Tuesday's election yielded two wins and one probable loss for those who say that curbing the influence of money in politics is key to a better democracy.
By far the most significant victory for that cause was in Oregon, which voted overwhelmingly to allow the state to limit campaign contributions and spending — and reverse some of the nation's most permissive campaign financing rules. And a couple of symbolic new limits were approved Tuesday in Missouri. But a package including new curbs on gifts to campaigns was facing rejection in Alaska.
The Supreme Court's landmark Citizens United ruling a decade ago said corporations, nonprofits and unions have a First Amendment right to spend as much as they want to help elect or defeat candidates for Congress or president. But since then, more than a handful of states have moved to tighten the flow of cash coursing through their own campaigns for statewide, legislative and local offices.
Here are the details on the three measures on the ballot this week:
Oregon
There was no organized opposition to the ballot referendum, which secured 79 percent support — ending decades of stalemate on the issue.
The measure adds language to the state Constitution making plain that restrictions on contributions and spending are permitted at all levels of government — as are rules requiring campaigns to be transparent about who is funding them.
Its approval will make campaign finance legislation a high-profile topic in the Legislature next year. Proponents of the ballot measure say that, if strict new rules to curb big money and favor small-dollar donations are not produced fast, they will try to force Salem's hand with another referendum two years from now.
Oregon is one of just five states that sets no limits on how much money candidates can receive from donors, the result of a state Supreme Court decision in 1997 that political contributions are a form of free speech under the state Constitution. A proposal to change that was rejected by voters in 2006, but the campaign was revived two years ago after a not very competitive race for governor was fueled with more than $40 million in gifts.
The arguments over the measure were familiar. Advocates talked about the overdue need to combat potential corruption and reduce the power of the wealthy and special interests. The grassroots opponents said the result would stifle political debate.
Missouri
Two marginal curbs to political money in Jefferson City were appended to a ballot measure that was mainly focused on changing the rules for redistricting — by reversing the voters' 2018 demand that the lines be drawn to ensure partisan fairness. It was approved with just 51 percent of the vote.
The measure will ban even the token gifts from lobbyists that are now permitted — just $5 to buy legislators a soda or maybe a ticket to a pancake breakfast. It will also lower the limit on donations to candidates for the 34 state Senate seats — but by just $100, to $2,400. And the new curb does not touch the contribution ceiling for the 163 state House races.
Alaska
The outcome of the broadest democracy reform initiative on the ballot this year remained grim if uncertain Thursday, and will stay that way until next week. With votes cast in person early and on Election Day tallied — almost three-fifths the expected total -- the proposal was being rejected by 65 percent of Alaskans. The 55,000 vote gap could shift and potentially be reversed, however, when 152,000 mailed ballots are opened and counted starting Tuesday.
In addition to open primaries and ranked-choice voting, the initiative would also require advocacy groups that make contributions for or against candidates for state offices to disclose their donors. These types of "dark money" groups currently don't have to reveal their funding sources. And it would require disclaimers on campaign advertising by organizations funded by mostly out-of-state money.
Strengthening these disclosure requirements, proponents say, will help bolster transparency around the groups or individuals influencing Alaska's elections.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.