Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Get off the sidelines and fight for our democracy

Opinion

Adonal Foyle

Foyle (center) argues, "We don't have to stand by and watch our democracy crumble."

Kelly Sullivan/Getty Images

Foyle is the founder and president of Democracy Matters, a nonpartisan organization of college students working to reduce the influence of money in politics. He also played 12 years in the NBA, mostly with the Golden State Warriors.

Can you imagine waking up one day to find our democracy gone? To find yourself in a country where rule "by the people, for the people" is replaced with a political system where only the super-wealthy make the decisions and call the shots?

Sadly, this isn't just a thought exercise. It's happening to us right now. When mega-donations by rich political funders determine who runs for office and who wins elections, the foundations of our democracy erode and the peoples' voice is silenced.

Sometimes, the erosion is so slow, we hardly notice. But other times, it results from a single change that threatens our democracy.


On Jan. 21, 2010, the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United v FEC, opening the door to unlimited anonymous corporate spending in our elections. The result has been to exponentially increase the power of private wealth in politics.

While life as we know it didn't end that day, a decade later the impact of that decision still reverberates.

Citizens United, in essence, says corporate political spending is protected political speech. That means corporations and political action committees can spend as much as they want in support of a candidate, so long as that candidate doesn't receive the money directly or coordinate with the donors about how it is spent.

As we pass the 10th anniversary of that ruling, we wake up to an America struggling to preserve one of our core beliefs — that our government was created to serve the interests of all its citizens. Instead, we have a political system where it is legal for a small group of mega-donors to fund candidates who win elections and then make rules that benefit the donors.

Applied to sports, it would be as if rich gamblers were allowed, by law, to pay off referees to favor one team over another. Sports would be ruined — everyone would know that the games weren't fair. But today our political system is being ruined because of the power of big money in elections.

Politics should be at least as fair as sports! Instead, we are selling our democracy to the highest bidder.

The first five years after Citizens United saw the rise of the super PAC — and the amount of big money in politics exploded. A Brennan Center for Justice report found that fewer than 200 big donors accounted for nearly 60 percent of all super PAC spending between 2010 and 2015. And in the 2016 election, political action committees spent $1.6 billion on behalf of campaigns.

Both super PACs and political action committees funded by the rich are already on track to spend even more in the 2020 election. You can draw a straight line from that money to policies and laws that will benefit the mega-donors — massive tax breaks for the wealthy, drug prices that most Americans can't afford, and weaker environmental regulations among them.

But we don't have to stand by and watch our democracy crumble. It's not too late for us to find a way to put the big money genie back in the bottle.

We can organize and educate our friends and neighbors. We can turn out and vote. And we can urge others to do so as well. If you're a student, you can get in the fight by joining my nonpartisan national student organization.

Right now, there are bills sitting on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's desk that would not only curb the undue influence of big money but also protect voting rights, especially in communities of color that have historically been discriminated against.

We should demand that our senators give these bills a hearing. And if they refuse, we need to elect senators who will vote to put democracy back where it belongs — in the hands of all the people.

So, don't just sit by and watch our democracy die. Get off the sidelines. Get in the game.


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