Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Promises by 2020 Democrats mean nothing without a constitutional amendment

Promises by 2020 Democrats mean nothing without a constitutional amendment

"Adding a free and fair elections amendment to the Constitution will ensure that special interests can no longer drown out the voices of the American people," argues Rena Goldman.

zimmytws/iStock via Getty Images

Goldman is the communications director of Wolf-PAC, a group fighting to amend the Constitution to permit more regulation of campaign finance.

The top three Democratic presidential candidates have each released plans to enact campaign finance reform, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Proposed changes include new laws, the restructuring of the Federal Election Commission, and the overhaul of federal election rules to eliminate the influence of corporations and wealthy donors — something the vast majority of Americans want.

And, while it's something Americans want, it's not what Americans will get.


First, most of these changes have one thing in common: They can easily be overturned, eliminated or revised. Laws and policies often change with election cycles. For example, take the McCain-Feingold law. Signed in 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was a victory for campaign finance reform — banning soft money, linking campaign contribution limits to inflation, creating disclosure requirements and requiring candidates to stand by their political ads by stating their approval at the beginning or end of the message. It wasn't long before court cases began to strip the law. In 2007, Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC opened the doors for more union and corporate money spent in elections. The next year, the so-called millionaire's amendment in McCain-Feingold was ruled unconstitutional.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Second, we're relying on the politicians who benefit from the current, corrupt system to change it. They have little incentive to do so, and tremendous incentive not to. This creates a dilemma: Either the proposed changes aren't designed to solve the problem fully, or a majority of politicians will never pass and implement them.

Adding a free and fair elections amendment to the Constitution will ensure that special interests can no longer drown out the voices of the American people. A constitutional amendment would provide a lasting solution because it goes above the Supreme Court and can't be easily repealed. To date, the only amendment to be repealed was the 18th Amendment, which mandated a nationwide prohibition of alcohol.

There are two ways to propose a Constitutional amendment, as described in Article V of the Constitution: when two-thirds of each house in Congress votes in favor of a proposed amendment or when two-thirds of the states (34 states) call for a convention to propose the amendment. However the amendment is proposed, it must still be approved (ratified) by the states. Ratification requires a vote in support of the amendment from three-quarters of the states (currently 38), which means that to become part of the Constitution, an amendment must have overwhelming support from the American people.

Throughout history, Americans have regularly amended the Constitution in order to address important issues facing the country. Amendments to abolish slavery and expand voting rights in federal elections for all citizens, regardless of race, gender, or age (18 and older) are two examples of how ordinary Americans banded together to create desired change.

Campaign finance reform is the most important issue of our time as it is the root cause of a federal government that's no longer responsive to the people. It demands no less than a Constitutional amendment.

Read More

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less