Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Campaign finance constitutional amendment gets a GOP presidential backer

Bill Weld

He faces really long odds, but Bill Weld is still the most prominent Republican to endorse changing the Constitution to permit tougher money-in-politics limits.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Bill Weld is now the most prominent Republican candidate in favor of amending the Constitution in order to slow the torrent of big money in American politics.

The former Massachusetts governor is the longest of long shots as he runs against President Trump for the GOP nomination. And a constitutional alteration to permit much tighter campaign finance regulation has essentially no near-term shot of getting through Congress with the necessary two-thirds majority and then getting ratified by the required 38 states.

But those who view such a 28th Amendment as the most consequential aspiration of democracy reformers can nonetheless point to Wednesday's announcement as a symbolic milestone: The idea can now claim a measure of bipartisan support in the presidential field.


"Democracy reform has become a top theme of the 2020 presidential election cycle with campaign finance issues taking the stage. As citizens continue to voice their displeasure with the current pay-to-play system, many candidates are addressing big money in politics in their platforms," read a statement from American Promise, a leader of those advocating the constitutional approach and the group that persuaded Weld to sign a pledge to push the cause once in the White House. "The pledge is a meaningful way to hold our elected officials accountable on this issue."

Weld did not issue any statement about his decision to sign the promise.

A dozen of the Democratic presidential candidates have also signed — including two of the leading candidates, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., have not signed.

Many advocates for stricter campaign finance rules say plenty can be accomplished, and withstand judicial challenges, without altering the Constitution. American Promise and its allies contend that such a hard-to-achieve goal is necessary to permanently reverse the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which deemed unlimited political spending by big corporations, nonprofit organizations and labor unions a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.

Such an amendment has been proposed in Congress every year since the Citizens United ruling. It's only received a vote once, five years ago, when the 54 Democratic senators endorsed the amendment — 13 shy of the supermajority needed for success. This year the amendment has the support of 47 members of the Democratic caucus and 176 members of the House — all Democrats except Republican John Katko of New York.

While Trump promised to "drain the swamp" during his campaign, he has yet to spend any political capital on efforts to regulate money in politics or lobbying.

The other Democrats who have signed the pledge are Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana, former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, billionaire investor Tom Steyer and author Marianne Williamson.

American Promise says eight 2020 congressional candidates have also signed their pledge — six of them Democrats and two from minor parties.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less