The idea of a property-owning democracy has long roots in American political thought. In their book, The Citizen's Share, Joseph R. Blasi, Richard B. Freeman and Douglas Kruse argue that the Founding Fathers wanted everyone (well, everyone who was white and male) to own a small slice of property. Both Madison and Washington praised the relatively equal distribution of property in the United States (compared with Europe). Thomas Jefferson wrote, "It is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible be without a little portion of land.
The 2016 presidential election will be the second since the court's disastrous Citizens United decision and the first without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act in place. That means big donors will have more sway over elected officials to dictate the agenda.
When Bartels compared the policy preferences of the rich and poor to actual policy results (with controls) his results were disturbing. He finds that low-income preferences had virtually no effect on policy outcomes.
The explosion of “dark money” spent in the political system in the United States threatens racial equity in the United States making it harder for Blacks and other minorities to gain a foothold in the middle class and fully participate in the democracy, according to a recent report by Demos, a public policy group.
Demos Vice President of Policy and Legal Strategies Brenda Wright released the following statement:
"Tonight, in his last State of the Union, President Obama lifted up the importance of fixing our politics so that all voices can be heard in our democracy.
"He noted how too many people feel that 'the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.' To live up to our democratic tenets, President Obama called for reducing the influence of money in politics and modernizing our elect
“For let it be agreed that a government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has an equal voice in the direction of its concerns…” Thomas Jefferson Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816
Buckley v. Valeo is a January 30, 1976 Supreme Court case that struck down key pieces of Congress’ post-Watergate money in politics reforms, and set the structure of modern campaign finance law.
Next year won’t just mark the most expensive and big money-dominated election in U.S. history--it is also the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court case that set the basic structure of campaign finance law. In Buckley at 40, Demos Counsel and Senior Advisor Adam Lioz examines how 1976’s Buckley v. Valeo launched a vicious cycle of political, economic, and racial inequality that endures today.
Yesterday, Sen. Sanders offered a solid, detailed plan to combat big money in politics. His proposal means that heading into Saturday’s debate all three Democratic candidates now have specific policy agendas aimed at addressing the unprecedented influx of big money into U.S. elections.
Adam Lioz, Demos Counsel and Senior Advisor, Policy & Outreach, issued the following statement in response to Governor O'Malley's plan to address the role of big money in politics:
eddy Roosevelt famously argued that, when it comes to foreign policy, one should “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” Similarly, an apt summation of the political inclinations of billionaires might be, “Speak softly, and carry a big check.”
Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, senior counsel for Demos, praised Oklahoma for agreeing to address what she said was “a disconcerting number of people who should have gotten voter-registration assistance and didn’t get it at all.” Demos and other organizations pursued the case based on statistics showing a disproportionately low number of low-income people who were registered in Oklahoma, which sparked an investigation.
The dominance of big money in our politics makes it far harder for people of color to exert political power and effectively advocate for their interests as both wealth and power are consolidated by a small, very white, share of the population.
An analysis of competitive House races in the 2014 midterms by MASSPIRG and the think tank Demos confirmed that such a program could fundamentally change the balance of power in Congressional elections.
Citizens United just added fuel to an already blazing fire—and returning to the “glory days” before the decision will not create an America where we all have an equal say over the government decisions that affect our lives.
When Congress narrowly missed another government shutdown in December by passing the “cromnibus” bill, much of the press coverage focused on Capitol Hill’s ongoing dysfunction. However, buried inside the bill was yet another blow to campaign finance regulations, dramatically increasing the amount of money donors can give to political parties. A single couple can now give up to $3.1 million to a political party over a two-year election cycle, a six-fold increase.
Two new studies by political scientists offer compelling evidence that the rich use their wealth to control the political system and that the U.S. is a democratic republic in name only.