In Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that corporations were free to use money from the corporation’s treasury on political activity.1 Setting aside for a moment the many criticisms of the decision, Citizens United left open a number of questions about who at a corporation should get to decide when a corporation spends money on politics. It has fallen to our system of corporate law to provide an answer.
A corporation is a legal structure that enables individuals to contribute and pool resources, capital, and labor in order to generate a profit. Corporations are created by state law in the state in which they are incorporated.
The corporate legal structure receives a number of advantages and obligations from the state. These laws enable the corporation to overcome the limitations of any one individual—like a human lifespan or limited productive capacity—and to accumulate and distribute profits among the various stakeholders.
This Explainer explores how the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is used in measuring our economic growth and whether alternative measures are also needed to provide a more comprehensive outlook of economic progress.
Our elections are fairer—and our democracy works better—when politicians listen to the entire public instead of only to big donors. A review of donations from individuals to Mayoral and City Council races in 2015 and 2016 shows that those who contribute to campaigns—and therefore are more likely to have their voices heard—do not reflect Baltimore City’s diverse population. Instead, the donor class is largely white and rich.
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.
Miami-Dade County in Florida has had its fair share of high-profile voter suppression issues. Whether it be long lines, canceling of Souls to the Polls Sundays, or voter registration restrictions, many of the issues have directly impacted the black community. However, there is a significant and structural impediment to black political participation that is rarely examined. Political donations have a large amount of influence over the political process, and the county’s vibrant diversity isn’t represented in the county’s donor class.
Five years after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, what are the roles of large donors and average voters in selecting and supporting candidates for Congress?
McCutcheon struck down the limit on the total amount that one wealthy donor is permitted to contribute to all federal candidates, parties, and political action committees (PACs) combined.
The Volcker Rule is a requirement in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 that is sometimes referred to as a “mini-Glass-Steagall.”
The opportunity to work hard and get ahead is a core value of American society. Yet today in the United States, qualified job seekers are turned away from employment because of their personal credit history. People whose credit is damaged as a result of medical debt, student loans, a layoff, divorce, predatory lending, identity theft, or simple error are shut out of jobs—despite a lack of evidence connecting someone’s credit history with their job performance.
Virginia’s investment in higher education has decreased considerably over the past two decades, and its financial aid programs, though still some of the country’s most expansive, fail to reach many students with financial need.
Empirical data showing policymakers, organizers, and progressives that there is clear public support for the notion that racism is a divide-and-conquer tactic creating distrust, undermining belief in government, and causing economic pain for everyone, of every color.
Judge Kavanaugh's record raises serious concerns that he would expand the power of big money in politics, weaken voter protections, and insulate the president from the rule of law.
Both economic and racial justice are core progressive priorities, but too often we discuss them separately. On the contrary, racial and economic harms are intertwined, as are our desired solutions to them. Wealthy elites exploit racial fears to turn working people against each other and government; economic pain increases racial resentment and facilitates scapegoating, fueling support for punitive measures against people of color.