CHEYENNE, Wyo. – It’s been nine years since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its Citizens United ruling, which affirmed the rights of corporations to spend unlimited funds to influence elections.

Last week, Wyoming State Sen. Jeff Wasserburger (R-Gillette), a Republican, introduced a bill calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the high court's decision.

As Kenneth Chestek, chairman of the advocacy group Wyoming Promise, explains an amendment is the only way to compel the Supreme Court to limit the influence of money in politics.

"Citizens United is at base an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, of the First Amendment, and the only way to overturn the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is to change the Constitution," he points out.

So far, 19 states and some 800 cities and towns across the U.S. have passed non-binding resolutions calling for an amendment.

In 2010, the Supreme Court – citing precedents including Buckley v. Valeo in 1976
– ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government cannot stop corporations from spending money to influence elections.

Chestek says equating money with speech moves American democracy from one person, one vote to one dollar, one vote.

Chestek maintains that's antithetical to the founders' egalitarian goal of ensuring that all citizens have an equal say in government.

"Money is not speech,” he stresses. “Money is a megaphone.

“If money can be used to drown out the speech of other people with less money, that creates an incredibly unequal allocation of political power, and that's simply wrong."

On the first day of the 116th Congress, a group of Democratic lawmakers introduced the Democracy for All Amendment to overturn Citizens United.

If passed, 38 states would then have to ratify in order for the measure to become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


get more stories like this via email

Ohio's primary election includes candidates in the race for governor as well as many U.S. congressional districts, but the race to fill retiring U.S. Sen. Rob Portman's seat is getting national attention.

It is an open-seat race in a quintessential swing state, with the possibility of a competitive general election in the fall.

Jacob Rubashkin, reporter and analyst for Inside Elections, explained former President Donald Trump held a firm grip over the field of eight candidates.

"Making all these candidates come down to Mar-a-Lago, really relishing in the fact that almost all of these candidates, of course with the exception of Matt Dolan, are going above and beyond to try and win his endorsement because the former president is still the most influential figure in the Republican Party," Rubashkin observed.

Trump endorsed J.D. Vance, an author and political newcomer who reversed his anti-Trump stance when he entered the race. Vance had been neck-and-neck with former state treasurer Josh Mandel, who is backed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and retired General Michael Flynn. But now Vance holds a slight edge in polling over Mandel and Sen. Matt Dolan, R-Chagrin Falls.

On the Democratic side, Rubashkin said Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, of Youngstown is the clear front-runner over attorney Morgan Harper, who worked for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

"Morgan Harper is a credible candidate," Rubashkin noted. "She was not able to generate the same level of enthusiasm as some other progressive challengers in recent Senate primary memory. Tim Ryan has the support of pretty much the entire Democratic establishment. He's got the money, he's got the campaign infrastructure."

Whether a Democrat or Republican wins, Rubashkin said Ohioans can expect a different approach from whoever fills Portman's seat.

"He is a figure from a previous era of politics," Rubashkin observed. "This is a guy who served in the George W. Bush Administration. He represents perhaps a more at least temperamentally moderate, pragmatic wing of the party."

Portman served in the U.S. House from 1993 to 2005. He's been a U.S. Senator for Ohio since 2011.

Members of social-justice organizations gathered outside the Wisconsin State Capitol on Tuesday in an effort to draw attention to allegations of unethical behavior by U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who has faced criticism in recent years for endorsing tax laws that benefit him personally.

Miranda Stark, deputy program director for the group Opportunity Wisconsin, said Johnson's personal net worth is 400 times greater than that of the median American household, which the Federal Reserve estimated was less than $122,000 in 2020.

"Now this didn't just happen on its own, and it certainly wasn't because of some smart investing," she said. "Sen. Ron Johnson, time and time again, has prioritized his personal profits over the people of Wisconsin."

Multiple investigations found that in 2017, Johnson pushed for tax breaks that directly benefited not only his personal holdings, but those of his largest donors as well. Johnson has said those measures benefited a wide swath of businesses across the country, spurring economic development and job creation.

However, Stark said the 2017 tax law encourages large companies to leave the state, in part through significantly reducing tax rates on profits brought back from overseas.

Richard Hampton, a former employee of Hufcor, a Janesville-based company which last year announced plans to close its Wisconsin manufacturing plant to move operations to Mexico, said the town has lost many of its jobs in recent years.

"We need jobs there in Janesville," he said. "We're losing all our big companies. We lost General Motors, we lost Lear Seating, now we lost Hufcor."

Based on filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Opportunity Wisconsin calculated that Johnson's estimated net worth at about $48 million in 2020.

A new report recommends changes to the way political campaigns are paid for, analyzing contributions to local sheriffs' races in 11 states, including Massachusetts.

The report from the group Common Cause found many potential conflicts of interest among sheriffs and their political donors, such as those seeking contracts with the sheriffs' departments.

Max Rose, founder and exexutive director of the advocacy group Sheriffs for Trusting Communities, noted that sheriffs have a wide range of powers, particularly in rural and suburban areas; they make arrests, control county jail facilities and play a lead role in civil enforcements.

"The private sector is touching the sheriff's role at every point," he said. "In the policing role, companies sell body armor, and increasingly powerful weapons to sheriffs. They sell the cars that leads to increased patrol and policing. In the jail role, the private-sector companies are designing and building new jails."

In Bristol County, according to the report, CPS Healthcare donated more than $20,000 to the local sheriff and has received almost $10 million in contracts from the county.

Beth Rotman, director of Common Cause's money in politics and ethics program, said some states such as New York and Connecticut have passed laws limiting contributions from individuals or entities seeking to do business with the state or city. She said she thinks Massachusetts and other states should follow that example, and also consider boosting the role of small-dollar donations.

"Small-donor democracy, also called public financing, can come in different forms - where individuals running for office raise small-dollar contributions, and then there's a government match," she said. "Or sometimes, there's a voucher program where they're actually even given the initial funding from the government itself."

Rotman said the report also urges Congress to strengthen transparency and disclosure laws, so the public gets greater access to information on who is funding political campaigns.