Good-government groups are criticizing the Supreme Court's decision Monday eliminating rules on how much a candidate can spend to pay back loans he or she made to the campaign.

The justices sided with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who sued over rules, which said a candidate can only raise $250,000 after an election to pay back a personal loan.

Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs for Common Cause, said this means big donors can funnel huge amounts of cash directly to newly elected officials.

"This decision is yet another example of the Supreme Court allowing more big money in politics and further opening the door to corruption and big moneyed interests calling the shots," Scherb contended.

The decision undermines part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

In the supporting brief, Chief Justice John Roberts said the rule placed too great a burden on core political speech. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued the decision, quote, "greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought it right to stop ... and can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute."

Scherb emphasized he hopes it will drum up more support for the DISCLOSE Act, which would require campaigns and groups spending money to influence politics to report more about their funding, but he is not optimistic.

"We're not holding our breaths that 10 Senate Republicans would vote for something like this," Scherb acknowledged. "But if more big money is going to be spent in politics, it absolutely has to be disclosed. The public deserves to see who's trying to influence their voices and their votes."

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

A common narrative suggests that deeply polarized American voters always support their party's candidates, but a new study suggests otherwise in certain circumstances.

Researchers from Sacramento State and San Diego State universities asked more than 900 partisan voters about housing and homelessness - then asked them to choose, in a hypothetical local election - between a candidate from their party who disagreed with their views, or one from the opposite party who is aligned with them on policy.

Sacramento State Associate Professor of Political Science Danielle Martin co-authored the study.

"Overall, voters do support candidates from their own party - even when an opposite party candidate was closer to their views on one of those salient local issues," said Martin. "But we also found that about 40% defected from their party."

The study found that people with weak party loyalty were more likely to defect, as were people who are very invested in their policy position.

They also found that in national and state-level races, people are much less likely to split their votes between parties.

Study co-author Professor of Public Policy and Administration Ted Lascher, also from Sacramento State, said the data show that voters are more flexible when an issue hits close to home.

"One of the implications is that somebody who's running, who's the out party, in terms of local party identification, may be able to win elections in city council and mayoral races," said Lascher, "if they choose the issue very carefully. Because voters will sometimes cross party lines on particular local issues."

San Diego State University Political Science Professor Brian Adams said this means that even though Democrats enjoy broad support in California, that support is more conditional than absolute in local races.

"A lot of this research suggests that if Republicans put forward candidates that actually agreed with some of the policy positions that Democratic voters have," said Adams, "at least some Democratic voters would be willing to switch."

About 96% of electoral contests in the U.S. are at the local level - for races such as the school board, the city council, and the county board of supervisors.

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




get more stories like this via email

A proposal to end closed party primaries and use a ranked choice system will appear on the November ballot.

With less than two months to the election, a district court judge has dismissed a challenge from Attorney General Raúl Labrador to keep Proposition 1 off the ballot.

The initiative would end the state's closed party primaries and implement a ranked choice voting system. Labrador argued signature gatherers misled the public on the nature of the initiative.

In August, the state Supreme Court dismissed a similar claim from the Attorney General.

Margaret Kinzel, liaison with Mormon Women for Ethical Government and Idahoans for Open Primaries, said Labrador has failed to prove his case.

"We are gratified that the system worked," said Kinzel, "and that the citizen's ballot initiative process has been protected."

Kinzel said the organizations she's affiliated with have continued doing outreach despite the challenges to Proposition 1.

In response to the district court ruling, Labrador said it's up to voters whether to approve "an expensive ranked choice voting system that has resulted in confusion" in other states.

Kinzel said the initiative will allow about 270,000 independent voters, not affiliated with either major party, to participate in consequential primary elections.

"They currently cannot vote in the taxpayer-funded primary elections, particularly the Republican primary election in May," said Kinzel, "and that is where most races are decided, because we have such a strong Republican majority in the state."

Supporters have said opponents to Proposition 1 have exaggerated costs for implementing the initiative. Kinzel also pushed back on the idea that the top-four ranked choice voting system is confusing.

"We really do ranked choice voting all the time," said Kinzel. "We send somebody to the grocery store and say, 'Buy the apple pie. If they don't have apple, get blueberry.' And so this really is this idea of we express our preference. If that preference is not available we move on to our second preference."

The general election takes place on November 5.

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




get more stories like this via email

For the 2024 presidential election, Wisconsin has retained its status as a battleground state.

That means voters are hearing a lot from campaigns and their supporters, and one expert says there are ways to become better informed about those running.

The Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and her Republican counterpart Donald Trump have already crisscrossed Wisconsin at various points, with more visits expected.

University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Political Science Professor David Helpap said if you're approached by a campaign volunteer, ask about the candidate's stances on certain issues that come to mind.

After that encounter, a little homework is encouraged.

"If time allows it, do some of your own research to check the facts - to go to news sources, reputable news sources," said Helpap. "There are some nonprofit organizations out there that try to provide good, nonpartisan unbiased information."

Vote411.org is one of those sites that outlines a candidate's stances on certain issues, as well as their previous voting and policy record.

Helpap said cross-checking that information with the answers from a campaign staffer can help assess whether that person is worthy of your vote.

He also encouraged comparing criticisms of rival candidates with the facts, to see if they match up.

Helpap said if you have the time, attending a political rally is another valuable way of becoming an informed voter.

"And particularly in swing states where we are seeing so many visits by different people," said Helpap, "politicians, groups, even celebrities in some cases."

Helpap said even if you don't agree with a candidate's views, showing up to an event allows you to gain some insight into how other voters feel, possibly making political discourse less hostile.

He added that this kind of added exposure is hard to come by in non-swing states. Political experts say these tips are just as important in deciding candidates for state and local offices.

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




get more stories like this via email