Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

6 takeaways from a liberal democracy reform scorecard of Congress

Thumbs up/down
jayk7 / Getty Images

It's no surprise that Democrats in Congress rank better on democracy reform than their Republican counterparts, especially when progressive groups are keeping score. Over the last year, GOP members were largely opposed to Democratic efforts to get big money out of politics and expand access to the ballot box.

So the bipartisan chasm comes off as enormous in the first congressional scorecard produced by End Citizens United, a liberal political action committee that's focused mainly on shrinking money's influence over politics. And the report, released this week, suggests only rare and subtle degrees of disapproval for the blue team on Capitol Hill in 2019 — and only a few areas for faint praise of the red team.

All members were rated on whether they accepted contributions from corporate PACs. The 432 current House members were also scored on how they voted on the floor four times — including of course on HR 1, the comprehensive political process overhaul passed in March — and how many of five measures important to the group they cosponsored. Since the Senate took no votes on legislation connected to democracy reform, the senators in office last year were rated only on a quartet of co-sponsorships.


To see how each member scored, read the complete report. But here are six of the big takeaways:

The presidential candidates scored well.

All five members still in the running for the Democratic nomination received perfect marks: Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. (So, too, did the three senators who have dropped out.)

Such perfect scores were rare.

Eleven Senators and 37 House members, all of them Democrats, checked all the boxes to earn an A+. This group included 22 House members in their first terms.

Because not many Democrats reject business cash.

Only a quarter of the Democratic senators (11 of them) and one-fifth of the party's House members (47) are doing one of the things End Citizens United thinks most important in an area when corporate money is flowing so freely into campaigns.

Almost all the Republicans got failing grades.

In fact, all 53 of the party's senators got a zero. So did 192 of the GOP members of the House last year. The remaining five each did one thing that got them credit with the group:

Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania voted for an overhaul of the Voting Rights Act. Brian Mast of Florida voted for for an election security package. Francis Rooney of Florida and Phil Roe of Tennessee are rejecting corporate PAC money. (Both are retiring, though.) And John Katko of New York is cosponsoring an amendment to the Constitution to allow more limits on campaign fundraising and spending.

The newest Republican is an outlier.

Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey scored 85 percent for agreeing with the groups' position in seven of the 10 areas. But he's only been a GOP member since the start of the year. Last year he was a Democrat.

Just four Democrats did not get an A.

Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia were the only two Democratic senators in this category; she scored 82 percent and he got 71 percent. In the House, the lowest Democtaic scores were for Frederica Wilson of Florida (83 percent) and Collin Peterson of Minnesota (77 percent).

Read More

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules
white concrete dome museum

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules

Trust in elections is fragile – and once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many election policies, there is broad bipartisan agreement on one point: executive branch interference in elections undermines the constitutional authority of states and Congress to determine how elections are run.

Recent executive branch actions threaten to upend this constitutional balance, and Congress must act before it’s too late. To be clear – this is not just about the current president. Keeping the executive branch out of elections is a crucial safeguard against power grabs by any future president, Democrat or Republican.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why free speech rights got left out of the Constitution – and added in later via the First Amendment

Supporters of free speech gather in September 2025 to protest the suspension of 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!', across the street from the theater where the show is produced in Hollywood.

Why free speech rights got left out of the Constitution – and added in later via the First Amendment

Bipartisan agreement is rare in these politically polarized days.

But that’s just what happened in response to ABC’s suspension of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” The suspension followed the Federal Communications Commission chairman’s threat to punish the network for Kimmel’s comments about Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer.

Keep ReadingShow less
Pam Bondi Made a Mockery of Congressional Oversight
President Donald Trump holds a press conference with Attorney ...

Pam Bondi Made a Mockery of Congressional Oversight

Checks and balances can only work if government officials are willing to use their authority to check abuses of power by others. Without that, our Constitution is an empty promise.

And without the will to stand up to such abuses, freedom and democracy also become empty promises. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, the Constitution was designed to ensure that “the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”

Keep ReadingShow less
From Nixon to Trump: How Scandals Reshape Power, Not Justice

Richard Nixon circa 1983.

(Photo by Images Press/IMAGES/Getty Images)

From Nixon to Trump: How Scandals Reshape Power, Not Justice

The American political system flatters itself with tales of enduring resilience. We are told that each scandal is a crucible, a test from which the republic emerges tougher, wiser, and better fortified. The institutions bend, the story goes, but they do not break. The narrative is comforting because it suggests that corruption is always self-limiting, that crisis is always purgative, that turmoil survived is justice fortified.

But the record tells another story. Scandal after scandal has not made American democracy sturdier. It has hollowed it out, teaching the powerful not restraint, but ever-shrewder ways to transgress.

Keep ReadingShow less