Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

No one asked for a pro-corruption Congress

Fothergill is the RepresentUs Deputy Mobilization Director.

Each new Congress represents an opportunity for our elected officials to show that they can make life better for the American people. While there are plenty of hot-button issues that sharply divide us, there are just as many issues that have overwhelming bipartisan support. One of those issues is corruption.


Since no one wants there to be more corruption in government, you would think that the new Congress would take this golden opportunity to tackle something that folks across the political spectrum agree upon. But in one of the first votes of the 118th Congress, the Republican majority voted to gut one of the only safeguards the federal government has against corruption: the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

The OCE was created in 2008 following corruption scandal after corruption scandal. A bipartisan task force concluded that the best way to clean up Congress was with an independent body with oversight authority. Because of the conflict of interest, current elected officials could not be trusted to investigate their colleagues or themselves. As far as process goes, the OCE carries out corruption investigations, then refers their findings to the House Ethics Committee for further action.

Since its inception, the OCE has done its job investigating corruption from members of both parties. It has also lived up to its nonpartisan mission, referring nearly the same number of Democrats (52) and Republicans (50) to the Ethics Committee. More recently, it has shed light on members of Congress violating the STOCK Act – a law that was passed to prevent members of Congress financially benefiting from insider knowledge.

Given all the good important work the OCE has done, what possible explanation could the new majority have for dismantling it? Is there a massive pro-corruption movement I’m not aware of that is demanding this? Obviously, the answer is no.

This backwards move could not have come at a worse time. Our government is already experiencing a dangerous lack of trust with the public. More than two-thirds of Americans agree that “most politicians are corrupt” and nearly 70% believe the government “mainly works to benefit powerful elites” rather than “ordinary people". It’s no wonder, that when Congress fails year after year to tackle corruption, that confidence in government is at an all-time low. This continued failure to act poses a serious threat to our democracy.

What’s particularly baffling is that, in speech after speech on the House floor last week, member after member said some version of “Washington is broken”. Unfortunately, that turned out to be a bait and switch. In the public eye they correctly say that things need to change, but if you look at their actions, they have an odd way of showing they believe it. It’s almost as if they think that we the American people aren’t watching and aren’t paying attention.

Fortunately, the fight isn’t over. The OCE may be hobbled, but it hasn’t been eliminated. RepresentUs and our partners strongly opposed and sounded the alarm about gutting the OCE. Now, led by Common Cause, we’re planning to submit a letter to members of Congress outlining how the office can be strengthened. First and foremost, it should be codified into law so that a pro-corruption Congress can’t so easily dismantle it. It should also have subpoena power to better conduct its investigations.

Apart from reversing course and strengthening the OCE, there are other obvious steps Congress can take to tackle corruption. Overwhelming majorities of Americans also oppose members of Congress trading stocks while in office. This issue was brought to the forefront when multiple elected officials sold stocks following an internal COVID-19 briefing. Senators and House members proposed several bipartisan bills last Congress to strengthen the STOCK Act and ban congressional stock trading. There’s no excuse for failing to act.

At the end of the day, this is about restoring trust in our elected officials and our government. Congress simply cannot function when the American people don’t think it has their best interests at heart. If the new majority and all of Congress finally gets serious about tackling corruption, the American people will reward them for it. Enough is enough.


Read More

Making parties great again, early election results, and timely links

Donkey and elephant

Making parties great again, early election results, and timely links

#1. Deep Dive: Is it Realistic to Make Parties Great Again?

There’s intriguing new energy for advancing party-based forms of proportional representation (PR) in the United States, along with substantial legal efforts to win fusion voting where candidates earn the right to be nominated by more than one party. The underlying theory of the case for this new energy is that American political parties should be both strengthened and allowed to multiply. But is that what either the voters or elected leaders want? Here’s a longer “Deep Think” than usual to explore that question.

First, here’s new evidence of this energy and the intellectual case around stronger parties behind it:

Keep ReadingShow less
A person at a voting booth.

Independent voters now make up the largest voting bloc in the U.S., yet many are excluded from primaries and debates. Why reforming primary elections requires empowering independents.

Getty Images, LPETTET

Empowering Independent Voters Can Fix Primary Elections

Not long ago, almost no one talked about the rules and culture of primary elections. Today, there is a growing recognition that the way we run primary elections isn’t working. They’re too partisan. Too low turnout. Too dominated by ideological activists. My organization, Open Primaries, has spent years pushing this conversation into the mainstream.

But we won’t fix primaries purely by tweaking rules. Their dysfunction is a symptom of a larger problem: the systemic exclusion of independent voters from our political life. To truly reform them, we have to start with an honest discussion about why so many Americans are leaving the parties- and what it would take to empower them as full participants in our democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Liberty and Justice for Some

Stephanie Toliver examines book bans, transgender rights in Kansas, the impacts of ICE detentions, and the history of conditional equality in America’s schools, libraries, and churches.

Getty Images, Catherine McQueen

Liberty and Justice for Some

Late February brought two stories that most Americans filed under separate categories. In Kansas, the state government invalidated the driver's licenses and birth certificates of transgender residents, erasing legal identities with the stroke of a pen. In New York, a Columbia University neuroscience student named Ellie Aghayeva was taken from her campus apartment by federal agents who misrepresented themselves to get through the door and held by ICE until the city's mayor personally petitioned for her release. Different people, different states, different mechanisms. The same message: for some of us, the promises of this nation were always conditional.

And yet, many Americans hold onto the lie of equality because acknowledging the truth would mean that the foundational promise we have repeated since childhood — liberty and justice for all — was never meant for all of us. It is far easier to accept comfortable fictions than to reckon with a truth that destabilizes everything you thought you knew. That meritocracy is real. That all are equal. That the documents we carry and the institutions we enter will protect us the same way they protect everyone else. But for many of us, there was never a fiction to hold onto. We were born into the conditions the lie was designed to obscure.

Keep ReadingShow less
Michael B. Jordan standing next to Delroy Lindo

Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo at the 41st Annual Santa Barbara International Film Festival.

Getty Images, Phillip Faraone

Not OK: Curb Slurs and Hate Speech To Avoid The Monstrous

John Davidson shouted out the n-word while Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo presented a prize recently at the British Academy Film Awards.

Was it hate speech or a mistake made due to a disability?

Keep ReadingShow less