Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Citizens United is standing in the way of immigration reform

Citizens United is standing in the way of immigration reform

"Beneficiaries of DACA, or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, are a generation of young immigrants who were brought to our country as children, but are now at risk of losing their protections," argues Simone Campbell.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Campbell, a religious sister and attorney, is the executive director of Network Lobby for Catholic Social Justice Lobby for Catholic Social Justice.

"You have the right not to open the door. You have the right to be protected from unlawful searches by ICE agents. You do not have to sign any documents that a government official asks you to sign. Know your rights."

This mantra was memorized by immigrants across the country after President Trump announced large-scale Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids this summer. A single tweet thread created a new reality for immigrants and their families. Many now fear leaving their homes, going to work or even answering a knock at the door. You don't have to be a Catholic nun to understand that forcing people to live in terror is wrong.

The Catholic social justice teaching is that all people possess an equal and inalienable worth. Scripture tells us that we too were once strangers in a strange land and so we must love immigrants as ourselves. But the Trump administration is attacking our immigrant sisters and brothers in the Supreme Court.

Beneficiaries of DACA, or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, are a generation of young immigrants who were brought to our country as children, but are now at risk of losing their protections. For many, the United States is the only home they have ever known. Until recently, they have lived their lives without fear of deportation. Soon, that may change.


And our minimally regulated campaign finance system is part of their problem.

The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in three cases that will determine the future of the DACA program. If the court sides with the Trump administration, nearly 700,000 aspiring Americans will be deported. Their home is here and to end the DACA program goes against all moral teachings of my faith.

For almost two decades, Congress has failed to establish a permanent pathway to citizenship for people who were brought to the United States at a young age, also called "Dreamers." Although several bipartisan versions of the Dream Act have been introduced in Congress, none has passed. And so, in 2012 the Obama administration created the DACA program, granting "Dreamers" a temporary reprieve while Congress worked on a permanent solution.

The House passed such a bill this June, with bipartisan support. However, like so many other critical common good bills, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has buried the legislation in his Senate graveyard and refuses to take any action.

This isn't what the voters want. Polling shows 77 percent of Americans support a pathway to citizenship and protections for these young immigrants. However, due to paralysis in Congress, the fate of the program now rests in the hands of the Supreme Court.

One of the reasons Congress is so hamstrung on immigration, and many other critical issues, is because of the undue influence of wealthy far right donors. The only way we will ever have a government that is truly guided by the will of the people is to reform our democratic process and put the power back where it belongs — in the hands of voters.

In a secular democracy, elections are the closest thing we have to a sacrament. As a Catholic sister who follows Pope Francis' call to immerse ourselves in politics, I can see that our elections have been corrupted. The 2010 landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC undermined democracy by opening the door for wealthy far right donors to spend unlimited — and often untraceable — amounts of money to influence voters.

Citizens United has also dealt an additional blow to our democracy by ushering in a Senate and president who care more about delivering on promises made to donors rather than the priorities of their constituents. This leaves important issues, like the fate of almost 700,000 DACA recipients, in limbo.

The only way to finally pass common-sense, good legislation is to reclaim our democracy and end the outsized influence of big money. HR 1, passed by the House this spring, is a comprehensive approach to fixing our democracy. It will help restore faith in our government by protecting every person's vote, reducing the power of lobbyists and removing big money from campaigns. This is faithful democracy in action.

The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to make things right for DACA recipients. However, Congress must act to reverse the corruption of Citizens United and ensure all Americans have the opportunity to participate in our democracy and thrive in our country. This is the faithful way forward. It is only when every vote counts that "We the People" can truly be heard.

Read More

An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table

Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.

Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.

In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

Wilson Deschine sits at the "be my voice" voter registration stand at the Navajo Nation annual rodeo, in Window Rock.

Getty Images, David Howells

Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

On July 24, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Circuit Court order in a far-reaching case that could affect the voting rights of all Americans. Native American tribes and individuals filed the case as part of their centuries-old fight for rights in their own land.

The underlying subject of the case confronts racial gerrymandering against America’s first inhabitants, where North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting reduced Native Americans’ chances of electing up to three state representatives to just one. The specific issue that the Supreme Court may consider, if it accepts hearing the case, is whether individuals and associations can seek justice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That is because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, contradicting other courts, said that individuals do not have standing to bring Section 2 cases.

Keep ReadingShow less