The concept of Short-Termism is fast becoming the darling of progressive economic policy wonks. Predictably, the discourse is littered with inaccuracies and half-truths as pundits rush to publish so as not to be left behind. It is time for a serious convening of interested experts to sort through the issues, but none is scheduled. Until one is convened, a brief walk through the weeds is in order.
The second democratic debate is approaching on Saturday, and the American people want to know: if elected, what will the candidates do to get big money out of our democracy?
According to Sean McElwee, a researcher who studies voting rights at the progressive think tank Demos, some studies suggest up to 2.5% of the population is unable to vote thanks to such laws.
Connecticut is poised to undo a signature accomplishment—the Citizens Election Program. Facing budget cuts, some legislators in Connecticut have proposed allowing wealthy donors to, once again, dominate the state’s elections.
Police reform in New York City just took a significant step forward, and the voices of the people most affected by unlawful and discriminatory stops are front and center.
When a federal court ruled in Floyd v. City of New York that the NYPD’s stop and frisk practice violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, it was a tremendous victory. We knew, though, that the victory was not yet complete: The task of reforming the NYPD’s practices and ending racial discrimination in the use of stop and frisk remained.
Yesterday, voters from coast to coast fought back against big-money politics. Voters in Maine and Seattle resoundingly approved ballot measures aimed at empowering the voices of ordinary citizens in the political process.
Scandal introduced general audiences to the practice of dog-whistle politics, but it’s also important to know the political consequences of dog-whistle appeals.
The voting rights groups say that among other things, the federal exchange should be offering to help applicants complete a voter registration form. Although many applicants use the exchange independently, others turn to its call center or to “navigator” groups that have federal grants to help people apply for coverage.
“The navigators aren’t receiving any training or direction that they have to offer voter registration services,” said Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, senior counsel at Demos.
"The Administration strongly supports the goals of the NVRA and is committed to enforcing its requirements, as applicable,” Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the HHS' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in an email.
But the current configuration doesn't meet the specific requirements in the law regarding language and other administrative mandates, the groups say.
Voting Rights Groups Urge Immediate Action to Provide Required Registration Services through Federal Health Exchanges
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, in a letter to President Obama, three of the nation's leading voting rights organizations—Demos, Project Vote, and the League of Women Voters—urged the Administration to come into compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by providing voter registration to eligible persons through the federally-facilitated health benefit exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
How has the rise of big donors affected our policies? In a recent post, political scientist Seth Masket, whose work I deeply respect and have read for years, argues that “what's not happening here is the superdonors skewing American politics rightward.”
His argument is that so far in the 2016 election, superdonors have tended to be Republican, because that’s where the interesting contest is. Here, I have no qualms.
Finally, automatic voter registration is good politics for the Democratic Party. "Among eligible voters, some 30% of African Americans, 40% of Hispanics, 45% of Asian Americans and 41% of young adults (age 18-24) were not registered to vote in the historic 2008 election," according to the progressive think tank Demos.
Adam Lioz, Demos Counsel and Senior Advisor, Policy & Outreach, issued the following statement in response to Governor O'Malley's plan to address the role of big money in politics:
The demonized banking industry must make the case it is morally noble. That may jar some ears, but surely enabling retirees to earn a return on their savings and funding business expansion creating jobs and wealth, improving Americans’ quality of and opportunities in life is morally noble. — Eric Glover, the Washington Times, September 24, 2015
The hyperactivity of the presidential election has raised the level of discussion of financial regulation, at least in terms of noise if not enlightenment. Mr.
Americans who vote are different from those who don’t. Voters are older, richer, and whiter than nonvoters, in part because Americans lack a constitutional right to vote and the various restrictions on voting tend to disproportionately impact the less privileged. In 2014, turnout among those ages 18 to 24 with family incomes below $30,000 was 13 percent. Turnout among those older than 65 and making more than $150,000 was 73 percent.
The key to changing public policy in key areas is increasing the number of people who vote, according to a recent report by Demos, a public policy group that supports economic and social equality.
When compared to White voters, non-White voters were more likely to support policies that increased government spending on the poor, guaranteed jobs and a standard of living and reduced inequality.
“Because of the growth of the prison industry, you’re having these artificial shifts that empower the rural communities but take power away from the urban communities,” Marc Mauer, executive director of the Sentencing Project, told me.
That is wrong.
In 2012, Demos — a public policy organization that battles inequality in the U.S. — submitted testimony to the U.S. Census Bureau’s National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations urging it to find a solution to “prison-based gerrymandering.”
Bill Clinton's interview provoked Wallace Turbeville, a former lawyer and investment banker turned financial reform advocate, to contradict him.
"His statement is flat wrong," Turbeville wrote in a blog post for the liberal think tank Demos. "The Graham-Leach-Bliley Act that President Clinton signed had everything to do with the crisis."