On Sunday, 100,000+ are expected to descend on New York City for the People’s Climate March. For the occasion, we found the top ten ways big polluters have contaminated our politics, and here they are in no particular order:
Three Dozen National Organizations Call for Congress to Act in Response to McCutcheon v FEC decision
Washington, D.C.—Thirty-eight national good government, civil rights, environmental, and labor organizations released the following statement today in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC:
"The Supreme Court has once again sided with the wealthy and powerful and against the vast majority of Americans. Today’s McCutcheon v. FEC decision makes it more important than ever that Congress move forward on legislation to lift up the voices of those unable to write big campaign checks.
It was a tax loophole that started as an oversight in a bill from Congress in 1990.
Since that accident, the wealthy have managed to keep this boon to their bank accounts open largely due to its popularity amongst major Democratic and Republican political donors. The cost? Over $100 billion since 2000 in avoided estate taxes that otherwise would have been paid to the U.S. Government.
Kurt Walters, research and policy analyst for Public Campaign Action Fund, was a recent guest on Brooklyn radio show Sex and Politics as it covered "The Uncertain Future of Election Finance Reform." Kurt and the show's staff had a broad ranging discussion covering everything from the recent oral arguments for the McCutcheon v.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have left our campaign finance system in need of repair. The court opened the floodgates to corporate money in Citizens United v. FEC, and is currently considering overturning the aggregate contribution limits in McCutcheon v. FEC.
Tuesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC raised plenty of concerns for the future of money in politics. After all, the Court should have never even had to take the case, since it has never invalidated a contribution limit in the 40 years since its landmark Buckley v. Valeo decision.
But in positive news, several justices laid out a view of the First Amendment that promotes concerns for the voice of “the little guy” and not just those wealthy enough to afford pushing out their ideas with big campaign contributions or expensive TV ads.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC, a challenge to the cap on how much money individuals can give, in total, to federal candidates, party committees, and political action committees (PACs) each election cycle.
With the Supreme Court set to hear a money-in-politics case in October that some have said could be the “next Citizens United,” a diverse range of groups that includes Public Campaign and represents more than 40 million members submitted “friend of the court” (amici curiae) briefs urging the court to uphold sensible safeguards against big money-dominated politics.