Walking with other demonstrators around the park’s perimeter, Kathleen Toalson described the first 76 days of Trump’s second term as a “disaster.”
Photo: Sentinel/Clark Brooks
Nearly a thousand people took part in Champaign-Urbana's installment of a nationwide day of action at Saturday's Hands Off! protest.
CHAMPAIGN - In a show of solidarity against President Donald Trump's trade and immigration policies, which critics say are harming families and retirement savings, more than a thousand protesters gathered Saturday at West Park near downtown Champaign for the Hands-Off! Mobilization rally.
The two-hour event featured several guest speakers who shared their thoughts on the state of the country since Trump began his second term. Large turnouts were also reported in major cities including Chicago, Boston, New York and Washington, D.C., as part of a national day of action that highlighted growing dissatisfaction with the administration’s policies and service cuts.
Photo: Sentinel/Clark Brooks
Standing with a long line of people along University Avenue, a protester holds up a sign as cars pass by. Many of the drivers showed their support, honking as the drove past the hundreds of Americans demonstrating against the hamfisted approach to nearly every issue the Trump administration as taken the past 75 days.
After attending a similar rally earlier Saturday near his home, John Edwards traveled from Sullivan to Champaign to take part in the demonstration. The Army veteran said he would attend a third if there were another nearby.
“They are not representing anybody but the rich,” Edwards said of the Trump administration. “We were already at one in Sullivan today. You might as well do two if you’re going to do one — and three if there’s another somewhere. We’ve got to get the word out.”
Walking with other demonstrators around the park’s perimeter, Kathleen Toalson described the first 76 days of Trump’s second term as a “disaster.”
“It’s an absolute nightmare for our nation, for our world,” she said. “It’s inconceivable to me that a nation as wealthy and prosperous as ours would turn its back on its own citizens.”
Cynthia D’Angelo, one of several speakers at the rally, criticized the administration’s policies.
“They are trying to destroy the things that are good about America. We are a leader in science. We are a leader in higher education and training future scientists, and they are trying to destroy all of that,” she said. “I feel like it is important for people to speak up and make a statement about what they believe.”
Photo: Sentinel/Clark Brooks
Cynthia D'Angelo, one of many speakers defending American values, delivers remarks at the Champaign Hands Off! rally at Westside Park.
Hands-Off! was the largest coordinated day of demonstrations by concerned citizens across the country since Trump began his second term, with events held at more than 1,200 locations in all 50 states. According to The Associated Press, over 150 organizations participated in organizing the peaceful rallies.
When asked about her views on how the administration is running the country, Urbana resident Terri Barnes laughed while walking with the procession.
“I think they are evil and pathetic. They are stronger than people anticipated,” she said. “Evil. Definitely evil.”
Let’s say you’re lucky enough to get housing at that wage. Do you then spend all your money on rent and skip nutritious meals for your family?
byJocelyn Smith OtherWords
Photo: Donna Spearman/Unsplash
I know how it feels to be hungry and homeless.
That’s why after work, I drive around town and pick up leftover food from restaurants, schools, grocery stores, and special events. My fellow volunteers and I set up in a big parking lot in our downtown to make this food available to anyone who shows up — no questions asked.
And it’s why other volunteers and I also work to find empty housing units that have fallen into disrepair because the landlords can’t afford the upkeep. We raise money and give them grants so they can bring the units up to code for use as low-income housing rentals.
I’m proud to do this work. But it’s no substitute for fair, living wages and a reliable public safety net. The minimum wage where I live is $12 — well below the $21 per hour the National Low Income Housing Coalition has calculated is necessary to afford a market rate two-bedroom rental locally.
Let’s say you’re lucky enough to get housing at that wage. Do you then spend all your money on rent and skip nutritious meals for your family? Or do you skip health care and medication? If you have a paycheck and a roof over your head, you might not qualify for food assistance, even if you don’t make enough to make ends meet.
Photo: Joel Muniz/Unsplash
Foodbanks play a crucial role in addressing hunger and ensuring that vulnerable populations have access to nutritious food when they are unable to afford or access enough food on their own.
I work, volunteer, take care of my child, and I’m fortunate enough to have housing. But I still need to rely on SNAP — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as “food stamps” — for my family.
My daughter has epilepsy, and thankfully I was able to get her onto Social Security Disability Insurance. However, she needs not only costly medication but also frequent neurological supervision and a device that helps to stop her seizures. There’s no neurologist in our town who can treat her, so we have to travel and lodge hours away for it.
when we need help, the bar for our income shouldn’t be so low that we must be nearly destitute, without any savings or emergency cushion, to qualify.
The expense is enormous, and that’s not even getting into expensive medications for my own heart problems and autoimmune disorders. Thankfully, we qualify for Medicaid. Otherwise, treatment would be out of reach.
But what does it say about our policy priorities when we need to say, “I’m disabled, taking care of my disabled daughter, I work, and I help feed my community, and yet I need assistance affording meals for my family?” These are the realities that a good society plans for so we can all thrive, no matter what obstacles life throws our way.
The programs our tax dollars pay for so families like mine can get help when we need it must be more robust. Programs like SSDI shouldn’t be so inaccessible. Food, housing, and health care shouldn’t be so expensive — and wages shouldn’t be so low that these basic necessities are unaffordable.
And when we need help, the bar for our income shouldn’t be so low that we must be nearly destitute, without any savings or emergency cushion, to qualify.
Is Congress working on any of this? Unfortunately, no. Instead, they’re doing the opposite right now.
In fact, the GOP budget proposal would slash $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion from food assistance. They’re also cutting government agencies that assist with affordable housing, transportation, safety, veterans, and children with disabilities.
Why? Because they need to find at least $4.5 trillion to give even more tax cuts to the wealthiest and largest corporations. They are reaching into my very shallow pockets, into my daughter’s life-saving medical care, and into the mouths of those who come to my food table in that parking lot.
They’re stealing from us to give to the rich, perpetuating a vicious cycle of poverty that keeps people homeless and hungry.
I don’t think that’s fair. Do you? We all deserve better.
Jocelyn Smith lives in Roswell, New Mexico. She works at a local talk radio station, runs a local Food not Bombs chapter, and volunteers at Rehab to Rental, helping to increase affordable housing options. This op-ed was produced in partnership with the Institute for Policy Studies and the Working Class Storyteller and distributed by OtherWords.org.
As President Trump takes office, one of his first agenda items is to slash taxes on corporations and the rich. The results will be more inequality and less revenue for the programs Americans rely on.
The good news? States can make their own tax codes more equitable. And everyday people can help.
With the help of public opinion, strategic communications, and messaging research firms, we spent over a decade talking to people in Washington to better understand their deeply held beliefs about taxes.
In our state, Washington, people voted overwhelmingly this past November to protect our state capital gains tax on the ultra-wealthy. This was a hard-fought victory by a movement of people who believe we need a better tax code.
Let’s back up.
Despite our “blue state” status, Washington’s tax code has long been one of the most inequitable in the country because it over-relies on regressive measures like sales taxes and property taxes. That forces low- and middle-income earners to pay the biggest portion of their income in taxes to fund the programs and services we all rely on.
In 2010, an initiative to enact a tax on high earners in our state failed miserably. Although many people — including lawmakers — proclaimed the death of progressive taxes in Washington, advocates came together with a long-term goal of building public support for progressive revenue.
Our organizations were two of many that did this work. From interfaith organizations to affordable housing advocates to union leaders, we created coalitions to hold lawmakers accountable to build an equitable tax system.
In addition to organizing and legislative strategies, our coalitions prioritized shifting the public narrative.
With the help of public opinion, strategic communications, and messaging research firms, we spent over a decade talking to people in Washington to better understand their deeply held beliefs about taxes.
We learned that most Washingtonians felt the impacts of our upside-down tax code but didn’t realize just how much it favored the rich. And in focus groups and community meetings, we heard people vocally support taxes when they understood the services they provide.
Our state capital gains tax is an excise tax on the sale of high-end stocks and bonds. Many extremely wealthy people are able to hoard wealth from selling these stocks.
In media interviews, legislative testimonies, community events, and town halls, we showed how creating a budget that funds our communities requires the wealthy to pay what they owe. We tied taxes to critical programs and services like child care, education, parks, and safety net programs.
We also highlighted how our tax code — which was designed to favor white, land-owning men over everyone else — is harmful to communities of color and low-income people.
Buoyed by grassroots organizing and legislative efforts, national momentum for taxing the rich, and some wealthy spokespeople who said “we want to pay this,” our coalitions helped our legislature pass a capital gains tax in 2021. We also helped pass a Working Families Tax Credit that year, a cash boost for people with low incomes. Together, these policies started to holistically fix our tax code.
Our state capital gains tax is an excise tax on the sale of high-end stocks and bonds. Many extremely wealthy people are able to hoard wealth from selling these stocks.
In its first two years, our modest capital gains tax on the richest 0.2 percent of Washingtonians brought in $1.3 billion to increase access to affordable child care and support school construction projects. But as soon as it passed, a handful of uber-wealthy individuals filed a lawsuit to repeal the tax.
Ultimately, the state Supreme Court upheld it. The last test was on the ballot in November. We soundly defeated Initiative 2109, a last-ditch effort to repeal the tax. Over 64 percent of voters — including majorities in right-leaning counties — supported keeping the capital gains tax in place to fund schools and child care.
Our win — which many thought impossible a decade ago — was a bright spot nationally this fall. We still have a long way to go towards a just tax code, but it’s possible to flip the script and build public support for progressive revenue. Wherever you live, we hope your community is the next to make that happen.
Eli Taylor Goss is the executive director of the Washington State Budget and Policy Center, a research and policy organization that works to advance economic justice. Treasure Mackey is the executive director of Invest in Washington Now, an organization working to remake our tax code so it works for everyone. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
by Jacque Trahan
In 2010, the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision redefined American politics. By granting corporations the same free speech rights as individuals, it allowed them to spend unlimited sums on elections. While proponents called it a victory for free expression, it has instead created a dangerous paradox: a system I call “corporation communism.”
At first glance, the term might seem contradictory. After all, corporations are synonymous with free-market capitalism, while communism is the antithesis of that system. But beneath the surface, there’s an unsettling resemblance.
Much like the centralized control of resources in communist regimes, corporations have amassed outsized power, dominating markets, influencing legislation, and concentrating wealth. This centralization doesn’t reflect the competition capitalism promises; instead, it mirrors the monopolistic tendencies of an authoritarian state.
As President Theodore Roosevelt once said, “The corporation is the creature of the State, and it must be held to strict accountability to the people.” Roosevelt—a Republican—championed trust-busting because he understood that unchecked corporate power was a direct threat to democracy. His wisdom is more relevant now than ever.
The Citizens United decision unleashed billions in corporate spending, turning elections into auctions. Candidates no longer vie for votes alone; they chase dollars from the wealthiest donors. Policies that serve public interests—affordable healthcare, climate action, workers’ rights—are sidelined for those favoring corporate profits.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, warned during the Great Depression: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself." Today, corporate lobbying often overwhelms the will of the people, making FDR’s cautionary words painfully prophetic.
This system fosters what I call "economic elitism," where a handful of powerful entities dictate the rules. From healthcare and energy to tech and agriculture, monopolies have reduced competition, stifling innovation and raising costs for everyday Americans.
Why Call It 'Corporation Communism'?
Though the term may sound provocative, the parallels are striking:
Centralized Power: Just as a communist state controls resources, corporations dominate entire sectors, from Big Tech to Big Pharma.
Loss of Choice: Consolidation through mergers limits competition, leaving consumers fewer options—whether in broadband providers or news outlets.
Suppression of Dissent: Employees who speak out often face retaliation, while public critics risk lawsuits or smear campaigns.
Reverse Redistribution: Wealth is siphoned upward, enriching executives and shareholders, much like the privileges enjoyed by elites in authoritarian regimes.
The Threat to Democracy
Unchecked corporate power corrodes democratic values. Voters’ voices are drowned out by well-funded lobbying and attack ads. Local businesses are crushed under monopolistic practices, reducing entrepreneurship—the backbone of a healthy economy.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, another Republican, once warned in his farewell address: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence… by the military-industrial complex." His words echo today, as corporate influence extends far beyond the military into nearly every aspect of policymaking.
Overturn Citizens United: Campaign finance reform is essential to restore fair elections.
Break Up Monopolies: Enforce antitrust laws to dismantle corporate giants and promote competition.
Demand Transparency: Require corporations to disclose political contributions and lobbying activities.
Empower Workers: Strengthen unions and worker protections to ensure fair wages and working conditions.
A Call to Action
The promise of capitalism is opportunity for all—not unchecked power for a few. By framing this issue as "corporation communism," we reveal the irony of a system that cloaks monopolistic control in the rhetoric of freedom.
Leaders across political lines—Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower—recognized the dangers of unchecked power, whether from corporations or governments. Their words remind us that democracy thrives only when power is accountable to the people.
It’s time to reclaim democracy from those who would buy it out from under us. Let’s make sure our government answers to the people—not corporations.
Based in Lafayette, Louisiana, Jacque Trahan loves to travel. "I save most of my money for this alone, concerts, festivals, video games with friends, I stream from time to time (but need to update my pc), and enhancing my coding skills." Jacque hopes to become a data engineer.
by Glenn Mollette, Guest Commentator
Total cost of 2022 state and federal midterm elections may have exceeded $16 billion according to a OpenSecrets analysis. Federal candidates and political committees spent over $8 billion while state candidates, party committees, and ballot measure committees spent close to $8 billion.
Here are the five most expensive Senate races this year according to OpenSecrets. This includes both general election and primary candidates together with the outside groups supporting them, such as the national parties and Super PACs:
Pennsylvania: $373.6 million
Georgia: $271.4 million (Georgia’s is growing)
Arizona: $234.6 million
Wisconsin: $205.8 million
Ohio: $202.1 million
Pennsylvania’s crucial U.S. Senate race has been the most expensive in the country this year — and it wasn’t even close. Georgia may end up close to $300 million. Who in Georgia is happy about this? The television stations. If you own a television station during a highly contested election season, in a lucrative market, you’ll never have to work again when the election is over.
Democrat John Fetterman, Republican Mehmet Oz and their political allies have spent a combined $312 million on a race that ended up not even close. According to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics, money poured into Pennsylvania for Fetterman as he had over $15 million dollars more to work with than Oz.
Many are wondering how Fetterman, a recuperating sick man with the worst debate performance ever on national television, beat Oz? The answer is not a simple sentence. The bottom line was they didn’t want Oz.
Oz was seen as an outsider. Someone who moved to the state to further his career in politics. He is well known. That should have helped but it didn’t help him that much. He was well known for being rich, famous and still relatively good looking for an old guy. Fetterman on the other hand is the local state guy. He doesn’t look so good. They know who he is whether that is good or bad. He has been very sick and trying to rehabilitate. A lot of people feel sorry for him and didn’t see him as a rich, affluent personality but rather a down to earth guy they can relate to.
People often cheer for the underdog. If you post something on social media saying you are sick, bad off, down and out you’ll get many more “likes” or responses than if you post you have just received a career advance and a $50,000 bonus.
Rand Paul of Kentucky raised $26,410,677 and reportedly spent $20 million. I hope he will use the remaining $6 million to rebuild homes in East, Kentucky recently devastated by flooding. Or, even West, Kentucky that is still trying to rebuild from tornadoes that flattened that part of the state.
The money spent on this election and all national elections is insane. People all over America can’t afford to go the grocery store, fill up the gas tank or take care of their children’s school needs. Yet politicians, interest groups, political parties, and Political Action Committees are raising and spending mega millions trying to keep or gain a political seat. You can’t do anything about it either. We have so very little to say about anything in our country.
We have to depend on the people spending millions to get their seat. If the seat is worth millions to them and the special interest groups then do you really think they care about we think?
Dr. Glenn Mollette is a syndicated American columnist and author of Grandpa's Store, American Issues, and ten other books. He is read in all 50 states. The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily representative of any other group or organization.
This article is the sole opinions of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of The Sentinel. We welcome comments and views from our readers. Submit your letters to the editor or commentary on a current event 24/7 to editor@oursentinel.com.
PONTIAC - People everywhere are conquering their cabin fever and are enjoying the great outdoors after a long, bitter winter. But before you head out for that hike, health care experts remind you to take precautions to avoid tick bites. Read more . . .
CHICAGO - An Illinois law professor is weighing in on what she called a "very public and open test of due process" for immigrants being deported from the United States without court hearings. Read more . . .
CHAMPAIGN - In a show of solidarity against President Donald Trump's trade and immigration policies, which critics say are harming families and retirement savings, more than a thousand protesters gathered Saturday at West Park near downtown Champaign for the Hands-Off! Mobilization rally. Read more . . .
Photo Galleries
A couple of runners found themselves in the wrong race at this year's Illinois Marathon. Over 60 photos from the race that you should see.
Total cost of 2022 state and federal midterm elections may have exceeded $16 billion according to a OpenSecrets analysis. Federal candidates and political committees spent over $8 billion while state candidates, party committees, and ballot measure committees spent close to $8 billion.
Here are the five most expensive Senate races this year according to OpenSecrets. This includes both general election and primary candidates together with the outside groups supporting them, such as the national parties and Super PACs:
