Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Wyoming takes a stand against out-of-control political spending

Opinion

U.S. Capitol surrounded by money
Greggory DiSalvo/Getty Images

Clements is the president of American Promise, a nonprofit advocate for amending the Constitution to allow more federal and state regulation of money in politics.

On Feb. 13, in the deep red state of Wyoming, a majority of state House members voted for Joint House Resolution 0002, calling on Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to ensure transparency in election spending and allow states to regulate corporate, union and other political contributions.

Wyoming legislators demonstrated again the deep, cross-partisan support for amending the U.S. Constitution to empower Americans to stop the systemic corruption that comes from out-of-control political spending. While the resolution didn’t receive the needed two-thirds vote, the strong majority support (35-26) shows that Wyoming lawmakers, as with most Americans, know the urgency of ending the domination of dark money and outside influence in elections.


Americans oppose out-of-control political spending because it undermines their own rights of free speech and a level playing field in voting and representation. Past Supreme Court decisions – Buckley v. Valeo, reinforced by Citizens United v. FEC – removed power from voters and state and federal lawmakers to set limits on political spending. The theory – unprecedented for 200 years of American history – is that those with massive financial resources have a “free speech” right to deploy those resources, with no limits, to influence election outcomes. Spending in elections by groups, billionaires and even foreign governments has been rising at an alarming rate. Nearly $16 billion may be spent in the 2024 cycle alone, up more than 30 percent from the last presidential election.

The American government is supposed to be of, by and for the people, but our current pay-to-play politics has deteriorated into a government bought, paid and sold to the highest bidder. Social media and advertising disinformation campaigns are funded from the shadows, influencing elections with no accountability. Worse, foreign actors exploit the dark money system to manipulate elections and serve their own interests.

Americans have had it with this dangerous Supreme Court-imposed theory about money and free speech. In Wyoming, recent polling shows that 87 percent of voters agree that the coercive influence of money in politics threatens democracy. The constitutional amendment to enable states and Congress to set reasonable limits to regulate campaign spending is favored by 75 percent of Wyoming voters. These extraordinary super-majorities mirror what American Promise is seeing in polling and ballot initiatives around the country.

Now, Wyoming and others are vying to join the 22 states that have taken formal action to advance the For Our Freedom Amendment, the only enduring way to regulate political spending by giving the states and Congress power to set reasonable limits. In November 2023, 86 percent of Maine’s voters approved a law banning spending in elections by foreign government-controlled entities. Maine’s voters, concerned that unhinged claims of “free speech” rights to unlimited election spending might even extend to foreign actors, showed foresight in including a resolution calling for the constitutional amendment: After the foreign money ban was passed, foreign-owned corporations sued in federal court, claiming a free speech right to dominate Maine’s elections with their money. The For Our Freedom Amendment would put an end to such foolishness.

In Pennsylvania, legislators introduced a bipartisan resolution calling for the constitutional amendment solution. Wisconsinites and Arizonans are organizing to move their state into the victory column, and Minnesotans have an amendment resolution moving through the legislative process. Momentum is building because Americans are tired of having the fate of the country and our communities determined by an elite donor class. But that elite is outnumbered. The fact is, 86 percent of Republicans and Democrats agree that money in politics is a threat. It’s time to act, and that’s exactly what these states are doing.

The vote in Wyoming is part of the tipping point that brings constitutional solutions faster than many realize when the need is clear. This constitutional amendment process is the time-honored way that Americans drive reform in the darkest hours. At the beginning of the 20th century, when division, political violence, gender-restricted voting and white supremacy dominated much of the country, The Washington Post’s editors solemnly sniffed at those proposing constitutional amendments. Over the next several years, Americans ratified four amendments, the first of twelve that Americans would secure in the 20th century.

Now the promise of American democracy is on the line again. As Wyoming just showed, Americans know what to do.


Read More

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less