AP Photo/Evan Vucci A combination of pressure from progressive organizations, support from congressional Democrats, and legal assurance from the courts could compel President Obama to levy his first blow to the secretive scourge of dark money in American politics. All it would take is an executive order that requires all federal contractors to disclose their dark-money spending—contributions to shadowy 501(c)(4)s and 501(c)(6) nonprofits. The only question that remains: Will he put his pen to paper? Advocates of the action argue that for Obama, this is a chance to further define his legacy on an issue that he’s notably spoken out against yet has so far refrained from any real action. At a 2010 DNC rally, Obama declared that special interest groups that pour money into attack ad campaigns without ever having to disclose their spending are “a threat to our democracy.” In his 2015 State of the Union address, the president called for political reform: “A better politics is one where we...
Back in January, Congressman John Sarbanes introduced the Government By the People Act. It’s an ambitious bill that would bring a sea change to our much-maligned campaign finance system.
The bill has three main tenets aimed at amplifying the power of small donors. It would create a $25 tax credit for political donations up to $50; establish a six-to-one matching system for donations up to $150 to House and Senate candidates; give enhanced matching funds to candidates who are combating significant outside spending. Small donors would also be able to bundle contributions into something of a People’s PAC.
Essentially, by increasing the monetary footprint of small donors, this would give incentive to politicians to talk more with everyday constituents about things that impact them rather than jet-setting across the country going to fundraisers and only hearing about the importance of keeping the carried-interest loophole in place. And yes, it is sad that it takes a piece of legislation to make politicians campaign to the people they actually represent.
The legislation is based on past campaign finance reform legislation, just modernized to deal with the post-Citizens United world we live in. It also borrows from some of the most effective policies that states and cities have successfully implemented. Critically, the legislation follows the one pathway the courts have left to even the playing field: adding more, not less, money to politics.
“If this bill became law, it would greatly change the priorities of Congress, making them more responsive to the priorities of everyday Americans,” says Aaron Scherb, the legislative affairs director for Common Cause.
Along with Sarbanes, 149 Democrats and (surprisingly) one Republican have co-sponsored the legislation. There’s also a similar companion bill in the Senate sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin. The law stems from the Fair Elections Now Act of 2008, which nearly passed when Democrats had control of Congress. But with a Republican-controlled Congress that has shown less than no interest in considering campaign finance reform, things look bleak. It failed to gain traction when introduced in the 112th and 113th Congress. This time around, GovTrack gives it a full 0 percent chance of being enacted.
Scherb puts it a little more clearly: “We’ll probably have to wait for a scandal or a crisis to occur for it to pass.”
“It’s like with that Verizon ad: ‘Can you hear me now?’ Right now candidates can only hear the $1000 donor, the PAC donor. But if you have those people sitting in that living room with that match, all of a sudden you can hear them,” Sarbanes tells The Intercept.
The second installation of the interview gets into how Sarbanes goes about marketing an issue with a lot of populist support but next to no political feasibility: “Somebody’s going to own your government. It’s not going to just sit there unattended. It’s either going to be owned by special interests and big money, in which case when it comes to making policy that’s who we’ll work for. Or it’s going to be owned by you. And in America, if you want to own something, you’ve got to pay for it.”
The point being: democracy will come with a price tag. But first, somebody is probably going to have to get caught with their hand in the industry cookie jar in a very big way.
AP Photo/Nick Ut Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members protest for higher wages in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday, October 1, 2013. T he Supreme Court was dishing out win after win for liberals: Affordable Care Act subsidies upheld; same-sex marriage made the law of the land; a legal blow administered to the undemocratic process of gerrymandering. But through it all labor activists were holding their breaths as a case that could decimate public sector unions inched perilously toward the Supreme Court. Then late last month labor’s worst fears were realized when the Court announced that in its 2015-2016 session it will hear Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association , a case that centers on the constitutionality of so-called “agency fees,” which require non-members to pay fees related to union bargaining and member representation efforts. “This is a very significant case. It may well be life or death for the unions,” Harvard Law School professor Benjamin Sachs told...
AP Photo/Ted S. Warren In this photo taken on Friday, Oct. 17, 2008 detainees are shown inside a holding cell at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washashington, a facility operated by The GEO Group Inc. under contract from U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. T he private prison industry is a growth industry—exploding by 350 percent in just 15 years. As the federal and state governments are facing slimming budgets, contracting out prison operations to private companies is seen as a convenient way to deal with ever-increasing rates of incarceration and detention. At the same time, such rapid growth has made the private prison industry an especially attractive investment for university endowments, prompting a nationwide, student-led divestment campaign that’s lately seen some notable success. Studies have shown that while private prison operations may help ease some budgetary strain, they perform worse than public prisons on a number of metrics: reducing prison violence;...
Everett Historical/Shutterstock T he editorial staff for Salon Media, a progressive news and analysis outlet, unanimously announced in a letter today that they intend to unionize with the Writers Guild of America, East. “Every single one of the editorial employees at Salon supports unionizing with the Writers Guild of America, East, and today we’re asking the management of Salon to recognize our union,” the letter states. “We are doing this because we believe in our publication and want it to be successful. We’re especially proud to work for a media organization that has championed progressive values for nearly 20 years. We believe this organizing campaign is a positive and public way for us to put those values into practice, right here at home.” The announcement comes just weeks after 100 editorial staffers at Gawker Media successfully voted to unionize with the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE), notably with the support of management . It appears that Salon staffers—26 in total—...