PEOPLE FOR BLOG

PFAW Foundation Joins Amicus Brief in SCOTUS Case on Health Care Tax Subsidies

Yesterday PFAW Foundation joined the National Women’s Law Center, the law firm Hogan Lovells, and close to 70 other organizations in submitting an amicus brief in King v. Burwell, the pending Supreme Court case on tax subsidies for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The brief notes that a decision in favor of those challenging the subsidies would threaten a central goal of the law: making access to health insurance possible for millions of people across the country.

The ramifications of a wrong decision in this case could be enormous, causing serious harm in the lives of people now relying on health insurance through the ACA. If the core tax subsidy provision were to be struck down, the brief points out, women of color would be especially hard-hit:

These tax credits are critical. Over 9 million women, who would otherwise go without affordable health insurance, are eligible to benefit from them, including a disproportionate number of women of color.

…The tax credits are not only critical to women’s health; they are critical to the ACA’s continued viability. Congress encouraged participation in the insurance market primarily through the careful interrelation of the individual responsibility provision, market reforms, and tax-credit provisions. Eliminate the tax credits, and the system unravels.

The amicus brief highlights the stories of many real women who depend on the tax credits to access needed health care:

Marilyn Schramm, 63, is a 26-year cancer survivor from Austin, Texas. She endured treatment for cervical cancer in her thirties and has experienced life-long complications from that treatment that have required surgeries since then. Marilyn retired several years ago. When her COBRA rights were exhausted, Marilyn was forced to go without insurance for six months because of her “preexisting conditions.” But in January 2014, Marilyn could finally purchase insurance on the federally-facilitated Exchange in Texas, with at least half of her premium covered by the ACA’s tax credits.

Marilyn has now been diagnosed with colon cancer; following surgery, she began chemotherapy this month. Her coverage depends on the ACA’s prohibition on excluding those with pre-existing conditions, and on its premium tax credits: With her modest retirement income, Marilyn is unsure whether or how she could pay her insurance premium without the tax credits.

As we have noted before, this case is a blatantly political attack intended to do serious damage to the Affordable Care Act. The millions of women and men across the country who rely on the ACA in order to access health care ranging from preventative screenings to cancer treatments deserve far better.

PFAW Foundation

Not Even GOP's Own Witnesses Oppose Loretta Lynch

Today was the second and final day of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for Loretta Lynch's nomination to be attorney general. Today's session was devoted to witnesses invited by Republican and Democratic senators to help the committee members make the very serious decision as to whether to Lynch is qualified.

Most of the Democrats' witnesses praised Lynch based on their personal and professional experiences with her over the years. But the Republican witnesses had no such personal or professional experience with the nominee, nor did they take issue with her qualifications. In fact, they didn't have much to say about Lynch at all. Instead, they spent their time criticizing President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

But what did they think of Lynch? The committee's ranking Democrat decided to find out: Senator Patrick Leahy asked all of the witnesses, Republican and Democratic alike, to raise their hand if they actually opposed Lynch.

Not one did.

So the GOP couldn't find even one person who could testify that Lynch isn't qualified.

That's very telling. As PFAW explained in our letter to the Senate supporting Lynch, President Obama has made a nomination with bipartisan support who Senate Democrats and Republicans alike can support.

At the conclusion of Lynch's hearings, it's clear that she deserves a timely committee vote and confirmation by the full Senate.

PFAW

Koch Brothers Plan to Spend Nearly $1 Billion in 2016

If outside spending by wealthy special interests played a decisive role in the 2014 midterms, the 2016 presidential election is shaping up to be even worse. According to details leaked from an attendee at an annual donor meeting at a high-end resort in Rancho Mirage, California, the Koch-funded political network plans to spend $889 million in the 2016 election, more than double the amount spent by the Republican National Committee in the last presidential election cycle.

Charles and David Koch, worth about $40 billion apiece, hold gatherings like the one in Rancho Mirage twice a year, attracting a growing roster of multimillionaires and billionaires, as well as occasional elected officials, conservative media personalities and Supreme Court Justices. The brothers have been highly effective in convincing other wealthy conservatives to contribute to their political agenda. The 2014 election cycle marked the most expensive midterms in history, in large part due to the enormous spending of the Koch network. Freedom Partners spent $290 million backing right-wing candidates, propelling Republicans to sweeping victories in Congress and state legislatures across the country.

Our democracy is not supposed to be run by billionaires in closed-door meetings. Fortunately, some in Congress are recognizing the need for reform in order to level the political playing field and protect the promise of American democracy. Last week, on the 5th anniversary of Citizens United, nine campaign finance reform bills were reintroduced together in the House and Senate. This “Defending Democracy” legislative package has the support of dozens of grassroots advocacy organizations representing a broad spectrum of issues. Collectively these groups have millions of members. The reform package includes small donor empowerment bills, disclosure legislation, and a proposed constitutional amendment to put reasonable limits on the amount that can be spent in elections.

The Koch network has made clear that their flood of money is not slowing down anytime soon. Now it’s up to grassroots activists to push for money in politics reform and make clear that we want a democracy that’s run by the people, not the Koch brothers.

National School Choice Week: PR for Privatizers?

On Wednesday morning, a roomful of school children were herded into a congressional meeting room and required to sit through an hour and a half worth of speeches by conservative Members of Congress, including House Speaker John Boehner, Sens. Ted Cruz and Tim Scott, Chief Deputy Whip Rep. Patrick McHenry, Education & Workforce Committee Chair John Kline of Minnesota, and a handful of others. Rep. Luke Messer of Indiana was the emcee.

The Capitol Hill event was in honor of National School Choice Week, whose organizers describe it as a nonpolitical, nonpartisan “independent public awareness campaign” promoting the idea that every child deserves access to an excellent education. Who would disagree?

In other words, it’s a PR campaign, one that wraps itself in the moral mantle of children. But the bright yellow scarves it wraps around its participants are meant to distract attention from the fact that sponsors of this week’s thousands of events include many anti-public education, anti-union, anti-government ideologues, including the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, the Heritage Foundation, the Alliance for Prosperity and others. The President of National School Choice Week, Andrew Campanella, used to work at the Alliance for School Choice, whose board is chaired by deep-pocketed right-wing activist Betsy DeVos and is funded by a who’s who of right-wing foundations.

As we noted during last year’s NSCW:

Education policy is a vast, complicated, and hotly contested arena. Terms like “education reform” and “school choice” sound good, but they are so broad as to be almost meaningless. They can be applied to genuine efforts to strengthen teaching and educational opportunity as well as cynical schemes to destroy public employee unions and dismantle public education altogether.

In particular, “school choice” encompasses a huge array of education policies, from public charter and magnet schools to taxpayer-funded for-profit cyberschools and homeschooling.  Even a seemingly specific term like “charter schools” cloaks a more complex reality that ranges from innovation labs co-located in public schools to for-profit chain operations.  

Indeed, this year, Richard Kahlenberg and Halley Potter published “A Smarter Charter: Finding What works for Charter Schools and Public Education.” The book documents that the original vision for charter schools – teachers empowered to be creative in diverse schools that could identify ways to strengthen public education – has been turned on its head. Rather than a teacher-empowering and collaborative paradigm, charter schools are often noted for tightly controlled teachers in highly segregated schools dominated by an ideology of competition with public schools. 

There are more collaborative models, just as there are charter schools with strong academic track records as well as those that lag behind the public schools that choice advocates consistently disparage. Important distinctions get lost under the big, vague, banner of school choice. And that’s intentional.

NSCW is about painting in broad strokes and drawing no distinctions, for example, between public magnet schools and for-profit corporations cashing in on the “reform” movement. No distinction is made between giving students choice among their district’s public schools and diverting education dollars into religious academies and online homeschooling via vouchers and other schemes.  These do not have the same impact on public schools, or the same levels of public accountability, but in the interest of keeping things simple, and winning public support for across-the-board expansion of these programs, they’re all “choice.”

As we wrote last year:

The problem with this “collective messaging” approach is that it hides the anti-public-education agenda of some “reformers.” Celebrating “school choice” across the board lends credibility to organizations pushing for destructive policies that are not at all popular with the American public. In spite of decades of right-wing-funded attacks on public education, for example, Americans oppose privatization plans like vouchers that transfer public education funds to private schools.

Self-proclaimed reformers often dismiss concerns about privatization as a “red herring.” But you can’t embrace the Milton Friedman Foundation as a partner and then pretend that privatization is only an imaginary threat dreamed up by teachers unions.  Friedman has an explicit goal of getting rid of public schools altogether; they see programs like vouchers for poor kids as a tactical stepping stone toward that ultimate goal.

Other supporters of National School Choice Week have included companies that want to tap into the huge flow of public dollars spent every year on education. K12, a member of the “choice”-promoting American Legislative Exchange Council and a company the New York Times has described as “the biggest player in the online-school business,” paid its president more than $5.5. million last year; two other executives each made more than $4 million. A November 2014 investigation by Bloomberg focused on the company’s efforts to turn around “subpar test scores” and declining enrollments.

National School Choice Week promoters say it is nonpolitical and has no legislative agenda, but that’s hard to take seriously given the agendas of its backers. At this week’s event on Capitol Hill, the only Democratic Member of Congress to join the Republican parade was Illinois’ Dan Lipinski, who declined to endorse Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012. (Former Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford also spoke.)

Members of Congress at Wednesday’s event talked about pushing legislation this year to expand “school choice” programs, meaning that battles over vouchers, charter schools, and other education issues will be on the agenda this year, including February’s Senate markup of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. And, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, “There are currently private school voucher and tuition tax credit programs in 23 states and at least 10 states are looking to create new or expanding existing school voucher programs this year.”

Obviously, not everyone who participates in National School Choice Week activities is an anti-public-education ideologue. People from across the political spectrum are eager to strengthen schools and give students an opportunity for a great education. That includes public school teachers, administrators, and school board members – people who are collectively smeared as “the blob” by some “reformers.” People who are seeking to strengthen public education and make schools better for all children should think twice about making common cause with organizations that see public education as something to be dismantled and corporations that see students as the means to a bigger bottom line.

PFAW

Democracy For All Amendment to #GetMoneyOut Becomes Bipartisan Bill

On Monday the push for the Democracy For All Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment that would overturn decisions like Citizens United v. FEC and allow legislators to put reasonable limits on money in elections, became a bipartisan effort in Congress when Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) signed on as a cosponsor of the legislation.

While this is a historic step that deserves celebration, in many ways it is long overdue. Washington is the only place where the fight to get big money out of politics is a partisan issue, and it hasn’t always been that way.

Similar amendments proposed in the past have found bipartisan support in Congress, including from Rep. Jones. Republican elected officials across the country have been advocating at the local and state level to get big money out of politics. In fact, a recent report from Free Speech For People highlights the more than 100 Republican officials nationwide who favor an amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United.

Among voters, it’s also a bipartisan movement, with Americans of all political stripes speaking out against a democracy unduly influenced by corporations and billionaires. A 2014 poll found that in Senate battleground states, almost three in four voters favor a constitutional amendment to undo the harm of decisions like Citizens United, including majorities in “even the reddest states.” This support did not waver among Republican voters polled: amendment supporters outnumbered opponents by a 26 percent margin.

Still, Rep. Jones’ decision to become a cosponsor of the Democracy For All Amendment is an important step forward. Money in politics is an issue that affects all of us, and one that Americans of all political backgrounds feel strongly about. It’s only fitting that our federal elected officials in both parties listen to the voices of their constituents and join the movement to take our democratic process back from the grips of wealthy special interests.

PFAW

A Feast of Radical Right Red Meat

Over the weekend, likely Republican 2016 presidential candidates stepped up to the microphone at two extremist events to throw red meat at their Radical Right base and prove their ultraconservative bona fides in the run up to primary season.

Here’s a taste of what went down at Iowa’s so-called Freedom Summit, hosted by Rep. Steve King – who is most famous for his radical and dehumanizing anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Union-busting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker won the day with the most well-received speech, in which his biggest applause came when he bragged about his party’s attempts at voter suppression in his state, saying, “we required in our state, by law, a photo ID to vote.”

Former Arkansas Governor and 2008 Iowa Caucus winner Mike Huckabee said states should ignore Supreme Court rulings favorable to marriage equality.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie played up how staunchly anti-choice he is.

Senator Ted Cruz made the case for caucus voters to weed out anyone but extreme right-wing candidates. “Every candidate is going to come to you and say they are the most conservative person that ever lived,” Cruz said. “Talk is cheap.”

And at a separate Religious Right event, hosted by SPLC-designated hate group the American Family Association, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal discussed the need to enshrine discrimination against same-sex couples in the Constitution, promoted Islamophobic conspiracy theories and closed his speech with the statement “our god wins.” That event, titled The Response, perfectly embodied the dangers of mixing religion with politics in the way that the Right so loves to do.

By making political issues – even incredibly important ones, and even ones that are historically divisive – litmus tests for their followers’ religious conviction, they cast their opponents not only as wrong, but as evil and satanic, allowing for no possibility of compromise and making even civil coexistence difficult.  

It was a lot of what you’d expect – unfortunately – but that doesn’t make it any less terrifying. These are the people who are setting the agenda for one of America’s two major parties – and the one that right now controls both houses of Congress.

Read more and check out video from both events at RightWingWatch.org.

UPDATE: Jon Stewart's can't-miss segment on the Freedom Summit from the Daily Show (video courtesy of Comedy Central):

PFAW

Democracy Reform Package Reintroduced in the 114th Congress on Citizens United 5th Anniversary

On Wednesday (1/21), at a press event on Capitol Hill, Congressional leaders focused on solutions to the money in politics problem by announcing the reintroduction of a host of pro-democracy bills in the 114th Congress, including small donor empowerment, disclosure, and a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics. For the first time, members of the House and Senate introduced these separate bills together as a democracy reform package, emphasizing in their remarks that the individual pieces of legislation reinforce one another in creating a democracy truly of, by and for the people.  

One key theme of the event was the American public’s growing appreciation that money in politics is an underlying, systemic issue that must be addressed in order to confront the many important challenges of our time. States and municipalities across the country are already passing resolutions and ballot initiatives supporting reform, and millions of Americans are on record in favor of these solutions.

Reform groups are also coming together around a range of approaches to tackling big money in politics. More than 130 organizations have signed onto a Unity Statement of Principles, expressing their support for the values underlying many of the solutions discussed at the event today. The unity statement serves as a foundation for collaboration among diverse organizations, including environmental groups, labor unions, social and economic justice groups, business groups, and communities of faith. By mobilizing these broad constituencies around a common set of solutions a political force with the potential to enact pro-democracy reforms can be set in motion.  

Members that spoke included Sen. Tom Udall, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Sen. Jon Tester, Rep. Ted Deutch, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Rep. John Sarbanes, Rep. David Price, and Rep. Michael Capuano. The bills reintroduced include the Democracy for All amendment, DISCLOSE Act, Government by the People Act, Real Time Transparency Act, and Shareholder Protection Act, among others. In the coming months PFAW will continue to work with a broad set of partners to mobilize around these solutions in Congress.

PFAW

Unbelievable Nerve - Republicans Finally Discover Income Inequality

Have you noticed the Republicans’ latest central talking point -- evident in their multitude of goofy “responses” to the president’s State of the Union Address this week?

It’s this: America has a major problem with income inequality, the middle class is being squeezed and … wait for it … it’s all the fault -- somehow, although they don’t clearly say how -- of President Obama and Democrats.

Well, look who decided to show up! Republicans from Ted Cruz and Joni Ernst to Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney are all finally acknowledging the crisis-level problems America faces with economic inequality and wage stagnation, but only because they think they can somehow flip the blame onto their political opponents.

It’s their new favorite tactic. The same one that worked for them in the 2014 elections. Create a big problem and when frustration with that problem becomes widespread enough, blame it on President Obama. Leading up to 2014, the GOP on Capitol Hill was responsible for unprecedented obstruction and gridlock -- very intentionally, as their political strategy. They then used Americans dissatisfaction with Washington to achieve a “change” election, which went against the president’s party, because the president’s party is inherently the one seen as “in control.”

So, after decades of pushing deregulation of rapacious corporate interests, policies favoring no rules for Wall Street, attempts to deny workers a living wage, deny people health care coverage, deny people unemployment insurance and deny opportunity to students at every level of their education, the Right is going to try to blame progressive policies and progressive leaders for the new Gilded Age that they created?

Granted, too many Democrats over the years have pursued and allowed policies that promote rather than rein in Wall Street greed, as well some other speciously labeled “pro-business” policies. But those policies never were the product of a progressive agenda, and always had much backing among Republicans.

Now, as I noted, EVEN MITT ROMNEY is on this new message … Mitt Romney, who himself is a living symbol of opulent wealth and the stark disconnect between the top 1% and the struggles of the vast majority of Americans.

Clearly, Republicans are trying out this messaging tactic as the central theme for their 2016 campaign efforts. And, based on its ongoing proliferation, we can only assume that so far it is working.

Presented with the facts, Americans are undoubtedly smart enough to see through the GOP’s latest hypocrisy. But with the vast millions of corporate special interests and billionaire ideologues fueling their propaganda machine, and a powerful media empire led by Fox News, we cannot afford to take anything for granted.

Please do your part, in your community and among your peers, to call out Republicans’ dishonesty and challenge them to articulate real solutions to economic inequality and strengthening America’s middle class.

Ted Cruz's video response to State of the Union Address:

PFAW

On Citizens United 5th Anniversary, Activists Rally Against the Chamber of Commerce

This afternoon, braving freezing temperatures and falling snow, PFAW activists joined a crowd of about 200 to protest against the Chamber of Commerce and the massive amount of dark money it funnels into politics. The event was planned as part of a series happening across the country today to mark the 5th anniversary of Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court decision that gave corporations the ability to spend unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of elections.

Speakers included Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN); Sarita Gupta, the executive director of Jobs With Justice; Rhana Bazzini, an 81-year-old woman who led a march more than 400 miles long across the state of Florida to bring attention to the need for campaign finance reform; and many more. The rally also featured call and response chants, a brass band, and a stirring performance by members from a local choir group.

A central theme among the speakers was the growing movement calling for solutions to big money in politics, including public financing, disclosure, and a constitutional amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United. Since 2010, millions of Americans have gone on record in support of these solutions, including five million people who have signed petitions calling for a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics.

Ginsburg Concurrence Is an Important Reminder on Religious Liberty

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Holt v. Hobbs yesterday upholding the religious liberty claim of a Muslim prisoner who was prohibited by corrections officials from growing a half-inch beard. As noted in our Supreme Court term preview of Holt v. Hobbs, the case involves a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA.

Similar to the better-known Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was at issue in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, RLUIPA is triggered when the government imposes a "substantial burden on the religious exercise" of a person confined to an institution. When that happens, the action can be upheld only if the government can demonstrate that the burden: "(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

In this case, especially since so many other prisons around the country allow inmates to grow half-inch beards without a security problem, few expected the prison system would win this case. And it didn't. The Court's ruling was written by Justice Alito, author of the Hobby Lobby opinion, and all the other Justices signed on.

Importantly, while Justice Ginsburg – the author of the Hobby Lobby dissent – joined the Court's opinion, she also wrote a separate concurrence to emphasize a critically important point. In its entirety, it reads:

Unlike the exemption this Court approved in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., accommodating petitioner's religious belief in this case would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner's belief. On that understanding, I join the Court's opinion. [internal citations removed]

The removed internal citations are to her Hobby Lobby dissent's discussion of how religious liberty has always been recognized as a shield to protect people's rights, not as a sword to deny others' rights. Fortunately, Holt v. Hobbs did not present an opportunity for the narrow five-person majority to continue their project, begun in Hobby Lobby, to wholly transform the concept of religious liberty. But Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justice Sotomayor) was right to remind us of the traditional meaning of that phrase in American society and law.

PFAW Foundation

Roberts Court Sets Its Eye on Fair Housing Law

Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that is being heard only because of the ideological zeal of its conservative Justices. In the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, the Court is being asked to severely undermine the Fair Housing Act.

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the Roberts Court's right-wing majority has asked conservatives to send them a case giving them a chance to undermine the FHA, one of the most critically important tools we have to eradicate systemic discrimination in housing. Congress passed the law in 1968 in order to address obstacles to equal housing such as insurance redlining, discriminatory zoning ordinances, and unfair mortgage lending practices.

Under the FHA, a practice that has an unjustified discriminatory impact – even if you can't prove a discriminatory purpose – can be judged to violate the law. This is called "disparate impact." All 11 circuits to have considered the question carefully analyzed the text of the Fair Housing Act and agreed that disparate impact cases are covered under the law. These cases go back to the 1970s and 1980s, and Congress has never amended the law to say otherwise. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also interprets the law that way.

But conservatives have long been hostile to the idea of "disparate impact" anti-discrimination laws, whether in housing or elsewhere. This is a policy debate they have not been able to win in Congress, but they are hopeful that five right-wing Justices will change the Act for them.

That optimism stems from the fact that this isn't the first time the question has been before the Court. Despite the unanimity among the eleven circuit courts to address the issue, the Roberts Court in 2011 granted certiorari to a petitioner asking them to overturn the national consensus on the law. However, the parties in Magner v. Gallagher settled, meaning there was no longer any case for the Supreme Court to consider. The Roberts Court granted certiorari to a similar petition in 2013 (Mt. Holly v. Mt. Holly Citizens in Action), but that case, too, was settled before the Court could hear oral arguments.

In fact, HUD acted in 2013 in a way that makes the legal argument in support of disparate impact even stronger. While the circuit courts were uniform in their recognition that the FHA prohibits policies and practices with a discriminatory impact, they did not all agree on the same process the law requires lower courts to follow in disparate impact cases. So HUD adopted regulations interpreting the FHA and answering that question. Under Supreme Court precedent, the courts are supposed to defer to reasonable statutory interpretations by the agencies Congress has charged with enforcing those statutes, even if the judge would have interpreted the law differently. So HUD's new regulations make the argument against disparate impact even weaker.

Nevertheless, few were surprised in October of last year when the Roberts Court granted certiorari to yet another petitioner asking the Justices to eliminate the ability to target housing practices with an unjustified discriminatory effect. This is clearly an issue that at least four Justices (the number required to grant certiorari) are hungry to decide. They have a vision of what our nation's fair housing laws should look like, and they are set on turning that vision into reality.

Whether they have a majority is something we don't know yet. But we do know that the Court's decision (expected by the end of June) will have an enormous impact on whether we as a nation will be able to effectively confront and eliminate discrimination in housing.

PFAW Foundation

Ellen DeGeneres Reveals Her True 'Gay Agenda' In Response To Right-Wing Columnist

Last week, People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch reported on a Christian Post column by right-wing commentator Larry Tomczak in which he warned that Hollywood is “promoting homosexuality” by “targeting innocent and impressionable children.” In particular, Tomczak attacked Ellen DeGeneres, whom he wrote “celebrates her lesbianism and ‘marriage’ in between appearances of guests like Taylor Swift to attract young girls.”

The column caught the attention of none other than Ellen herself, who responded to Tomczak on her show this week.

She told Tomczak: “First of all, I’m not ‘married.’ I’m married. That’s all,” adding “I don’t even know what it means to ‘celebrate my lesbianism.’”

She then revealed her true “gay agenda”:

PFAW

#DemandDemocracy Video Blog: Get Big Money Out of Politics to Fight Economic Inequality

People For the American Way has made passing a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics a priority since the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision was first handed down in 2010. In this segment of the #DemandDemocracy video blog series, PFAW Executive Vice President Marge Baker explains why getting big money out of politics is critically important for economic and political equality.

The current political system provides an enormous advantage to wealthy interests[] by allowing them to purchase outsized influence in government. It is impossible to have a government of, by and for the people when a tiny fraction of the population has such an outsized influence on the outcome of elections.

As noted in an article by the Brennan Center:

“Spending in the 2014 congressional election broke records for the most expensive midterm in history estimated at $3.6 billion according to OpenSecrets.org. This included $689 million of outside spending including $154 million in untraceable dark money. According to FollowtheMoney.org, $2.2 billion was spent in state elections in the 2014 cycle which included the election of 36 governors.”

PFAW’s #DemandDemocracy video blog series is a collection of short videos that highlight how big money in politics affects — and often stalls progress on — a range of other critical issues.

PFAW

Fundraiser for Steve Scalise Met with Protestors

PFAW members and other local activists lined the sidewalk outside of the National Republican Club Tuesday afternoon to protest a fundraiser event for House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

Scalise, who was elected Majority Whip by his Republican colleagues back in June, has come under fire recently after it came to light that in 2002, he gave a speech to a white supremacist group affiliated with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Scalise even has referred to himself as “David Duke without the baggage.”

Incredibly, even after these revelations, the Republican caucus—including Speaker John Boehner – is standing by Scalise. And Scalise certainly doesn’t seem to think this scandal is reason to slow down his fundraising efforts, as evidenced by the meeting his team held with donors on Tuesday, where PFAW members joined protestors from other organizations including Color of Change and Jewish advocacy group Bend the Arc.

It’s hard to believe that the GOP, which has struggled so much to reach minority voters, isn’t distancing itself from party leadership with ties to white supremacists. Republicans need to be held accountable – we need to ask our Republican representatives in Congress whether, in 2015, they are brave enough to take a stand against racism.

Thousands of PFAW members have already signed the petition calling on Speaker Boehner to remove Scalise from his leadership position. Add your name now.


Photo via The Hill

PFAW

#DemandDemocracy Video Blog: Big Money Prevents Progress On Civil Rights

Many major advances in our democracy have come about through constitutional amendments, such as those giving women and African Americans the right to vote. The third installment in our #DemandDemocracy video blog series features Greg Moore, executive director of the NAACP National Voter Fund.

 

Almost every generation of Americans has amended the Constitution to address the most pressing issues of their time. The domination of big money in politics is an issue that affects countless other concerns of this generation, and it must be addressed to make progress on other important fronts.

Want to share this video with your friends? Click here!   

PFAW’s #DemandDemocracy video blog series is a collection of short videos that highlight how big money in politics affects — and often stalls progress on — a range of other critical issues.

Watch the rest of the videos in this series here>>

PFAW