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.
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.
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.
Higher turnout has the possibility of weakening the donor class’s grip on policy. It could also reduce the influence of the extreme right wing on politics. It’s not surprising that the GOP, which benefits from a low-turnout, strong-donor environment, supports voting laws that tend to reduce turnout.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What would America look like if donors didn’t rule the world? It’s an interesting question and one worth pondering as the 2016 Presidential campaigns kick off. Available data reveals that donors not only have disproportionate influence over politics, but that influence is wielded largely to keep issues that would benefit the working and middle classes off of the table.
The dominance of big money in our politics makes it far harder for people of color to exert political power and effectively advocate for their interests as both wealth and power are consolidated by a small, very white, share of the population.
Tomorrow, Hillary Clinton will release the names of her top bundlers, wealthy people who have reached the individual contribution limit and therefore volunteer to collect checks from their rich friends to give to candidates in a “bundle.” Many bundlers bring in millions—in 2008, bundlers who brought in more than $100,000 were called “HillRaisers.”
On Thursday, June 25, Demos will join hundreds of concerned Americans in a rally for voting rights in Roanoke, Virginia, to mark the 2nd anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted the Voting Rights Act.
Less than 10 years ago Demos and other voting rights groups approached North Carolina after an investigation revealed that the state was failing to meet its obligations under Section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act—a federal law that requires North Carolina provide individuals who apply for public assistance the opportunity to register to vote.
When Congress narrowly missed another government shutdown in December by passing the “cromnibus” bill, much of the press coverage focused on Capitol Hill’s ongoing dysfunction. However, buried inside the bill was yet another blow to campaign finance regulations, dramatically increasing the amount of money donors can give to political parties. A single couple can now give up to $3.1 million to a political party over a two-year election cycle, a six-fold increase.
It’s early, but arguably the most important paper of the year has already been released. The author, Michael Jay Barber, finds persuasive evidence that those who donate more than $200 (.22% of the population in 2014), wield more influence over our political system than anyone else.
(NEW YORK, NY) – Last night, the President’s annual State of the Union highlighted policy proposals and reforms the administration will pursue in the coming months. In response, Demos President Heather McGhee issued the following statement:
For too long these issues, and many others that would tackle inequality to ensure a thriving American economy, have been placed on the back burner due to two issues that the President touched too briefly upon: our unequal democracy and our racial divisions.
