If you're wondering why issues favored by a majority of Americans such as raising the minimum wage, gun control and net neutrality get scarcely any attention in the halls of Congress, the Citizens United case is the reason.
According to the analysis of Americans for Financial Reform, that’s the amount the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has returned to over 12 million Americans who have been harmed by the illegal, deceptive, and discriminatory practices of financial services companies. And the agency has only been around for three and half years.
For some in the financial services industry, that type of effective law enforcement is a problem.
Given that low-income households often don’t have the luxury of professional tax preparation, the tax system might be a particularly brutal delivery mechanism for them. Nowhere is this more apparent than how we currently subsidize the cost of college at tax time.
President Obama this week touted new ways to help students pay for college, but he also proposed stripping away a popular benefit: a significant tax advantage of college savings plans used by millions of American families.
Much of the buildup to President Obama’s State of the Union address made it sound as if he was going to read chapter and verse from French economist Thomas Piketty’s book, Capital in the 21st Century—you know, last year’s 700-plus page best seller, the one that was unexpectedly all the rage as it argued that vast economic inequality is as much about wealth (what’s owned) as it is about income (what’s earned). That one.
Five years ago this week, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decided to allow unlimited amounts of corporate spending in political campaigns. How important was that decision? At the time, some said criticism of the decision was overblown, and that fears that it would give outsize influence to powerful interests were unfounded. Now, the evidence is in, and the results are devastating. [...]
(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.
How would you fare with President Obama’s State of the Union middle-class economics proposals to “turn the page” if you’re 50 or older? It depends. [...]
The President’s focus on paid family leave in his State of the Union address and the week leading up to it is, in practical terms, a modest step forward. By requiring federal agencies to advance employees up to six weeks of paid sick leave when they have a baby, his memorandum issued last Thursday will directly strengthen the safety net under more than four million federal workers.
On the day before the fifth anniversary of Citizens United, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, which asks whether a rule that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment. At its core, the case raises the question as to what measures we will be permitted to take to protect the integrity of our justice system from the influence of big money.
Today, Obama will deliver the State of the Union address, which will focus on inequality, which he has previously called, “the defining issue of our time,” and which was recently highlighted by a proposal by Chris Van Hollen.
Dear Mayor de Blasio and Members of the City Council:
As leaders in New York City who are concerned about economic and racial injustice, we call on you to enact Intro. 261, The Stop Credit Discrimination in Employment Act, and to ensure that this legislation does not include unjustified exemptions. The common practice of using credit checks to screen job applicants creates illegitimate barriers to employment, exacerbates racial discrimination, and may lead to invasions of privacy.
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?
Demos is a national, non-partisan public policy organization working for an America where we all have an equal say in our democracy and an equal chance in our economy. Demos’ lawyers, researchers, and advocates have extensive legal and policy expertise on money in politics. These comments are submitted in response to the Commission’s Notice 2014-12, an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). We appreciate the opportunity to comment on whether the Commission should modify its regulations in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v.
In their seminal 1980 study on the question, using data from 1972, political scientists Raymond Wolfinger and Steven Rosenstone argued that “voters are virtually a carbon copy of the citizen population.” In 1999, Wolfinger and his colleague Benjamin Highton again came to the same conclusion: “Outcomes would not change if everyone voted.” Their argument rested upon the fact that polling data did not show large differences in opinions on most issues between those who voted and those who
