In the first few days of President Trump’s administration, our nation has already seen a direct assault on our democracy. This week, President Trump issued two anti-immigrant Executive Orders, including one on “Interior Enforcement,” which sets forth provisions punishing sanctuary cities that refuse to use their local police to enforce federal civil immigration laws. Let’s be clear: this week's orders are discrimination policies and some of them are unconstitutional.
Advocates and policymakers are frequently asked how they plan to pay for progressive policy investments. This memo provides guidance on how to respond.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus’ 2017 People’s Budget tackles inequality head-on, rewriting the rules of a rigged economy so that corporations pay their fair share and the infrastructure and programs that serve the people are well resourced.
Introduction In March 2013, acting under a controversial statute that authorized extraordinary action, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder appointed Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr to replace the elected government of Detroit. By July, the emergency manager had filed for bankruptcy of the city.
Floyd v. City of New York is the landmark class action, spearheaded by the Center for Constitutional Rights, that proved the NYPD’s stop and frisk practice was unconstitutional and racially discriminatory. In March of 2015, Demos became co-counsel with CCR on behalf of the Floyd plaintiffs. In that role, Demos is working with the parties, the NYPD and the court appointed monitor to develop reforms to the NYPD’s stop and frisk practice.
The Financial Infrastructure Exchange (FIX) is a federal tax-and-subsidy program to promote long-term investment in a financial system that otherwise prioritizes short-term gains.
Generations of black women have learned to be solution-oriented and resourceful, often ‘making a way out of no way,’ and their political participation is part of a history of survival.
In Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that corporations were free to use money from the corporation’s treasury on political activity.1 Setting aside for a moment the many criticisms of the decision, Citizens United left open a number of questions about who at a corporation should get to decide when a corporation spends money on politics. It has fallen to our system of corporate law to provide an answer.
A corporation is a legal structure that enables individuals to contribute and pool resources, capital, and labor in order to generate a profit. Corporations are created by state law in the state in which they are incorporated.
The corporate legal structure receives a number of advantages and obligations from the state. These laws enable the corporation to overcome the limitations of any one individual—like a human lifespan or limited productive capacity—and to accumulate and distribute profits among the various stakeholders.
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.
Our elections are fairer—and our democracy works better—when politicians listen to the entire public instead of only to big donors. A review of donations from individuals to Mayoral and City Council races in 2015 and 2016 shows that those who contribute to campaigns—and therefore are more likely to have their voices heard—do not reflect Baltimore City’s diverse population. Instead, the donor class is largely white and rich.
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.
Trump’s Nominee Must be Pressed on Money in Politics
For four decades, the Supreme Court’s flawed approach to money in politics has gutted common-sense protections against the power of special interests and wealthy individuals, and shaped a system that 85% of Americans believe needs fundamental changes.