Happy Monday! Twenty-two days to go.

Democrats are running on two timelines right now.

The first one ends on November 3. It's measured in ballots and dollars, and this week it speeds up. You'll see how in the week ahead, right below.

The second timeline starts the day after the election. It's about what Democrats, if they win, would actually do with power. 

Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego is already thinking about it, with an economic plan he says is meant to shape the party's agenda if Democrats take the Senate.

The first timeline gets nearly all the attention three weeks out, and it should. But don't sleep on the second one: Often, decisions made by a party before a successful election have huge consequences for what comes next.

Below, you'll find the Republican ad advantage voters don't seem to be noticing, the Virginia district that just became a Toss Up, why it's legal to lie in a campaign ad, and the data center tax in Gallego's plan.

— Elias Isquith

On the first timeline, this week is about votes and money. The second timeline mostly happens off the calendar, in plans Democrats are already drawing up for what they'd do with a majority. All times are Eastern.

The first timeline (Election Day)

Tuesday:

Thursday:

Any day:

The second timeline (After Election Day)

We changed five ratings last week, and all five moved toward Democrats. The one that shook up our Top 25 was Virginia's 1st District. There, Democrat Shannon Taylor's race against Republican Rep. Rob Wittman (VA-01) moved from R Advantage to Toss Up.

By the campaigns' own count, Wittman has raised nearly twice as much, $4.05 million to $2.14 million, in a district Trump carried by five points. So the move doesn't mean we think Taylor is ahead. It means we no longer think Wittman is.

Reminder: Democrats need a net gain of three seats for a House majority.

To find out which New York district Republicans just pulled money out of, and where they sent it, read the full rankings at The Caucus.

Clara C. in Wisconsin asks:

Thanks, Clara! A smart question that is only going to become more relevant as this election progresses — and as AI becomes further embedded in the murkier corners of politics in general.

That said, I'm going level with you: the honest answers here are a bummer. Can anything be done? Not really, and mostly on purpose. 

How is it legal? Because courts treat "political speech" as close to untouchable (which in the post Citizens United world, is a lot less commendable in practice than it may sound). 

An example: For decades, Ohio made campaign lies a crime. Then, in 2016, a federal appeals court struck the law down. Judging what's true in a campaign, the reasoning went, is the voters' job.

And there's certainly wisdom there. If you're a pro-democracy voter, you wouldn't want the Trump Administration getting to decide which ads are "true." 

But obviously we are in a situation (and this was true before AI) where the abstract principle has been twisted into something, in practice, that hurts rather than supports a healthy democracy.

What protections are left mostly depend on who paid for the ad.

If it's a candidate's own campaign, TV stations can't touch it. Federal law bars them from censoring candidate ads, and the Supreme Court has ruled that means they can't be sued over them, either.

If it's a super PAC or another outside group, stations can take the ad down. That's why campaigns bother to send stations cease-and-desist letters about outside groups' ads they say are false.

Wisconsin even requires paid political ads to disclose whether they were made with AI. 

But that rule doesn't reach social media — and you can see what a major loophole that is when you look at, say, Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden (WI-03), who has been posting AI videos of Democrat Rebecca Cooke saying things she never said.

A normal attack ad tells you what someone else thinks of a candidate. These show the candidate herself saying it. You're not wrong, Clara, to think that's a major difference.

Of course, Cooke could sue for defamation. But she'd have to prove Van Orden knew he was lying or didn't care either way. Her lawyers already sent him a cease-and-desist letter, and we shouldn't exaggerate how much those can do: Van Orden answered with an AI video of a red duck yelling, "Cease and desist!"

That's really the problem in miniature. 

For now, the main check on a lying ad is the other side calling it a lie, and voters deciding who to believe.

Have a question of your own? Send it to [email protected].

Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego isn't on the ballot this year. As Russell Payne reports, he's put out a sweeping economic plan anyway.

It would raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour and make employers pay double for overtime instead of time-and-a-half. With five parts and dozens of proposals, it reads less like a campaign promise than a platform. Gallego hasn't been shy about which campaign he might run it in.

To find out what Gallego wants to do about fake job listings, read Russell Payne's full story at The Caucus.

We're 100% independent and reader supported. The more members we have, the more coverage we can provide. Become a founding member of The Caucus today.

We're your go-to source for what's actually happening inside the Democratic Party. We don't just write about the news of the day, we tell you what will matter tomorrow. We want to hire more reporters to cover campaigns, well-sourced journalists in Washington to write about what's happening on the Hill, and analysts to break down all of the races you care about. But we need your help to do it.

Please consider becoming a member today. It's just $10/month or $90 for a year.