Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less
MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less