CHARLESTON, W. Va. – Described as a sequel to Citizens United, another case before the U.S. Supreme Court today could end one of the last big restrictions on the political influence of wealthy individuals. McCutcheon vs. Federal Election Commission challenges the overall limits for how much an individual donor can give in an election to federal candidates, parties, committees and PACs.

According to Common Cause staff counsel Steve Spaulding, the court could allow multimillion-dollar donations that he calls corrosive to the democracy.

"Make no mistake about it, anyone willing to pump millions of dollars into a political campaign and write a multimillion-dollar check almost certainly expects something more in return than a rubber-chicken dinner and a photo with the candidate," said Spaulding.

In McCutcheon filings, the Republican National Committee has argued that limits on total individual campaign contributions are a kind of limit on free speech. Spaulding argues that ending them would open the election process to a kind of legalized bribery.

"This case would really allow donors to open up their checkbook, and write multimillion dollar checks at the behest of one candidate soliciting the contribution – certainly with one donor expecting something in return," he said.

In West Virginia, after Massey CEO Don Blankenship funded a state Supreme Court race, state lawmakers put in place a public financing system for judicial campaigns. That system rewards candidates who accept spending limits and demonstrate an ability to raise small donations. Spaulding believes federal elections need similar rules.

"We need a system that empowers small donors, so that their campaign contributions matter; so that our candidates are talking to their constituents and not inside-the-Beltway lobbyists and those with the deepest pockets."

The court's Citizens United decision permits corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on ads from outside a campaign. Depending on what the court does, Spaulding warns that the McCutcheon case could open a direct channel for wealthy individuals. And, while some limits spending could survive, he predicts the money could slip around so easily as to render them meaningless.



get more stories like this via email

Federal lawmakers will debate a number of bills this fall designed to improve hiring, retention and benefits for government workers.

Their proposals come as agencies and departments struggle with understaffing. Plus, gaps in knowledge or skills among their employees.

Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, said one issue is a lack of young people in government positions.

"Right now, it's 7% of the workforce or thereabouts is under the age of 30 in the federal government," said Stier. "That number drops to closer to 4% in the technology area."

Congress is expected to consider changes to the federal hiring process - which currently takes more than double the time of the private sector.

A 2% pay bump could also be on the horizon, as well as expanding paid leave for reserve military members.

Virginia politicians have often been a voice for federal workers given the Commonwealth's high number of government employees.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger - D-Glen Allen - is leading the charge to increase social security benefits for millions of Americans, including many current or former public servants.

Stier said beyond adding incentives to hire and retain talent, the federal government needs to improve internal practices - starting at the leadership level.

Internal communication pipelines, technology and customer service centers are often outdated, which ultimately harms the public.

"Americans want a government that's not political," said Stier. "They want a government that's serving them better. They want the expertise that the system is supposed to be based on, but they don't think they're getting that in most instances, and that lack of trust leads to sometimes a buy-in for bad solutions."

Former President Donald Trump has proposed eliminating or altering thousands of government positions if he wins this November.

Another likely debate this fall will be over remote work. Some lawmakers want federal employees to spend more time in the office rather than working from home.




get more stories like this via email

A new study showed women running for public office in Arizona and around the country often face disadvantages, especially in securing campaign dollars.

The Center for American Women and Politics said historically, women have been unable to match their male counterparts' personal financial resources and do not receive the same noteworthy financial contributions from donors.

Kira Sanbonmatsu, senior scholar at the Center for American Women in Politics, said it affects the number of women elected to office, leading to a lack of representation in politics. She pointed out Arizona is a bit of an exception, as it is one of a few states where women legislators are well established.

"We are seeing that women are running in large numbers for the legislature, and this is, of course, a state where women have done well," Sanbonmatsu observed. "Arizona ranks second nationally for women state legislative representation."

Women are about 50% of representation in the Arizona Legislature, with 29 House seats and 16 Senate seats. This November, Arizona voters will elect nine U.S. House members. They'll also fill one U.S. Senate seat with either Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., or Republican Kari Lake. Data show Gallego has raised almost $29 million and Lake almost $8.5 million.

Sanbonmatsu noted men are more likely to be providing the funds "fueling" state candidates, meaning there is also a lack of female representation among donors. Female candidates are raising a higher portion of funds from small contributors, of $200 or less. The average proportion of small contributions for congressional challengers is highest for Democratic women at 34%, followed by Democratic men at 22% and then by Republican men at 21%.

"We don't often think about giving to politics as an important part of participation," Sanbonmatsu acknowledged. "Women 'outvote' men, but what people don't appreciate as much is that men are 'out-giving' women in terms of funds."

She added it has an effect on whose voices are heard at the state level. She added the Center hopes the data will help "demystify" the campaign-finance space, for the public and for women candidates.


get more stories like this via email

Far removed from the nation's capital, voters in rural states like North Dakota are sharing their thoughts about a plan to hold the U.S. Supreme Court more accountable.

The nation's high court has come under intense scrutiny amid ethics scandals and decisions to overturn a number of long-standing precedents. On Monday, President Joe Biden urged Congress to impose term limits for justices, as well as a binding code of conduct.

Jessica Dryer, a voter in Rolla, agreed changes are needed. She cited her dissatisfaction with the court revoking the constitutional right to an abortion and ruling in favor of Donald Trump in the presidential immunity case.

"I think our Supreme Court in general has just become way too political," Dryer asserted. "The law should be about the people, and not about a political party."

Biden's plan also calls for a constitutional amendment to reverse the recent opinion providing broad presidential immunity from criminal charges tied to official actions. While she welcomes reform efforts, Dryer noted she is torn about term limits, noting there is still potential value from wisdom shared by those with a long service history. Public polling has shown strong support for court reforms but analysts say Biden's plan likely will not be approved by a divided Congress with an election looming.

The White House argued the new ethics code is needed after some justices in the court's conservative wing did not disclose luxury trips paid for by influential donors.

Sharon Larsen, a voter in Williston, said she is not against making changes but would rather see policymakers address their own political issues first and then come together on a bipartisan reform plan.

"The representatives, they certainly aren't helping keep the country stable," Larsen pointed out.

Despite a souring public opinion of the Supreme Court, Larsen still has enough confidence in justices to carry out their constitutional duties. She feels Biden's plan is a power move right before the election. Vice President Kamala Harris, now the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, expressed support for the proposal.


get more stories like this via email