Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 results
Removing unnecessary hurdles to small donor participation will help fix a system that currently prioritizes wealthy, white, male donors over communities of color and working-class people.
Democracy Dollars Can Make Every Voice Matter in Albuquerque’s Elections
Supporting Seattle's voter-approved Democracy Voucher Program — a system designed to empower small donors and the candidates they support in city elections.
How We Can Fix the Housing Affordability Crisis
Public financing of elections, as a state and local democracy reform, can help enhance the political voice and power of working-class people and people of color. It is an effective antidote to the outsized influence corporations and major donors currently have on both politics and policy.
Why we need an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.
After getting the First Amendment supremely wrong in Citizens United, the Supreme Court now faces its next money in politics case. In McCutcheon v. FEC, the challengers are attacking a law that says that no one person can contribute over $123,000 directly to federal candidates, parties, and committees—that’s over twice the average American’s income.
In 2012, just 61 large donors to Super PACs giving an average of $4.7 million each matched the $285.2 million in grassroots contributions from more than 1,425,500 small donors to the major party presidential candidates.
Outside spending organizations reported $1.11 billion in spending to the FEC through the final reporting deadline in the 2012 cycle. That’s already a 200% increase over total 2008 outside spending.
Americans of all political backgrounds agree: there is way too much corporate money in politics.
14 Big Ideas to Build a Strong & Diverse Middle Class
The Supreme Court got it supremely wrong when it held that corporations had the same rights as people to spend money in elections.
Dēmos has measured the comparative effectiveness of five leading fiscal proposals. We evaluate the plans in eight categories: jobs and public investment; health care affordability; Social Security income; education; defense policy; fair and adequate revenues; and long-term debt reduction.
This memo outlines how the Justices lined up on the issues in Randall v. Sorrell, provides some analysis of the opinions, and touches on the implications for future reform efforts.