Matt Stoller argues that the upcoming elections in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia are not merely local contests, but the first real stress test for a political shift that could terrify corporate America. He posits that for the first time in a decade, the electorate is forcing politicians to address the root cause of unaffordability: unchecked monopoly power and utility rates. This is a departure from the usual cycle of cultural distraction, offering a rare glimpse into a potential populist realignment driven by economic desperation rather than identity politics.
The Failure of the Elite Consensus
Stoller begins by dismantling the narrative that the political landscape is static. He reminds us that the post-2020 era saw a brief moment where elites believed the "Trump experiment" had ended in disaster, leading to a convergence of corporate and progressive agendas on issues like censorship and pandemic restrictions. However, the 2021 elections in Virginia and New Jersey shattered this illusion. Stoller writes, "Corporate power was nowhere to be found at a political question, even as the net worth of the top 0.1% doubled from 2020-2025." This observation is crucial; it highlights a disconnect where wealth concentration accelerated while political discourse remained fixated on social culture wars.
The author suggests that the public's anger was misdirected initially, latching onto restrictions like school closures rather than the economic structures enabling them. "It wasn't that it didn't matter... but since neither party discussed this multi-trillion dollar transfer of wealth, the public latched on to a more inchoate rage," Stoller notes. This framing is effective because it explains why the establishment felt safe ignoring antitrust enforcement for so long. They believed the public didn't care about monopoly power, only social issues. However, this overlooks the possibility that the public was simply waiting for a candidate who could articulate the economic grievance clearly.
Corporate power was nowhere to be found at a political question, even as the net worth of the top 0.1% doubled from 2020-2025.
The New York Flashpoint
The core of Stoller's argument centers on the New York City mayoral race, where candidate Zohran Mamdani is challenging the status quo. Stoller describes this as a "straight-forward class-based fight" where Mamdani is explicitly targeting the electric utility giant Consolidated Edison, a company whose history of rate hikes and regulatory capture has long been a flashpoint in New York politics. Stoller writes, "He's campaigned with Lina Khan, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and discussed dealing with the massive electric utility rates of ConEdison." This is a significant shift; for years, even progressive Democrats avoided attacking utility monopolies for fear of alienating donors.
The establishment's reaction reveals their fear. Stoller points out that "none of the major corporate-funded Democratic party leaders... have endorsed Mamdani," and the Wall Street Journal warned that a Mamdani victory could cause "the entire free world [to] totter on its foundations." This hyperbolic reaction from the financial press underscores the threat: if a local politician can successfully campaign on breaking up monopolies, the entire architecture of corporate influence is at risk. Critics might argue that focusing on municipal elections overstates their national impact, but Stoller counters that these races serve as the only reliable barometer of public sentiment outside of flawed polling.
The National Ripple Effect
The commentary expands to New Jersey and Virginia, where even moderate Democrats are being forced to adopt populist rhetoric. In New Jersey, Representative Mikie Sherrill is declaring a "state of emergency" on utility hikes. Stoller highlights her direct attack on companies like PSE&G and JCP&L, noting that she is moving beyond "strongly worded letter[s]" to actual policy threats. This is a direct response to the rising cost of living, with the national average residential electricity rate up 5 percent in July alone. Stoller writes, "An environment of anger at corporate America isn't great for these kinds of candidates," suggesting that the political calculus has fundamentally changed.
Similarly, in Virginia, the race is being shaped by the need to address data centers and their impact on the power grid. Stoller notes that former CIA official Abigail Spanberger is now forced to discuss "the problem of data centers and electricity rates," a topic that would have been irrelevant in previous cycles. This shift is driven by the reality that the "big money institutions and legislative frameworks are favorable to finance and monopoly," and politicians can no longer ignore the cost to the consumer. Stoller argues that if these elections result in wins for populism, "then all bets are off," as the focus will shift from creative regulatory tweaks to "structuring law and policy directly with raw political power."
If that dynamic changes, and these elections suggests that's starting to happen, then all bets are off.
The author's analysis of the "modern anti-monopoly movement" is particularly sharp. He argues that for the last ten years, the strategy has been to argue among elites using existing legal tools, but this has failed because "corporate power just wasn't an issue in elections." The potential breakthrough is the realization that "it won't just be a matter of creatively using stuff that already exists, but actually structuring law and policy directly with raw political power." This is a profound distinction between technocratic reform and genuine political upheaval.
Bottom Line
Stoller's strongest argument is that the political center of gravity is shifting from cultural signaling to direct economic confrontation with corporate monopolies, driven by the tangible pain of rising utility and healthcare costs. The piece's biggest vulnerability is its reliance on the assumption that local victories will translate into federal structural change, a leap that history suggests is difficult to make. However, the evidence of establishment panic and the forced pivot of moderate candidates suggests this is a moment worth watching closely.
The modern anti-monopoly movement is about 10 years old. And since we made the case to eliminate corporate power in America, the strategy has been to make arguments among elites and in media outlets, using pre-existing legal tools like antitrust and consumer protection law. But all major policy choices... have been structured without the anti-monopoly lens. Oligarchy got worse, even as our arguments gained credence.