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
lawrence lessig
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
Majority of US Voters Across Political Spectrum Back Landmark Pro-Democracy Reform Bill: Poll
One prominent campaign finance expert called the For the People Act "an incredibly important piece of comprehensive democracy reform."
Jan 21, 2021
After decades of erosion by corporate and plutocratic interests and the battering ram that was the Donald Trump presidency, a new poll Friday suggests the democratic ideals enshrined in the landmark For the People Act enjoy broad support across the political spectrum.
"The most important parts give candidates a realistic chance to fund campaigns with small contributions only. That could liberate Congress from special interest funding."
--Lawrence Lessig,
Harvard Law School
Originally passed by the House of Representatives in 2019 but torpedoed by the Republican-controlled Senate, the For the People Act (pdf) would expand voting rights including for former felons, curtail partisan gerrymandering, strengthen ethics rules, limit money in politics and implement the DISCLOSE Act, and make Washington, D.C. a state--among other reforms.
The new survey, conducted by the left-leaning think tank Data for Progress and the advocacy group Equal Citizens, found a majority of self-described Democrats, Republicans, and independents support the For the People Act. Respondents were given the following information:
The For the People Act has been introduced in Congress. Supporters of the bill say it would limit the influence of big money in politics by empowering small donors, make voting easier and more secure, end gerrymandering, and give the public more information about who is lobbying our government. Opponents say it would be an overreach by the federal government and that states should control their own elections. Do you support or oppose the For The People Act?
Two-thirds, or 67%, of respondents answered affirmatively, including 77% of Democratic voters, 56% of Republicans, and 68% of independents. More than one-third (35%) of Democratic voters and 25% of Republicans "strongly support" the bill, while only 4% of Democrats and 11% of Republicans said they "strongly oppose" it.
\u201cRestoring democracy isn\u2019t just the right thing to do \u2014 it\u2019s the popular thing to do. \n\n67% of Americans agree: it\u2019s time to unrig the system and create a government #ForThePeople https://t.co/Ud2AwgFNhZ\u201d— Mondaire Jones (@Mondaire Jones) 1611324903
The original For the People Act was written by the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.). Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said it will be the very first bill they introduce in the current congressional session.
"From a violent insurrection at the Capitol to the countless attempts to silence the vote of millions of Americans, attacks on our democracy have come in many forms," said Schumer on Tuesday. "Senate Democrats are committed to advancing real solutions and fighting to uphold the core tenets of our constitution, which is why we are announcing today that the first bill of the new Congress will be the For the People Act."
Despite controlling both chambers of Congress, based on current rules at least 10 Senate Republicans will need to support holding a vote for the bill in order to avoid a filibuster. A flood of progressive voices and groups, including Justice Democrats and the Sunrise Movement, have recently urged Senate Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, which could be accomplished by a simple majority vote.
\u201cDemocrats have established campaign finance reform as a top priority in 2021\u2014the For the People Act aims to tackle corporate influence, \u201cdark money,\u201d foreign attempts to influence American elections and voter suppression practices.\n\nhttps://t.co/HXulWGibzl\u201d— OpenSecrets.org (@OpenSecrets.org) 1611325980
Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School and expert on campaign finance, calls the For the People Act "an incredibly important piece of comprehensive democracy reform."
"In my view, the most important parts give candidates a realistic chance to fund campaigns with small contributions only," Lessig told OpenSecrets. "That could liberate Congress from special interest funding."
In addition to broad popular support, the For the People Act is backed by some 180 progressive groups who have formed the Declaration for American Democracy coalition.
Members of the coalition include: the American Federation of Teachers, CodePink, Color of Change, Common Cause, Demand Progress, Greenpeace, Indivisible, the League of Conservation Voters, March for Our Lives, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Progressive Democrats of America, Public Citizen, the Service Employees International Union, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Electoral College Revolt Growing Into 'Powerful Show of Force'
Lawrence Lessig says 20 Republican electors are considering a vote against Trump on December 19
Dec 14, 2016
With the Electoral College vote less than a week away, Harvard University constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig says 20 Republican members are considering voting against Donald Trump--more than half the number needed to potentially block the real estate mogul's election.
The 538 delegates to the Electoral College will gather at state capitols on Monday, December 19 to cast their votes for president. Ahead of that day, Lessig's Electors Trust group "has been offering pro bono legal counsel to Republican presidential electors considering ditching Trump and has been acting as a clearinghouse for electors to privately communicate their intentions," Politicoexplains. Lessig further outlined his arguments for doing so in an op-ed posted Tuesday at Medium.
He said Tuesday: "Obviously, whether an elector ultimately votes his or her conscience will depend in part upon whether there are enough doing the same. We now believe there are more than half the number needed to change the result seriously considering making that vote."
That claim "contradict[s] the assertions of Republican National Committee sources who report that a GOP whip operation intended to ensure Republican electors remain loyal to Trump found only one elector--Chris Suprun of Texas--would defy Trump," Politico pointed out.
But that could be because, as Salonreports, "Trump's campaign is pressuring Republican electors into voting for them under 'threats of political reprisal.'"
Citing an anonymous member of the Electoral College, the website writes:
"We have gotten reports from multiple people," the elector said, "that the Donald Trump campaign is putting pressure on Republican electors to vote for him based on...future political outcomes based on whether they vote for Donald Trump or not."
The elector emphasized that these reports had come straight from the Republican electors themselves, with the threats steering clear of violence but instead focusing on "career pressure."
"It's all political, basically," the elector said. "If Trump becomes the president, he's going to be able to put pressure on the state parties and they won't be involved anymore."
Furthermore, The Hillnotes, "even if the rogue electors achieve their aims, they would only succeed in sending the election to a Republican-majority House, which would almost certainly certify Trump's victory."
Still, Margaret Hartmann wrote at New York magazine on Wednesday, "denying Trump the presidency isn't the movement's only goal."
"Denying Trump his 306 electoral votes could be important symbolically," she argued, "as it would undercut Trump's claim that he secured a mandate and serve as a show of strength from his opponents."
She pointed to a letter sent last week from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) to its members, which explained why the group "has decided to put major resources into the Electoral College protests scheduled on Dec. 19."
"[W]e're going to make these protests a powerful show of force," the letter read. "News coverage of these protests will increase public awareness of the fact that Trump lost the popular vote by 2.5 million votes--helping to blunt his claim of a 'mandate' and harden the spine of Democrats to fight."
The PCCC continued:
We go into this with sober expectations. Barring an extraordinary event, the Electoral College will likely elect Donald Trump as president. However, we can achieve two concrete things with these protests even if Trump wins the vote.
First, by generating media attention for the idea that Electors should support the popular vote winner, we can make it a source of mockery when Trump claims a "mandate" for an authoritarian, anti-worker, right-wing agenda. And when establishment Republicans in Congress claim a "mandate" to ram trillions of dollars of corporate giveaways through Congress.
Second, these events will force the media to report that Trump's razor-thin victories in battleground states were made possible in part by massive voter suppression. 2016 was the first general election without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act. Over 800 polling places were closed. Early voting was cut. Restrictive voter ID laws were in effect. Hundreds of thousands of voters--disproportionately people of color--were purged from the voter rolls.
"Denying Trump 270 electoral votes...would be jarring," Hartmann wrote at New York. "At the very least it would spark a more serious and sustained effort to clarify whether the Electoral College exists to rubber-stamp the election outcome or give Americans one last chance to keep an unfit candidate from assuming the presidency."
Meanwhile, Politicoreports that more than 50 Democratic electors are now asking for an intelligence briefing on claims Russia interfered with the U.S. elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular