Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

With democracy reform stalled on Capitol Hill, local and state solutions needed

Opinion

Seattle

"What we've seen in Seattle and the state is that there is no quick fix to Citizens United," writes Cindy Black. "Instead, a holistic approach is needed."

live.staticflickr.com

Black is executive director of Seattle-based Fix Democracy First, which advocates for campaign finance, election access and voting rights reforms.

While important democratic reforms continue to stall in the Senate, activists in some states and municipalities are showing there's another way.

In Washington state, we've created a blueprint to rein in money in politics that can work elsewhere.

We've shown that a combination of public financing of elections, increasing access to the ballot, requiring nonprofits to disclose their top donors and coming up with creative ways to restrict the flow of corporate cash into politics can go a long way in returning government to the people.


We can't afford to wait on a national fix to the problems the Supreme Court created with its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. The 2010 decision upended long-standing campaign finance laws, unleashing a torrent of unrestrained political cash on our elections. The ruling allows outside groups and donors to spend whatever they want in an election as long as the expenditures aren't coordinated with the candidate benefiting from their money.

In the decade since, outside spending in support of or against candidates has blown through the stratosphere. In 2016, during the last presidential election campaign, outside groups spent $1.4 billion on influence campaigns, up from $338 million in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The rise of super PACs and mega-donors has had a terrible impact on our day-to-day lives. The unbalanced influence of this obscene political spending has led to rotten policies and laws that protect the interests of the elite at the expense of the rest of us.

It's not a stretch to say that Citizens United, and the sway of the mega-donors, has played a part in everything from rolling back environmental regulations to out-of-control prescription drug prices.

We're fighting back on the local level. And we're winning.

In January, the Seattle City Council passed a law aimed at restricting political spending by corporations with substantial foreign investment, which would include hometown behemoth Amazon. Campaign finance reform advocates across the country have hailed the law as a brilliant counter to Citizens United.

However, this law might not have stood a chance at passing if not for Initiative 122, which Seattle voters overwhelmingly approved in 2015. Initiative 122 created a public campaign finance system where every Seattle resident receives $100 in "democracy vouchers"to give to candidates of their choice.

The voucher system helped grassroots candidates beat back a deluge of corporate cash in last year's city election, as a slate of Amazon-backed candidates went down to defeat.

What we've seen in Seattle and the state is that there is no quick fix to Citizens United. Instead, a holistic approach is needed.

The state's recent expansion of voting rights through automatic voter registration and same-day registration were a big part of the puzzle. But just as important was a new law that requires politically active nonprofits to disclose their top donors.

Victories in the hyperpartisan halls of Congress can be tougher to come by.

Constitutional amendments can take decades to become reality. Legislative solutions, such as the For the People Act of 2019, or HR 1, can get mired in bipartisan politics. The House passed the bill — which would strengthen campaign finance, voting and ethics laws — a year ago this month. And one year later, we're still fighting to get this critical legislation a hearing in the GOP-controlled Senate.

One thing is clear: We can't rely on Congress to solve our problems. Cities and states must lead the fight.


Read More

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship

Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.

To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close-up shot of a Black woman's hands receiving a mail-in ballot to vote in a USA Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, or local election

An immigrant's perspective on why America's election debate over security vs. access is a false choice — and how USPS mail ballot rules fit in.

Jeremy Poland/Getty Images

Ballot Security and Voter Access Are Not Opposites: What the USPS Ballot Rule Gets Right

I came to the United States from India in 1982. In Indian elections, I watched officials check voter identity and mark a voter’s finger with indelible ink. Party representatives observed the process. The system was imperfect, as every large democracy is, but it sent a simple message: casting one vote is a serious civic act, and the process should make that clear.

When I later became an American citizen and cast my first ballot, the experience felt very different. A poll worker found my name on a list and handed me a ballot. In my precinct, there was no photo identification check. I was surprised—not because I expected voting to be difficult, but because I expected a system as consequential as an election to have clear, visible safeguards.

Keep ReadingShow less
A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.

Uncontested elections are more common than you'd think. From open primaries to multi-member districts, here's what states like California and Alaska are doing to bring real competition back to the ballot — and what it'll take to change political culture, too.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

What America Can Do About Its Uncontested Elections

Politics nerds have many ideas about how to strengthen American democracy; however, few directly address silent elections. For example, ranked-choice voting does nothing to encourage more candidates to run if there are not enough. Term limits increase turnover, but even newcomers can frequently run uncontested in general elections if they have won competitive primaries.

Fortunately, the cause isn’t hopeless. For one, tightening campaign finance laws would put potential challengers on more even footing with corporate-backed politicians, encouraging more candidates to run. Independent redistricting would also help. The Cook Political Report, a poll aggregator, considers only 69 of America’s 435 House districts competitive. Fair redistricting means more competitive districts and therefore more contested elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Americans Vote In The 2024 Presidential Election

Voters cast their ballots on November 5, 2024 in Jefferson, New Hampshire.

John Tully/Getty Images

Non-Popular Vote Presidents: Conservatives’ Pathways for Abandoning Fiscal Responsibility

In political science and macroeconomic analysis, conservative administrations that win governance through the Electoral College without securing the national popular vote (historically exemplified by administrations like George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016) navigate specific structural, ideological, and strategic pathways that often lead to the abandonment of traditional fiscal restraint.

Supply-Side Supremacy and "Starve the Beast"

Keep ReadingShow less