Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Just four money-in-politics reforms remain in Democracy Madness

basketball and democracy
enjoynz/Getty Images

The two top-seeded proposals for reforming the campaign finance system cruised to victory over the weekend, setting up some pretty predictable match-ups in our Money in Politics "regional" Final Four.

Repealing the Supreme Court's 2013 Citizens United decision (No. 1) blew away the idea of giving taxpayers vouchers for donating to political candidates (No. 9). Similarly, the No. 2 seed, requiring public disclosures to shed light on so-called dark money donations, mopped the floor with the 10th seed, curbing campaign donations by lobbyists.


There was one tiny upset: Proposals for stopping the "revolving door" between public service and the money-making world (No. 5) slid past the idea of making more influence-peddlers register as lobbyists (No. 4).

Voting is open through Tuesday so you can set up the final in this region.

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




Read More

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA)

U.S. Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC. House Republicans

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Democrats Gerrymandered David Valadao’s District. Did It Backfire?

GOP US Rep. David Valadao has never won his seat in Congress on Republican votes alone because too few Republicans live in the district where he was raised, lives, and runs his family farm.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less