News. Debate. Community. Levers for a better democracy.
Get some leverage.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.

Moussa81/Getty Images

Report: How gerrymandering has limited Medicaid coverage

The debate over gerrymandering often focuses on what partisan mapmaking means for election outcomes. But that's just the means to a policy-making end. A liberal think tank has just released its second report demonstrating how gerrymandering impacts legislative decisions, this time focusing on Medicaid.

A study released Monday by the Center for American Progress details the impacts gerrymandering has had on how states determine Medicaid eligibility. CAP found that despite significant bipartisan support for Medicaid nationwide, states with Republican-controlled legislatures were more likely to limit access to the government-subsidized health insurance.

CAP is part of a growing movement advocating for a change in the way congressional and state legislative district maps have traditionally been drawn. Rather than have state lawmakers decide, redistricting reform groups say, independent commissions should have the mapmaking authority.

"A fair process for drawing districts is fundamental to democracy, helping to ensure that voters' voices are heard on critical issues such as access to health care," the report states.

Keep reading... Show less
halbergman/Getty Images

Partisan gerrymanders stopped gun controls in five states, think tank says

One of the most prominent talking points in the entire democracy reform movement is that curbing money's sway over elections is a prerequisite to fixing every one of the nation's biggest problems. Now critics of partisan gerrymandering are trying to piggyback on that concept.

A new study concludes that aggressive legislative mapmaking by Republican majorities is responsible for the lack of any new gun control laws in five states during a decade marked by the accelerating pace of mass shootings.

In issuing the report Tuesday, the Center for American Progress, one of Washington's most influential liberal think tanks, joined the lengthening roster of groups advocating for states to take the drawing of political boundaries away from the politicians themselves in and turn the responsibility over to independent and nonpartisan panels.

Keep reading... Show less
Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Political spending by outside groups has set new records in every election since the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.

How to end foreign money in politics? Progressive group has a bold idea.

Foreign election interference is among the most troublesome challenges confronting democracy now — and not just by America's adversaries who hack votes and spread disinformation. Federal law is written to prevent allies and enemies alike from spending foreign money to influence American politics. But the loopholes are ample and they've been exploited for decades.

The Center for American Progress, one of the country's most prominent progressive public policy advocacy groups, has stepped forward with a solution — albeit a lofty one. On Thursday it outlined an ambitious proposal to virtually eliminate spending on U.S. campaigns by businesses under even minimal foreign influence.

As with so much else on the democracy reform agenda, however, the odds are prohibitive that any legislation along the lines CAP wants will get through the current Congress. Such bills might get through the Democratic House but are doomed in the Republican Senate, especially given Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's disdain for regulating campaign finance.

Keep reading... Show less
© Issue One. All rights reserved.