Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Supreme Court lets stand a ban on corporate contributions to candidates

Supreme Court lets stand a ban on corporate contributions to candidates
Drew Angerer / Getty Photos

The Supreme Court has turned down an opportunity to permit businesses to donate directly to candidates, deviating from a stretch of decisions expanding the "money is free speech" rights of corporate America.

As is routine, the justices made no statement Monday explaining why they decided against hearing the appeal of two family-owned businesses in Massachusetts that challenged the state's prohibition on for-profit companies making campaign donations.


They asked the court to reverse its 2003 decision allowing limits on corporate contributions to candidates, which would have been a significant expansion of the deregulation of campaign financing set in the Citizens United decision nine years ago. That landmark ruling declared that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts on elections so long as money is allocated independently from the candidates.

The two suburban Boston companies, a chain of auto parts stores and a self-storage outfit, were represented by the libertarian Goldwater Institute. They argued the state ban on donations from for-profit corporations to candidates and political committees violated the First Amendment free-speech rights of businesses and the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, because the restrictions on businesses' political activity are more stringent than for nonprofit corporations and unions.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

All federal candidates are barred from accepting donations directly from corporations, and 22 states also ban corporate contributions to candidates, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Read More

WHO Withdrawal is Not Going to Make America Healthy Again
World Health Organization flag, wide brush stroke on transparent background, vector.

WHO Withdrawal is Not Going to Make America Healthy Again

One of the first executive orders signed by President Trump on the evening of his inauguration was to immediately withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations agency tasked with coordinating a wide range of health activities around the world. This did not come as a surprise. President Trump tried to pull this off in 2020 amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Upset at how WHO handled the pandemic, President Trump accused it of succumbing to the political influence of its member states, more specifically to China. However, the structure of the WHO, which is made up of 197 member states, prevents it from enforcing compliance or taking any decisive action without broad consensus. Despite its flaws, the WHO is the backbone of global health coordination. When President Joe Biden came into office, he reversed the decision and re-engaged the US with the WHO.

Keep ReadingShow less
5 Things Americans Agree on at The Start of Trump's Second Term

Group of People Waving American Flags in Back Lit

Getty Images//Rawpixel

5 Things Americans Agree on at The Start of Trump's Second Term

More In Common, a nonprofit dedicated to finding ways to bridge political divisions in the US, released a new report that spotlights key areas of agreement across the political spectrum in the early days of the Trump administration.

The report, released last week, reveals a shared consensus on wildfire relief, respect for our allies, a commitment to the constitution, and a desire for unity even though each side is skeptical of the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
We Need to Rethink Polarization Before It Becomes a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

An illustration to symbolize two divided groups.

Getty Images / Andrii Yalanskyi

We Need to Rethink Polarization Before It Becomes a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

It’s time to rethink the notion that we Americans are too polarized to work together and get things done. And it’s time to get clear-eyed about what’s really holding us back and what it will take to help us move forward together.

A few years ago, I engaged cross-sections of Americans from all across the country in 16 in-depth focus groups about how they were feeling about their lives, the country, and our future. These conversations resulted in the report Civic Virus: Why Polarization is a Misdiagnosis.

Keep ReadingShow less
Even in victory, Republicans should listen to their opponents

An illustration of someone listening and someone speaking.

Getty Images / Leolintang

Even in victory, Republicans should listen to their opponents

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, many people have discussed Democrats’ mistakes—from being “out of touch” and insulting, to focusing too much on Trump, to Biden’s “arrogance” in running again. It’s good for political parties to ask tough questions about how their approach may be driving people away and how they can better serve people.

As Republicans continue to celebrate their victory, will they be brave enough to ask themselves similar questions?

Keep ReadingShow less