Displaying 1 - 20 of 86 results
Walmart's raises to $9 an hour in 2015 and then to $10 an hour in 2016 is a positive step forward, but it still falls short of giving workers the wages they need.
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.
Advocates and policymakers are frequently asked how they plan to pay for progressive policy investments. This memo provides guidance on how to respond.
Spoiler alert: they do not. Rules work in corporations favor and against workers.
This Demos Explainer explores the tension between political support for deficit reduction versus job creation and economic security policies.
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.
How 27 states, counties, and municipalities empower small donors and curb the power of big money in politics
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.
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 working class today is much more complex and diverse than the white, male, manufacturing archetype often evoked in popular narratives.
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.
Big-money politics is a key barrier to people of color achieving equal representation.
Methodology: Demos sponsored an online survey among 1,536 registered voters, conducted June 5 to June 14, 2017. The research included a base sample of registered voters and, for deeper analysis, oversamples of working-class African Americans, working-class Hispanics, working-class white Obama-to-Trump voters, and progressives, defined as people of all races who identify as extremely or somewhat liberal. The data in this survey is weighted by standard weights to make it fully representative.
This report examines the effectiveness of the employment credit check laws enacted so far and finds that unjustified exemptions included in the laws, a failure to pursue enforcement, and a lack of public outreach have prevented these important employment protections from being as effective as they could be.
How the dominance of politics by the affluent & business undermines economic mobility in America
Democracy has at its heart a basic promise: citizens have an equal voice in deciding who represents them.
The extent of the money in politics problem, how we got here (from a legal perspective), and what we can do to create a democracy in which the strength of a citizen’s voice does not depend on the size of her wallet.