Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

One GOP sponsor is breath of life for online political ad regulation

Lindsey Graham is giving a slim but firm reed to those hoping at least one democracy reform priority gets through Congress before the next election.

Like a singular crocus in a field of snow, the South Carolinian is standing out this week after agreeing to become the first Senate Republican to sponsor the Honest Ads Act, the shorthand name for legislation that would boost disclosure requirements for campaign advertising online.

Proponents of the bill are hoping support from someone who's become one of President Trump's most vocal congressional allies will herald the start of a steady build-up of GOP endorsements in the Senate.

It will take at least a dozen more Republicans coming aboard to guarantee the bill could break a filibuster led by their own leader, Mitch McConnell, who is steadfastly opposed to almost all ideas for regulating campaign spending. Even additional sunshine requirements, he says, will stifle the right to free political speech.


The measure would compel the social media behemoths with at least 50 million visitors to disclose the pricing, target audience and identity of the advertisers behind political ads worth more than $500 placed on their platforms. The aim is to help prevent a repeat of one of Russia's most successful infiltrations of the 2016 campaign debate, by ensuring that paid political spots online are covered by the same federal regulations as the advertising on TV and radio.

Similar language is in the political overhaul package the House passed this spring. No Republicans voted for the multifaceted House bill dubbed HR 1, (which McConnell has vowed to bury in the Senate) but a handful have said they would support the Honest Ads Act on its own.

Facebook and Twitter endorsed the legislation last year, when they faced withering bipartisan criticism for their inability to confront their central role in the Russian campaign interreference efforts. The sole Senate GOP sponsor until his death was John McCain, whom Graham counted as his closest friend in public life. The prime Senate Democratic advocates are presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mark Warner of Virginia, who has his party's top seat on the Intelligence Committee.

"As we enter another presidential election cycle susceptible to foreign interference, Congress needs to put in place some commonsense guardrails to ensure that this never happens again, starting with the Honest Ads Act," Warner wrote in a recent USA Today op-ed.


Read More

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
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less