Democracy North Carolina put together a one-page report that summarizes HB-589, the bill the General Assembly passed in late July despite the mass demonstrations outside the capitol that came to be known as Moral Mondays.
Jeffrey Toobin is up with a piece today, “Another Citizens United – But Worse,” about the Supreme Court’s next money in politics case. In McCutcheon v. FEC, slated for oral argument in October, appellants challenge contribution limits on the total amount of money one individual can transfer in direct contributions.
The North Carolina legislature has had a remarkable session. In fact, the amount they have been able to accomplish is almost jaw-dropping—not because it was particularly productive but because it was so bold and unabashed it its attack on low and middle income families and basic elements of democracy. Among the legislative lowlights:
Elected officeholders cannot tell what their constituents want unless they hear from them. That is why a typical legislator employs staffers to keep track of messages from constituents. Likewise, because interest groups know that citizen communications matter, they routinely ask adherents to contact their representatives in support or opposition to particular policies. Scholars have accordingly shown that policymakers are influenced by what they hear.
Members of U.S.
The Supreme Court’s rulings on marriage will not lessen the everyday – sometimes subtle, often not – ways that many LGBT people get treated as less than equals.
Borrowing a line from Tolstoy, Gar Alperovitz’s latest book, What Then Must We Do?: Straight Talk About the Next American Revolution, seeks to resolve a troublesome political puzzle: How do we eradicate systemic problems like inequality, climate destruction, and poverty when these problems seem to get worse and worse, year after year, despite the good efforts of social reformers, progressives, and radicals of all stripes? Good question.
In 2012, no one, it seemed, could afford to sit on the sidelines. Having decried super PACs as "a threat to democracy," Obama and his advisers flip-flopped and blessed the creation of one devoted specifically to reelecting the president. Soon, they were everywhere, at the local, state, and federal levels.
The IRS is under siege for investigating conservative political groups applying for tax-exempt status. But the real problem wasn’t that the IRS was too aggressive.
The shocking allegations against four more elected officials in New York are depressing — but they provide an opportunity for bold action by our state leaders. Gov. Cuomo has proposed a new, comprehensive campaign finance law, including the creation of a voluntary, small-donor public financing system and an independent enforcement unit.
This effort could be a game-changer, a way to begin reversing the dangerous concentration of wealth and political power in the U.S. Naysayers will complain that proposals like this are doomed from the start because of the current makeup of Congress, especially the House. But that’s not so. Enhancing the impact of small donors is an important component of a broad, long-term effort to reduce the toxic impact of big money in an era of super PACS, Citizens United and rising inequality. Democrats in the House should be commended for pushing this initiative along.
Collusion — and conflicts of interest — between politicians and billionaires now operate across borders. When he was president, Nicolas Sarkozy reserved special favours for the Qataris (including a tax exemption on their highest-value property purchases). Qatar is now prepared to back him in starting a private equity fund.
ALBANY, N.Y.—With the recent indictment of New York politicians like Senator Malcolm Smith and Assemblyman Eric Stevenson, many wonder, can they trust state lawmakers?
"We do a random sample of more than 800 registered voters and our sample looks like the New York electorate both in terms of geography, bipartisan break up, gender, age, income etc. so we do it very carefully to ensure we get a representative sample," said Greenberg. "Voters don't feel really strongly about that legislature and don't have great confidence in them right now."
As New York policymakers, led by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, consider a comprehensive package of campaign finance reform, they should look at Connecticut to see just how much a strong small-donor public financing program can improve the legislative process and relieve lawmakers of the burdens of high-donor, special-interest fundraising.
As some New York state lawmakers consider publicly financed campaigns to thwart public corruption in state politics, a liberal-leaning public policy think tank has released a report showing how a voluntary public financing system in Connecticut has contributed to a more "representative and responsive" Legislature there since its implementation in 2008.
As some New York state lawmakers consider publicly financed campaigns to thwart public corruption in state politics, a liberal-leaning public policy think tank has released a report showing how a voluntary public financing system in Connecticut has contributed to a more "representative and responsive" Legislature there since its implementation in 2008.
The drumbeat for public financing pounded loudly on Monday when good government groups and Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill visited the Capitol to make the case for campaign finance reform.
A group of activists and politicians from Connecticut came to Albany Monday to promote their brand of public financing, which has been in place since 2008. According to supporters, including Sec. of State Denise Merrill, public financing for the legislature and statewide offices has led to a number of (mostly progressive) policy breakthroughs including an unclaimed bottle bill (sound familiar?) higher minimum wage and most importantly, a deeper, more diverse pool of candidates, with a 41 percent increase in the number of contested seats.
A few weeks ago, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scaliasaid that a key provision of the Voting Rights Act was motivated by a "perpetuation of racial entitlement."
Krugman speculates that they see this as a morality play wherein the rich are obviously the virtuous heroes (being rich and all) and the plebes are a bunch of lazy, immoral parasites who refuse to carry their weight. I think he's probably right, but I'm going to speculate further that for many of them this is a result of guilt at their own gargantuan selfishness and greed. I can only imagine that it's hard to live with yourself when you're taking more and more of the wealth that humans create while everyone else is falling behind.