Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Add Freedom Caucus Chair to Those Who'd Ban Super PACs

The chairman of the Freedom Caucus, the most combative clutch of conservatives in the House, says so-called super PACs should be outlawed.

North Carolina Republican Mark Meadows says he was rebuffedwhen seeking permission to offer such an amendment to HR 1, the sweeping election and ethics overhaul bill the majority Democrats muscled to House passage (with no GOP votes) last week.

"Super PAC" is the nickname for an independent political action committee that may raise unlimited sums from corporations, unions and people but has to spend the money without any coordination with political parties or candidates.


"Super PACs remain the dark-money tool of choice for the political establishments of both parties, but Meadows's move is a reflection of a growing consensus on both the far right and the far left that there is something wrong with the way that campaigns are financed today," the Intercept said in reporting Meadows' position. "From a practical perspective, rank-and-file lawmakers see super PACs as unpredictable threats to their incumbency, and they are also deeply unpopular among the general public."

Meadows and GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas have in the past proposed ending super PACs and instead lifting the current $2,800 limit on donations to the candidates' primary and general campaigns (for a total of $5,600 per cycle). While HR 1 would not do away with super PACs, it would further limit their ability to coordinate with campaigns and require more disclosures of major donors to political organizations of all kinds.


Read More

Person holding "Vote" sign.

Person holding "Vote" sign.

Photo provided

Latino Voters Shift Ahead of Midterm Elections

Two years after providing historic levels of support that helped propel Donald Trump back to the White House, Latino voters are shifting rapidly away from the Republican Party. The realignment is driven by a potent combination of persistent economic anxieties and a sharp backlash against the administration’s aggressive domestic immigration crackdowns. A landmark national poll conducted by NBC News and Telemundo reveals that the President’s approval rating among registered Latino voters has plummeted to just 27%, signaling deep political turbulence for the GOP on the eve of critical midterm elections.

When asked by reporters outside the White House about the plunging numbers, President Trump angrily dismissed the data, labeling the findings as “fake news.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Person placing ballot in voting box

Person placing ballot in voting box

Getty Images

Who Gave the Federal Government the Right to Decide Who Can Vote?

The Trump administration is pressing to remove noncitizens from voter rolls across the country. Yet an important question seems to be missing from the debate: Where, exactly, does the federal government get the authority to impose a citizenship requirement on federal elections? The Constitution does not make citizenship a universal qualification for voting. Instead, Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 states: “The Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” At the same time, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 explicitly grants Congress authority over the conduct of federal elections: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished Congress’s power to regulate how federal elections are conducted from the states’ authority to determine voter qualifications, explaining that Congress may regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections, “but not who may vote in them.” For much of American history, noncitizens voted in elections in at least 22 states and territories, and some historical research suggests the number may have been as high as 40. Today, certain noncitizens are still permitted to vote in local elections in California, Maryland, Vermont and the District of Columbia. If the Constitution leaves voter qualifications to the states, what gives the federal government the authority to demand otherwise?

A Long History of State Decisions

Keep ReadingShow less
USA Presidential voters on electoral college map

USA Presidential voters on electoral college map

Getty Images

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Federalism at Its Best

Federalism operates at its peak when states collaborate as a unified network rather than acting as isolated silos. While the American system traditionally views states as competitive "laboratories of democracy," pure isolationism limits policy success. When states pool resources, align regulations, and share data, they solve national problems faster without expanding federal bureaucracy.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) represents federalism at its best by using explicit constitutional state powers to modernize the presidential election system without a constitutional amendment.

Keep ReadingShow less