New Hampshire Activists Launch Photo Petition Urging Sen. Ayotte to Support an Amendment to #GetMoneyOut

PFAW activists and allies are continuing to pressure Sen. Kelly Ayotte for her reluctance to support a constitutional amendment that would overturn cases like Citizens United.

A group of New Hampshire activists, many of whom have worked to pass local resolutions in their towns in support of an amendment, met with Sen. Ayotte’s legal counsel in May to deliver over 12 thousand petitions in support of the Democracy For All Amendment— a federal constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and the states to set reasonable limits on money in elections.

Over a month later, her office has given no indication she will support the Democracy For All Amendment.

In previous public statements she has characterized a constitutional amendment as “dangerous.”  And in a recent form letter to activists, Sen. Ayotte wrote,

By creating a "carve out" to the First Amendment that gives politicians the power to limit free speech and stifle political dissent, the Udall proposal jeopardizes all Americans' freedom of speech rights - and essentially says that our Founding Fathers got it wrong. It would also alter the First Amendment in ways that jeopardize more than political speech.

Of course, we know this issue isn’t about protecting free speech; it’s about everyone having an equal say in our elections and not having their own voices drowned out by a flood of big money.

In light of Sen. Ayotte’s clear refusal to recognize the influence of money in politics as stifling the voices of all Americans, PFAW activists and allies created photo petitions this weekend to send Sen. Ayotte a clear message about why 69 percent of New Hampshire voters support a constitutional amendment.

photo petition photo petition
photo petition photo petition
photo petition photo petition

 

PFAW

130 Members of Congress Call for Executive Order on Disclosure of Political Spending

Yesterday 130 senators and representatives urged President Obama to issue an executive order requiring companies that receive government contracts to disclose their political spending. A letter signed by more than one hundred representatives highlighted the lack of transparency in our current system and the important steps the president can take to help fix this:

Taxpayers have a right to know where their money is spent and you have the power to ensure that the American people can obtain this information. With public funds come public responsibilities, and any company receiving federal tax dollars should be required by executive order to fully disclose their political spending in a timely and accessible manner.

A letter signed by 26 senators echoed this call, arguing that an executive order would help restore confidence in our political system:

In our view, campaign finance disclosure is another issue that demands immediate action to restore the public’s faith in our democracy.

It’s not just members of Congress who are calling on the president to act. More than 83,000 PFAW members and supporters have signed our petition to the president urging him to issue an executive order. Several thousand more contacted their members of Congress asking them to sign on to the letters sent yesterday.

Right now corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections, and they can do so in secret by funneling that spending though “dark money” groups. But if President Obama were to issue an executive order, some of the nation’s biggest corporations – like Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin, and any other government contractor – would have to disclose their political spending.

President Obama himself has called for a more transparent and accountable democracy. In his State of the Union address in January, he criticized “dark money for ads that pull us into the gutter” and called for a “better politics.” Now is the president’s chance to help create that “better politics.”

PFAW

States and Localities Fight Back Against Big Political Spending

Since the 2010 Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates for record-breaking levels of election spending, Americans have pushed for a change. According to a recent New York Times poll, 85 percent of Americans agree that the campaign finance system needs reform, from “fundamental changes” to a “complete overhaul.” Now Americans are going to their state and local governments to spearhead efforts to get money out of politics. 

 Over 125 bills regarding campaign spending have been introduced in 33 statehouses in the last few months, even in the conservative stronghold Texas. Some of these efforts have been bipartisan; Montana’s Democratic governor Steve Bullock collaborated with a Republican-controlled legislature to pass a bill that requires nonprofit “social welfare” groups to disclose their political spending.

 “When somebody's hiding in the shadows and gut-shoots you, you have a right to know who's taking a shot at you,” said Republican Montana state senator Duane Ankely.

  Americans are already working to fix the problem of big money in politics. More than 150 organizations have supported the Unity Statement of Principles which articulates the values underlying key solutions to ensure a democratic system of government where everyone’s voice is heard, everyone follows the same set of rules, and where everyone is held accountable. One important solution to the problem of big money’s influence in politics is a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and let the American people establish reasonable limits on election spending.

  Sixteen states and more than 650 cities have passed resolutions urging Congress to adopt such an amendment. Activists in twelve states recently delivered petitions to their members of Congressmen asking them to support the amendment, and with 311,950 local petitions were delivered to district offices in California alone. Further, nearly three in four Americans support implementing a constitutional amendment. Presidential candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and even Republican Lindsey Graham, have all spoken in favor of campaign finance reform. The movement to get money out of politics already enjoys bipartisan support at all levels of government, and the stage is set for even more momentum, particularly around an amendment, moving into 2016.

PFAW

Late Night Host Seth Meyers Draws Attention to Campaign Finance Issues

On June 4, Seth Meyers vocalized the growing frustration among Americans about the delayed candidacy announcement of Jeb Bush. On his talk show, Late Night with Seth Meyers, the host poked fun at Bush and the dysfunction of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), drawing attention to issues surrounding campaign finance.

 

Meyers is not the first to scrutinize Jeb Bush for his lack of clarity. A recent article in the New York Times explores the federal laws around candidacy, noting that “federal law makes anyone who raises or spends $5,000 in an effort to become president a candidate, and thus subject to fundraising, spending, and disclosure rules.” Yet because Bush has not declared as a candidate, he is not limited in the amount of money he can raise, and can continue to coordinate with his super PAC, Right to Rise, which he would not be able to do otherwise.

 

Jeb Bush’s antics are a good demonstration of the need for campaign finance reform. The majority of Americans agree that big money has too much influence on politics. But, as Seth Meyers indicated, the FEC is “dysfunctional,” even according to its own chairwoman, who has created a petition calling for new rules to regulate political spending. The FEC is meant to be a bipartisan organization, but that is also what causes its gridlock: the three Democrats and three Republicans cannot seem to agree on much of anything.


Two partner campaign finance reform groups, Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, have filed formal complaints with the FEC challenging the legality of Bush’s tactics. Regardless of whether or not the FEC takes action as a result of these complaints, Governor Bush plans to officially announce his candidacy on June 15th. Either way, our broken campaign finance system will no doubt continue to serve as punchlines leading into 2016, hopefully setting the stage for real reform.

PFAW

#Democracy4All Reaches Important Milestone

People For the American Way and its pro-democracy allies have been working in Congress and the states to boost House and Senate cosponsorship of the Democracy for All constitutional amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens Unitedand get big money out of politics.

This week we watched as Democracy for All reached an important milestone – it now has as many House cosponsors, 130, as it did at the end of the previous Congress.

27 of them have come during the last six weeks alone, since we first launched the campaign:

Representative Pete Aguilar [CA-31]
Representative Joyce Beatty [OH-3]
Representative Robert Brady [PA-1]
Representative Kathy Castor [FL-14]
Representative John Delaney [MD-6]
Representative Suzan DelBene [WA-1]
Representative Marcia L. Fudge [OH-11]
Representative Tulsi Gabbard [HI-2]
Representative Sheila Jackson Lee [TX-18]
Representative William R. Keating [MA-9]
Representative John Lewis [GA-5]
Representative Ted Lieu [CA-33]
Representative Doris O. Matsui [CA-6]
Representative Betty McCollum [MN-4]
Representative Jim McDermott [WA-7]
Representative Gregory W. Meeks [NY-5]
Representative Grace Meng [NY-6]
Representative Seth Moulton [MA-6]
Representative Grace F. Napolitano [CA-32]
Representative Donald Norcross [NJ-1]
Representative Bill Pascrell Jr. [NJ-9]
Representative Scott Peters [CA-52]
Representative Collin C. Peterson [MN-7]
Representative Tim Ryan [OH-13]
Representative Robert C. Scott [VA-3]
Representative Albio Sires [NJ-8]
Representative John A. Yarmuth [KY-3]

The next step is 155 – if Democracy for All gets to 155, then it will have as many cosponsors as all House amendments from the previous Congress combined.

Click to find out if your Representative has signed on to Democracy for All.

And check out United For The People for ongoing coverage of the far-reaching amendment movement.

PFAW

Reuters Report: Voters Won't Let Billionaires Buy the Next Election

 With the 2016 national elections upcoming, wealthy donors supporting both parties are gearing up to throw hundreds of millions of dollars into the races; billionaires David and Charles Koch have already pledged to spend $889 million. But a report from Reuters shows that Americans, frustrated by the overwhelming influence of big money in politics, are organizing to fight back.

 In the Philadelphia mayoral race, three billionaires spent $7 million to elect Anthony Hardy Williams. In response, unions and community groups rallied around his challenger, Jim Kenney, organizing a march to stop the wealthy donors from “buying [their] next mayor.” Technological developments are making such organization easier: the creators of Crowdpac, an app that lets entrepreneurs gather funding towards donations, say that they want the app to be used to organize small donors to counteract the effects of billionaire spending.

  This is reflective of a wider trend in public opinion. Americans are sick of letting big money influence their elections; 84 percent say that money has too much influence in political campaigns today and nearly 3 in 4 Americans support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision and limit campaign spending.

“There's growing public awareness about rich people trying to buy elections and that makes the task of winning all the more difficult," said Darrel West of the Brookings Institute.

  Americans have organized at all levels of government to get big money out of politics. Activists have held rallies and marches devoted to the cause and demanded that their representatives in Congress take steps to reduce big money’s influence. Five million of them have signed a petition calling for a constitutional amendment to limit the amount of money spent in politics. Sixteen states and more than 650 cities have already called for an amendment.

 President Obama is on board, and presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Graham, and Bernie Sanders have expressed support for a constitutional amendment. Clinton and Sanders have also emphasized the importance of nominating Supreme Court Justices who would restore balance to the Supreme Court and restore the American people’s ability to impose reasonable limits on money in politics.

  The movement against big money in politics is gaining momentum as the election nears.

 

PFAW

PFAW and Allies Tell Congress to #GetMoneyOut

Last month, as part of a multi-pronged campaign to boost House and Senate cosponsorship of the Democracy for All constitutional amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United and get big money out of politics, People For the American Way kicked off a campaign to send letters to Congress.

PFAW’s letter highlighted the grassroots momentum around an amendment:

While amending the Constitution is unquestionably a weighty matter—only warranted in rare and compelling circumstances—this is one of those moments in our nation’s history. The American people and their elected officials are increasingly speaking out about the need for an amendment. As of April 30, H.J.Res. 22 had 108 cosponsors,xvi and S.J.Res. 5 had 40 cosponsors.xvii The building momentum in Congress for an amendment mirrors the robust grassroots organizing taking place across the country at the state and local levels. Since the landmark Citizens United decision, 16 states and more than 650 municipalities, including large cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia, have gone on record supporting congressional passage of a constitutional amendment to be sent to the states for ratification. Transcending political leaning and geographic location, voters in states and municipalities that have placed amendment questions on the ballot have routinely supported these initiatives by large margins.xviii Five million American have signed their names to the amendment support petitions circulated by dozens of reform groups.xix The momentum to address the issue of big money in politics grows stronger by the day.

Since then, eight other organizations have sent their own letters to Congress.

U.S. PIRG:

The call for a solution is also clear. To return control of our elections to average constituents, we need an amendment to correct the Supreme Court’s misguided interpretation that money is speech protected under the First Amendment and reestablish the principle of protecting political equality. The drumbeat of support for this amendment has been heard loud and clear. 16 states and over 650 municipalities have gone on record against the flood of big money in our elections and called on their congressional delegations to pass the amendment and send it back to the states to be ratified.

Common Cause:

We cannot fully address the many challenges our country faces—jobs and the economy, energy independence, housing security, and many others—until we solve the root issue of money dominating politics. Passing a constitutional amendment is a critical way to elevate the voices of everyday Americans so that everyone, not just the wealthy few, can be heard.

American Association of University Women (AAUW):

American women fought too hard for their votes to count. Congress needs to get big money out of our elections—and put the focus back on the people—by passing a Democracy for All constitutional amendment.

MoveOn.org Civic Action:

It's a simple and direct solution to the problems of money in politics that were multiplied many times over by the Supreme Court's decisions in Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC. Since those decisions opened the floodgates of unregulated political spending, we've seen an already fragile system become even further compromised. As spending on elections increases dramatically, a small handful of the wealthiest Americans control a growing percentage of the campaign donations—locking out millions upon millions of regular Americans from our democracy.

Daily Kos:

The flow of money into our political system—and the associated effects on our democratic processes—has reached a crisis level. In the wake of Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S.Ct. 1434 (2014), and other damaging Supreme Court decisions that have left Congress and the states unable to enact election spending regulations, American elections have grown increasingly expensive.

Public Citizen:

America faces great and serious challenges – putting people back to work, addressing deepening inequality, averting catastrophic climate change, fixing our schools, ensuring quality and affordable health care for all, and much more. Our country has the wealth and wherewithal, and the creativity and conscience, to meet these challenges. But we will fall short unless we repair our democracy.

Greenpeace:

Climate change is a salient example of the outsized influence of special interest money and Congress’ failure to address issues of highest national importance.

Sierra Club:

For at least the last decade, it has been abundantly clear that the people responsible for polluting our air, our water, and our climate with toxic contamination are many of the same ones responsible for polluting our democracy with hundreds of millions of dollars in toxic money. Fortunately, big money campaign donors are not getting away with this corruption of our democracy without the American people putting up a fight.

Click to learn more about Democracy for All and how you can be part of the solution.

And check out United For The People for ongoing coverage of the far-reaching amendment movement.

PFAW

Money in Politics Survey Shows the Toxic Legacy of the Roberts Court

The New York Times published a poll this morning that reveals - not at all surprisingly - that overwhelming majorities of Americans are thoroughly fed up with money in politics.

Among the findings:

  • Fewer than a third of Americans think all Americans have an equal chance to influence the elections process, while two-thirds say that the wealthy have more influence.
  • 85% said our system for funding political campaigns either needs fundamental changes or, even more, needs to be rebuilt completely.
  • Nearly three in five are pessimistic that changes will be made to improve campaign funding.

So a substantial majority of Americans think that the wealthy few have so much sway over elected officials that changes wanted by 85% of the population will not be made.

Such a lack of faith in the ability of our electoral system to channel popular will cannot be healthy for a democracy. For this, we can thank the Roberts Court, which helped create this situation with decisions like Citizens United and McCutcheon.

The far right conservatives on the Supreme Court have severely narrowed the permissible goals of laws regulating money in politics. They acknowledge that laws can be passed to prevent corruption and its appearance, but they have reduced that concept to little more than outright bribery. In other words, the current 5-4 majority on the Court has ruled that our elected governments cannot pass laws to address the arrogation of political influence and power by campaign funders with vast concentrations of wealth. When a narrow sliver of the nation's wealthiest individuals and families are able to leverage their political spending into special attention and favorable treatment from elected officials, democracy is not harmed in the eyes of the Roberts Court, but is instead working the way it is supposed to. It's simply constituents supporting candidates they support, and elected officials being appropriately responsive to their concerns.

So five years after Citizens United, it is not surprising that so many Americans have so little faith in the ability of our electoral democracy to function properly. This is just another part of the toxic legacy of the Roberts Court.

But it isn't the end of the story. As Americans' level of revulsion at the extent of money in politics continues to rise, elected officials will eventually have to take notice. It will not be the first time that a popular movement has prompted electoral and political changes too strong to be stopped by those who President Theodore Roosevelt once called the malefactors of great wealth. As with movements of the past, the will of the many can overcome the might of a few.

PFAW Foundation

Arkansas Attorney General Delays Ballot Initiative to #GetMoneyOut: Coalition Will Continue Pressing

This week Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge rejected a proposed 2016 ballot initiative that seeks to increase disclosure in election spending and support an amendment to overturn Supreme Court cases like Citizens United. Groups leading the effort, including the Arkansas Democracy Coalition, People For the American Way and other national allies, plan to resubmit the ballot initiative language today, as the objections given by the attorney general are minor and can be easily addressed. Once submitted the attorney general will have ten business days to respond with her decision.

The rejection has generated a flurry of media attention and comes in the wake of a series of events in support of the initiative held last week in Little Rock. As PFAW and allies prepare to potentially launch a full-scale ballot initiative campaign, the decision of the Arkansas Attorney General remains an obstacle in the path of making Arkansas the 17th state to pass a resolution in support of a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics.

Paul Spencer, Chairman of Regnat Populus, a convening organization of the Arkansas Democracy Coalition, said in a news release the group would revise the measure and submit a fifth version.

“The people of Arkansas deserve the opportunity to vote on these important issues,” he said. “We intend to respond to the very few points the attorney general has raised and trust that the office will not find any further reasons to block the campaign to put this on the ballot.”

PFAW

The Growing Call to #GetMoneyOut

This week, local activists in 12 states delivered petitions in support of a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics.

Last September, a majority of the Senate voted in support of the Democracy For All Amendment, a proposal that would overturn Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and let lawmakers put commonsense limits on money in elections.

Building off that progress, this week activists in more than 12 states delivered petitions to their House and Senate members asking them to support the Democracy For All Amendment. As wealthy special interests prepare to pour billions into the 2016 elections, ordinary Americans aren’t just shaking their heads. They are signing petitions, organizing events, lobbying their elected officials, and pushing for change.

In California, local leaders delivered 311,950 petitions – all signed by Californians who support an amendment to overturn decisions like Citizens United – to Rep. Tony Cardenas. Their raised fingers represent the fight to protect the promise of “one person, one vote.”

In New York, activists did the same at the office of Rep. Yvette Clark.

One Maryland activist even hand-delivered his petitions directly to Minority Whip Steny Hoyer.

A number of local leaders in New Hampshire came out to deliver thousands of petitions to Sen. Kelly Ayotte...

…which caught the attention of local media.

All in all, more than five million Americans have signed petitions in support of a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics. Grassroots leaders across the country are going to keep up the pressure on their elected officials until support for the amendment in Congress reflects the overwhelming support among constituents.
 

PFAW