The explosion of “dark money” spent in the political system in the United States threatens racial equity in the United States making it harder for Blacks and other minorities to gain a foothold in the middle class and fully participate in the democracy, according to a recent report by Demos, a public policy group.
Demos Vice President of Policy and Legal Strategies Brenda Wright released the following statement:
"Tonight, in his last State of the Union, President Obama lifted up the importance of fixing our politics so that all voices can be heard in our democracy.
"He noted how too many people feel that 'the system is rigged in favor of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.' To live up to our democratic tenets, President Obama called for reducing the influence of money in politics and modernizing our elect
Sec. Hillary Clinton correctly noted the importance of the next president’s power to appoint Supreme Court justices. On no issue is this more true than on money in politics.
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.
Next year won’t just mark the most expensive and big money-dominated election in U.S. history--it is also the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court case that set the basic structure of campaign finance law. In Buckley at 40, Demos Counsel and Senior Advisor Adam Lioz examines how 1976’s Buckley v. Valeo launched a vicious cycle of political, economic, and racial inequality that endures today.
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.
Buckley v. Valeo is a January 30, 1976 Supreme Court case that struck down key pieces of Congress’ post-Watergate money in politics reforms, and set the structure of modern campaign finance law.
“For let it be agreed that a government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has an equal voice in the direction of its concerns…” Thomas Jefferson Letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816
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.
Yesterday, Sen. Sanders offered a solid, detailed plan to combat big money in politics. His proposal means that heading into Saturday’s debate all three Democratic candidates now have specific policy agendas aimed at addressing the unprecedented influx of big money into U.S. elections.
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.
Adam Lioz, Demos Counsel and Senior Advisor, Policy & Outreach, issued the following statement in response to Governor O'Malley's plan to address the role of big money in politics:
