed warnings about the technology moving too quickly and with little oversight to “negative forces” he did not identify, though industry pioneers have raised such concerns.

“We can put guardrails, we can do this and that, but I think you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up that … shouldn’t be bringing it up, and they’re bringing up things that won’t happen,” Trump told reporters during a weekend trip to Ireland. “But whoever wins with AI wins.”

The president has made similar comments in the last week. His remarks Sunday came a day after Dario Amodei, chief executive of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, said the industry should put the brakes on its fast-moving development to give safety measures time to catch up. Other AI corporate leaders, including Elon Musk and Sam Altman, chief of OpenAI, publicly agreed with Amodei.

Asked by a reporter if the industry should slow down or be regulated, Trump said, after watching a golfer tee off in the Irish Open at his resort in Doonbeg, that the United States is leading China in the development of AI, and, “frankly, I want to keep it that way, because whoever wins AI wins.”

Chinese President Xi Jinping is due to visit the U.S. next week to meet with Trump, and AI seems certain to be among the items they discuss.

AI has become a major election-year issue in the U.S. as some of the country’s largest companies seed small towns with a national network of computing warehouses while Americans from across the political spectrum increasingly voice concerns about less farmland and water supplies and rising electricity bills. Trump has kept up his support for data centers even as both Republicans and Democrats run from them and many communities try to block them.

Former President Obama said his party should make AI a campaign issue.

“I would talk about this, and I would say, ‘Here’s our plan for safety, here’s our plan for making sure our kids are not corrupted by this.’ … I would be thinking about the economic impacts in very concrete ways and understanding what does it mean if there’s going to be job displacement. Where is that going to hit? How are we going to respond?” he said at an event last week with the top Democrat in the House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, according to a transcript released by his office.

Next steps

Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council at the White House, said he expects meetings will be held this week involving administration officials who oversee cyber and science and technology policy to discuss the next steps. Trump also could meet with members of Congress, some of whom have also been sounding alarms about the fast pace of AI development.

“I think the president wants to hear from them as well,” Hassett said.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged the need for “some guardrails, some safety measures” so AI “doesn’t run away.” But he echoed Trump’s position that he wants to ensure the U.S. does not “lose our edge in the global competition on this with China because that would be a national security threat.”

Johnson (R-La.) said industry leaders need to be summoned for “one big meeting and work this out together in the same room.” He said he has discussed the issue with Trump and believes a meeting held quickly should be the “next step.”

“So we’re going to pull everybody together and make sure we do this in the right way,” Johnson said, adding that it is a “top priority for me and for the Congress.”

“But we don’t need everybody to panic right now,” Johnson said.

Jeffries criticized Republican leaders for allowing members to go back to their districts for the final part of September.

“We should take decisive action now so that we can slow down, as the CEOs have recently acknowledged, … the pace of development in order to protect the American people and ensure that AI is proceeding safely,” Jeffries said. Action on AI will be a “high priority” when House Democrats meet Tuesday as a group.

Neither Johnson nor Jeffries provided concrete steps about what Congress might do. Lawmakers agree that more guardrails are needed, but even narrow attempts at imposing rules have fallen apart over the years, evidence of the congressional reluctance to regulate the technology industry.

Cooperation between U.S. and China urged

Jacob Coxon, a former Anthropic employee who resigned over AI concerns and has gone public with his fears, argued for international rules along with self-regulation by the industry.

Coxon said he has grown concerned that AI models would soon gain capabilities that could exceed human control.

“You’re building a human-level or superhuman-level mind, without understanding what it wants, or thinks, or the way it thinks,” Coxon said.

At a time of a fierce global competition for AI dominance, Coxon also urged cooperation between the U.S. and China, the two countries who are leading the race, to slow down and address safety.

“I do hope that the people in China who are looking at the same problems as we are, so they’re trying to build the same technology, will come to the same conclusion that it has to be done in a measured manner, and it should be easy to cooperate on some sort of mutual — of mutual slowing,” Coxon said.

Otherwise, he said, “we risk running the same race with China, which could be equally dangerous,.”

White House challenges AI leaders

Tech founder and investor David Sacks responded to the AI leaders’ calls for regulation with a social media post challenging them. Sacks, co-chairman of a White House advisory council on science and technology, said Amodei and others are the ones setting the pace for development.

Sacks said they have the power to slow development on their own.

“The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it,” Sacks wrote.

Superville and Tang write for the Associated Press. Tang reported from Washington.