SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us elections
Lawmakers Move to Bar Foreign-Owned Corporations From Spending on US Elections
A new bill "closes a glaring loophole opened up by the Supreme's Court disastrous Citizens United decision which allows U.S. companies primarily owned by foreign entities to funnel money into our elections," said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
Jul 11, 2024
Democratic lawmakers on Thursday introduced bills to the U.S. Senate and House seeking to ban corporations that are at least 5% foreign-owned from federal elections spending, drawing praise from advocacy groups.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) introduced the Get Foreign Money Out of U.S. Elections Act to the Senate and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) reintroduced the same bill to the House, with each version gaining co-sponsorship by progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
The legislation would, if enacted, dramatically curtail the power of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized unlimited corporate spending on elections, as the vast majority of major corporations have at least 5% foreign ownership.
"Autocrats and oligarchs across the globe have continually tried to control the outcome of U.S. elections, diluting the voices of citizens and undermining American democracy," Raskin said in a statement. "Our legislation closes a glaring loophole opened up by the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision which allows U.S. companies primarily owned by foreign entities to funnel money into our elections."
BREAKING: @RepRaskin and @SenWhitehouse are re-introducing a bill to stop foreign-influenced corporations from spending money in our elections. pic.twitter.com/hfrlIRHNHM
— Free Speech For People (@FSFP) July 11, 2024
The bill would ban firms with either 5% of foreign ownership in aggregate or 1% ownership by a single foreign entity from electoral spending. The Center for American Progress (CAP) argued for those ownership thresholds in a 2019 report, which found that 98% of S&P 500 firms it analyzed had at least 5% foreign ownership.
Foreign ownership of U.S. corporations comes in many forms. Shell USA is a subsidiary of the oil major headquartered in London, but in other cases foreign investment or ownership is less obvious. Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund has stakes in several U.S. companies including Uber. As of 2020, about 40% of U.S. corporate stock was owned by foreigners, according to CAP.
The Whitehouse and Raskin law would only apply to federal elections, but certain states and cities have started to take similar action. Minnesota passed effectively the same bill—using the 5% and 1% thresholds—last year, in what a state official called the "Mount Rushmore" of electoral reform bills. The cities of Seattle and San Jose have passed similar bills.
Such legislation appears to have strong public support: 82% of likely voters agree that "there should be new limits on U.S. corporations spending money in our elections if the corporations have any foreign ownership," according to a Data for Progress poll released Wednesday.
A number of advocacy groups—including CAP, Common Cause, Free Speech for People, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and End Citizens United/Let America Vote Action Fund—expressed support for the new bill.
Ben Olinsky, a senior vice president at CAP, called it "commonsense legislation" that closes "a dangerous loophole opened by Citizens United and prohibit[s] political spending by foreign-influenced U.S. corporations" in a statement.
Alexandra Flores-Quilty, campaign director at Free Speech for People, said in a statement that the bill "puts our democracy back into the hands of the people where it belongs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Our Democracy Demands It': Rights Groups Cheer as Dems Revive Freedom to Vote Act
"We are in dangerous territory," warned one activist. "We must enshrine our democratic freedoms in federal legislation that would blunt the multipronged attacks on our democracy."
Jul 18, 2023
Democracy defenders on Tuesday applauded as Democratic leaders from both chambers of Congress came together to reintroduce the Freedom to Vote Act, which aims to improve voter access and electoral administration, boost election integrity, and increase civic participation and empowerment.
"Today’s introduction of the Freedom to Vote Act is the first step to injecting a renewed commitment to democratic principles," said Christine Wood and Allison Pulliam, co-directors of the Declaration for American Democracy coalition. "We believe every eligible voter should have their vote counted, every candidate should be able to run without caving in to big influence and big money, and every elected official should be beholden to constituents first."
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) joined the bill's sponsors—Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.)—and other Democrats for a Tuesday press conference, during which they condemned MAGA Republicans' attacks on U.S. democracy.
"These attacks demand a federal response," said Klobuchar. "The Freedom to Vote Act will set basic national standards to make sure all Americans can cast their ballots in the way that works best for them, regardless of what ZIP code they live in. This bill will ensure Americans can request a mail-in ballot and have access to drop boxes, have at least two weeks of early voting, and can register to vote on Election Day."
"It's past time for Congress to act and protect Americans' freedom to vote."
While the bill is unlikely to reach the desk of President Joe Biden—who is running for reelection—during this term, given the GOP-controlled House and divided Senate hamstrung by the filibuster, campaigners echoed Democrats' assertions of the need for the bill's reforms.
"It has been 10 years since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted voting rights, and two years since a president attempted to overturn the will of voters to remain in power," noted Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert—calling out former President Donald Trump, who is seeking the GOP's 2024 nomination despite inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
"Between the Shelby v. Holder decision and extremists in Congress and state houses—supported by wealthy interests who don't want democracy—we are in dangerous territory," Gilbert warned. "We must enshrine our democratic freedoms in federal legislation that would blunt the multipronged attacks on our democracy."
Stand Up America founder and president Sean Eldridge agreed, declaring that "it's past time for Congress to act and protect Americans' freedom to vote. As MAGA Republicans continue to erect barriers to the ballot box, particularly for communities of color, we need national standards to ensure voting access for every American, no matter where they live."
Cliff Albright, co-founder and executive director of Black Voters Matter, said that "the reintroduction of the Freedom to Vote Act is essential to overcoming the obstacles of new voter suppression laws we see taking shape every day in states like Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. In addition to the wave of voter suppression laws seen in 2021 and 2022, this year has seen hundreds of additional voter suppression bills attempted, and at least 11 states have passed such restrictions."
"Just yesterday, lawmakers in Alabama voted to advance a new congressional map that does not include a second majority-Black district, completely ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that mandates the state's maps must include this majority-Black district," he pointed out. "The fight for our rights is playing out on the state level and continues to permeate our daily lives in the South. That is why national legislation that is pro-voter and anti-corruption is absolutely necessary at this moment in history."
A coalition of climate and environmental groups—Clean Water Action, Climate Hawks Vote, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Greenpeace USA, Interfaith Power & Light, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice—also celebrated the bill's reintroduction.
"While we recognize that our democracy has never truly worked for all Americans, the Freedom to Vote Act will help move us closer to the mountaintop, where every American has equitable access to the ballot, and a brighter light will shine on the fossil fuel billionaires and corporations who pour big money into anti-environmental politicians and misleading ads hampering our ability to combat the climate crisis," the coalition said.
Trevor Potter, president of Campaign Legal Center and a Republican former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, highlighted that "the aims of the Freedom to Vote Act—prohibiting partisan gerrymandering, protecting the freedom to vote, and increasing the transparency of money spent in federal elections—are supported by a significant majority of Americans, regardless of party."
While opposition to the Freedom to Vote Act has mostly come from GOP lawmakers, some Democrats have helped block it. Early last year, Democratic right-wing Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), who is suspected of considering a 2024 presidential run, and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), who switched from Democrat to Independent in December, teamed up with Republicans to kill a proposed change to the Senate filibuster that would have cleared the way for passing a voting rights package.
At the time, lawmakers were fighting to pass a megabill that included not only the Freedom to Vote Act but also the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, legislation named for a late Democratic congressman and civil rights icon. Some campaigners also emphasized the importance of the latter on Tuesday.
"Along with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act's protections against racial discrimination, the Freedom to Vote Act has the best solutions available to strengthen our democracy for all," asserted Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. "Congress must advance the Freedom to Vote Act. Our democracy demands it."
Leslie Proll, senior director of the voting rights program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, similarly stressed the importance of both bills.
"We urge both chambers of Congress to pass the Freedom to Vote Act so we can build a multiracial democracy that works for all of us," said Proll. "We also look forward to Congress reintroducing and passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore and strengthen the Voting Rights Act."
Common Cause interim co-president Marilyn Carpinteyro on Tuesday sent a letter to all members of Congress on behalf of her group and its more than 1.5 million members and supporters "in strong support of the Freedom to Vote Act and in strong opposition to the 'American Confidence in Elections' (ACE) Act," which was introduced by House Republicans earlier this month.
"The ACE Act is a giant step backward and would silence the voices of everyday Americans by putting up barriers to voting and by allowing millions of dollars more in secret money to infiltrate our political system," Carpinteyro wrote. "To strengthen free and fair elections and help get big, secret money out of politics, Congress must instead pass the Freedom to Vote Act."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Very Big Deal for the Survival of Our Democracy,' SCOTUS Rejects Fringe Legal Theory
By ruling against the independent state legislature theory, said one activist, "the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that state courts and state constitutions should serve as a critical check against abuses of power by legislators."
Jun 27, 2023
Democracy defenders across the United States on Tuesday breathed a collective sigh of relief after half of the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority joined with the three liberal justices to reject a "dangerous" legal theory that could dramatically impact federal elections.
"The Supreme Court took an important and crucial step today in protecting our system of checks and balances," said Hilary Harris Klein, senior counsel for voting rights at Southern Coalition for Social Justice. "Today's decision will ensure that voters will continue to have the full protection of state constitutions against harmful and anti-democratic voter suppression and election manipulation."
Oral arguments for Moore v. Harper in December had some campaigners worried that at least five justices would embrace the independent state legislature theory (ISLT), whose proponents claim the U.S. Constitution only empowers state legislatures to regulate federal elections, without checks from state constitutions, courts, or governors.
However, in the case—which stemmed from a fight over North Carolina's congressional map—Chief Justice John Roberts, fellow conservatives Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, and liberals Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor rejected the ISLT. Right-wing Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
The elections clause of the U.S. Constitution "does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections," Roberts wrote for the majority. "When state legislatures prescribe the rules concerning federal elections, they remain subject to the ordinary exercise of state judicial review."
"When a state legislature carries out its federal constitutional power to prescribe rules regulating federal elections, it acts both as a lawmaking body created and bound by its state constitution, and as the entity assigned particular authority by the federal Constitution," he continued. "Both constitutions restrain the state legislature's exercise of power."
"Although the elections clause does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law, federal courts must not abandon their duty to exercise judicial review," Roberts added. "This court has an obligation to ensure that state court interpretations of state law do not evade federal law."
Both the majority opinion and campaigners pointed to precedent. Fair Elections Center litigation director Jon Sherman said that "for 233 years and counting, no court has ever found that state election laws are unconstrained by state constitutional requirements, because this is a fantasy that is antithetical to our system of government."
Elias Law Group partner Abha Khanna, counsel of record for theplaintiffs, called the 6-3 decision "a resounding victory for free and fair elections in the United States."
The ISLT "is a dangerous, fringe legal theory that has no place in our democracy," Khanna said. "In its most extreme form, the independent state legislature theory could have weakened the foundation of our democracy, removing a crucial check on state legislatures and making it easier for rogue legislators to enact policies that suppress voters and subvert elections without adequate oversight from state court."
The case was argued in the wake of former President Donald Trump—who is seeking the Republican nomination for 2024—and his supporters refusing the accept the results of the 2020 election, which led to the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Notably, two of the three Trump-appointed justices, Barrett and Kavanaugh, rejected the ISLT.
While celebrating the new ruling as "a historic victory for the people of North Carolina and for American democracy," Bob Phillips, Common Cause North Carolina's executive director, also looked ahead.
"Today, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that state courts and state constitutions should serve as a critical check against abuses of power by legislators," he said. "Now, we must ensure our state courts fulfill their duty to protect our freedoms against attacks by extremist politicians."
Campaign Legal Center senior vice president Paul Smith similarly said that "while the Supreme Court's ruling is a victory for democracy, the fight for fair maps in North Carolina and across the country is far from over," and vowed his group "will continue fighting for fair maps so voters can feel confident that they choose their representatives, not the other way around."
Common Cause vice president of programs Kathay Feng highlighted that there is also work to be done at the national level, saying that "now Congress must act and pass long overdue protections for voters, so that we can put an end once and for all to the persistent attempts to undermine and restrict our right to vote."
Since the election chaos of 2020, the U.S. Senate's filibuster rule, right-wing obstructionist Democrats, and Republicans reclaiming control of the House of Representatives have impeded the passage of national voting rights legislation, as GOP state legislators have continued voter suppression efforts across the country.
Still, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday pledged to keep up the fight, quoting the late civil rights icon and Democratic Congressman John Lewis, for whom a key voting rights package is named.
"Today those who support democracy, fair elections and the rule of law can stand a bit taller," Schumer said of the Moore decision. "There is still much work to do to protect American democracy. As John Lewis said, 'Democracy is not a state. It is an act,' which is why Senate Democrats will continue to fight for free and fair elections."
Campaigners in recent years have urged Congress to act on not only voting rights legislation but also Supreme Court reforms.
"Today marks a rare example of our politicized court falling on the right side of history," said Carrol Olinger, Fayetteville director at Action N.C., a Center for Popular Democracy Action affiliate. "This decision was too close of a call, and there was far too much at stake. It is essential to recognize that the need for crucial court reforms remains."
Take Back the Court Action Fund president Sarah Lipton-Lubet agreed. "The fact that this case wasn't laughed out of the court is a sign of how far we have fallen," she said. "Worse, the right-wing justices crowned themselves the ultimate arbiters of future state election disputes. Don't be surprised if we see Bush v. Gore 2.0 in 2024 or beyond."
"What rulings like this one actually highlight is just how afraid Roberts is of the momentum behind Court reform—and how far he'll go to try to quell our power," she added. "The bar for a 'victory' with this court is on the floor. We deserve better. We deserve a judiciary that puts the American people first. And we can only get it if we expand the court."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular