Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democrats seek exposure (and face aggressive GOP) on HR 1

Majority Democrats are going to slow-walk debate on their comprehensive election and ethics overhaul bill for the better part of three days this week. They hope to highlight their "good government" bona fides for as long as possible before pushing the bill through the House and on to certain death in the Republican Senate.

The only real suspense is whether GOP House members, who also appear dead set against the package, will have any success at weakening some provisions or adding language the Democratic leadership would view as poison pills.


The initial Republican strategy on that front will become clear Tuesday night, when the Rules Committee, which determines the ground rules for all of the House's legislative debates, determines whether to allow amendments.

The sprawling bill carries the label HR 1 to reflect the Democrats' desire to tout it as a top priority during their return to power, and so party leaders are very likely to do whatever they can to keep it unsullied with GOP alterations during a debate that's likely to stretch from Wednesday into Friday.

To that end, they seem willing to brush past complaints that such thwarting of an open amendment process amounts to trampling on one good-government principle even as they profess their overriding interest in promoting a more functional democracy.

Still, House rules afford Republicans one opportunity to alter the legislation right before the final vote, and they can wait to unveil their proposal until the literal last minute – so that the roll call occurs without time for any intervening pressure campaigns by lobbyists or party leaders.

This maneuver, known as the motion to recommit, has become House Republicans' new parliamentary weapon of choice this winter and they have succeeded twice so far in amending legislation, including a gun control measure last week. When the strategy works, it means the GOP has come up with a proposal that wins over a bloc of at least 20 moderate or politically vulnerable Democrats, those most likely to break from the party line in order to display a moderate streak to constituents who in many cases backed President Trump in 2016.

The catchall nature of the bill makes a brief synopsis difficult. Among other provisions, it would:

  • Expand the rules for disclosing campaign contributions to include so-called dark money groups.
  • Give congressional candidates federal matching funds for donations raised in small denominations.
  • Mandate easier voter registration systems nationwide.
  • Create a national requirement to permit early voting.
  • Set Election Day as a federal holiday.
  • Require states to give House redistricting duties to independent commissions in order to end partisan gerrymandering.
  • Bar members of Congress from serving on for-profit boards.
  • Prevent members from using taxpayer money to settle any sort of employment discrimination claim.
  • Tighten ethics rules to slow the revolving door between executive branch service and K Street advocacy.
  • Compel presidential nominees to turn over a decade's worth of income tax returns.

Read More

Woman holding out an empty wallet at a table.

Many Americans wrongly associate poverty primarily with Black and Hispanic communities. Explore how this misconception influences public opinion, politics, and anti-poverty policy.

skaman306 / Getty Images

More Whites Live in Poverty than Either Blacks or Hispanics - Correcting the Perception of Poverty

From observing people and politicians over the years—I can find no data on this—I have the impression that liberals as well as conservatives think that the typical person living in poverty is Black or Hispanic. The image most Whites have of people of color is someone who is poor—except for celebrities—with little education; they are not aware of many people of color who are middle class. On the other hand, they are not aware of many Whites who are poor and so they think their number is low.

Why is the perception of poverty important? The perception of who is poor has significant impact on the support for government programs that aid the poor. Given the extent of racism in this country, whether subtle or violent, (see my post, “Whether the Issue is Gun Violence or Inequality, It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism”), it’s not surprising that support for anti-poverty programs is non-existent among MAGA Republicans and for that matter has always been weak among Republicans; 45% of Republicans would even cut food stamp support. Their attitude is "it's your fault;" so government has no responsibility to help. They feel the causes of poverty are personal: bad life choices, drugs, lack of work ethic, and the breakdown of families—all negative perceptions of Black culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues
person in green pants sitting on white textile
Photo by Vanessa on Unsplash

The All-America City of San Antonio Collaborates to Address Teen Pregnancy and Other Issues

San Antonio, TX, has been working to reduce teen pregnancy for over two decades, making considerable progress through collaborations among the city, county, nonprofit organizations, and the University of Texas. A nine-time All-America City, one of San Antonio’s key community collaborations, SA 2020, harnessed civic muscle to create and achieve dozens of measurable goals, including a significant reduction in teen pregnancy.

The San Antonio Teen Pregnancy Collaborative (SATPPC) was formed in 2010 in response to news that Bexar County had one of the highest rates of teen births in the United States. The SATPPC brought together an impressive list of cross-sector organizations, including public entities, community-based organizations, and faith-based and secular institutions. The group’s overall goal was to reduce the Bexar County teen birth rate among females ages 15 to 19 by 15% by 2020, and it exceeded this goal even before that date.

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-gerrymandering sign

Anti-gerrymandering sign

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting for Politicians or Their Consultants to Fix Gerrymandering

2018, a nonprofit worker in Michigan named Katie Fahey posted a message online asking if anyone else was tired of politicians drawing their own districts. She had no campaign experience and no political base.

Within two years, the ballot initiative she built, called Voters Not Politicians, had written an independent redistricting commission into the Michigan constitution. Hollywood eventually made a documentary about it, Slay the Dragon, which is a fairly accurate description of what she had actually done.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods."

Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods" on April 22, 2026 in Bears Ears National Monument, Utah. Bears Ears has been a controversial Monument since it's creation in December of 2016.

George Frey / Getty Images

When Public Lands Become Real Estate

Last week, in his latest attempted liquidation of our shared heritage, President Trump signed two executive orders eviscerating protections for close to three million acres of our national monuments: Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. From the Oval Office, a president who has never even seen these sacred sites reduced them by roughly 90%, dwarfing his 2017 attempt at a similar land grab by about a million acres, leaving only 300,000 acres of protected land. These cuts will directly threaten critical wildlife habitats, put nearly 100,000 irreplaceable archaeological sites at risk of destruction, and fracture an interconnected indigenous homeland that has been stewarded by Native tribes since time immemorial. To Trump, it’s just another real estate deal.

The Trump regime has tried to portray this set-up to sell off as an effort to restore public access. During the Oval Office photo op where the president signed the proclamations, he said of the monuments: “You can’t go hunting. You can’t go fishing. You can’t do anything. You can virtually not even walk on it.” That is, to put it mildly, a malicious lie. All your favorite forms of outdoor recreation—from hiking and camping to fishing and hunting—are allowed there, which Trump might know if he had ever visited the land he decided is not worth preserving. In fact, the Antiquities Act doesn’t limit ordinary public use but rather the extent to which an area can be subject to mining and drilling. So much for the land of the free. Trump wants to make it a whole lot easier for extractive industries and private development interests to privatize and pillage these sacred lands for financial gain. Home of the brave? Not an ounce of courage to refuse the fuel lobby when it comes to our public lands. At least the law is on our side. As the President of the National Parks Conservation Association put it, this is both “a betrayal to the American people and illegal.”

Keep ReadingShow less