Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

People holiding "Yes on 1" signs

People urge support for Question 1 in Maine.

Kyle Bailey

The Fahey Q&A: Kyle Bailey discusses Maine’s Question 1

Since organizing the Voters Not Politicians2018 ballot initiative that put citizens in charge ofdrawing Michigan's legislative maps, Fahey has been the founding executive director of The PeoplePeople, which is forming statewide networks to promote government accountability. Sheregularly interviews colleagues in the world of democracy reform for The Fulcrum.

Kyle Bailey is a former Maine state representative who managed the landmark ballot measure campaigns to win and protect ranked choice voting. He serves as campaign manager for Citizens to End SuperPACs and the Yes On 1 campaign to pass Question 1, a statewide ballot initiative that would place a limit of $5,000 on contributions to political action committees.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ballot envelopes moving through a sorting machine

Mailed ballots are sorted by a machine at the Denver Elections Division.

Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post

GOP targets fine print of voting by mail in battleground state suits

Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

In 2020’s presidential election, 17 million more Americans voted than in 2016’s election. That record-setting turnout was historic and even more remarkable because it came in the midst of a deadly pandemic. A key reason for the increase was most states simplified and expanded voting with mailed-out ballots — which 43 percent of voters used.

Some battleground states saw dramatic expansions. Michigan went from 26 percent of its electorate voting with mailed-out ballots in 2016 to 59 percent in 2020. Pennsylvania went from 4 percent to 40 percent. The following spring, academics found that mailing ballots to voters had lifted 2020’s voter turnout across the political spectrum and had benefited Republican candidates — especially in states that previously had limited the option.

Keep ReadingShow less
Members of Congress in the House of Representatives

Every four years, Congress gathers to count electoral votes.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

No country still uses an electoral college − except the U.S.

Holzer is an associate professor of political science at Westminster College.

The United States is the only democracy in the world where a presidential candidate can get the most popular votes and still lose the election. Thanks to the Electoral College, that has happened five times in the country’s history. The most recent examples are from 2000, when Al Gore won the popular vote but George W. Bush won the Electoral College after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and 2016, when Hillary Clinton got more votes nationwide than Donald Trump but lost in the Electoral College.

The Founding Fathers did not invent the idea of an electoral college. Rather, they borrowed the concept from Europe, where it had been used to pick emperors for hundreds of years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nebraska Capitol

Nebraska's Capitol houses a unicameral legislature, unique in American politics.

Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

100 years ago, a Nebraska Republican fought for democracy reform

Gruber is senior vice president of Open Primaries.

With Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen’s announcement on Sept. 24 that he doesn't have enough votes to call a special session of the Legislature to change the way the state allocates electoral votes, an effort led by former President Donald Trump to pressure the Legislature officially failed.

Nebraska is one of only two states that award a single Electoral College vote to the winner in each congressional district, plus two votes to the statewide winner of the presidential popular vote. Much has been made — justifiably — of Republican state Sen. Mike McDonnell’s heroic decision to buck enormous political pressure from his party to fall in line, and choosing instead to single-handedly defeat the measure. The origins of the senator's independence, though, began in a 100-old experiment in democracy reform.

Keep ReadingShow less