Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democracy Madness: Follow the money to the second round

basketball and democracy
enjoynz/Getty Images

The first-round results from the Money in Politics region of our Democracy Madness tournament looked like a typical March Madness bracket: The top seeds advanced, with a couple of low-level upsets spicing things up.

So now it's on to the Elite Eight, with our readers urged to take another shot at picking their favorite ideas for fixing the campaign finance system. (Our tournament of 64 democracy reform proposals has already seen ranked-choice voting and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact advance to the Final Four.)


The top six Money in Politics proposals all took care of business, but the seventh- and eighth-ranked entries both fell in minor upsets. In the matchup pitting limitations on foreign campaign contributions (No. 7) against limitations on lobbyists' campaign donations (No. 10), the curb on lobbyists came out on top. And in the battle of public financing options — subsidies for candidates (No. 8) versus vouchers for voters to donate (No. 9) — the underdog triumphed again.

But now they face the big dogs. Campaign vouchers are up against the top seed, the effort to effectively repeal the Citizens United decision by constitutional amendment, while the cap on lobbyists' donations battles the campaign to reveal "dark money."

The second round runs through Saturday, with the regional semi-finals and finals following next week.

Click the Vote Now button to make your selections. (You can click the matchups, then each label, for more about the proposals.)



Read More

A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

The Supreme Court’s stay in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem restores ICE authority in Los Angeles, igniting national debate over racial profiling, constitutional rights, and immigration enforcement.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Public Safety or Profiling? Implications of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem for Immigration Enforcement in the U.S.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in September 2025 to stay a lower court’s order in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections. The decision temporarily lifted a district court’s restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Los Angeles area, allowing agents to resume certain enforcement practices while litigation continues. Although the decision does not resolve the underlying constitutional issues, it does have significant implications for immigration policy, law enforcement authority, and civil liberties.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

The Supreme Court’s stay in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem restores ICE authority in Los Angeles, igniting national debate over racial profiling, constitutional rights, and immigration enforcement.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

Public Safety or Profiling? Implications of Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem for Immigration Enforcement in the U.S.

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in September 2025 to stay a lower court’s order in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections. The decision temporarily lifted a district court’s restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the Los Angeles area, allowing agents to resume certain enforcement practices while litigation continues. Although the decision does not resolve the underlying constitutional issues, it does have significant implications for immigration policy, law enforcement authority, and civil liberties.

Keep ReadingShow less