Supreme Court cases clearly demonstrate that under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government may not coerce state and local governments to enforce federal law through threats to withdraw federal funding.
What do people mean by “money in politics” or “campaign finance reform”? Running for office requires money—for staff, travel, TV ads, etc. In many countries, much of the cost of public elections is paid for by public funds, so the voters control the process and candidates are only accountable to their constituents. But in most places in the U.S., election campaigns are funded only with private money, most of it coming in the form of large checks from wealthy donors.
Trump’s Nominee Must be Pressed on Money in Politics
For four decades, the Supreme Court’s flawed approach to money in politics has gutted common-sense protections against the power of special interests and wealthy individuals, and shaped a system that 85% of Americans believe needs fundamental changes.
A report on the ability of local communities to decide, based on their own form of local government, how they may enact policies to protect immigrant rights.
Debido a las preocupaciones acerca de las crecientes amenazas a las comunidades de inmigrantes respecto a varias posturas políticas migratorias de índole racial promovidas por la administración federal entrante,1 Demos y LatinoJustice PRLDEF presentan este informe preliminar sobre las decisiones que comunidades locales pueden tomar, considerando su forma de gobierno local, para implementar políticas que protegen los derechos de los inmigrantes.
In the first few days of President Trump’s administration, our nation has already seen a direct assault on our democracy. This week, President Trump issued two anti-immigrant Executive Orders, including one on “Interior Enforcement,” which sets forth provisions punishing sanctuary cities that refuse to use their local police to enforce federal civil immigration laws. Let’s be clear: this week's orders are discrimination policies and some of them are unconstitutional.
Americans are working longer and harder than ever, yet in recent years the gains from economic growth have gone disproportionately to the very highest income earners.1 Working people are left out in the cold, denied their fair share of pay for the work they do.
The steep increase in college tuition and student debt over the past decade has led our country to engage in a serious debate about the need to reduce college costs and student borrowing. Yet many misconceptions remain about the scope or magnitude of the problem that student debt poses to our national economy and student debtors’ financial security.1,2 More than 44 million Americans, or nearly 1 in 5 adults, now carry student debt.
Residents Who Attempted to Register to Vote or Update their Registration Information at the Division of Motor Vehicles Since the Summer of 2015 Will be Able to Vote in this November’s General Election
Background
Over the past 15 years, states have made deep cuts to their funding for higher education, causing tuition to rise rapidly, and household incomes have failed to keep up. As a result, student debt has skyrocketed, quintupling from just $240 billion in 2003 to more than $1.3 trillion today. The burdens of this debt-based higher education system are being disproportionately borne by those with the highest hurdles to obtain higher educations: students of color and low-income students.
This report was produced in collaboration with Brian Schaffner, Professor of Political Science at University of Massachusetts Amherst and Jesse Rhodes, Associate Professor of Political Science at University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Introduction