{"id":49688,"date":"2026-08-13T13:01:55","date_gmt":"2026-08-13T20:01:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=49688"},"modified":"2026-08-13T13:01:55","modified_gmt":"2026-08-13T20:01:55","slug":"the-medias-go-to-electability-experts-are-funded-by-wall-st-amazon-and-health-insurance-giants","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2026\/08\/13\/the-medias-go-to-electability-experts-are-funded-by-wall-st-amazon-and-health-insurance-giants\/","title":{"rendered":"The media\u2019s go-to \u2018electability\u2019 experts are funded by Wall St., Amazon, and health insurance giants"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Matt<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Posted in Politics and Movements: US<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The media is propping up \u201ccentrist\u201d analysts warning voters that the progressive and democratic socialist candidates winning elections are \u201cunelectable.\u201d But they\u2019re not disclosing that those analysts are funded by billionaires and mega-corporations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

by\u00a0Adam Johnson<\/a><\/strong> August 12, 2026 (therealnews.com)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Matt Bennett, Jonathan Cowan, and Jim Kessler, three of the five co-founders of Third Way. Photo By Chris Maddaloni\/Roll Call\/Getty Images.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As progressive, DSA, and DSA-adjacent candidates win primaries throughout the US, corporate media is rushing to prop up their favorite \u201ccentrist\u201d and \u201cmoderate\u201d critics\u2014who, ostensibly, are just looking out for the wellbeing of the Democratic Party\u2014to explain why these candidates people are voting for are actually dangerous and \u201cunelectable.\u201d What the media is refusing to do, on an institutional level, is disclose the glaring conflicts of interests these groups\u2014backed by billionaires, health insurance giants, pro-Israel lobbying firms, and massive corporations \u2014would have in attacking candidates who undermine their sponsors\u2019 bottom lines and ideological agendas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

As progressive, DSA, and DSA-adjacent candidates win primaries throughout the US, corporate media is rushing to prop up their favorite \u201ccentrist\u201d and \u201cmoderate\u201d critics\u2014who, ostensibly, are just looking out for the wellbeing of the Democratic Party\u2014to explain why these candidates people are voting for are actually dangerous and \u201cunelectable.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

As I noted in TRNN in June<\/a>, certain personalities and parties with blatant conflicts of interest are being boosted by US media\u2014presented as mere neutral observers who are Deeply Concerned About Electability\u2014to dump on insurgent candidates such as Claire Valdez, Darializa Avila-Chevalier, Melat Kiro and, most recently, Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed<\/a>. El-Sayed\u2019s primary victory in Michigan signaled serious upward momentum for the latest progressive insurgency within the Democratic Party\u2014and triggered a PR crisis for the Democratic establishment. That momentum was stemmed this week, if only for now, as DSA-endorsed candidate for Wisconsin Governor Francesca Hong was narrowly defeated\u2014a defeat that was reportedly due, in part, to voter concerns over \u201celectability.\u201d<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But who shapes \u201celectability\u201d perceptions in our media? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s examine a recent article in The New York Times,<\/em> which broke the news on August 6, in the wake of El-Sayed\u2019s primary victory, about a $15-million effort<\/a> by \u201cmoderate\u201d group Third Way to attack the DSA specifically and socialism more broadly (despite El-Sayed explicitly being neither a socialist nor a DSA member, but he still champions Medicare for All and cutting US support for  Israel, so the distinction to these groups is purely academic). In response to socialist and progressive primary wins, Third Way President Jonathan Cowan told the Times<\/em> he is \u201cpreparing for war\u201d against candidates he views as insufficiently \u201cmoderate.\u201d Central to Third Way\u2019s argument are supposed concerns over the \u201celectability\u201d of Democratic candidates facing MAGA Republicans in the November midterms\u2014a motive taken at face value by The New York Times<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Third Way does not publish their donors and refuses to answer media inquiries about who keeps their operation financially afloat.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Not once did Times<\/em> reporter Shane Goldmacher inquire about or address\u2014much less investigate and unearth\u2014who is funding this operation. The money is simply said to come from Third Way. But Third Way does not generate revenue. They are backed by specific interests. \u201cWho are these interests?\u201d seems like a fairly obvious question that a reporter should ask. Alas, it\u2019s not one Shane Goldmacher seems the least bit interested in. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So who is<\/em> backing Third Way? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third Way does not publish their donors and refuses to answer media inquiries about who keeps their operation financially afloat. But reporting<\/a> in The Nation<\/em> in 2013 revealed the group was being backed then by the US Chamber of Commerce, Deutsche Bank, Intel, the Business Roundtable, and the Pharma lobbying giant PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America). More recent digging by The Sludge<\/em><\/a> revealed major donors now include the Republican-run insurance industry front group Better Solutions for Healthcare, PhRMA, CVS Health, pharma giant Johnson & Johnson, and the Business Roundtable. Other major corporate backers include Entergy, Yum! Brands, Amazon, and Meta\u2013\u2013all corporations with much to lose in the event Congress passes measures to impose higher taxes on corporations and the rich, or to provide single-payer healthcare for all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, Goldmacher quotes two other \u201ccentrist\u201d groups in his Times<\/em> article\u2014the Center for New Liberalism and Welcome PAC\u2014without noting the patronage they receive from billionaire and corporate interests. The Center for New Liberalism, as I documented in 2023<\/a>, is a front group for Third Way Foundation (which also goes by the name Progressive Policy Institute) and is funded by ExxonMobil<\/a>, Big Pharma<\/a>, Big Tobacco<\/a>, Walmart<\/a>, and Amazon<\/a>. (The Third Way Foundation used to be related to the aforementioned Third Way, but is now its own independent corporate front group.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

WelcomePAC, for its part, is funded directly<\/a> by mega-billionaires: LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman; six different relatives and heirs of Walmart founder Sam Walton (the richest family in America); Bain Capital co-chairman Joshua Bekenstein; Rupert Murdoch\u2019s son James Murdoch; and Mark Heising, the founder of private equity firm Medley Partners, among others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Shouldn\u2019t these obvious conflicts of interest at least be mentioned? Noted in passing, maybe? Especially in an article specifically about one of these groups spending $15 million to attack \u201cthe left,\u201d shouldn\u2019t a reporter be asking where exactly the $15 million came from<\/em>?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Shouldn\u2019t these obvious conflicts of interest at least be mentioned? Noted in passing, maybe? Especially in an article specifically about one of these groups spending $15 million to attack \u201cthe left,\u201d shouldn\u2019t a reporter be asking where exactly the $15 million came from<\/em>? Or where the money behind these other Deeply Worried Centrist Groups comes from? Isn\u2019t it relevant to note Third Way\u2019s long history of being funded by Wall Street and the health insurance lobby? For a high school reporter, this would obviously be the first line of questions to ask. Presumably, Third Way didn\u2019t just manifest the money out of thin air\u2026 So who is footing the bill? And shouldn\u2019t potential voters know who is paying for this campaign, and others like it, to bombard them with falsely \u201cobjective\u201d arguments about who is and isn\u2019t \u201celectable\u201d in America? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Times<\/em> isn\u2019t alone. Recent softball coverage of, op-eds by, or interviews with Third Way and other \u201cmoderate groups\u201d in mainstream media also did not disclose who is bankrolling Third Way, which has quickly emerged as a Sensible Voice opposed to the \u201cradical left.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Shouldn\u2019t potential voters know who is paying for this campaign, and others like it, to bombard them with falsely \u201cobjective\u201d arguments about who is and isn\u2019t \u201celectable\u201d in America? <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Last week, CBS News did a five-and-a-half-minute puff interview<\/a> with Third Day\u2019s Jon Cowan, in which Cowan was given free rein to bash the DSA and El-Sayed without mentioning that Cowan\u2019s salary is paid by private health insurance companies and other corporate America behemoths that would all stand to lose a lot of money and power in the event Medicare For All became a mainstream Democratic position. The Washington Post<\/em>, likewise, published an op-ed<\/a> by Cowan and Third Way Executive Vice President Matt Bennett the next day, in which they lambast El-Sayed and other progressives\u2019 supposed lack of \u201celectability\u201d without disclosing who backs their astroturf \u201cthink tank.\u201d Earlier that same week, CNN ran an otherwise balanced segment on \u201cThe Left Insurgency<\/a>\u201d that nevertheless featured an interview with Cowan and introduced Third Way as a \u201cDemocratic centrist group\u201d without mentioning the corporate funders paying him to go on CNN and lament about \u201celectability concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Why is discussion of \u201celectability\u201d almost entirely being shaped by astroturfed corporate front groups with obvious conflicts of interest? <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not that US media should never report on potential \u201celectability\u201d dynamics\u2014with both the center and left\u2013\u2013but why not turn to parties with fewer obvious conflicts of interest? Why not consult independent pollsters or academics? Why not ask Left-aligned experts as well as those on the dole of the Health Insurance lobby? Why is discussion of \u201celectability\u201d almost entirely being shaped by astroturfed corporate front groups with obvious conflicts of interest? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Journalism is supposed to, at least in theory, be about questioning the motives of the powerful, following the money, and connecting the dots. It\u2019s not supposed to be the practice of credulously reprinting the opinions of powerful people presenting themselves as having only the noblest of motivations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But here\u2019s the rub: these billionaire- and corporate-backed groups, and their media mouthpieces, can\u2019t talk about the forces propping them up<\/em>, because to do so would give the game away. They can\u2019t openly discuss or defend their attendant ideologies of capitalism, deregulation, imperialism, and Zionism because these are increasingly unpopular among the Democratic voters whose interests they allegedly care about. So what\u2019s left? If they can\u2019t speak openly about their elite patrons and make arguments from first principles, all that\u2019s left is feigned concern over the \u201celectability\u201d of the \u201cother guy.\u201d That\u2019s why it\u2019s all they talk about. They can\u2019t make arguments for \u201ccentrism\u201d or against Medicare for All, so all they have is a nonstop posture of Deep Concern Over Electability, which, over time, gets repeated into becoming conventional wisdom despite no empirical basis for the narrative that \u201cmoderate\u201d \u201ccentrists\u201d are more electable. It apparently doesn\u2019t matter how many times the centrist wing of the party loses Congress or blows it to Trump, they still claim, through sheer assertion and dogma and endless media spots, that they are uniquely positioned to \u201cdefeat republicans.\u201d And this is a posture our media pundits echo without an ounce of skepticism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

It apparently doesn\u2019t matter how many times the centrist wing of the party loses Congress or blows it to Trump, they still claim, through sheer assertion and dogma and endless media spots, that they are uniquely positioned to \u201cdefeat republicans.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u201cModerate\u201d groups like Third Way are fronts for corporate America and billionaire interests; they\u2019re not just aw-shucks<\/em> groups of concerned citizens with organic worries about Democrats losing in November. Those claiming to be journalists should ask deeper questions, follow the money, and provide readers essential context that the person being held up as a neutral\u2014if vaguely ideological\u2014expert on winning elections is sponsored by the very health insurance industry that stands to lose a great deal should the progressives they\u2019re bashing ever ascend to positions of power.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Real News Network<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Independent \u00b7 Nonprofit \u00b7 Nonpartisan<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The journalism that
refuses<\/em>\u00a0to be
bought. Funded by
people like you.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Donate Now \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Related<\/em><\/a><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

US media presents centrist panic over progressive wins as mere post-ideological \u2018electability concerns\u2019\u00a0<\/a><\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

A new, centrist Uncommitted Movement has emerged<\/a><\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Sanders, Lee move to rein in super PACs amid growing billionaire grip on US elections<\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Republish This Story<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Creative<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adam Johnson<\/a><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Adam Johnson hosts the Citations Needed<\/a> podcast and writes at The Column<\/a> on Substack. Follow him @adamjohnsonCHI<\/a>.More by Adam Johnson<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Posted in Politics and Movements: US The media is propping up \u201ccentrist\u201d analysts warning voters that the progressive and democratic socialist candidates winning elections are \u201cunelectable.\u201d But they\u2019re not disclosing that those analysts are funded by billionaires and mega-corporations. by\u00a0Adam Johnson August 12, 2026 (therealnews.com) Matt Bennett, Jonathan Cowan, and… Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2088],"tags":[2373,2374],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49688"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49688"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49688\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":49689,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49688\/revisions\/49689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}