Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Remove foreign-influenced corporate money from our elections now

Money surrounding the Capitol
Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

Black is executive director of Fix Democracy First.

Federal law is clear: Foreign money is prohibited in U.S. elections. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC created a loophole allowing corporations with significant foreign ownership to use their corporate coffers to spend unlimited amounts of money in U.S. elections.

With the next presidential election just seven months away, it’s critical that we address this loophole immediately. The good news is that the White House can direct the Department of Justice to take action today.


Across the country, we know corporations continually use their funds to influence elections, whether for a candidate they deem can help pass policies that benefit their bottom line, or against state ballot measures that everyday people use to try to improve their lives. What we don’t hear about is how many of these companies have wealthy foreign owners who could get their CEOs or other leaders on the phone at a moment’s notice to go after, or support, politicians whose decisions could personally benefit them or their country’s interests. This is not only a threat to American democracy in general, but also to our national security interests.

There have been numerous reports showing the amount of foreign-influenced corporate money coming into our elections. The most recent report from Open Secrets, “Foreign-Influenced Corporate Money in State Elections,” showed over $163 million flowing into six states during the 2018-2022 election cycles. The money was spent on state-level candidates, party committees, political action committees, ballot measure committees and independent expenditure committees (also known as super PACs). Over 800 companies, which included corporations with either at least 5 percent aggregate foreign ownership or an individual foreign owner holding more than 1 percent, collectively gave tens of millions of dollars across the six states during the 2022 election cycle alone.

In January 2020, Seattle passed a citywide ordinance banning corporations with significant foreign ownership from spending on local elections. Since then, other states and local jurisdictions have done the same, or at least tried to pass something. But it’s not enough.

We need the federal government to act now, and the White House has the power to do so. President Joe Biden needs to immediately direct the Department of Justice to investigate and determine the extent to which foreign entities may be influencing or attempting to influence American elections via corporations. The investigation should include the unique roles played by anonymous shell companies and politically active nonprofit organizations. And the DOJ should enlist the help of the Federal Election Commission, the Department of the Treasury and other relevant agencies to make recommendations to stop this influence.

We need strong leadership in order to take this threat to our democracy and national security seriously. The White House must take immediate action.


Read More

California Voters Don’t Like Either Party. Good Thing the Primary Doesn’t Belong to The Parties.

California voters increasingly distrust both major parties. Here's why the state's Top Two primary gives independent voters more power to shape elections.

Image: Duncan Shelby on Alamy.

California Voters Don’t Like Either Party. Good Thing the Primary Doesn’t Belong to The Parties.

SAN DIEGO, Calif. - California voters have already received ballots for the June 2 primary, and the message they have going into these elections may not be what the political class wants to hear: They are not thrilled with either major party.

A recent analysis from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that majorities of likely voters have unfavorable views of both parties—61% unfavorable toward the Democratic Party and 70% unfavorable toward the Republican Party.

Keep ReadingShow less
How the Voting Rights Act Reshaped Texas’ Electoral Maps

President Lyndon B. Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., Clarence Mitchell Jr., Patricia Roberts Harris, and other guests at the signing of the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965.

Yoichi Okamoto - Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum

How the Voting Rights Act Reshaped Texas’ Electoral Maps

In 2002, U.S. Rep. Henry Bonilla, a Republican, nearly lost his South Texas seat to Democrat Henry Cuellar. So when the GOP used its newfound majority in the state Legislature to redraw the voting maps the next year, they sawed through Cuellar’s hometown of Laredo and scattered Latino voters, who tended to vote Democratic, into other districts.

Latino advocacy groups sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the cornerstone provision of the law that prevents government bodies from diluting the voting power of specific groups. The Supreme Court found Texas lawmakers had taken away Latino voting power “because they were about to exercise it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could reshape presidential elections as Midwest states debate Electoral College reform, political polarization, and the future of winner-take-all voting in America.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

700+ Proposed Amendments Failed, Midwest Voters Can Succeed

The Midwest served as the vanguard and ideological heartland of the Progressive Era, acting as a crucial laboratory for political, social, and economic reforms that later adopted national significance. Midwestern states (the cradle of the movement) pioneered anti-monopoly efforts, democratic, and social improvements.

After 770+ failed proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendments (the most on record for one issue) to remedy the factionalism (21st century polarization) feared by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
“We Can’t Afford It” Is Never an Acceptable Excuse To Deny Independents a Vote

DC voting rights advocate Lisa D.T. Rice criticized the DC City Council for failing to fund Initiative 83’s semi-open primary system, leaving 85,000 independent voters unable to participate in taxpayer-funded primaries despite overwhelming voter approval in 2024.

Photo by Getty Images on Unsplash.

“We Can’t Afford It” Is Never an Acceptable Excuse To Deny Independents a Vote

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Lisa D.T. Rice spoke before the DC City Council during a Budget Oversight Hearing on May 1 to talk about Initiative 83, the semi-open primary and ranked choice voting measure she proposed that was approved by 73% of voters in 2024.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less