In the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC, this amendment is a necessary counterbalance to the deluge of money that wealthy individuals, corporations and special interests have flooded into our elections.
When you find a leak, do you jump up and point at it? Yell about it? What if the leak is part of a massive flood? Do you call up your friends and make plans to build a dam? What if the leak comes at you when you’ve been trapped in a basement with floodwater rising up to your neck?
Early Wednesday morning, many media outlets were buzzing with news of a leak.
For the past two days, the Senate has debated a bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would add, in main part, the following text:
To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral process, Congress shall have the power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections….
No matter who wins each of the hundreds of elections today, one thing's for sure: a relative handful of large donors and spenders are setting the agenda and terms of debate, while the rest of us are on the sidelines.
On November 10, 2014, the Brennan Center for Justice released a new report, Outside Spending and Dark Money in Toss-Up Senate Races: Post-election Update, which describes the rise in spending by outside groups—many of which do not publicly disclose all of their funds’ sources—in eleven competitive races. Highlights of the report include:
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.
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.
It’s no secret that some very rich people support the super PACs and other groups that have inundated the 2012 campaign with unlimited sums of cash. But a study to be released Thursday details the extent to which this kind of donating is the sport of the One Percent.
57 percent of all Super PAC donations in this election has come from a small circle of just 47 donors, says a new report by Demos. Those are the donors who have given over $1 million each; those who have given over $10,000 account for 94 percent of all Super PAC fundraising.
A new study by several public policy groups indicates that half of outside spending is from groups that don't reveal their donors. According to the data, the top five "dark money" groups spent just over $53 million on TV ads for the presidential race. But because of specific tax codes related to nonprofits, these groups do not necessarily have to disclose their donors or the amount they spend to the FEC.
A top concern raised by critics of the Supreme Court's 2010Citizens United decision was that it would unleash a torrent of poorly disclosed, if disclosed at all, spending by the superwealthy. Evidence continues to mount that's precisely what's happening.
A few people with a lot of money are responsible for the majority of contributions to superPACs, according to a new analysis by two watchdog groups.
Americans are, for the most part, completely unaware of just who -- or what -- is funding the 2012 presidential campaign.
Just 25 percent of likely voters say they have heard "a lot" about outside spending this election cycle, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center, while a huge majority said they have either heard little or "nothing at all" about outside expenditures by groups not associated with the candidates or campaigns.
