February, 17 2015, 01:15pm EDT
Why the Fair Elections Ballot Question?
Report on Extreme Influence of Big Money in Mayor's Race Leaves No Doubt
WASHINGTON
The need for Chicago's Fair Elections ballot question was underscored today by a stunning new report detailing the outrageous number of large contributions coming from donors outside Chicago to the city's mayoral candidates.
The Illinois PIRG Education Fund's report found that big donations completely eclipse small donations to the five mayoral campaigns. Contributions greater than $1,000 account for more than 86% of the money contributed to the five Chicago mayoral candidates, while less than 2% of the money contributed comes from contributions of less than $150. What's more, the top two donors gave more than all of the at least 1,601 small donors combined.
"This report demonstrates how Chicago politics is being negatively influenced by big special interests and the super rich," said Brian Gladstein, Director of Programs and Strategy Common Cause Illinois. "In response, we need a matching campaign financing system to amplify the voices of every Chicagoan. That is why we created the Fair Elections campaign to allow more diverse people to run for office and win based on the issues and not who can raise the most money."
Not only are large donations almost entirely funding the five mayoral campaigns, but just over half (52%) of the contributions are from people who do not even live in Chicago. Out-of-city influence also grows with the size of the donation: 60% of the money was from donors who gave $25,000 or more, 80% of the money was from donors who gave $80,000 or more.
These findings paint a clear picture as to why Chicago voters should vote YES to the Fair Elections ballot question, which calls for a campaign financing system that shuts out the corrupt influence of large donors like the ones dominating this year's mayoral race, along with elections across the state. Voting YES for Fair Elections is the one thing voters can do to reshape every Chicago race for generations to come. The referendum calls for a campaign finance system like NYC's and LA's that relies on small donors and a limited match of public funds, putting a stop to wealthy donors and corporate lobbyists who too often sway elections.
Today is a Day of Action for Fair Elections Illinois, a campaign by Common Cause Illinois. People across the city will be contacting voters to tell them how their vote can make sure future Chicago elections are not controlled by special interests and the very rich.
The Illinois PIRG Education Fund reports that the analysis examined contributions to the five mayoral candidates between 2011 and December 31st, 2014, the end of the last quarterly report. A significant amount of money has been contributed since then, which Illinois PIRG Education Fund will analyze once the campaigns and campaign reports are completed. The report can be read here.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process.
(202) 833-1200LATEST NEWS
Michigan AG Drops Charges Against Pro-Palestinian Campus Protesters
"Our First Amendment rights should never be criminalized. Speaking up against genocide should be lifted up, not slammed with felony charges. Palestinians deserve safety and dignity," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
May 05, 2025
Advocates for student protesters and other critics of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip celebrated on Monday after Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dropped all charges against seven people arrested last year at the University of Michigan amid allegations of bias that the Democrat rejected.
"When my office made the decision to issue charges of trespassing, and resisting and obstructing a police officer, in this matter, we did so based on the evidence and facts of the case. I stand by those charges and that determination," Nessel said in a statement. She then took aim at Ann Arbor District Judge Cedric Simpson.
"Despite months and months of court hearings, the court has yet to make a determination on whether probable cause was demonstrated that the defendants committed these crimes, and if so, to bind the case over to circuit court for trial, which is the primary obligation of the district court for any felony offense," she said. "During this time, the case has become a lightning rod of contention."
Nessel is Jewish, and on May 2, the Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor submitted to the court a letter defending her against accusations of bias. The attorney general cited the letter in her new statement.
"Baseless and absurd allegations of bias have only furthered this divide," Nessel said. "The motion for recusal has been a diversionary tactic which has only served to further delay the proceedings. And now, we have learned that a public statement in support of my office from a local nonprofit has been directly communicated to the court. The impropriety of this action has led us to the difficult decision to drop these charges."
"These distractions and ongoing delays have created a circus-like atmosphere to these proceedings," she continued. "While I stand by my charging decisions, and believe, based on the evidence, a reasonable jury would find the defendants guilty of the crimes alleged, I no longer believe these cases to be a prudent use of my department's resources, and, as such, I have decided to dismiss the cases."
The defendants—Oliver Kozler, Samantha Lewis, Henry MacKeen-Shapiro, Michael Mueller, Asad Siddiqui, Avi Tachna-Fram, and Rhiannon Willow—had pleaded not guilty. The Detroit Free Pressreported that one of Nessel's deputies, Robyn Liddell, made the motion to dismiss the case and the defendants "hugged each other, smiled, and posed for a photo with their attorneys in the courtroom."
According to the newspaper:
The courtroom was packed with spectators, many of them wearing keffiyehs. They burst into applause at the decision and began chants of "Free Palestine."
Amir Makled, who represented Lewis, said the charges never should have been brought.
"This was not about trespass, this was not about a felony conduct," Makled said. "This was the criminalization of free speech, and today, the state of Michigan agrees."
State Rep. Dylan Wegela (D-26) said on social media Monday: "This is great news. It takes courage to stand up for what is right. The charges should have never been pursued in the first place. I'm glad the students maintained their innocence and didn't accept a plea deal."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) similarly declared, "Good news for our university student communities!"
"Our First Amendment rights should never be criminalized," added Tlaib, the only Palestinian American in Congress. "Speaking up against genocide should be lifted up, not slammed with felony charges. Palestinians deserve safety and dignity."
Union organizer Anne Elias said that "this prosecution was wrong and I think public pressure on Dana Nessel worked. I feel such relief for our students and community members, as this was a complete surprise for them today."
"[Democrats] largely own this mess, and we must identify the political entanglements—[especially] with President Ono resigning," Elias added, referring to Santa Ono, who is on track to leave his post at the University of Michigan to lead the University of Florida.
In addition to coming under fire for this case, Nessel was criticized late last month for raids of pro-Palestine student organizers' homes that her office said were "not related to protest activity on the campus of the University of Michigan," but "in furtherance of our investigation into multijurisdictional acts of vandalism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unconscionable': Trump Ready to Garnish Wages for Indebted Student Loan Borrowers
"They're just cruel and want to take as much as possible from the folks who have very little," said one student borrower advocacy group.
May 05, 2025
With the Trump administration restarting collection efforts on defaulted student loans after a five-year reprieve on Monday, Mike Pierce of the Student Borrower Protection Center said the move "will further fan the flames of economic chaos for working families across this country"—particularly as the White House threatens to garnish the wages of people who struggle to make higher monthly payments.
The SBPC joined nearly 200 other organizations in sending a letter to the acting undersecretary of education, James Bergeron, condemning the administration's efforts to gut income-driven repayment options and eliminate the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which has delivered student debt relief to 1 million public service workers since it was implemented in 2007.
"The administration should move to enact policies that better protect student borrowers, rather than pursue misguided policies that will drive up costs and weaken protections," wrote the groups.
More than 42 million Americans have student debt, with more than $1.6 trillion owed in total. More than 5 million borrowers are currently in default, and that number could grow to about 10 million as the Trump administration ends programs that have been aimed at helping people pay off their loans in manageable amounts each month.
Collections are beginning months after Republican-led lawsuits succeeded in blocking former President Joe Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, and days after the GOP members of the House Education and Workforce Committee advanced more than $350 billion in proposed funding cuts for education programs—cuts that government watchdog Accountable.US said are "paving the way for tax cuts for themselves, billionaire donors, and corporations."
The Republicans approved:
- Slashing federal student aid by capping unsubsidized and Parent PLUS loans and eliminating subsidized loans for undergraduates and Grad PLUS loans entirely, which would disproportionately impact low-income families, especially those with students at HBCUs;
- Repealing a set of Biden-era protections—including rules establishing forgiveness for students of schools that closed or failed to lead to gainful employment—that have canceled at least $17.2 billion in federal student loans for nearly 1 million borrowers misled by predatory institutions;
- Repealing the Biden administration's SAVE plan and replacing it with just two fixed or income-based repayment plans, a change that could raise costs for millions of borrowers, including those making modest incomes; and
- Changing Pell Grant eligibility by altering the definition of full-time college attendance to 30 credit hours per year and requiring at least half-time attendance to qualify for any grant at all.
"To pay for tax cuts for the richest in this country, congressional Republicans are willing to gut the programs tens of millions of Americans rely on," said Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US. "Their education markup makes it abundantly clear that they're not just going to gut Medicaid, they're proposing hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts to programs that provide more opportunities for everyday Americans to access higher education. These cuts are a betrayal of congressional Republicans' promise to make government work for Americans and to lower their costs; in fact, it will do quite the opposite."
The Debt Collective, a union of student loan borrowers, pointed out that the Trump administration isn't required by law to begin collecting student debt on Monday.
"They're just cruel and want to take as much as possible from the folks who have very little," said the group.
Aside from garnishing borrowers' wages, the administration could further devastate millions of people as credit scores could tank when the Education Department begins collection activity.
The Federal Reserve projected in March that people with delinquencies could see their credit scores plummet by as many as 171 points, leading to higher costs for borrowers who later take out mortgages, car loans, and sign up for credit cards.
U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) called President Donald Trump's threat to garnish wages in order to collect student debt "unconscionable."
The president and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, said Pressley, "should NOT be seizing people's hard-earned wages, tax refunds, and Social Security checks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
20 AGs Sue Trump Admin Over Dismantling of Health Agencies
"This administration is not streamlining the federal government; they are sabotaging it and all of us," said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
May 05, 2025
A coalition of 20 attorneys general on Monday sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and other Trump administration officials in federal court over cuts to the agency, arguing that "dismantling" and "paralyzing" it through terminations and reorganizations is an "unlawful effort" to undercut Congress.
The lawsuit focuses on a March 27 directive that unveiled sweeping changes to HHS, and the plaintiffs are requesting that the court declare the directive unlawful, arguing that it is unconstitutional and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
"This administration is not streamlining the federal government; they are sabotaging it and all of us," said New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the attorneys general leading the lawsuit, in a statement on Monday. "When you fire the scientists who research infectious diseases, silence the doctors who care for pregnant patients, and shut down the programs that help firefighters and miners breathe or children thrive, you are not making America healthy—you are putting countless lives at risk."
The lawsuit argues that prior to March 27 the administration had sought to "systematically deprive" HHS of necessary resources, but the March directive was an escalation of this effort, announcing the agency's intention to terminate thousands HHS employees, restructure 28 divisions down to 15, and reduce regional offices from 10 to 5.
"Secretary Kennedy refused to undertake this restructuring legally or carefully," according to the suit, which also highlights that the steep reductions in staff were not slated to yield significant savings.
"The March 27 directive came after scores of probationary employees were laid off and many employees took a buyout offer. None of these layoffs were necessary to accommodate a funding shortfall—Congress's appropriations have remained steady, or in many cases, grown in recent years. All told, 20,000 full-time employees—almost 25% of HHS headcount—would be terminated in a few months to save, by defendants' own estimate, less than 1% of HHS expenditures," according to the suit.
The attorneys general argue that cuts to HHS and its subagencies have prevented them from carrying out their "statutorily required functions." The lawsuit ticks through changes to various agencies within HHS and explains how the March 27 directive has made them unable to do their work.
At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example, some 2,400 employees were dismissed on April 1, according to the complaint.
Per the suit, all workers that handled Freedom of Information Act requests have been fired, as have members of the communication team. The cuts have reduced the Division of Global HIV & Tuberculosis's staff by roughly a quarter and also meant that infectious disease laboratories have either been shuttered or reduced their capacity.
"The closure and cuts to infectious diseases laboratories within CDC are perhaps the most egregious example of how the March 27 directive is destroying CDC's ability to meet its statutory mandates to investigate, detect, and identify diseases," according to the suit.
"Since day one, this president and his administration have attempted to illegally decimate agencies across the federal government upon which the American people rely," said Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha, who is also co-leading the suit, in a statement on Monday. "In a world where the next pandemic could be right around the corner, and cases of measles are on the rise, taking an axe to the agency responsible for the health and safety of Americans is wildly irresponsible."
In addition to attorneys general from Rhode Island and New York, the plaintiffs includes state attorneys general from Washington; Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; Washington, D.C.; Hawaii; Illinois; Maine; Maryland; Michigan; Minnesota; New Jersey; New Mexico; Oregon; Vermont; and Wisconsin.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular