DALLAS -- A decade after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for independent campaign contributions, grassroots groups in Texas and across the nation still are struggling to limit the influence of money in politics.

Dave Jones, president of Clean Elections Texas, says the ruling has tipped the scales of lady justice, and most Americans realize that their government does not represent them the way it should.

"And what the court has done, it has just tipped those scales," he states. "It's put our democratic system out of balance, by giving too much weight to money, to wealthy interests. And those are corporations and wealthy individuals, primarily."

Citing previous decisions, the nation's high court ruled that political spending is a form of protected speech, and that independent spending by unions or corporations should not be limited.

The court also signaled that transparency in contributions would rein in bad players.

Overturning the court's ruling would require a constitutional amendment.

According to new Public Citizen reports, corporations have spent more than half a billion dollars to influence elections, largely anonymously, since 2010, and just 25 ultra-wealthy individuals poured $1.4 billion into super PACs.

Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, says the ruling also has sparked pushback.

Nine in ten Americans say they're disgusted by the influence of big money in politics, and three quarters support overturning Citizens United.

"The only reason this overwhelming and intense demand for reform has not yet been matched by responsive legislation and a constitutional amendment is because of the influence of this small number of super rich people and giant corporations," Weissman stresses.

Since 2010, Weissman says millions of Americans have signed petitions to reverse the court's decision, and more than 800 local government resolutions and 20 states have called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

So far, 121 members of the current Congress have co-sponsored legislation for a constitutional amendment.


get more stories like this via email

Lawmakers in Maine are considering legislation to allow candidates seeking county level offices to receive taxpayer funds under the Maine Clean Election Act.

The landmark 1996 law was the first in the nation to create a voluntary program of full public financing for gubernatorial, state senate and state representative campaigns.

Anna Keller, executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, said the bill is needed as outside spending on county level candidates is increasing, especially for sheriff races.

"It's especially important that people can trust that those officials are not biased and are not going to be partial to donors," Keller asserted.

The bill has drawn both bipartisan support and criticism with some lawmakers saying the tax dollars would be unevenly distributed to counties. Keller argued while the bill is not a perfect solution it helps to better ensure elections are determined by voters and not donors.

While some lawmakers are hoping to expand Maine's Clean Election Act, others are working to amend it by repealing a ban on corporate contributions. Critics of the ban say it does not go far enough and money can still flow to political parties and their political action committees. Keller recommended rather than repeal the ban, lawmakers should work to strengthen it.

"It's really upsetting to see after years of Maine being a leader on campaign finance reform that we might actually move backwards this session," Keller stated.

Corporate donations were the largest source of spending in Maine's 2020 election cycle, including some from foreign-owned companies. Federal law and 22 other states prohibit corporate contributions to candidates.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

Leading up to this week's election, Wisconsin voters have been inundated with campaign ads for the high-profile state Supreme Court race, and watchdogs say the massive spending should lead to more calls for reform.

The race to fill a seat on Wisconsin's high court has shattered campaign spending records, with nearly $40 million in contributions. The outcome of the contest will affect the court's ideological balance, making it attractive to donors.

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, said the loosening of state campaign finance laws in recent years is a big factor here.

"The campaign finance laws in Wisconsin have been totally decimated in the last 10 years," Heck contended. "We now allow in this state coordination between outside special interest groups and candidate committees, including for the Supreme Court."

The court has had a conservative majority for some time now, sparking backlash about such matters as gerrymandered political maps favoring Republicans. Even with those concerns in mind, Heck argued all voters lose when judicial campaigns are allowed so much access to financial support. He noted the candidates now have to run like those seeking other offices, shedding their impartiality in the process.

Republicans led the charge to overhaul the state's campaign finance laws, and Democrats have made unsuccessful attempts to bring back restrictions. Those who supported the changes argued they were necessary because these activities were already happening. But Heck countered it is grown out of hand, especially for judicial races.

"And I think that's a tragedy, because that's not what Wisconsin used to be like," Heck recounted. "We used to have a reputation for having one of the most impartial, least corruptible court systems in the country."

He warned justices are not required to recuse themselves from a case if there is a conflict of interest stemming from a campaign donation.

Common Cause is not endorsing any candidate, but Heck acknowledged a flip to a left-leaning majority could lead to decisions on election policy his group supports, included overturning a ban on drop boxes for ballots.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

New York's Public Campaign Finance Program is facing delays from the very people who approved it - New York legislators. The program was approved by the Legislature in 2020 and aims to level the playing field of campaign donations for everyday New Yorkers and special-interest groups. One element of the program is a matching system, which allows contributions of less than $250 to be matched by a public fund. This means candidates would have to interact more with constituents for campaign funding instead of dialing for dollars. Legislators feel the uncertainty surrounding the state's redistricting process is why the program needs to be delayed.

Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America said there is another reason why legislators want to delay the program's rollout.

"I think that they're nervous, first about having a little competition because this will mean folks who aren't necessarily connected to money donors in the same way you often need to be in New York to get elected to begin with, will also have access to funding that they need to run campaigns and win, " she said.

This means grassroots candidates, low-income, minority and women candidates have better access to funding they need to get their message out. Most New Yorkers support the program, according to a poll by Data for Progress and Stand Up America. 61% of New York voters support the small-dollar matching program, the poll said.

According to an analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice, the 200 largest donors in New York's 2022 elections gave almost $16-million while 206,000 of the state's small donors raised about $13.5 million.

Karen Wharton, democracy coalition coordinator with Citizen Action of New York, said this is not what democracy is about.

"We know that this system will bring some equity, equalize that a little bit so that we all have a say in our democracy. An equal say in our democracy," she said. "Democracies shouldn't be just for the wealthy."

The Brennan Center's analysis also notes the financial power of small donors would increase sixfold under this program - from 11% in 2022 to about 67% percent in state Senate and Assembly elections due to all the small donors who live in each candidate's district, the analysis said.