Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Tapping the common sense on ethics in government

This article is part of a series that reveals the many policy proposals on which Republican and Democratic voters agree.

Tapping the common sense on ethics in government
Getty Images

Kull is Program Director of the Program for Public Consultation.

Lewitus is a Research Analyst at Voice of the People whose research interests focus on policy, public opinion and democracy reform.


Thomas is Vice President of Voice of the People and Director of Voice of the People Action. Thomas is an organizer and government relations professional with years of experience working in campaigns, advocacy, and policy research.

The Federal government has failed to address many issues facing our nation, largely due to increasing partisan polarization that results in near-constant gridlock. Some speculate this polarization is a reflection of the American public. However, Voice of the People has found that majorities of Republicans and Democrats actually agree on numerous positions–nearly 200 as of now. These surveys, conducted mostly by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, differ from standard polls in that they provide respondents with background information and pro-con arguments, before they give their recommendations.

The level of trust in Congress and the Federal government in general has been decreasing for decades. A rising perception that officials too often act for their own benefit, rather than the public’s, is a key driver. The public wants to limit government officials from engaging in self-serving activities that can steer their priorities away from serving the public. Specifically, overwhelming bipartisan majorities favor proposals that would more severely regulate the ability of officials to trade stocks while in office, and become lobbyists afterwards – both of which can influence how officials legislate and govern.

Members of Congress trading stocks while in office has been criticized for many years, but the issue was given new life with accusations of Members making lucrative purchases of pharmaceutical stocks based on insider information on Covid-19 vaccines. Currently, the only regulation on stock-trading is a mandatory disclosure rule, along with the general law against insider trading. Numerous bills have been put forward to fully ban trading individual stocks by Members, as well as senior officials in the Executive Branch. None of these proposals have received a vote in Congress, yet are supported by overwhelming bipartisan majorities of the public.

Over eight-in-ten support prohibiting Members of Congress, and their live-in family, from trading stocks in individual companies (National 86%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 88%), as well as the President, Vice President, and Supreme Court Justices (National 87%, Republicans 87%, Democrats 90%).

However, a Congressional proposal to ban stock-trading for all federal employees, including Post Office workers, does not receive majority support, with just 40% in favor, including just 42% of Republicans, 37% of Democrats and 42% of independents.

Alongside regulations on what officials can do while in office, the public supports regulations on officials’ activities after they leave office, particularly lobbying the government they just worked for. There has, for a long time, been a concern that the temptation of well-paid lobbying jobs can cause officials to govern in ways more in line with the will of their future employer rather than the public. Currently there are some regulations on this: many former officials must wait at least one year before they can become a lobbyist. This has, however, not stopped the “revolving door”. Over the last fifty years, the number of Members of Congress that became lobbyists has increased almost tenfold. Nearly half of the Members of the 115th Congress (2018-19) who left office took lobbying jobs.

Numerous bills have been put forward to increase waiting periods for former officials, and in one case prohibit lobbying for life. Despite those proposals having large bipartisan public support, none have passed Congress.

Extending the lobbying waiting period for Members to five years is favored by 65% of voters (Republicans 65%, Democrats 67%). Extending it for other federal officials also receives large bipartisan support; for senior Executive Branch officials to five years is favored by 71% (Republicans 72%, Democrats 72%); and for senior Congressional staffers to two years is favored by 74% (Republicans 75%, Democrats 75%). When it comes to lobbying the US government on behalf of a foreign government, the public goes further: 71% support prohibiting senior Executive Branch officials from lobbying for a foreign government for the rest of their life (National 71%, Republicans 71%, Democrats 71%).

A list of nearly 200 policies with bipartisan support can be found on Voice of the People’s Common Ground of the American People website.


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
Two young people hold signs on education matters

Two young people hold signs on education matters

Oakland District Teenagers Are Going to the Poll for the Second Time This Nov. 3

Rosanna Custodio was about just 10 years old the first time her teachers walked off the job.

That was 2019, when Oakland teachers went on strike for seven days over low pay, class sizes, and support staff. They walked out again in 2022 over school closures, and again in 2023 over pay and school safety. Rosanna, now 17 and a student at Oakland High School, has kept count of how many times educators have walked out.

Keep ReadingShow less