A number of states have laws demanding citizens produce documentary evidence of citizenship to register to vote. These laws have far-reaching implications for voter participation in our democracy.
Connecticut’s investment in higher education has decreased considerably over the past two decades, and its financial aid programs, though still some of the country’s most expansive, fail to reach many students with financial need.
What is the fiduciary rule?
In the simplest terms, the fiduciary rule is a new regulation, proposed by the Department of Labor, which requires financial advisors and brokers to act in the best interest of people saving for retirement. Under this rule, when consulting your financial advisor they will be required to recommend the best investments for your needs, i.e. the mix of investments with the highest returns, lowest fees, or least risk.
Don’t financial advisors currently have to look out for my best interest?
Rolling back reform of the financial system is at the top of the agenda for the new Congress. Opponents of a safe and honest financial system have waited until the abject horror of autumn 2008 faded from memory to deal the financial sector regulation a death of a thousand cuts. From time to time, the new Congress may attempt large rollbacks. But their likely strategy is that, after a couple of years of piecemeal repeal, financial regulation will be gutted and the good old days of financial markets that operated like casinos will return.
In April 2015, Walmart implemented a $9 an hour minimum wage for all of its 1.3 million U.S. workers, and committed to pay all current workers at least $10 per hour by February 2016.1 This is an important step from the country’s largest employer and in particular for the retail industry, where low-wage, unstable employment is the norm.
Like every generation before us, Americans are coming together to preserve a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people. American democracy is premised on the consent of the governed, and on the idea that we all deserve a say in the government decisions that affect our families. We stand united supporting commonsense protections that recognize the people as the ultimate check on the corrosive influence of money in politics, which is eroding the very foundation of self-government.
This is a joint effort by the following organizations:
Problem: In the 2012 election cycle, state-level candidates and parties raised more than $108 million.1 All that money sways the decisions our leaders make from what’s best for New Yorkers to what’s best for big money donors, and the lack of transparency means we can’t see when money is driving bad decisions.
Problem: Just in the last decade, 15 state-level elected officials have been convicted of corruption-related crimes. Ethics reform isn’t enough—we need to change the way elections work so that our elected officials are truly accountable to voters.
The extent of the money in politics problem, how we got here (from a legal perspective), and what we can do to create a democracy in which the strength of a citizen’s voice does not depend on the size of her wallet.
In 2012, just 61 large donors to Super PACs giving an average of $4.7 million each matched the $285.2 million in grassroots contributions from more than 1,425,500 small donors to the major party presidential candidates.
Outside spending organizations reported $1.11 billion in spending to the FEC through the final reporting deadline in the 2012 cycle. That’s already a 200% increase over total 2008 outside spending.
A Nelson hold is a wrestling move used to pin an opponent. The Montana Supreme Court recently upheld its century old restrictions on corporate political spending, finding that the State had a compelling interest in protecting its state government from corruption, encouraging the full participation of the electorate, and defending the integrity of its judiciary.
This memo outlines how the Justices lined up on the issues in Randall v. Sorrell, provides some analysis of the opinions, and touches on the implications for future reform efforts.
Our data sets were provided and cleaned by Public Campaign. For the purposes of this report, Public Campaign used federal campaign contribution data made public by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and then refined and augmented by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
In the last thirty years, our nation has experienced a paradox of productivity and progress. Productivity, driven by extraordinary growth in technology and an increased push towards consumption, has nearly tripled. Meanwhile social, environmental, and educational progress has stalled.
Social Security remains our nation’s key source of retirement income for most Americans. The program’s overall health is sound and with relatively modest tweaks to the program’s financing, we can strengthen the system for generations to come.
Strong voter participation and engagement are fundamental to a healthy democracy. Efforts to restrict access to voting fly in the face of this important goal. Yet, despite another midterm election in November 2010 in which only 41 percent of eligible persons voted, numerous states are now facing renewed efforts to restrict, rather than expand, the franchise. Increasing numbers of states are considering strict voter identification laws that would disenfranchise thousands, and possibly millions of Americans.
In order to reverse the troubling low graduation rates at our nation’s community colleges, low-income students must stop being financially penalized for attending these institutions. As this brief outlines, low-income students who attend community college receive less state and institutional grant aid, on average, than their counterparts at four-year public universities. Community College Students and Grant Aid recommends that states equalize their need-based grant allocation and that community colleges prioritize need-based institutional aid.
Strong voter participation and engagement are fundamental to a healthy democracy. Efforts to restrict access to voting fly in the face of this important goal. Alarmingly, despite another midterm election in which nationally only 41 percent of eligible persons voted, many states are now renewing efforts to restrict, rather than expand, the franchise.
