Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

To engage young Americans in politics, we must end Citizens United

To engage young Americans in politics, we must end Citizens United

"The only way to reclaim our democracy and create a political system that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people is by getting big money out of politics," argues Devin Hiett.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Hiett graduated in December with degrees in international studies and journalism from the University of Oklahoma. She is a volunteer at American Promise, which advocates for amending the Constitution to regulate the raising and spending of electoral campaign funds.

Younger generations are often berated for not turning out to vote at meaningful rates, and that criticism is not totally unwarranted. In the 2016 presidential race, people between 18 and 29 made up just 13 percent of the electorate. But rather than chastising Millennials and Gen Z for not voting, we need to focus on why they aren't showing up at the polls.

Ten years after one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever, the real answer should have become abundantly clear.

In the 2018 elections alone, special-interest spending exceeded $5.7 billion. The fossil fuel industry has invested more than $2 billion in the past two decades slandering sustainable climate legislation, and the National Rifle Association has spent more than $203 million on political activities since 1998. In comparison, only half of 1 percent of Americans donate more than $10,000 in any election.

The idea that young people don't vote because they are apathetic is a fallacy. Throughout history, many of the most influential activist movements around the world have been led by young people, and this momentum has accelerated in recent years.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


In December, 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg made history when she became the youngest individual ever to be named Time magazine's Person of the Year. In 2018, students from Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., led the movement advocating for gun control by lobbying their state lawmakers, meeting with President Trump and persuading billion-dollar companies to cut ties with the NRA.

Young people don't abstain from voting because of a lack of interest, or because they're unaware of the myriad issues plaguing our society. Recent polling of younger voters from the Harvard Kennedy School's Institute of Politics found that when young people don't vote, it's largely because they believe their vote doesn't have the power to bring about meaningful change ― and they're right.

A study from Princeton University found that public opinion has a "near-zero" impact on public policy, meaning the number of Americans for or against any piece of legislation has no impact on the likelihood of Congress making it a law. So if voters aren't the ones influencing our democracy, what is?

The answer is money. Our political system is shaped almost entirely by the people and corporations who have the most of it.

Our democracy exists in a cycle of legalized corruption made possible by the 2010 Supreme Court case Citizens United v FEC. In the 5-4 decision, the court ruled that unlimited political spending, by individuals or by corporations, is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. As a result, the 200 most politically active corporations in America have been free to spend almost $6 billion influencing the government through lobbying and campaign contributions over the past five years. This year's campaign cycle is projected to draw more than $10 billion in spending.

Our representatives are no longer accountable to us — their constituents — but rather to the corporations and wealthy donors who bankroll their campaigns. This is why the opinions of the bottom 90 percent of income earners in America have a "statistically non-significant impact" on legislation.

It's also why younger generations rightfully feel their votes are not going to create meaningful political change. The average millennial makes just $35,592 a year and has a net worth of less than $8,000. So, in a pay-to-play political system, our generation has the least influence of all.

The only way to reclaim our democracy and create a political system that is truly of the people, by the people and for the people is by getting big money out of politics. The most effective way to accomplish this is through the passage of a 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

I'm a member of an organization spearheading this vital cause — American Promise, a grassroots, cross-partisan nonprofit that organizes and empowers Americans from across the nation to advocate for amending the Constitution to repeal Citizens United and allow Congress and the states to impose limits on corporate political spending.

For such an amendment to become part of the Constitution, it needs to be endorsed by two-thirds of Congress and ratified by 38 of the 50 states. So far, 20 states and more than 800 towns and cities — representing 46 percent of the population — have passed state and local resolutions calling on Congress to propose a 28th Amendment and send it to the states for ratification.

This kind of state-by-state grassroots resolution process has proven successful in the past. It's what built pressure on Congress to propose other amendments, including the 17th (popular-vote election of senators), the 19th (women's right to vote) and the 26th (lowering the voting age to 18).

If young voters want to see action on the issues they care about most — stopping climate change, reducing student loan debt, controlling the spread of guns and reforming immigration reform — we must address the root cause of congressional inaction by fighting to radically decrease the influence of big money in our political system. Until we accomplish that, we shouldn't expect Congress to accomplish much of anything we care about.

If we want young Americans to be engaged voters, we have to make their votes count by tackling legalized corruption. A 28th Amendment is our best hope of restoring our democracy, our environment, and our futures.

To support this movement, sign the Cause of Our Time Statement of Principle today.

Read More

Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less
People holiding "Yes on 1" signs

People urge support for Question 1 in Maine.

Kyle Bailey

The Fahey Q&A: Kyle Bailey discusses Maine’s Question 1

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge ofdrawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The PeoplePeople, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. Sheregularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Kyle Bailey is a former Maine state representative who managed the landmark ballot measure campaigns to win and protect ranked choice voting. He serves as campaign manager for Citizens to End SuperPACs and the Yes On 1 campaign to pass Question 1, a statewide ballot initiative that would place a limit of $5,000 on contributions to political action committees.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ballot envelopes moving through a sorting machine

Mailed ballots are sorted by a machine at the Denver Elections Division.

Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post

GOP targets fine print of voting by mail in battleground state suits

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

In 2020’s presidential election, 17 million more Americans voted than in 2016’s election. That record-setting turnout was historic and even more remarkable because it came in the midst of a deadly pandemic. A key reason for the increase was most states simplified and expanded voting with mailed-out ballots — which 43 percent of voters used.

Some battleground states saw dramatic expansions. Michigan went from 26 percent of its electorate voting with mailed-out ballots in 2016 to 59 percent in 2020. Pennsylvania went from 4 percent to 40 percent. The following spring, academics found that mailing ballots to voters had lifted 2020’s voter turnout across the political spectrum and had benefited Republican candidates — especially in states that previously had limited the option.

Keep ReadingShow less
Members of Congress in the House of Representatives

Every four years, Congress gathers to count electoral votes.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

No country still uses an electoral college − except the U.S.

Holzer is an associate professor of political science at Westminster College.

The United States is the only democracy in the world where a presidential candidate can get the most popular votes and still lose the election. Thanks to the Electoral College, that has happened five times in the country’s history. The most recent examples are from 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the Electoral College after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and 2016, when Hillary Clinton got more votes nationwide than Donald Trump but lost in the Electoral College.

The Founding Fathers did not invent the idea of an electoral college. Rather, they borrowed the concept from Europe, where it had been used to pick emperors for hundreds of years.

Keep ReadingShow less