LANSING, Mich. — Today marks nine years since the U.S. Supreme Court changed campaign finance laws in the Citizens United case, and opponents are still fighting to stem the tide of political contributions from unknown sources.

The justices ruled in 2010 that corporations have many of the same legal rights as individuals, and the money they spend on politics is protected as free speech. This led to the creation of super-PACs that poured some $800 million into American elections between 2010 and 2016. Kaitlyn Sopoci-Belknap, national director with the Move to Amend coalition, said her group is seeking a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision.

"At the end of the day, it has to be in the Constitution that the corporations don't have the same rights as of people,” Sopoci-Belknap said. “They were never in there before; the court is who put that in there. And so, we have to clarify, and put them back in their place."

Michigan is not among the 19 states that have endorsed the We the People Amendment. And in 2017, former Gov. Rick Snyder signed SB 335 and SB 336 - bills intended to bring state law in line with the Citizens United decision and to allow candidates to solicit unlimited contributions to so-called independent expenditure committees.

In December, the Republican-controlled Legislature tried but failed to take campaign finance oversight away from the incoming Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat. In the U.S. Senate, Democrats introduced HR 1, which would increase disclosure requirements. But the legislation is unlikely to get a vote, since Republican leadership opposes it.

Sopoci-Belknap said she thinks both sides should come together to lessen the influence of money on politics.

"The leadership in both parties is not really taking cue from regular citizens, from the voters,” she said. “This is probably the one issue that has more consensus - from every direction of the political spectrum - than anything else."

According to the watchdog group ProPublica, independent PACs dumped $4.5 million dollars into the U.S. Senate race won by Democrat Debbie Stabenow, and more than $26 million into hotly contested state races. The Michigan Campaign Finance Network said the 2018 election was the most expensive in state history, with almost $300 million spent from all sources on state and federal races.


get more stories like this via email

By Kyla Russell for WISH-TV.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the WISH-TV-Free Press Indiana-Public News Service Collaboration

Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith said he supports efforts to redistrict Indiana's U.S. House seats, and he's seen what could be redrawn maps floating around, but has not seen any official maps.

He shared his thoughts on Friday in a one-on-one interview with I-Team 8.

"People want to scream about gerrymandering. Listen, every state does it. Democrats do it. Republicans do it. I think what Republicans have kind of fallen into the trap of doing for many years in the establishment way of thinking is if we just play nice, they'll play nice, if and when they're in power. We found out that that doesn't happen. So, listen, we've got the ball. We need to run the ball down the field, and we should do everything we can to make big wins for Republican principles, constitutional concepts and I believe ... the Republican Party embodies those principles better than the other party does. So, I'm fully in support of President Trump and his offensive-minded strategy here."

Beckwith told I-Team 8 he does not know exactly what happened on Thursday in a closed-door meeting at the Statehouse with Vice President JD Vance, Gov. Mike Braun and other top state lawmakers.

However, Beckwith said, he is aware of the taxpayer cost to calling a special session.

He says it's worth it.

"I think in the long run, if we can get the outcome that we're looking for, I think it will be certainly we're going to have to spend money. Yes, they are expensive. Nobody takes that lightly. That is certainly a conversation that needs to be had, and we need to look at that. But, I do think if we can take the 1st and 7th districts back, and really make Indiana a powerhouse red state, and then also give Washington a boost with a little bit more in the majority there. I think, economically, it will pay off in the long run, and I think we'll see our investment have big returns."/p<>


Kyla Russell wrote this article for WISH-TV.


get more stories like this via email

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."


get more stories like this via email

Texas lawmakers will return to Austin on July 21 for a special legislative session called by Gov. Greg Abbott.

The 18 items on the agenda include redrawing congressional maps. Redistricting usually occurs every 10 years, following the census, but Abbott added the item to the agenda after the Department of Justice drew attention to four Democratic seats.

Christina Sanders, founder of the nonprofit PoliChic Engagement Fund, said Texas maps are already caught up in litigation.

"Some of the court cases that are still even pending from the maps that have not been drawn fairly and the potential impact of new maps in the middle of a census cycle," Sanders explained.

The Biden administration sued Texas, alleging the state's legislative and congressional district maps discriminate against Latino and Black voters. The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, withdrew from the lawsuit earlier this year.

The seats targeted by the Justice Department are held by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas, and Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas. They are also focused on the vacant seat previously held by late Congressman Sylvester Turner. Following the 2023 legislative session, Abbott called four special sessions to pass a school voucher bill, which failed.

Sanders feels Abbott is using special sessions to push personal agendas.

"A special session would be for something like the flood that just occurred," Sanders argued. "It would be something that there is an emergency -- something immediate needs to happen at this moment -- because this policy for the state cannot wait."

Flood warning systems and communication are also on the agenda, along with hemp and THC legislation and changes to the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness test.