Although the Paris Climate Deal certainly represents a step forward for the international community, there are still many potential pitfalls to addressing climate change. New data suggest that the overwhelmingly white donor class may be one such obstacle.
As the Republican presidential candidates gather tonight, it’s worth noting where they’re debating. Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, the biggest outside spenders in the 2012 election, own the casino where CNN will host the debate, and have been meeting with several of the candidates to decide who to endorse. They’ll certainly be watching tonight.
Last Wednesday a mass shooting in San Bernardino, the 355th this year, prompted a debate about the need for gun control. In an incredibly rare decision, the New York Times ran a front-page editorial calling for gun control.
The concept of Short-Termism is fast becoming the darling of progressive economic policy wonks. Predictably, the discourse is littered with inaccuracies and half-truths as pundits rush to publish so as not to be left behind. It is time for a serious convening of interested experts to sort through the issues, but none is scheduled. Until one is convened, a brief walk through the weeds is in order.
The second democratic debate is approaching on Saturday, and the American people want to know: if elected, what will the candidates do to get big money out of our democracy?
Connecticut is poised to undo a signature accomplishment—the Citizens Election Program. Facing budget cuts, some legislators in Connecticut have proposed allowing wealthy donors to, once again, dominate the state’s elections.
Yesterday, voters from coast to coast fought back against big-money politics. Voters in Maine and Seattle resoundingly approved ballot measures aimed at empowering the voices of ordinary citizens in the political process.
How has the rise of big donors affected our policies? In a recent post, political scientist Seth Masket, whose work I deeply respect and have read for years, argues that “what's not happening here is the superdonors skewing American politics rightward.”
His argument is that so far in the 2016 election, superdonors have tended to be Republican, because that’s where the interesting contest is. Here, I have no qualms.
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.”
In the 2016 presidential election, we are approaching a singular and momentous crossroads in our nation’s history. Will we, or will we not, make a serious effort to achieve a low-carbon future for our children and our planet? The fossil fuel magnates and the GOP say no, because we can’t or shouldn’t, but more than 75 percent of Americans want our leaders to take significant steps to fight climate change, according to a poll released in January 2015 by the New York Times, Stanford University, and Resources for the Future.
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.
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.
Is it a problem when the Supreme Court is out of step with public opinion? While in many cases the answer is no, when it comes to the question of money and politics and the financing of campaigns and elections, its counter-majoritarianism is a threat to democracy.
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.
Billionaire energy industry brothers Charles and David Koch are planning a 2016 campaign spending blitz that would easily eclipse previous outside political efforts, with the brothers and their political network poised to spend nearly $900 million to elect conservative candidates to Congress, the presidency, and state legislatures across the country.