Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Gaetz looks to be first House Republican swearing off PAC money

Matt Gaetz

Gaetz received $340,000 from political action committees during his first House term.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

If there is one area of common ground that Matt Gaetz, one of President Trump's fiercest defenders at the Capitol, can find with Democrats, it's his newfound distaste for political action committees.

Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday, the combative second-term Republican from Florida announced his campaign would no longer accept PAC money. While making a similar hands-off pledge has become something of a badge of honor for Democratic candidates and junior House members, Gaetz says he's become the first GOP member of Congress to make such a promise — and he appears to be correct.


End Citizens United, an increasingly powerful advocacy and campaign organization pressing to limit the influence of big money in politics, persuaded dozens of Democratic congressional candidates two years ago to forswear contributions from corporate PACs — and more than 40 of them got elected. So far this year, 60 incumbents seeking reelection to Congress and 23 challengers or open seat candidates have done so, until now all of them Democrats. A handful of the party's remaining presidential candidates have done likewise.

Gaetz took PAC money when he won an open and reliably Republican seat covering the Florida panhandle four years ago, and again when he won his second term by 2-to-1 in 2018. He said he was abandoning the practice now because he no longer wanted to be indebted to special interests — and he said his pledge was yet another way of echoing the Trump approach.

"Remember our independence from special interests is our loyalty to America and the America First movement that President Trump began," Gaetz told CPAC, which hosts the biggest annual gathering of conservative activists.

A member of the Judiciary and Armed Services committees, Gaetz received $340,000 from PACs in his first term but just $43,000 last year. Overall, however his total campaign contributions have stayed about the same, with a much greater share of money coming from small-dollar donors this year — when his national profile has skyrocketed because of his vigorous defense of Trump during impeachment.

Gaetz criticized the longstanding practices of both parties in Congress to offer "committee assignments and leadership opportunities" to the lawmakers "most indebted to special interests."

"I've never turned tricks for Washington PACs, but as of today, I'm done picking up their money in the nightstand," Gaetz said, explicitly likening public service under the PAC donation process to prostitution.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less