Posted By: David Watts

Can we talk for a minute about the hypocrisy in our politics? Because the selective outrage is getting ridiculous.

For weeks now, people have been screaming about Representative Jasmine Crockett supposedly taking money from AIPAC. It’s been blasted across social media like it’s the scandal of the century. But here’s the problem: the narrative being pushed isn’t even accurate. Yet people repeat it over and over because it fits the outrage they want to feel.

Meanwhile, something that actually deserves scrutiny is being completely ignored. James Talarico quietly accepted $60,000 from Miriam Adelson. Yes, that Miriam Adelson. The same Miriam Adelson who has poured enormous sums of money into Republican politics. The same billionaire donor who has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Donald Trump and other GOP candidates. The same political megadonor who openly bankrolls candidates she believes will advance her political priorities. And somehow that barely gets a mention. Think about that for a second.

When people think a Democrat took money from a pro-Israel group, the internet erupts with accusations and conspiracy theories. But when a Texas Democrat receives tens of thousands of dollars from one of the most powerful Republican megadonors in the country, suddenly everyone goes quiet. Why? Where is the outrage now?

Because if we’re going to have a conversation about money in politics, then let’s actually have the conversation honestly. Don’t cherry-pick the stories that fit your favorite narrative while ignoring the ones that make your side uncomfortable. Money in politics always comes with expectations. Nobody donates $60,000 to a politician out of pure generosity. Billionaires don’t write those kinds of checks because they just “believe in democracy.” They write them because they expect influence, access, or outcomes that align with their interests.

So the obvious question becomes: what exactly is Miriam Adelson expecting in return for that $60,000? That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s a fair question. Because when powerful donors invest in politicians, they’re not doing charity work. They’re making political investments.

And before anyone jumps in with the usual “well both sides take money,” yes — that’s exactly the point. Both sides do. Which is why pretending corruption only exists on the other side is intellectually dishonest. If people truly cared about getting big money out of politics, they’d apply the same standards across the board. They wouldn’t selectively rage about one politician while ignoring another doing the exact same thing. But that’s not what we’re seeing.

What we’re seeing is partisan outrage. Outrage that turns on and off depending on whether the story helps or hurts someone politically. It’s performative. Because if someone is genuinely concerned about political influence, then they should be asking questions about every major donation, not just the ones that trend on Twitter. So again: why is nobody talking about the $60,000 James Talarico accepted from Miriam Adelson? Why isn’t that being dissected the way other donations are?

Why isn’t every political commentator demanding transparency about what that money buys? And more importantly, why are voters so quick to accept these transactions as normal? We have reached a point where massive political donations barely raise eyebrows anymore. Billionaires funnel money into campaigns, PACs, and influence networks, and the public just shrugs. That should concern everyone.

Because the more normalized it becomes, the easier it is for wealthy donors to shape the political landscape behind the scenes. And it doesn’t matter whether the donor is liberal or conservative. The problem isn’t the ideology — the problem is the influence. When someone with enormous wealth can hand a politician a check worth more than many Americans make in a year, that relationship deserves scrutiny. Period.

So let’s stop pretending the issue only matters when it’s politically convenient. If people want accountability in politics, then they should demand it consistently. Not just when it scores points against someone they already dislike. Because selective outrage isn’t accountability. It’s just another form of political theater.