Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Sanders' money-in-politics reforms would crimp his own success

Sen. Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders unveiled his new platform plank days after reporting a record $25.3 million fundraising quarter.

Scott Eisen/Getty Images

Bernie Sanders wants to throw the Federal Election Commission out the window and start fresh with a "true law enforcement agency."

Unveiling the first new plank of his campaign platform since his heart attack last week, the Vermont senator declared Monday that as president, a push to "abolish the worthless FEC" would be central to his plans to root out corruption and corporate influence in politics. Other components of his anti-corruption platform sound somewhat similar to those of his current rivals — although, to be sure, many of them are echoing the populist crusade for the little guy and against big-money corporate interests that drove the Sanders campaign of 2016.

To make sure he positions himself, once again, as the most aggressively populist and left-leaning of the candidates, however, the Sanders' package would have the effect of blowing up not only the Republican Party fundraising approach but also the tactics of many of the other Democratic presidential candidates.

If it were law now, the Sanders' package would also crimp his own fundraising success. He hauled in $25.3 million in the third quarter, more than any other Democratic candidate has raised in any three-month stretch.


If Sanders becomes the Democratic nominee next summer, he vows to ban corporate contributions to the Democratic National Convention and other related committees. If elected president, he would also bar corporate donations at inaugural events and put a $500 cap on individual donations.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Other 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have proposed renovations to the FEC, in hopes of improving its functionality, but Sanders is the first to suggest an all-out demolition and reconstruction. Throughout the FEC's 45-year history, it has often been deadlocked by partisanship. Its latest impediment, though, is that it has only three sitting commissioners since the end of August and four are required to do almost anything of substance.

Sanders' proposal would close the agency and instead establish the Federal Election Administration to hear violations of campaign finance law and impose both civil and criminal penalties for such infractions.

Additional proposals

  • A constitutional amendment to nullify the two landmark Supreme Court rulings in the era of campaign finance deregulation: Buckley v. Valeo, which declared in 1976 that candidate spending limits were unconstitutional limits on free speech; and Citizens United v. FEC, which held in 2010 that corporations, nonprofit organizations and labor unions could spend on campaigns without limits.
  • Weeding out corporate influence at the DNC by rejecting donations from lobbyists or corporations and imposing a lifetime lobbying ban on national party chairs and co-chairs
  • Create public financing for all federal elections by instituting a new system where eligible voters would receive taxpayer-funded vouchers for donating to their favorite presidential and congressional candidates.

Read More

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
Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

Someone filling out a ballot.

Getty Images / Hill Street Studios

Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

In the 2024 U.S. election, several states did not pass ballot initiatives to implement Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) despite strong majority support from voters under 65. Still, RCV was defended in Alaska, passed by a landslide in Washington, D.C., and has earned majority support in 31 straight pro-RCV city ballot measures. Still, some critics of RCV argue that it does not enhance and promote democratic principles as much as forms of proportional representation (PR), as commonly used throughout Europe and Latin America.

However, in the U.S. many people have not heard of PR. The question under consideration is whether implementing RCV serves as a stepping stone to PR by building public understanding and support for reforms that move away from winner-take-all systems. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of respondents (N=1000) on the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey (CES), results show that individuals who favor RCV often also know about and back PR. When comparing other types of electoral reforms, RCV uniquely transfers into support for PR, in ways that support for nonpartisan redistricting and the national popular vote do not. These findings can inspire efforts that demonstrate how RCV may facilitate the adoption of PR in the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less