Thursday's Democracy Dispatches
Here are some stories we're following from across the country:
Ranked-choice voting moved one step closer to appearing as a referendum on the 2020 ballot in Massachusetts. (Gloucester Daily Times)
Advocates for a pair of election initiatives in Portland, Maine — one to expand the use of ranked-choice voting in city elections and the other to establish a public financing system for local elections — failed to get either on the November ballot. (Portland Press Herald)
A new group is trying to curtail the waiting period for ex-convicts to regain the right to vote in Wisconsin. (Journal Sentinel)
- Ideas at Work: A Better Way to Talk Politics - The Fulcrum ›
- A model in Virginia, where political reform and pragmatism won this ... ›
An increasing number of the country's largest publicly traded companies are disclosing more than ever about political spending habits that the law permits them to keep secret.
That's the central finding of the fifth annual report from a group of academics and corporate ethicists, who say the average score among the biggest companies traded on American exchanges, the S&P 500, has gone up each year since 2014.
Though corporate political action committees must disclose their giving to candidates, those numbers are very often dwarfed by the donations businesses make to the trade associations and other outside groups that have driven so much of the steady rise in spending on elections. Conservatives say robust disclosure of these behaviors is the best form of regulating money in politics and is working fine, and this new report reflects that. Those who say campaign finance needs more assertive federal regulation will argue such corporate transparency is inconsistent and inadequate to the task, and the new report underscores that.
A year from the presidential election, U.S. intelligence agencies have adopted a new framework for how they will inform candidates, groups and the public about attempts to disrupt our country's elections by foreign operatives.
But the one-page summary of the plan, released late last week, is so general that it remains unclear what the intelligence community plans to do if and when it discovers something suspicious.
The summary by the director of national intelligence states that the federal government will "follow a process and principles designed to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that notification decisions are consistent, well-informed and unbiased."
The new framework is designed to prevent a repeat of some of what happened after the 2016 election.