New York – Today’s narrow 5-4 decision in McComish v. Bennett continues the Roberts Court’s retreat on fairness in elections, striking down trigger provisions that allowed publicly financed candidates in Arizona to receive additional funds for their campaigns when their spending was outstripped by their privately financed opponents.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony regarding the damage that Citizens United and the rise of Super PACs has done to our system of democratic government. In the text below I will discuss why rules that govern the role of money in politics are important to our democracy; the impact of Citizens United and related decisions on our electoral system; and what Congress can and must do to promote the core American value of political equality.
Testimony of Demos' Democracy Program Legal Director on restoring contribution limits in Vermont, delivered before the Vermont House Government Operations Committee on February 5, 2008.
Supporting Seattle's voter-approved Democracy Voucher Program — a system designed to empower small donors and the candidates they support in city elections.
A system of Fair Elections for New York State will not only allow for candidates from diverse communities to compete, but it will help build lasting political power for communities of color.
The marquee bill, which features improvements to voting, campaign finance, and ethics laws, addresses the deep political, racial, and economic inequalities that plague our democracy.
Our current system of campaign finance reform suppresses the political power of people of color and that lack of political power has had proven, lasting consequences.
Arguments Heard Today Suggest Precedents Limiting Corporate Political Influence Under ThreatWashington, DC — Today's argument in Citizens United v. FEC suggests that the Roberts Court is poised to sweep aside century-old restraints on corporate domination of the political marketplace — unless the wisdom of the Court's newest member proves persuasive when the decision is ultimately written.
The Supreme Court today turned back a constitutional challenge to spending limits for student government campaigns at the University of Montana, denying review of a June 2007 ruling by the Ninth Circuit that upheld the limits. The Supreme Court's action is a victory for the Associated Students of the University of Montana ("ASUM") and the University, which argued that the limits on campaign spending serve to assure all students, regardless of their financial circumstances, an equal opportunity to win election to student government.
WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Supreme Court today announced its decision in Randall v. Sorrell, a case addressing the constitutionality of Vermont's comprehensive campaign finance law, passed in 1997.
Stuart Comstock-Gay, Executive Director of the National Voting Rights Institute, which defended the law alongside the state of Vermont, had this statement on the decision.
Boston, MA — The National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI) and the State PIRGs Democracy Program released a study today that found there is no support for the notion that campaign contribution limits hurt challengers. In fact, according to the study, contribution limits can work to reduce the financial bias that traditionally works in favor of incumbents.
Boston, MA — A Poll commissioned by the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI) revealed overwhelming support for election campaign spending limits as a way of improving the fairness, honesty and integrity of elections.
Boston, MA - Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit -- covering Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island -- issued a decision upholding Maine's campaign finance disclosure provisions, which had been challenged by the anti-gay marriage National Organization for Marriage. In response, Lisa Danetz, Demos Senior Counsel, issued the following statement: