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."

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

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