Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

With the For the People Act, organizing is paying off

With the For the People Act, organizing is paying off

Rep. John Lewis and his fellow Democrats unveiled HR 1 on Jan. 4, 2019. It has since been passed by the House on the party-line vote but isn't going anywhere in the Senate.

Alex Wong/Getty Images News

Weissman is president of Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization.

One good thing came from the Supreme Court's horrendous Citizens United decision a decade ago: an ever-expanding grassroots movement to rescue our democracy from the iron grip of Big Money.

The organizing is paying off.

In 2014, it led to a Senate vote for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. It almost certainly would have led to that horrid decision being overturned by the Supreme Court – if Merrick Garland had been confirmed as a justice.

Now, thanks to that movement, the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives made the For the People Act – the top priority legislation considered by the House – a sweeping pro-democracy and anti-corruption package. The House passed the bill, known as HR 1, in March by a vote of 234-193. It is the most consequential pro-democracy legislation of the past 50 years.


Driving Big Money out of politics: A handful of superrich people are shaping our elections. Candidates spend their time begging for cash from the wealthy and legislating to fulfill those donors' desires – which are dramatically different than the wants and needs of regular people. The superrich don't just have an outsized influence over who wins but over what gets discussed in campaigns and what legislative ideas receive serious consideration.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

HR 1 would replace the current, corrupt campaign finance system with one that relies on small donors and public matching funds. It ends dark money by forcing disclosure of all election-related spending, and it calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Protecting the right to vote: Empowered by a 2013 Supreme Court decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act, state Republicans have adopted a wide range of schemes to keep people of color and young people away from the polls. And President Trump, of course, has done everything in his power to encourage, enable and expand these voter suppression efforts. Altogether, these efforts are keeping hundreds of thousands, and probably millions, of Americans away from the polls.

HR 1 would enact same-day and automatic voter registration, and it commits to protect the sacred right to vote by calling for restoration of the Voting Rights Act.

Voters get to decide:Gerrymandering has become the science of subverting democracy – fostering a rigged system in which politicians hand pick their electorate. Armed with sophisticated computer programs, state officials are drawing congressional districts (as well as those for state houses) with mathematical precision to advance the interest of whatever party is in power in the state. Historically, both parties are guilty of severe gerrymandering, but Republicans took advantage of their 2010 sweep of state elections to draw districts wildly in their favor.

HR 1 would establish that districts must be based on transparent factors rather than partisan self-interest.

Curtailing corruption: Trump is a walking, talking violation of basic standards of ethics and morality. But it's not just Trump himself. His administration has enabled a total corporate takeover of our government, with former corporate lobbyists, lawyers and executives in charge of agencies overseeing the industries for which they previously worked (and likely will again).

HR 1 would force the president to reveal his tax returns and calls for a sell-off of all business interests. It would slam shut the revolving door through which lobbyists go into government. And it would establish an ethics office and binding ethics rules on members of Congress.

Of course, bills don't become law by passing one chamber of Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who believes in precious little but is firmly committed to blocking democracy reform, greeted passage of HR 1 with a declaration that there wouldn't be a vote in the Senate.

Why?

"Because I get to decide what we vote on."

He said the bill was a "power grab."

He was right about the "power grab" part – it's a power grab away from the corporate elite, returning power to the people. That kind of power grab is also known as "democracy."

On his other point, McConnell was only partially right.

If and when the public applies enough pressure, then McConnell's vice grip over his party will loosen and there will be a vote. Admittedly, the odds are very long of this happening in the current Congress.

But the growing demand to rescue our democracy from further slide into corporate domination will not be denied. We stand on the precipice of a true democracy awakening.

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