Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

First woman to run Common Cause, back when political reform was bipartisan, has died

Ann McBride Norton, former president of Common Cause

Former Common Cause President Ann McBride Norton

Douglas Graham/Getty Images

Ann McBride Norton, who was among the earliest Republican volunteers and later the first female president of Common Cause, one of the nation's original and most influential democracy reform groups, has died.

Her death, at her home in Washington on Wednesday at age 75, was caused by complications from Alzheimer's disease, according to a daughter, the pop rock musician Mary McBride.

She was known as Ann McBride during her 27-run at Common Cause, which ended in 1999 after four years in the top job as successor to the organization's longtime third president, the legendary good governance impresario Fred Wertheimer.


"Ann was one of a kind who used her keen intellect, public interest commitment and Southern charm to help the cause of good government," said Meredith McGehee, a protege who's now top lobbyist for the cross-partisan political reform group Issue One (which is incubating, but journalistically insulated from, The Fulcrum).

When McBride started volunteering part-time in 1972, Common Cause was shifting from its original purpose of opposing the Vietnam War — positioning itself to instead become one of the only advocacy groups in Washington focused on fixing democracy's ills.

Even during Watergate, those challenges seemed far less dramatic than the deep-pocketed partisan polarization paralyzing the system now. And, unlike today, such causes as bolstering government ethics, easing access to the ballot box, combating gerrymandering and curbing money's sway over politicians and their policies drew plenty of support from GOP officials and philanthropists along with Democrats.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

After helping engineer ratification of the 26th Amendment, with the hope of spurring a surge in civic engagement by giving 18-year-olds the right to vote, Common Cause turned its focus mainly toward the issue that's been its premier calling card since — revamping the campaign finance system.

But after an initial burst of success in the 1970s, when it won expanded powers for the Federal Election Commission and the creation of voluntary taxpayer subsidies of presidential campaigns, the group's efforts remained only marginally successful for two decades. Its long quest for another overhaul of campaign finance laws was three years from fruition when McBride stepped down.

By that point, the rolls of Common Cause's dues-paying members had swelled to more than 250,000 and its reputation as a nonpareil grassroots lobbying force was set — although, thanks to the hardened partisan split over campaign finance rules, the group became known and remains viewed as reliably left-leaning.

As chief chief lobbyist on Capitol Hill and then president, McBride said her guide for steering Common Cause was a version of the mantra of the famous community organizer Saul Alinsky. His version — "No permanent enemies, no permanent allies, only permanent interests" — was rendered by her as "A key opponent in one case may become your prime supporter in another."

To that end, she recruited John McCain to be the Republican face of campaign finance reform in the early 1990s — right after the Arizona senator said he had emerged chastened from the "Keating Five" scandal, when he was found to have improperly intervened with federal banking regulators on behalf of a big donor.

The bill McCain shepherded finally became law in 2002. But by that time, McBride and her second husband, the environmental activist Edward M. Norton, had moved to southwestern China, where for many years they worked to preserve indigenous cultures in the most remote corners of Asia. (Survivors include a stepson, the actor and director Ed Norton.)

It was a radically different second career for a woman who had grown up the Cajun country of southwestern Louisiana, where her father was in the oil leasing business and chairman of the state Republican Party.

Ann deGravelles dropped out of college and married her college sweetheart, Charles McBride, following him to Washington where he worked for two of the state's Democratic senators, Russell Long and Bennett Johnston.

Soon after she started working full time for Common Cause, he became top staffer for the party committee that recruits and raises money for Senate candidates — an early example of one of Washington's rarest species, the power couple working on opposite sides of the same issue.

McBride had a quip at the ready when asked how they reconciled their situation: "It's easy. Charlie shakes them down, and I shake them up."

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less