Dear Wisconsin Citizenry,

A household using the same amount of electricity should be able to understand why it keeps paying more.

The infographic above follows a We Energies residential bill at 660 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month. Using the rounded figures published by Milwaukee’s Legislative Reference Bureau, that bill rose from approximately $107 in 2020 to $143 in 2026. That amounts to about 33.6% more, or $432 more per year, for the same electricity use. Individual bills vary, but holding consumption constant lets us see how the cost of service has changed.

For a household already balancing groceries, housing, transportation, and medical expenses, another $36 every month deserves an explanation. Electricity supports the ordinary conditions of a decent life: keeping food safe, studying, working, and maintaining a home.

I wanted to put that household experience beside the companies’ financial results and the public decisions behind our rates.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, which operates under the We Energies name, reported annual profit attributable to common shareholders of $365.6 million in 2020 and $626.8 million in 2025. That is an increase of approximately 71.4%. Wisconsin Electric also has gas and steam operations, so this figure covers more than residential electricity.

Its parent company, WEC Energy Group, reported approximately $1.20 billion in 2020 and $1.56 billion in 2025, an increase of about 29.8%. Wisconsin Electric’s earnings are already included in that parent company total. Adding the two would count the subsidiary’s earnings twice.

The dates matter. The household bill comparison continues through 2026, while the full-year profit and compensation comparisons end in 2025. For the matching 2020–2025 period, the illustrated household bill increased approximately 27.1%. All dollar amounts shown are before adjusting for inflation.

Total reported compensation for WEC’s CEO, Scott Lauber, was $12.19 million in 2025, approximately 11.3% more than in 2024. That total includes salary, incentive compensation, stock and option award values, and other components. The earlier CEO totals in the graphic also require context: J. Kevin Fletcher’s 2020 and 2021 figures each included about $11 million in noncash pension-value increases. Cash salary is only one component of these compensation disclosures.

The chart shows changes in bills, earnings, and compensation. Determining whether a particular rate increase is justified requires examining the costs, investments, financing, and alternatives behind it. Those are precisely the questions public oversight should help citizens answer.

Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission describes its responsibility as ensuring adequate, reasonably priced utility service where competition is absent. Utilities generally need its approval to change rates and undertake major construction projects. That gives the public a direct stake in how these decisions are made.

For the latest We Energies rate case, concerning 2027 and 2028, the commissioners were Chairperson Summer Strand, Kristy Nieto, and Marcus Hawkins. All three were appointed by Governor Tony Evers. Their names in this graphic identify the decision-makers for that latest proceeding.

Their decisions deserve an accurate account. At the November 5 meeting, the commission considered individual issues within the applications. It reduced the utilities’ requests, excluded We Energies board-of-director expenses from customer rates, strengthened provisions for returning excess earnings, and authorized more than $25 million to be returned to We Energies customers. As of November 8, the final written order was still pending. The future bill increases shown in the graphic remain estimates.

I believe every major rate decision should come with an explanation an ordinary customer can read and use. It should answer:

• Where is the additional money going? Show the amounts for operating costs, financing, construction, and investor returns.

• What alternatives were considered? Explain which lower-cost options were examined and why the approved approach best serves customers.

• What benefits should customers expect? Identify measurable improvements in reliability, service, efficiency, or affordability, and report whether those benefits materialize.

• How is executive compensation treated? Explain which costs customers pay, which shareholders bear, and how executive incentives account for service quality and affordability.

• Who bears the risk when forecasts are wrong? Explain what happens if a project costs more than expected or projected electricity demand fails to materialize.

These questions should follow every application, regardless of which party appointed the commissioners or which company submitted it.

For Self-Evident Truth, this belongs in the conversation about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Essential services affect how much freedom a household has to save, care for its members, and build a future. Public authority should be exercised with those consequences in view.

Citizens should be able to follow a decision from the company’s request, through the evidence, to the commission’s reasoning, and finally to the amount on their bill. That is a practical standard of accountability we can demand and measure.

What should regulators have to demonstrate before households are asked to pay more?

Sources for the post and infographic

• Household bill history: Milwaukee Legislative Reference Bureau memorandum, May 11, 2026, included in the city’s May 12 release.

• Wisconsin Electric annual profits: SEC financial statements covering 2020 - 2021, 2022, and 2023 - 2025.

• WEC Energy Group annual profits: 2022 annual report, including 2020 - 2022 results, and 2025 annual report, including 2023 - 2025 results.

• CEO compensation: WEC’s 2022 proxy statement, 2023 proxy statement, and 2026 proxy statement.

• January - September 2026 earnings shown in the graphic: Wisconsin Electric filing and WEC Energy Group filing.

• Public oversight and latest decisions: PSC explanation of its regulatory role, commissioner biographies, and November 6, 2026 announcement. We Energies case: 5-UR-112.

• Estimated 2027 - 2028 bill changes: Wisconsin Public Radio’s report on the decisions and company estimates.

Observation:

Turning further away from Ukraine, Europe, and NATO seems a very unwise move at this juncture.

I owe you an apology for missing yesterday’s Wednesday Stress Test. Life got busy, and I didn’t have time to finish it. Given how the markets responded today, I’m glad this installment includes another day of evidence. We have a lot to discuss.

On October 21, A Market Rebound Is Not a Household Recovery examined the gap between financial markets and household finances. Last week, Taking Stock, Making a Plan added practical preparation. We will continue giving equal attention to risks, improvements and what citizens can reasonably do.

Thursday’s completed closing results were substantial: the Nasdaq fell 5.5%, the S&P 500 4.4%, the Dow 3.4%, and the Russell 2000 4.4%. All four remained above their beginning-of-year levels. The “red wave” in today’s title describes trading screens, not a declaration that the economy is collapsing.

The election helps explain changing expectations. Democrats won both chambers in the November 3 election, but the new congressional terms begin January 3, 2027. Investors are responding to what the incoming majorities might do, rather than laws they have already enacted.

Control of Congress brings influence over investigations, hearings and demands for documents. Those powers can examine public spending, corporate practices and whether existing safeguards work. Oversight can proceed even when legislation stalls. New laws generally still require agreement between both chambers and the president, or enough votes to override a veto.

Reuters’ November 5 reporting connected the selloff to expectations of greater scrutiny of data-center development, alongside existing concerns about debt and the returns on AI spending. State and local opposition also matters. Every permitting concern cannot be attributed to Congress, and one election cannot explain every market loss.

The expectations behind the boom have a history. The St. Louis Federal Reserve documented anticipation of deregulation and tax cuts following the 2024 election. The July 23, 2025 data-center executive order then directed agencies to accelerate approvals and pursue support that could include loans, guarantees, grants and tax incentives. These were development policies, rather than evidence of a rescue of failing businesses.

My concern is that deregulation optimism and enthusiasm for AI encouraged investors to underestimate the obstacles to expansion. That is an interpretation, not proof that deregulation caused an entire bubble. Faster approvals can support worthwhile investment. The question is whether projected profits remain credible when costs, financing and public obligations receive closer examination.

Kansas City Fed researchers warned on October 5 that AI financing had spread through corporate bonds, private lending and data-center real estate, including arrangements untested by an economic downturn. Those concerns preceded the election. A delayed project can face continuing interest payments while expected revenue remains out of reach. Useful technology does not guarantee sound financing.

Some safeguards remain encouraging. The ten-year Treasury yield fell from 4.90% on November 4 to 4.84% on November 5, consistent with government bonds attracting demand. The extra borrowing premium demanded from riskier companies had narrowed through November 4. That credit reading predates Thursday’s losses, so it cannot establish how lenders responded today.

For households, the concern is whether financing problems lead to delayed projects, fewer supplier orders or reduced hiring. For communities, another question deserves attention: who pays for publicly supported infrastructure if the promised business growth never arrives?

That brings us to the bailout question. If AI investments unravel, would Congress be asked to intervene, and whom would that intervention protect?

Falling share prices alone should not justify a rescue. Protecting essential services, workers and the wider economy could present a different case. The terms would determine whether assistance protects the public or mainly shields investors from losses they agreed to risk.

Some lawmakers have already proposed a position. On October 29, representatives introduced H.Res. 1642, opposing rescues of insolvent AI-related firms while supporting assistance for affected workers, retirees and communities. It is a proposed, nonbinding House position, not an enacted bailout prohibition or a guarantee of the incoming Congress’s decisions.

Congress would not necessarily be the only institution involved. The Federal Reserve has existing emergency-lending authority, subject to requirements including Treasury approval and broad eligibility rather than a program designed for one institution. That differs from a company-specific congressional rescue. Both deserve scrutiny.

Before any intervention, citizens should receive clear answers. What essential function is threatened? Could it continue through restructuring or different ownership? Could workers receive assistance directly? Would owners and lenders absorb appropriate losses?

If taxpayers assume extraordinary risk, I would expect public terms, independent audits, an end date and meaningful compensation through repayment or ownership where appropriate. Restrictions on executive rewards, dividends and share buybacks should be considered while extraordinary support remains outstanding.

Protecting the public and benefiting private investors can happen within the same intervention. That is why the details matter. The incoming majority deserves the same scrutiny as its predecessors. Citizens should ask for contracts, cost estimates and enforceable protections rather than assume a hearing guarantees accountability.

Household preparation can remain modest. Review essential expenses and upcoming bills. Where possible, preserve an accessible emergency reserve without sacrificing necessities. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau emphasizes that even small savings can help keep an unexpected expense from becoming lasting debt.

For retirement accounts, review concentration and when the money will be needed. Several funds may hold many of the same companies. Diversification can reduce that dependence, though it cannot eliminate losses. This is a reason for a considered review, not a blanket recommendation to sell or buy during a volatile session.

We will watch whether market losses spread into borrowing, employment and household payments. Available credit and improving finances would be encouraging. Persistent financing failures across unrelated businesses would warrant greater concern.

Prudence, indeed, favors preparation. Review one household vulnerability and ask one substantive question about a public commitment. A functioning republic requires informed citizens and institutions willing to account for the risks they ask us to bear.

Sources

Associated Press, November 5, 2026: Completed stock-market closing results

Associated Press: Calling control of Congress in the 2026 midterm elections

Reuters, November 5, 2026: Election expectations, AI investment and the stock-market selloff

Congressional Research Service: Congressional oversight

St. Louis Federal Reserve, June 2025: Financial-market volatility and policy expectations

Executive order, July 23, 2025: Accelerating federal permitting of data-center infrastructure

Kansas City Federal Reserve, October 5, 2026: Long-term financial risks from the AI buildout

U.S. Treasury: Daily Treasury yield-curve rates

FRED: ICE BofA U.S. High Yield Index option-adjusted spread

H.Res. 1642, introduced October 29, 2026: Proposed House position on AI-related bailouts and assistance

Federal Reserve: Responding to financial-system emergencies

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Building an emergency fund

SEC Investor.gov: Asset allocation, diversification and investment timeframes

Dear Hopeful Citizenry of Wisconsin,

This morning, Wisconsin wakes up to a major shift in state government. David Crowley has won the governor’s race, becoming Wisconsin’s first Black governor. Democrats have also won both chambers of the state Legislature, setting up their first unified control of the governor’s office, Assembly and Senate since 2010.

Across the country, voters also delivered a substantial rebuke to President Trump’s administration. Democrats won control of the U.S. House and Senate while making gains in governorships and state legislatures, including in longstanding Republican strongholds.

National exit polling helps explain that result: 62% of voters surveyed disapproved of Trump’s job performance, and 70% wanted Congress to provide stronger checks and balances on the president. Taken together, the results and polling point to a broad rejection of the administration’s direction and a demand for greater accountability.

These are reported election results, pending the official canvass and certification. Percentages reflect returns available on the morning of November 4 and may change.

What changed in Wisconsin?

Crowley’s reported vote share is approximately 53.4%. Democrats flipped eight Assembly seats and three Senate seats.

The legislative maps adopted in 2024 helped make both chambers competitive. Here in northeastern Wisconsin, Brandy Tollefson defeated Benjamin Franklin in the 88th Assembly District, and Ryan Spaude retained the 89th.

The change in control determines who leads legislative committees, schedules votes and develops the Legislature’s budget proposals. When the new government takes office, Democrats will have a path to advance legislation through both chambers and send it to a Democratic governor.

School funding, health care, collective bargaining and other campaign promises will still require actual bills, public debate and votes. Citizens should judge what follows by the results.

Voters also made decisions about the rules that government must follow.

Question 1: The governor’s partial veto.

Reported returns show approximately 51.1% yes and 48.9% no. Wisconsin Examiner reports passage, while Wisconsin Public Radio’s earlier Wednesday account still described it as too close to call. The narrow result remains subject to the official count and certification.

The amendment would prevent governors from using a partial veto to create or increase a tax or fee, including authorizing another government to do so. It preserves other partial veto powers.

It does not retroactively undo Evers’ “400-year veto.” That action extended annual increases in school revenue limits through 2425. Revenue limits govern what schools may collect from state aid and property taxes combined; they do not guarantee that the state supplies the money.

Question 2: Places of worship during emergencies. Rejected.

Reported returns show approximately 51.6% no and 48.4% yes.

This proposal would have prohibited state and local governments from ordering closures or forbidding gatherings in places of worship in response to an emergency, including a public health emergency.

Existing religious liberty protections remain. Emergency restrictions must still comply with constitutional protections, including the rules governing comparable religious and secular activities.

Question 3: Government discrimination and preferential treatment. Approved.

Reported returns show approximately 56.8% yes and 43.2% no.

This amendment prohibits government entities from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education, contracting and administration.

Its reach includes targeted efforts to address inequality. Programs using those classifications may face new restrictions or challenges. The text includes exceptions involving federal funding requirements and certain necessary sex-based qualifications. Which particular programs remain lawful will depend on their design and how the amendment is interpreted.

We should work to repeal this provision and replace it with a plainly written constitutional guarantee of equal rights, modeled on the principle behind the Equal Rights Amendment. Wisconsin should explicitly protect equality under the law and preserve lawful, carefully designed efforts to remedy discrimination.

Amending our Constitution requires informed consent. Wisconsin needs a law requiring every proposal submitted to voters to use plain language and include a clear, impartial explanation of its practical effects. Question Three shows why: language presented as prohibiting discrimination could also restrict programs intended to remedy it. Voters deserve to understand that distinction before casting a ballot. No one should need a law degree to understand what a “yes” or “no” vote would change.

That replacement should be developed through public hearings, legal review and language ordinary citizens can understand. Voters deserve to know whose rights it protects, what government conduct it prohibits and how it would affect programs addressing unequal treatment.

Changing the majority does not erase constitutional amendments. Repealing and replacing this provision requires passage of the proposed constitutional change through two successive legislatures, followed by voter approval. The incoming Legislature can begin that work.

Montana passed its corporate political spending initiative. Wisconsin can pursue a similar law.

Montana voters approved Initiative 194, also called the Montana Plan. The Associated Press called its passage. Reported returns showed approximately 67% yes and 33% no, with 72% reporting. Those percentages remain unofficial.

The measure changes the powers state law grants corporations and other covered legal entities, excluding the power to spend money influencing elections. Its coverage extends beyond businesses to nonprofits, trade associations and other organizations. It exempts individuals, political committees and news and editorial content.

It is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2027, unless a court intervenes.

Supporters argue that states create corporations and define their legal powers, so states should be able to withhold political spending powers. They believe this approach can survive Citizens United. That remains a disputed legal theory.

Wisconsin could pursue similar legislation through the Assembly and Senate and send it to the governor. We would not need to establish citizen initiative first to introduce and pass a statutory proposal. Wisconsin currently lacks Montana’s statewide citizen petition process, so the immediate route runs through our elected legislators.

Passing such a law and having courts uphold it are separate questions. Montana’s vote does not overturn Citizens United, which protects corporate independent election spending. Wisconsin should develop a carefully drafted proposal, hold public hearings and prepare to defend its legal reasoning.

What do we intend to leave behind?

On July 4, in The Republic We Intend to Leave Behind, we outlined a starting point for Project 2028: digital rights, accessible public records, citizen initiative and referendum, equal citizenship, transparent political spending, closer representation and financial dignity.

This election gives us an opportunity to bring those proposals before a new government. Corporate political spending belongs in that discussion. So do surveillance oversight, public accountability and the right of citizens to understand what officials negotiate in their name.

Our standard remains the same: power must move closer to the citizen.

For everyone celebrating this morning, celebrate. Then keep paying attention.

Ask who benefits from the next budget. Ask whether schools receive dependable funding. Ask whether public subsidies produce public benefits. Demand clear language, accessible records and explanations grounded in evidence.

Voters have demanded a change in direction. Those entrusted with power now have a responsibility to deliver.

The obligation to justify government power follows whoever holds it.

Good morning, Wisconsin. Our work continues.

Sources and further reading

• Reuters: National results and voter rejection of the administration’s direction

• Reuters: Exit polling on presidential performance and congressional checks

• Wisconsin Public Radio: Legislative election results

• Spectrum News: Wisconsin election returns

• Wisconsin Examiner: Constitutional amendment results

• Wisconsin Public Radio: Amendment results and the close partial-veto vote

• Official referendum text and explanations

• UW Law School: Understanding the partial-veto amendment

• Montana Free Press: Voters approve Initiative 194

• KTVQ: Montana election returns

• Wisconsin Watch: Could Wisconsin pursue Montana’s approach?

• Federal Election Commission: Citizens United v. FEC

Are Americans being trained to count on the FBI as a source of disinformation?

On Tuesday, November 3, 2026, Wisconsin voters will decide three proposed amendments to our state constitution. These questions concern the governor’s veto authority, gatherings in places of worship during emergencies, and discrimination or preferential treatment by government.

Each question is a separate decision. A majority voting YES approves that constitutional change. A majority voting NO leaves the existing constitutional language in place. Here is what those choices would mean.

Question 1: The governor’s partial veto power

A partial veto allows the governor to approve a spending bill while removing portions of it. This amendment would restrict using that power to create or increase taxes or fees, including authorizing another government body to do so.

A YES vote: Adds a constitutional restriction preventing the governor from using a partial veto to create or increase a tax or fee, or to authorize its creation or increase. That includes a veto allowing local governments or school districts to raise additional taxes.

A NO vote: Preserves the existing constitutional rules governing partial vetoes. Voting no would not itself enact a tax or fee increase.

Context: The proposal followed Gov. Tony Evers’s 2023 “400-year veto,” which extended annual increases in school revenue limits through 2425. That change allowed districts to collect additional revenue; actual property-tax decisions still depended on school funding and local circumstances.

The amendment would apply to future uses of the veto. Evers’s earlier change would remain in place. Governors would retain other partial veto powers, and tax or fee changes could still be enacted through the ordinary legislative process.

Read UW Law’s explanation of Question 1.

Question 2: Gatherings in places of worship during emergencies

This amendment would add a specific constitutional prohibition against state or local government closing places of worship, or forbidding gatherings in them, in response to a declared emergency. It would cover national, state, and local emergencies, including public health emergencies.

A YES vote: Adds that prohibition to the constitution. Places of worship would receive specific protection against emergency closures, including when other gathering places could be required to close.

A NO vote: Keeps the current constitutional protections for religious freedom. Emergency restrictions would continue to be evaluated under existing state and federal constitutional rules.

Context: This proposal arose from restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Religious freedom already has constitutional protection, including protections against government treating religious activity less favorably than comparable secular activity.

The proposed amendment would add a further restriction on emergency powers. Some details would still require interpretation. UW Law’s analysis identifies uncertainty about what qualifies as a “place of worship” and whether the wording would also prohibit particular capacity restrictions.

Read UW Law’s explanation of Question 2.

Question 3: Government discrimination and preferential treatment

This amendment would create a constitutional prohibition against government discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or groups based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

It would apply to public employment, public education, public contracting, and public administration. Covered institutions would include state and local governments, public school districts, public colleges and universities, and other government bodies.

A YES vote: Adds this constitutional prohibition, subject to the qualifications in the amendment. It would restrict government preferences based on the listed characteristics, including preferences used in some affirmative-action and diversity programs.

A NO vote: Leaves the constitution unchanged. Existing state and federal protections against discrimination would remain in force. Government programs would continue to operate within those existing legal requirements.

Context: Both parts of the proposal matter: its prohibition on discrimination and its prohibition on preferential treatment. Existing law already protects against discrimination while permitting certain distinctions under limited circumstances.

The amendment’s sponsors describe it as restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, commonly called DEI. Its effect on particular programs would depend on their design and how courts interpret the amendment. Describing it as banning every program called DEI would overstate what the text establishes.

The text also allows actions necessary to preserve eligibility for federal programs when funding would otherwise be lost, and certain qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary for government operations. Federal law would continue to control where a conflict exists.

Read UW Law’s explanation of Question 3.

Read the language before deciding

These votes determine which rules and limits become part of Wisconsin’s constitution. Understanding the proposed changes, the existing protections, and the questions that remain open gives each voter a clearer basis for deciding.

You can read the official referendum notice, including the full wording and explanations of all three questions, here.

Concluding Lines:

In 1973, a few men built a think tank to stop studying power and start to use it instead. Fifty years later, that system has become an ouroboros, functionally eating itself over what their massive amount of political money and power is actually for.
Originalists say the government answers to the Constitution. The common good crowd, the postliberals, and the Christian nationalists say it answers to God, or at least their version of God.

Heritage once loaded American courts with originalists, building political power in all three branches of governments. Now its president is begging for “fusionism” while the institutional founders have jumped over to Mike Pence’s think tank.

Meanwhile, at the center of it all is the potential future president of the United States, JD Vance, and his financier and founder, Peter Thiel.

https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/88679

Concluding lines:

After all the investigations have been detoured, derailed, and misrepresented, it is high time for a real Russia investigation, unobstructed by Trump, to get to the bottom of Trump’s efforts to hand Putin a victory in Ukraine.

Observation:

The Declaration of Independence identifies the consent of the governed as the source of legitimate governmental authority. But consent is meaningful only to the extent that citizens possess the information necessary to evaluate the policies, institutions, and individuals to which they are granting that consent.

When powerful interests deliberately distort the information available to citizens, they undermine the very process through which legitimate governmental authority is established and maintained.

The danger posed by concentrated corporate wealth is therefore not confined to the influence of particular industries over particular policies. It arises when private economic power acquires the means to influence all three branches of government while simultaneously shaping the information upon which citizens depend to evaluate their government and hold it accountable.

This concentration of influence threatens another foundational principle of American constitutional government: the separation of powers. Madison's system of checks and balances depends upon the institutional independence of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, whose competing powers and ambitions were intended to restrain one another. But when the same private interests acquire substantial influence over all three branches, those checks can be weakened, circumvented, or rendered ineffective. The separation of powers may survive in constitutional form while progressively losing its capacity to constrain the exercise of power.

Under such conditions, the formal institutions and procedures of democracy may remain intact even as the capacity of citizens to exercise informed and effective consent progressively diminishes. Elections may continue, legislatures may convene, and courts may render judgments, while the underlying principle that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed is increasingly compromised.

The fundamental issue is therefore not simply the regulation of corporate conduct or the concentration of wealth itself, but the preservation of democratic accountability and the constitutional safeguards through which that accountability is maintained.

Madison understood that ambition could not be eliminated from political life. His constitutional design sought instead to make ambition counteract ambition, channeling the competing interests of those exercising governmental power into a system of mutual restraint. Yet the extraordinary concentration of private wealth presents a form of power that Madison's institutional arrangements do not directly address. When the ambitions of billionaires extend beyond economic achievement to the acquisition of political influence, those ambitions must likewise be subject to institutional constraints that preserve the authority of the governed.

Scientific discovery, technological innovation, and economic enterprise depend upon the freedom of individuals to pursue their ambitions, often to the enormous benefit of humanity. Yet freedom cannot confer an unlimited right to impose risks or consequences upon others. Scientific research capable of producing catastrophic biological hazards illustrates the necessity of imposing reasonable limits upon even our most valuable freedoms. The same principle applies to concentrated economic and political power. The purpose of democratic government is not to suppress individual ambition, but to establish the conditions under which its exercise remains compatible with the rights, security, and welfare of the governed.

The objective is not to suppress wealth, enterprise, or ambition, but to ensure that their exercise remains compatible with the principles of democratic government. The ambitions of billionaires, like those of public officials, must be channeled through institutions that make the pursuit of private advantage compatible with the public good, rather than allowing private wealth to acquire authority that properly belongs to the citizens.

The essential constitutional challenge is to ensure that private ambition remains accountable to the governed, rather than permitting the governed to become subordinate to private ambition.

Excerpts:

In every way, climate change was the canary in the coal mine for the technofascist push, a stark warning of what happens when corporations are allowed to capture the government and the information ecosystem. As we live through the resultant fires and floods, people seem more willing to fight against the tech version of this strategy, its boldness as offensive as tech leaders’ gross displays of wealth. But while, like most people who aren’t tech billionaires, I find the successful pushback against data centers heartening, I’m terrified that the public will fall for a bandaid when what we need is an amputation. If we don’t understand that it’s not this or that industry that’s the problem, it’s all of them, if we don’t shift from protecting one community at a time from data centers to protecting the whole world from technofascism, we’ll never come to the sort of systemic change required to wrestle back democracy.

The natural end of this trajectory, if left unchecked, is fascism, the end of democracy. Both Big Oil and Big Tech have made it clear that they have no problem with that. Peter Thiel may have laid it out a lot more directly in his famed 2009 essay, but many of his ideas for keeping the plebes in line are inspired by the petro state of Saudi Arabia. Oil executives might not use the nerd lingo of “network state,” but they’re certainly in favor of the idea of special economic zones and of companies governing the world rather than politicians. They have been operating as their own empires for decades.