Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

With democracy reform stalled on Capitol Hill, local and state solutions needed

Opinion

Seattle

"What we've seen in Seattle and the state is that there is no quick fix to Citizens United," writes Cindy Black. "Instead, a holistic approach is needed."

live.staticflickr.com

Black is executive director of Seattle-based Fix Democracy First, which advocates for campaign finance, election access and voting rights reforms.

While important democratic reforms continue to stall in the Senate, activists in some states and municipalities are showing there's another way.

In Washington state, we've created a blueprint to rein in money in politics that can work elsewhere.

We've shown that a combination of public financing of elections, increasing access to the ballot, requiring nonprofits to disclose their top donors and coming up with creative ways to restrict the flow of corporate cash into politics can go a long way in returning government to the people.


We can't afford to wait on a national fix to the problems the Supreme Court created with its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The 2010 decision upended long-standing campaign finance laws, unleashing a torrent of unrestrained political cash on our elections. The ruling allows outside groups and donors to spend whatever they want in an election as long as the expenditures aren't coordinated with the candidate benefiting from their money.

In the decade since, outside spending in support of or against candidates has blown through the stratosphere. In 2016, during the last presidential election campaign, outside groups spent $1.4 billion on influence campaigns, up from $338 million in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The rise of super PACs and mega-donors has had a terrible impact on our day-to-day lives. The unbalanced influence of this obscene political spending has led to rotten policies and laws that protect the interests of the elite at the expense of the rest of us.

It's not a stretch to say that Citizens United, and the sway of the mega-donors, has played a part in everything from rolling back environmental regulations to out-of-control prescription drug prices.

We're fighting back on the local level. And we're winning.

In January, the Seattle City Council passed a law aimed at restricting political spending by corporations with substantial foreign investment, which would include hometown behemoth Amazon. Campaign finance reform advocates across the country have hailed the law as a brilliant counter to Citizens United.

However, this law might not have stood a chance at passing if not for Initiative 122, which Seattle voters overwhelmingly approved in 2015. Initiative 122 created a public campaign finance system where every Seattle resident receives $100 in "democracy vouchers"to give to candidates of their choice.

The voucher system helped grassroots candidates beat back a deluge of corporate cash in last year's city election, as a slate of Amazon-backed candidates went down to defeat.

What we've seen in Seattle and the state is that there is no quick fix to Citizens United. Instead, a holistic approach is needed.

The state's recent expansion of voting rights through automatic voter registration and same-day registration were a big part of the puzzle. But just as important was a new law that requires politically active nonprofits to disclose their top donors.

Victories in the hyperpartisan halls of Congress can be tougher to come by.

Constitutional amendments can take decades to become reality. Legislative solutions, such as the For the People Act of 2019, or HR 1, can get mired in bipartisan politics. The House passed the bill — which would strengthen campaign finance, voting and ethics laws — a year ago this month. And one year later, we're still fighting to get this critical legislation a hearing in the GOP-controlled Senate.

One thing is clear: We can't rely on Congress to solve our problems. Cities and states must lead the fight.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less