SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
campaign finance reform
In Tiny State of Maine, a Big Election Day Win Against Dark Money in Politics
"Our greatest hope is to restore people's faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board," said the chair of the campaign behind the measure likely bound for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nov 06, 2024
As billionaire-backed Republicans dominated U.S. elections on Tuesday, voters in Maine—among the top 10 states in terms of smallest populations—overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to limit political spending, an initiative that could reach the country's top court.
Maine Question 1 targets super political action committees (PACs), dark money groups that, for the most part, are barred from directly contributing to or coordinating with a candidate but can raise and spend unlimited amounts of funds.
Question 1 asked Mainers, "Do you want to set a $5,000 limit for giving to political action committees that spend money independently to support or defeat candidates for office?"
WMTWreported earlier this year that "the $5,000 contributions cap would only apply to state races, not United States House or Senate races."
As of Wednesday afternoon, the measure had passed 531,573 to 186,707, or 74% to 26%, with 89% of the estimated vote reported, according toThe New York Times.
"When the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere."
"We're grateful to the Maine people for once again leading the way to help fix our broken political system," said Cara McCormick, chair of Maine Citizens to End Super PACs, which collected signatures to get the citizen-initiated measure on the ballot.
"The Maine people deserve a system that is not only free from corruption, but also free from the appearance of corruption," McCormick added. "Our greatest hope is to restore people's faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board."
The campaign highlighted that "some of America's leading constitutional law experts—Laurence Tribe, Lawrence Lessig, Neal Katyal, Al Alschuler, and others—have argued that Question 1 is the most immediate pathway to ending super PACs, the biggest source of dark money in elections."
Welcoming the measure's passage, Lessig declared Wednesday that "this is a great gift from Maine to democracy in America."
"We expect this initiative will be challenged," he explained. "But when the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere."
As Maine Morning Stardetailed Wednesday:
Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has allowed contributions to be regulated when there is a risk of "quid pro quo" corruption, essentially a favor for a favor. In the case of elections, if there is a risk someone could be making a donation to a candidate in exchange for a favor, only then can Congress regulate that contribution. In 2010, the Supreme Court extended this reasoning to corporations and unions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Campaign Act.
Three months later, in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that contributions to groups making independent expenditures can't corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. That decision essentially created the "super PAC," which can receive unlimited contributions but can’t contribute directly to candidates. Other lower federal and state courts followed suit, and the ruling was never reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The editorial boards of both the Bangor Daily News and Portland Press Herald backed the ballot measure, with the latter writing last month that "ours would be the first state in the nation since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010 to move to limit contributions to PACs that can make independent expenditures."
"We believe that political spending has spiraled out of control, in many cases, and that the absence of any limit on PACs is inappropriate and leaves America's system of campaigning and voting vulnerable to the whims of bad actors," the board argued. "If Maine can play a leading role in bringing some order and fairness to political spending nationally, we should seize the chance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ban on Campaign Spending by Multinational Corporations About to Become Law in Minnesota
Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, has promised to sign the Democracy for the People Act "to put up a firewall to keep Minnesota's elections safe, free, and fair."
Apr 27, 2023
Campaign finance reform advocates on Thursday cheered final passage by legislators in Minnestoa of a bill prohibiting multinational corporations from spending money on state elections.
In a late-night 34-33 vote, the Minnesota Senate on Wednesday approved the Democracy for the People Act, an omnibus democracy bill that will ban companies with at least a 5% ownership stake by multiple foreign owners or a 1% stake by a single foreign owner from making political contributions in Minnesota state and municipal elections. The legislation also prohibits such companies from making "dark money" donations to super PACs.
"If there was a Mount Rushmore for electoral reform bills in the history of Minnesota... this would be on it," said Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat.
\u201c\ud83c\udf89 Huge victory in Minnesota last night!\n\nThe Democracy for the People Act:\n\n\ud83d\uddf3\ufe0f Registers up to 450,000 new voters\n\ud83c\udfe6 Limits corporate spending in elections\n\ud83d\udce3 Expands language access\n\u2696\ufe0f Protects voters from intimidation\nand more!\u201d— Stand Up America (@Stand Up America) 1682600164
The measure—which was approved 70-57 along party lines by the state House of Representatives earlier this month—now heads to the desk of Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat who has promised to sign it into law "to put up a firewall to keep Minnesota's elections safe, free, and fair."
"Multinational corporations are corrupting representative democracy by drowning out the voices of the people," said Alexandra Flores-Quilty, campaign director at Free Speech For People, whose model legislation heavily influenced the bill. "The Democracy for the People Act will help put power back in the hands of citizens."
\u201cTwo proud and tired authors after the Democracy for the People Act just passed the #mnleg Senate. It\u2019s on the way to Governor Walz\u2019s desk! \u2705\ud83d\uddf3\ufe0f\ud83d\udc4f\u201d— Emma Greenman (@Emma Greenman) 1682573413
According to the Center for American Progress (CAP):
This legislation will close a dangerous loophole opened by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and reduce foreign influence in Minnesota's elections. It contains additional important measures to strengthen the freedom to vote and modernize the state's campaign finance system, including establishing automatic voter registration, enabling voters to opt in to automatically receive a mail-in ballot for each election, preregistering 16- and 17-year-olds to vote upon turning 18, prohibiting intimidation and interference with the voting process, and increasing disclosure of secret political spending.
"Today, Minnesota took a giant step forward to strengthening free and fair elections, setting a strong example for the nation," CAP senior fellow Michael Sozan said in a statement following the state Senate vote.
\u201cGood morning!\n\nIt's Thursday, April 27th and the Democracy for the People Act is going to be signed into law soon!\n\nThanks to the @LizBoldonMN @emmagreenman and countless leaders who showed up throughout the session to ensure we protect and expand our democracy. \n\n#mnleg\u201d— We Choose Us (@We Choose Us) 1682606221
"At a time when many states are passing laws to suppress voters or subvert elections, Minnesota has become a national leader in protecting elections and empowering voters," Sozan added. "The provision to stop political spending by foreign-influenced U.S. corporations will limit the ability of foreign entities to spend money in Minnesota's elections and strengthen the ability of Minnesotans to chart their state's future."
There has been some momentum toward enacting similar legislation at the national level in recent years, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, and Rep. Jamie Raskin's (D-Md.) Get Foreign Money Out of U.S. Elections Act.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Overwhelming Majority of Americans Want Campaign Finance Overhaul
On Tuesday the New York Times and CBS News released one of the most in-depth surveys in recent history on Americans' views about money in elections. The results weren't hard to interpret: across the board, Americans agree that money holds far too much sway and that sweeping changes are needed in our political system.
Jun 05, 2015
On Tuesday the New York Times and CBS News released one of the most in-depth surveys in recent history on Americans' views about money in elections. The results weren't hard to interpret: across the board, Americans agree that money holds far too much sway and that sweeping changes are needed in our political system. A full 85 percent of respondents said our current system is so flawed that it needs to either see fundamental changes or be rebuilt completely.
Although advocates working to get big money out of politics already knew this was an issue Americans care deeply about, the extent and strength of support for fundamental change revealed in the poll is significant. Voters don't want small tweaks to an otherwise functioning system. The message coming through is a far-reaching call for reform: the system is broken.
Notably, support for change was strong among those from all political backgrounds, underscoring the fact that Washington is the only place where campaign finance reform is a partisan issue. Support for restricting campaign donations among Republicans polled was almost as strong as support among Democrats polled. National party leaders who want to roll back what's left of our nation's campaign finance laws (we're looking at you, Sen. McConnell) would do well to take note that Republican voters are not on the same page as Republican leadership on this.
How did we get to a place where most Americans think the system is broken? Much of it is thanks to the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, which has been steadily knocking down the rules remaining about money in politics. From finding in Citizens United v. FEC (2010)that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited funds to influence elections to deciding in McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) that limits on the overall amount a wealthy donor can give to candidates, parties, and PACs are unconstitutional, this court has continually jumped at opportunities to weaken our democracy. As my colleague Paul Gordon noted this week, in these decisions the high court has also been chipping away at the acceptable rationale for laws limiting money in elections: "They acknowledge that laws can be passed to prevent corruption and its appearance, but they have reduced that concept to little more than outright bribery." So even as the Koch brothers and other billionaires buy political influence in a way that ordinary Americans could never dream of, in the view of the current Supreme Court, this is just democracy in action rather than a reason for concern.
Given this trend, it's discouraging but not surprising that the poll found deep cynicism among Americans about the potential for fixing our big money system. Nearly six in ten people said they were pessimistic that reform would happen.
Though it might not always make national headlines, at the local and state level change is already happening. From providing incentives to encourage small donor participation in our elections, to disclosing political spending, to pushing for a constitutional amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United, there are real solutions we can rally behind that are already taking root in communities across the country. In 2014 in Connecticut, for example, 84 percent of incoming state officials were elected using the state's clean elections program. Thanks to this program, which offers grants to candidates who raise a certain number of small donations, candidates across the state are relying less on the wealthiest residents to propel them into office and more on the support of everyday people. A number of states across the country also passed new laws last year requiring increased disclosure of political spending. And on-the-ground organizing has pushed 16 states and more than 650 towns to call for a constitutional amendment that would allow lawmakers to set reasonable limits on money in elections.
Despite concerns about the possibility for reform, it's clear that the national political will for getting big money out of politics is there. And across the country, local leaders are already organizing to make it happen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular