Yesterday, voters from coast to coast fought back against big-money politics. Voters in Maine and Seattle resoundingly approved ballot measures aimed at empowering the voices of ordinary citizens in the political process.

In response to the clean elections victories across the country yesterday, Demos President Heather McGhee issued the following statement:

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

Adam Lioz, Demos Counsel and Senior Advisor, Policy & Outreach, issued the following statement in response to Governor O'Malley's plan to address the role of big money in politics: "...a complete plan must go further, especially by acknowledging that our problems go well beyond Citizens United..."

Hillary Clinton announced a three-part plan for addressing the role of big and secret money in the political process.

eddy Roosevelt famously argued that, when it comes to foreign policy, one should “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.” Similarly, an apt summation of the political inclinations of billionaires might be, “Speak softly, and carry a big check.”

Donald Trump has gotten attention recently for his candor about our broken money in politics system. Trump claims he is so rich that he can’t be bought, and has suggested that other candidates are “puppets” for billionaire donors.

Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, senior counsel for Demos, praised Oklahoma for agreeing to address what she said was “a disconcerting number of people who should have gotten voter-registration assistance and didn’t get it at all.” Demos and other organizations pursued the case based on statistics showing a

An analysis of competitive House races in the 2014 midterms by MASSPIRG and the think tank Demos confirmed that such a program could fundamentally change the balance of power in Congressional elections.

Is it a problem when the Supreme Court is out of step with public opinion? While in many cases the answer is no, when it comes to the question of money and politics and the financing of campaigns and elections, its counter-majoritarianism is a threat to democracy.