Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

From Red vs. Blue to Common Sense: Solving Money in Politics Together

Opinion

From Red vs. Blue to Common Sense: Solving Money in Politics Together

United States flag, Red representing the Republican party, and the Blue representing the Democratic party.

Getty Images//Stock Photo

Despite the division in our politics, Americans across the aisle agree on two essential issues: there’s a problem with the role of money in politics (the public’s #1 concern), and there is too little cooperation between our leaders in solving the nation’s problems (the #5 concern). These two issues erode trust in our institutions and the integrity of our elections, and leave communities and voters across the country feeling sidelined.

That’s why we, two state legislators from opposite sides of the aisle, have come together. Unchecked political spending and partisan gridlock hurt government where it is intended to be most accessible: in our local communities.


Consider Wyoming. In 1870, Louisa Swain of Laramie cast her vote in a local election half a century before the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote nationally. Wyoming’s early commitment to civic participation was crucial in keeping local and state government closely tethered to its people.

But today, that connection between government and the people it’s meant to serve is under siege, not just in Wyoming but nationwide. The overwhelming influx of out-of-state money into local and state elections silences the voices of everyday citizens. In the 2024 election cycle, A projected $4.6 billion was spent on state elections for candidates and ballot measures, surpassing previous records.

This has a corrosive impact. Voters feel powerless, and our jobs as elected representatives are becoming increasingly challenging. Public servants face mounting pressure to appease national donors rather than their constituents. Campaigns that once focused on community priorities are now battlegrounds for national special interests, injecting divisive rhetoric and millions of dollars of dark money into races that were once decided around kitchen tables and in town halls.

This nationalization of local elections is no longer the exception—it’s the rule. Just look at Wisconsin, where more than $100 million flooded this year’s state Supreme Court race. Billionaires and Washington D.C. power players weren’t investing because they cared about the judicial needs of Wisconsin residents. They were using the race as a political proxy war, a trend currently playing out in statehouses, school board contests, and mayoral elections across the country.

It wasn’t always this way. For most of our nation’s history, states have had the authority to set reasonable limits on campaign finance to protect the integrity of their elections. However, a series of Supreme Court decisions ruled that political spending constitutes a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, thereby stripping states of the ability to protect their elections from outside influence.

Those Supreme Court cases were, and still are, wrong. They not only elevated the voices of the wealthiest donors over the average voter but also violated the long-standing principle of states’ rights to limit political spending. This has resulted in the nationalization of our elections, which has stifled discussion on the issues that impact citizens at both the local and state levels.

The path forward is clear: we need a constitutional amendment that restores states’ and local communities’ authority to set their own rules on money in politics. Amending the Constitution is the only way to reverse Supreme Court decisions, and has been the instrument commonly used throughout American history to strengthen the will of the people at the ballot box. If the damage is being done at the state level, then it’s the states that must lead the way toward a solution.

Twenty-three states, from Utah and Nevada to West Virginia and New Hampshire, have already passed resolutions in support of this amendment. Six states—including our state of Wyoming—introduced resolutions supporting a constitutional amendment just this year. Polls show that more than three-quarters of Americans support returning this power to the people. Bipartisan momentum to address this issue is growing.

As lawmakers from different parties, we don’t agree on everything. But we do agree on this: government works best when it elevates the voices of citizens, not special interests. When it invites cooperation, not conflict. And when it allows communities—not billionaires or out-of-state operatives—to shape the future of our towns and our states. That vision isn’t new; it’s rooted in our founding. As the late U.S. Senator Alan Simpson wisely explained: “We need to get back to basics with our Constitution and our political system. As a nation, we cannot accept the law of aristocracy, where the political rights of people are based on their wealth.”

This movement to amend the Constitution gets us back to the basics. It returns power to the states and the people, ensuring our government is accessible, responsive, and focused on the issues that voters actually care about.

Andrew Byron is a Republican state representative in Wyoming.

Mike Gierau is a Democratic state senator from Wyoming.


Read More

A Tonal Shift in American Clergy
people inside room
Photo by Pedro Lima on Unsplash

A Tonal Shift in American Clergy

I. From Statements to Bodies

When a New Hampshire bishop urged his clergy to "get their affairs in order" and prepare their bodies—not just their voices—for public witness, the language landed with unusual force. Martyrdom■adjacent rhetoric is rare in contemporary American clergy discourse, and its emergence signals a tonal shift with civic implications. The question is not only why this language surfaced now, but why it stands out so sharply against the responses of other religious traditions facing the same events.

Keep ReadingShow less
Faith: Is There a Role to Play in Bringing Compromise?
man holding his hands on open book
Photo by Patrick Fore on Unsplash

Faith: Is There a Role to Play in Bringing Compromise?

Congress may open with prayer, but it is not a religious body. Yet religion is something that moves so very many, inescapably impacting Congress. Perhaps our attempts to increase civility and boost the best in our democracy should not neglect the role of faith in our lives. Perhaps we can even have faith play a role in uniting us.

Philia, in the sense of “brotherly love,” is one of the loves that is part of the great Christian tradition. Should not this mean Christians should love our political opponents – enough to create a functioning democracy? Then there is Paul’s letter to the Philippians: “Let your reasonableness be known to everyone.” And Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” The flesh could be seen as a politics of ego, or holding grudges, or hating opponents, or lying, or even setting up straw men to knock down; serving one another in the context of a legislative body means working with each other to get to “yes” on how best to help others.

Keep ReadingShow less
People joined hand in hand.

A Star Trek allegory reveals how outrage culture, media incentives, and political polarization feed on our anger—and who benefits when we keep fighting.

Getty Images//Stock Photo

What Star Trek Understood About Division—and Why We Keep Falling for It

The more divided we become, the more absurd it all starts to look.

Not because the problems aren’t real—they are—but because the patterns are. The outrage cycles. The villains rotate. The language escalates. And yet the outcomes remain stubbornly the same: more anger, less trust, and very little that resembles progress.

Keep ReadingShow less
Sheet music in front of an American flag

An exploration of American patriotic songs and how their ideals of liberty, dignity, and belonging clash with today’s ICE immigration policies.

merrymoonmary/Getty Images

Patriotic Songs Reveal the America ICE Is Betraying

For over two hundred years, Americans have used songs to express who we are and who we want to be. Before political parties became so divided and before social media made arguments public, our national identity grew from songs sung in schools, ballparks, churches, and public spaces.

Our patriotic songs are more than just music. They describe a country built on dignity, equality, and belonging. Today, as ICE enforces harsh and fearful policies, these songs remind us how far we have moved from the nation we say we are.

Keep ReadingShow less