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
Musk's Threat to Primary Democrats Sparks Fresh Call for Ban on Super PACs
"If there's ever been a time to discuss serious campaign finance reform, it is now," one advocate said. "We are sliding into a new era of American oligarchy, and unless we take decisive action, the integrity of our democracy is at risk."
Dec 21, 2024
Trump-backer and richest person alive Elon Musk's role in almost forcing a government shutdown this week has revived calls for campaign finance reform, both nationally and within the Democratic Party.
As part of his campaign against a bipartisan continuing resolution (CR) that would have funded the government through March 14, Musk said that Republicans who voted for the bill should lose their seats during the 2026 midterms and that he would fund moderate primary challengers to Democrats in safe districts.
"The threat of limitless super-PAC spending from the world's wealthiest man could have proven enough to shut down the federal government days before Christmas," Joseph Geevarghese, the executive director of Our Revolution, told Common Dreams. "If there's ever been a time to discuss serious campaign finance reform, it is now. We are sliding into a new era of American oligarchy, and unless we take decisive action, the integrity of our democracy is at risk."
"How about the House add campaign finance reform to the CR so Republicans and Democrats alike can stop being so scared about what a billionaire man-child thinks before they vote on anything around here?"
Before the shutdown showdown, Musk was already incredibly influential in politics as a financial backer: He spent at least $277 million on the campaigns of President-elect Donald Trump and other Republicans in 2024, including over $19 million on House races alone. Musk also spoke at Trump campaign rallies and was tapped by the president-elect to co-lead a new Department of Government Efficiency with fellow billionaire VivekRamaswamy.
However, his efforts to sink a spending bill revealed by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Tuesday raised fresh concerns about his influence on elected politicians. His initial barrage of complaints against the CR—posted on his social media site X on Wednesday—precipitated a statement against the bill by Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance. Johnson never brought the bill up for a vote.
As part of his initial Wednesday tweet storm, Musk wrote, "Any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!"
In response to Musk's threats, Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, gave an impassioned speech on the House floor on Thursday.
"Can you image what the next two years are going to be like if every time that Congress works its will and then there's a tweet? Or from an individual who has no official portfolio, who threatens members on the Republican side with a primary and they succumb?" Neal said.
Musk, in response to a video of Neal's speech, tweeted, "Oh… forgot to mention that I'm also going to be funding moderate candidates in heavily Democrat districts, so that the country can get rid of those who don't represent them, like this jackass."
The statement sparked outrage and resistance from congressional Democrats.
"Everyone knows I'm always ready," Neal toldBusiness Insider, while the Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee tweeted out sarcastic memes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezcalled for change on social media on Friday, writing, "How about the House add campaign finance reform to the CR so Republicans and Democrats alike can stop being so scared about what a billionaire man-child thinks before they vote on anything around here?"
Ultimately, after another Republican-led spending bill failed to clear the House on Thursday, Johnson introduced a paired-down CR that included key measures backed by Democrats such as relief for disaster victims and aid for farmers. That bill passed the House on Friday and the Senate early Saturday, narrowly averting a government shutdown that would have deprived hundreds of thousands of federal employees of paychecks over the holidays.
But Musk's intervention established a precedent "that should upset every American who believes in our democratic form of government," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said.
"Musk is getting carried away with himself, using his limitless fortune and his ownership of X to try to turn American politics to the authoritarian right," former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote on his Substack on Friday.
"Wealth inequality is rapidly undermining our democracy," Reich continued. "Musk is the poster boy for a wealth tax."
Musk's primary challenge to Neal bolstered calls for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to ban super-PAC spending in its primaries.
"Elon Musk, worth $455 billion, spent $277 million to buy the Republican Party," Sanders staff director Warren Gunnels wrote on social media on Friday. "He has also pledged to replace Democrats in primaries with those who represent his special interests. If the DNC doesn't ban super PACs in primaries, what will this picture look like in 2 years?"
Reich also argued that "the DNC must bar dark money and limit campaign contributions in all Democratic primary campaigns. The incoming chair of the DNC, selected on February 1, should make this a key part of their strategy for the 2026 midterms and beyond."
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
Most Popular