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

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
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting at voting booths.

A little-known interstate compact could change how the U.S. elects presidents by 2028, replacing the Electoral College with the national popular vote.

Getty Images, VIEW press

The Quiet Campaign That Could Rewrite the 2028 Election

Most Americans are unaware, but a quiet campaign in states across the country is moving toward one of the biggest changes in presidential elections since the nation was founded.

A movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is happening mostly out of public view and could soon change how the United States picks its president, possibly as early as 2028.

Keep ReadingShow less