CHARLESTON, W.Va. - According to people working to undo Citizens United, that Supreme Court decision giving corporations the right to make unlimited political contributions is so unpopular that it won't be the law of the land much longer. The group Move to Amend says corporations should not have the same constitutional rights - including free speech - as individuals.
Spokesman Dave Cobb, a member of the Move To Amend national leadership team, says polls have found that 80 percent of Americans across the political spectrum feel the same way.
"Whether they're a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, a Green, a Libertarian, this is not just an issue. This is a principle about how our government is supposed to operate."
In "Citizens United vs. The Federal Election Commission," the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government could not limit corporate and union political spending, because buying ads is a form of free speech. Separate rulings had found that corporations have many of the same constitutional rights as individuals, including free speech. The court decisions mean super-PACs (Political Action Committees) are able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on attack ads this election.
Cobb says the decision is gut-level offensive to people. When his group puts forward a constitutional amendment to address it, he says, people will respond.
"We put it on the ballot, it passes by 70, 75, 84 percent of the vote. There is no doubt that Citizens United is not going to be the law of the land within 10 years."
Cobb says corporations can have privileges, but never the same rights as people. However, he notes that courts have overturned numerous laws because they violate the rights of corporations.
"The only time I believe the courts should actually overturn a democratically enacted law is if that law actually violates the rights of a living, breathing human being."
Cobb has traveled around the country for the last year and a half talking about the issue. He was in Charleston on Friday. He says he has never seen a court ruling that offends so many people so deeply, which is why he expects it to be changed - one way or another.
More information is available at www.movetoamend.org.
get more stories like this via email
Undisclosed funding, or "dark money," is pumping into the 2024 election cycle.
Political spending by donors who stay hidden is reaching record highs, according to a report by OpenSecrets.
Author Anna Massoglia - the editorial and investigations manager at Open Secrets - said dark money might be coming from shadowy shell companies or non-profits, and often funds misleading attack ads against candidates from either party.
"When you have dark-money groups fueling this spending," said Massoglia, "the voter may not know what interest the secret donors behind that have in getting a specific candidate elected, a ballot measure passed or any other policy issue."
In 2022, OpenSecrets found that the Conservative Americans PAC spent more than $2.4 million in GOP primary races for U.S. House seats in Missouri, Tennessee and Arizona.
They discovered the super PAC was bankrolled by undisclosed American Economic Freedom Alliance and American Prosperity Alliance support prior to the votes.
Supporters of dark money donations argue they are a form of free speech, and in fact courts have often found that political donations are protected by the First Amendment.
Campaign watchdogs argue in return that even if donations are a form of protected speech, nothing stops the government from requiring full disclosure of who the donations are coming from - and without that, campaign advertising becomes inherently deceptive.
Massoglia says it really varies from one state to the next, in terms of which party and which side of the aisle is benefiting more. And, the patchwork of limits and disclosure rules vary greatly across the states.
"In some states, you can actually have 501(c)(4) dark-money groups or shell companies contribute directly to candidates' campaigns," said Massoglia, "which is something that's not allowed at the federal level. They're only allowed to spend in support of the candidate."
Massoglia emphasized that while dark money can come from various sources, it often comes from one type.
She said 501(c)(4) nonprofits are supposed to exist for social welfare purposes, but due to few restrictions on their spending they are able to spend practically unlimited sums on elections without ever disclosing their donors.
get more stories like this via email
Oregon lawmakers took a step toward limiting the impact of money on elections during the legislative session.
Lawmakers passed House Bill 2024, a campaign finance reform package that limits the amount single donors can contribute to campaigns. Limits haven't existed in the state since the 1970s.
Contributions will be capped at $3,300 - per candidate, per election.
House Speaker state Rep. Julie Fahey - D-Eugene - championed the bill.
In her first campaign for office, she faced candidates funded by large donations from wealthy donors - and said the experience inspired her to change the law.
"It really was that first challenging election cycle that cemented in my mind how important it was that we reform our campaign finance system," said Fahey, "in part because we need to make running for office more accessible to brand new candidates like I was."
Oregon voters have shown they're ready for limits on campaign contributions. They wrote them into the the state constitution in 2020.
This year, Honest Elections and the League of Women Voters had collected nearly enough signatures for a measure to put campaign finance reform on the November ballot.
Fahey noted that the bill doesn't just limit contributions.
"We also created new kinds of small donor pacs and membership organization pacs," said Fahey, "that will make sure that we can incentivize the kind of pro-democracy campaigning that we really want to see more of."
Common Cause Oregon Director Kate Titus said these changes have taken effort from a lot of people over a long period time.
"It's such a complex issue, campaign finance reform," said Titus, "and it's one of the toughest ones to fight because it gets at the heart of power in politics. Anyone who gains power through money has the power to resist."
The new campaign finance laws go into effect in 2027.
get more stories like this via email
Maine could become the first state in the nation to provide public funding to candidates seeking the office of district attorney.
Lawmakers are considering the first expansion of the state's Clean Election Act since 1996 to help ensure county-level races are not influenced by wealthy donors.
Anna Kellar, executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, said local and state law enforcement positions are increasingly gaining national attention and drawing large amounts of out-of-state spending.
"We see this really as a way of ensuring that this part of our justice system is fully accountable to the voters and able to be independent of their campaign donors," Kellar explained.
Kellar contended providing public funding for district attorney races will increase the pool of candidates with diverse career backgrounds, including public defenders. The legislation has passed a committee with bipartisan support.
Maine voters passed the Maine Clean Elections Act as a citizen initiative in 1996, creating a voluntary program of public financing of political campaigns for governor, state Senator and state Representative.
Candidates who participate can accept limited private contributions to start their campaigns but once they receive money from the state's Clean Elections Fund, they can no longer accept private donations.
Kellar argued the law ensures candidates have enough to run viable, fair campaigns.
"What we often see is if there are races where there are both clean elections candidates, they start out on that equal playing field and that also really helps reduce the need for that outside spending," Kellar observed.
Kellar emphasized the public should trust candidates for county-level law enforcement positions, including sheriff and district attorney, are impartial and will create agendas to benefit the public rather than donor's interests. She added Maine's "clean elections" have provided a great blueprint for other states, and wants the legislature to expand the law to ensure the example continues.
Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.
get more stories like this via email