Explore More

New York, NY (March 14, 2017) – Today, Demos released a new report entitled Court Cash: 2016 Election Money Resulting Directly from Supreme Court Rulings. The report quantifies for the first time the direct impact of four of the Supreme Court’s most significant money in politics cases on 2016

For four decades, the Supreme Court’s flawed approach to money in politics has gutted common-sense protections against the power of special interests and wealthy individuals. This defies our core democratic values.

 [...] In short, our analysis indicates that Donald Trump successfully leveraged existing resentment towards African Americans in combination with emerging fears of increased racial diversity in America to reshape the presidential electorate, strongly attracting nativists towards Trump and pushing

Whomever is confirmed to the lifetime appointment will have a decisive vote on whose voices carry weight in our democracy.

Senate Judiciary Committee Must Focus on Judge Gorsuch’s Troubling Money-in-Politics Record  Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley, and Ranking Member Feinstein: As organizations representing tens of millions of Americans, we write to express our

More than 90 percent of voters (including 91 percent of Trump voters) say that it is important for Trump to nominate a Supreme Court justice open to limiting big money in politics.

[...] Judge Gorsuch’s approach “has created a system in which single individuals and corporations can spend tens of millions of dollars to influence elections, and in which candidates and elected officials are significantly more responsive to the priorities of an elite donor class than to Americans

1. Do you agree that wealthy donors translating their massive economic power directly into political influence is a problem that should be taken into account when considering rules governing spending on elections?

Memorandum of Understanding Will Bring Nevada into Compliance with the National Voter Registration Act

Supreme Court cases clearly demonstrate that under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government may not coerce state and local governments to enforce federal law through threats to withdraw federal funding.