Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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 better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less