BMichael Bloomberg just put another thirty-six million dollars into this election. This week.
BOn top of the eighty million he already gave?
BOn top of it. Politico reports he spread close to thirty-six million more this week.
BSo one man is now at about a hundred and sixteen million.
BAnd the week's not over.
BLook, I get why Democrats are thrilled. They're trying to flip the House, and this is the ammunition.
BDoes the number not bother you? One donor. A hundred and sixteen million.
BIt's his money! Both sides do this, and everybody has a donor they like.
BI'm not talking about which team wins. I'm talking about one person drowning out the normal donors.
BSo what's your fix? Cap donations? That just shoves the cash into super PACs, then dark money. It never disappears.
BThere's a difference between participating and buying the whole ballot. I think this crossed it.
BBut nobody can name that line! That's why courts keep saying money is speech—you can't write that law cleanly.
BSpeech is one thing. A hundred and sixteen million is a megaphone the size of a stadium.
BOkay... that's actually a point.
BAlmost a compliment. I'll take it.
BAnd it's not just the money. It's reach. A donor that size gets his calls returned.
BSo does any big donor. That's every fundraiser in America.
BBut the voters in those districts never asked for him.
BThey never asked for any donor. They still get the ads either way.
BDifferent kind of courtroom fight now.
BJose Pagliery on Bluesky claims a federal judge is opening an inquiry into whether Trump administration officials committed misconduct in her own courtroom.
BAnd the name that jumps out: Stanley Woodward.
BIf that's real, it's enormous. A judge referring a senior official for discipline is not a parking ticket.
BCaveat—nothing official yet. Pagliery says the full story is coming, so right now it's a claim.
BStill, it fits a pattern of fights between courts and the administration. Judges have real tools—sanctions, contempt, referring lawyers to the bar.
BThe key unknown is what officials allegedly did in her courtroom. That detail decides how big this gets.
BI'd bet it's about how the case was argued.
BYou'd take that bet before seeing the story?
BI'm saying judges don't level misconduct lightly. That's what makes this interesting.
BEither way, it's the kind of fight that defines this term—courts versus the executive.
BWe'll have more when Pagliery's piece drops.
BQuick bit from the business world while we're here.
BBP. The boss says the company has not considered breaking itself up.
BProbably wise, after profits hit an 18-year high. Don't fix what isn't broken.
BThe energy market's giving us plenty of drama already.