View this post on the web at [link removed]

A long-simmering factional debate among liberals over the Abundance movement burst into public view this week, with progressive champion Elizabeth Warren taking sharp aim at an agenda she warns has gone far beyond truisms about efficiency and good governance.
In a blistering National Press Club speech [ [link removed] ] Monday, Warren warned Democrats that the Abundance movement had become billionaire-backed rebrand of deregulation—one designed to serve major donors and corporate interests while neutering the party’s ability to win over swing-voters angry at a political and economic system rigged against them.
Warren followed up the speech with a sharp letter to Senate colleagues co-signed by Senators Chris Murphy, Adam Schiff, and Tina Smith.
“Billionaires and corporate interests have captured our political system, but our party’s anemic response to the rigging of our democracy and economy in favor of the ultra-wealthy has eroded our credibility with working people,” the letter [ [link removed] ] said. “Bland policy proposals” will fail, and leaders must call out “who is getting screwed and who is doing the screwing.”
Warren’s broadside against Abundance called out what many Democrats have missed: The rapid growth of a billionaire-backed echo chamber of think-tanks and advocacy groups rallying under the ‘Abundance’ moniker to push their own agenda, while diluting the economic populism the party’s own pollsters, labor allies, and many candidates say is needed to win.
“When this agenda is about making government more effective, count me in,” Warren said, name checking her work on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a free IRS tax filing system the Trump administration scuttled, and efforts to streamline hearing aid regulations—all of which faced strong corporate opposition.
“But many in the Abundance movement are doing little to call out corporate culpability and billionaire influence in creating and defending those very inefficiencies,” Warren said. “Instead, Abundance has become a rallying cry—not just for a few policy wonks worried about zoning—but for wealthy donors and other corporate-aligned Democrats who are putting big-time muscle behind making Democrats more favorable to big businesses.”
Open Markets Institute and The Revolving Door Project have tracked [ [link removed] ] millions in shadow advocacy from Big Tech, Big Oil and other corporate interests aimed at influencing the party, including hundreds of millions of dollars from tech and finance interests for a deregulatory push under the Abundance banner. Those efforts include standing up cutouts like the Abundance Institute, seeded by the Koch network, which is focused on clearing a path for AI datacenters.
“Abundance advocates who care about fixing our government and streamlining regulations should divorce themselves from the billionaire-backed ‘faux-bundance’ agenda,” says Open Markets Institute Legal Director Sandeep Vaheesan, who’s argued [ [link removed] ] the party would be better served by rediscovering the trust-busting and nationbuilding lessons of the New Deal. “Corporate power and short-termism are big parts of what got us is a big part of what got us into this mess in the first place. Reheated Reagan-era deregulation is both bad policy and bad politics.”
Warren’s not the only one who worries that embracing Abundance will be an electoral disaster.
When we asked veteran pollster Celinda Lake whether she’s tested Abundance against economic populism with swing-voters, she was emphatic: “We have. It loses.” Warren herself pointed to polling from Harris campaign veterans which showed much the same thing [ [link removed] ].
Lake, who served as Biden’s lead pollster in 2020 and has previously helped win tough senate races in Michigan, Montana and Alaska, lauded Warren’s speech as outlining “a winning narrative that gets the most populist independent voters and motivates our voters and activists.” While Abundance might feel right in the beltway, she says, it’s the “wrong answer” for swing voters who feel a loss of political and economic control.
Democratic messaging guru Anat Shenker-Osorio strongly agreed. “My view on Abundance is that it’s embarrassing,” she said. “Distraction is the kindest possible thing I can say.”
“You know the canard about rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic?,” Shenker-Osorio added. Abundance is shopping for fabric swatches for the upholstery on the deck chairs on the Titanic.”
Pulling Back the Curtain on Abundance
That Warren devoted roughly a quarter of a major speech on the urgency of economic populism to dissecting the Abundance debate is significant. In her view, the Abundance movement is a central obstacle to embracing a populist platform and cuts to the core of whether Democrats can rebuild durable election-winning coalitions in 2026 and beyond.
In Abundance, Warren fears, “it looks like the corporate tycoons have found one more way to stop the Democratic Party from tackling a rigged system.”
But while the Abundance debate has gained a foothold on X and newspaper opinion pages, few if any candidates running in tough races have made it a centerpiece of their campaign. Populist frontline incumbents and challengers like Mary Peltola, Pat Ryan, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez might have used the word but are mostly opting [ [link removed] ] for localist, populist, anti-corporate rhetoric and policies
There’s good reason for that: In polling Lake shared [ [link removed] ], Abundance massaging ranked dead last in a battery of message tests on the “missing” voters the party needed in 2024. Candidates understand swing-voter dynamics better than those in the DC beltway, Lake said.
Warren’s concern, then, appears to be that the Abundance movement has its sights aimed at party elites, big donors, and high-level decisionmakers. “A tepid nibble-around-the-edges approach,” she said, “has been a good way to appeal to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as they decide which primary candidates they will support. But it doesn’t take a political genius to conclude that in a democracy when the choice is between making the rich richer and helping everybody else, winning elections is about choosing everybody else.”
Clearly aiming to kick off an intra-party fight, Warren took direct aim at some of the party’s biggest donors by name, including Meta co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, Netscape co-founder and Venture Capitalist Marc Andreessen, Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison, and LinkedIn co-founder and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman.
These tech-titans who have poured money into the Abundance movement epitomize, in Warren’s telling, a group which “might align with Democrats on some social issues” and “certainly are not MAGA Republicans,” but are also intent on neutering the party’s economic platform “in exchange for their financial support.”
Warren Delivers the Autopsy the DNC Wouldn’t
In recent years, these donors have pushed the party to curb populist attacks, to pursue deregulation and tax breaks, and to stack courts and agencies with corporate lawyers reluctant to enforce the law against big-business—actions that both undermine democracy and harm the party’s credibility with swing-voters.
It also comes at a cost to the credibility of the true believers within the Abundance movement. As Open Markets has argued, the influence of Big Tech donors helps explain the movement’s curious silence [ [link removed] ] on Silicon Valley’s impact on innovation, competition and the health of our democracy. Other corporate interests, likewise left unchallenged, have distorted housing and energy markets [ [link removed] ] to restrict supply and limit abundance.
For a case study on how donor power threatens the party’s electoral prospects, Warren singled out Reid Hoffman: The billionaire donor pressed the Harris campaign to fire FTC Chair Lina Khan, even as her crackdown on corporate abuse enjoyed broad public support [ [link removed] ], and has been advocating for the party to take a laissez faire approach to AI data centers and energy costs. In the face of soaring electricity bills, donors like Hoffman are pushing “Democratic candidates to stand with the billionaires for higher costs,” Warren warned.
She called out donors who pushed the Harris campaign to retreat from its centerpiece price-gouging policy—even though it was one of their top testing messages among the alienated voters they needed to win.
She also took aim at former President Joe Biden and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer for failing to rein in pro-corporate saboteurs like Kyrsten Sinema, who “faced no consequences from her president or her leaders in Washington” for tanking the minimum wage increase—a key plank of the party’s economic platform. Sinema went on to an unceremonious exit from the Senate after a single term, declining to run for reelection after her support collapsed across the political spectrum.
Instead of arguing the party needs to be more like Sinema, Warren’s diagnosis—strikingly similar [ [link removed] ] to what pollsters told us just weeks ago—was that donor influence and gun-shy politics have, over time, eroded the party’s trust with working-class voters and their belief that the party was capable of taking on the wealthy and well-connected.
How Team Abundance Misread Warren
While few have embraced it outright, many mainstream liberals and progressives have nodded toward Abundance—dropping the term into speeches or triangulating it with economically populist rhetoric. But Warren’s warning marks the most direct acknowledgement and challenge to the campaign yet.
The intervention from such a widely respected party elder signals that aligning with the Abundance movement, and accepting support from the rapidly growing network of super PACs its billionaire proponents are funding, risks becoming a political liability in the upcoming primary season.
That Warren in particular would fire an opening shot seems to have caught many off guard.
Many Abundance proponents—quick to claim validation from any favorable mention by a progressive lawmaker—had chalked her up as a supporter. In part because Warren is seen as a ‘policy nerd worried about zoning’ in much the same vein as Ezra Klein himself.
Just last year, Warren’s Build Now Act formed a key plank of the Scott-Warren ROAD to Housing Act, a rare bipartisan supply-focused package designed to increase housing construction and cut regulatory bottlenecks. Abundance proponents hailed [ [link removed] ] it as “the first comprehensive bid to tackle the roots of America’s affordability crisis in a generation.”
But Warren’s persona as a policy wonk, Senate conciliator, and the party’s pragmatic, insider progressive is only half the story. A former Republican radicalized by the corporate capture of control over US market systems, Warren has long been preoccupied with the power of big-money—building her career taking on Wall Street and calling out how corporate America rigs markets, jacks up prices, writes its own rules, and distorts political incentives. As Warren regularly reminds audiences, she isn’t anti-capitalism, she just wants capitalism with sensible rules.
Given Warren’s credibility with both progressives and many liberal Abundance advocates, this moment could be an opportunity for some in the Abundance movement to pivot away from a billionaire-backed deregulatory push and towards a program of smart regulatory reform.
That’s not how it’s generally landed online, where Warren’s intervention has been met with bewilderment, annoyance and dismissal. Abundance cheerleader Matt Yglesias, who recently wrote a post [ [link removed] ] titled ‘Let’s all practice billionaire positivity,’ argued that it would be a mistake to kick out tech and finance elites out of the party’s “big tent.”
For their part, those in constant contact with swing voters strongly agree with Warren that a strong, populist economic platform that enrages the donor class instead of catering to them is the best path forward.
“This entire idea that you need to deliver some kind of milquetoast platform that’s blandly inoffensive to everyone is just tone deaf to people’s struggles. It doesn’t really matter what you say because it just won’t break through,” Shenker-Osorio said.
“For a big tent to actually stand you need a pole,” she added. “Otherwise, it’s just a tarp that smothers you.”

Unsubscribe [link removed]?