The recent Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper finding that ordinary citizens have, “little or no independent influence on policy at all.” While the paper was covered extensively in the popular press, few bothered to even read the paper which notes, “ the preferences of average citizens are positively and fairly highly correlated, across issues, with the preferences of economic elites.” Gilens’s data look at only tho
It was certainly a nice theory that the Founders had: make Congress more responsive to the people by putting members of the House up for re-election every two years. With so many state elected offices also up for the grabs, and the staggering of Senate terms, midterm elections became even more consequential over time than the Founder probably ever imagined.
David Tepper topped the list of best paid hedge managers for last year, pulling in $3.5 billion. That's an astonishing amount of money for one person to make in a single year -- and is larger than the annual GDP of 35 countries.
If you hang around the inequality debate long enough, wading through the many smart proposals to reduce the income gap, it all starts to seem kind of doable. We could make a real dent in inequality through a bunch of steps ranging from raising the minimum wage to more heavily taxing capitals gains to whacking tax subsidies to affluent Americans to making it easier to form unions to downsizing Wall Street's role in the economy to reducing the role of money in politics and so on.
In his testimony at the Senate’s “Dollars and Sense” hearing on dark money and the impact of McCutcheon v FEC, Justice Stevens made several clear and important points about the “giant step in the wrong direction” the Supreme Court has taken on money in politics.
Chairman Schumer, Senator King, Ranking Member Roberts, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony for this hearing on the harm of secret political spending, the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, and solutions to address the problem of improper influence of money in politics in America today.
It's no secret that when the wealthy speak, the powerful listen. What else would you expect when the average cost of winning a House seat has soared by 344 percent since 1986? But the other side of this coin tends to get less attention: How do the powerful respond to the voices of ordinary people -- those who aren't part of the "donor class?"
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.
When the McCutcheon ruling came down I was sitting in a room with several young African American men and women East Harlem talking about their struggles with employment in a world they said was stacked against them. They constantly talked about race, class, and power—but ultimately believed they couldn’t do much about it. All too often in fact, they shrugged off the notion that they any agency to change the system, with one guy noting, “we’ve just gotten the short end of the stick.”
An elite class of wealthy donors who have gained mounting influence in campaigns now has the ability to exert even greater sway.
A Supreme Court decision Wednesday to do away with an overall limit on how much individuals can give candidates and political parties opens a new spigot for money to flow into campaigns already buffeted by huge spending from independent groups. [...]
Talk about a missed opportunity. Last night, the New York State legislature passed a $137.9 billion budget for the upcoming year. Senate Deputy Republican Leader Thomas Libous lauded the effort and said, “We, at least, have done our job and the budget is complete." Not quite. The budget may be complete, but legislators certainly did not do their job.
Today's Republican Party does a great job of sticking up for rich people, which is ironic given that most wealthy Americans live in states and congressional districts that are represented by Democratic lawmakers -- which, of course, helps explain why Democrats also do such a good job of sticking up for rich people.
Think of it this way: The GOP is ideologically committed to defending the rich, even as it increasingly speaks for white voters of modest means, while the Democratic Party -- which represents much of affluent Ame
New York is on the cusp of adopting a campaign finance reform that would amplify small donations with matching funds, reducing the power of big special interest money over the state's politics. It would also allow New Yorkers to claim the mantle of the first state to take back their democracy in the era of Citizens United and unprecedented campaign spending.
But adopting Fair Elections would accomplish something else badly needed in our democracy: more diverse representation in our political leadership.
A new report shows that projected ten-year deficits have shrunk by nearly $5 trillion since 2010, which is pretty remarkable. It seems like just yesterday that the Simpson-Bowles Commission released it's findings amid a fierce debate over the budget deficit.
In theory, Congress should pass laws and legislation (which hit a record low in 2013)—and in a representative democracy, its members should listen to constituents and reflect their concerns and priorities.
The Government By the People Act increases the power of the small contributions that ordinary citizens can afford to give, providing incentives for congressional candidates to reach out to average constituents, not just dial for dollars from wealthy donors.
Low-wage, federally-contracted janitors and construction workers will have a new minimum wage of $10.10 per hour, under an executive order announced by the White House Tuesday. Advocates said the full scope of the order, which will be formally announced during tonight’s State of the Union address, remains unclear, but could include hundreds of thousands of employees under future federal contracts. [...]
