Checks: Political Money & Democracy

How to End Our Dysfunctional Congressional Election System

The American electoral system is a holdout from another era. First-past-the-post elections, in which the top vote-getter in a single-member legislative seat wins, are now used in only two other developed countries—Britain and Canada—alongside a cadre of African, Asian, and Pacific countries, usually nations with strong ties to British colonial rule. Representative Don Beyer, a Democrat who represents northern Virginia, hopes to take the United States off the list by creating multi-member districts for the House of Representatives and instituting ranked-choice voting.

Beyer introduced the Fair Representation Act on Monday with support from Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, both Democrats. The bill would not only institute nonpartisan redistricting commissions and a new voting system designed to create a proportionally representational Congress, but also aims to dramatically reduce the number of safe seats for each party and eliminate the unopposed reelection of representatives.

“The country is divided along class, racial, and ideological lines as never before, and frustration with our brand of politics is at a tipping point,” Beyer said at a press conference announcing the bill.

The measure is backed by the electoral reform advocacy group FairVote, which claims it would end gerrymandering and lopsided representation by state. States like Oklahoma and Massachusetts currently have House delegations composed entirely of one party’s members, but a large minority of the voters in each typically back the minority party. The anomaly is so pronounced that, in the 2012 House elections, Democrats beat Republicans by 1.2 percent in the national popular vote, but won 33 fewer House seats than the GOP. Beyer’s legislation seeks to end that disparity while also creating opportunities for more women and underrepresented minorities, as well as third parties, to gain House seats.

The Fair Representation Act uses the single transferable vote system, similar to the one currently in place in Ireland. Each voter ranks all candidates standing for a particular seat. If a voter’s first preference is eliminated, his second preference vote would be counted instead, and so on. When a candidate reaches a quota and is elected, the next preferences of all voters who supported her are accounted for, and excess votes above the quota are distributed. States with just one member would still use a ranked system called instant-runoff voting, in which no candidate could be elected without a majority.

Currently, several states have multi-member districts for their state legislatures, but none use ranked-choice voting, meaning that a party that receives a majority of votes will likely receive all the seats.

In 2014, 31 congressional representatives were re-elected unopposed. In theory, a system of ranked-choice voting would end unopposed elections. The bill’s backers hope this would eliminate safe seats in Congress and encourage cooperation between members, rather than rewarding the ideological intransigence that ultra-partisan districts often foster.

“European monarchies turn over at a faster rate [than Congress],” Khanna said at the event, referencing an Economist article

For Feingold, “LegitAction” Is One Way to Stave Off Threats to Democracy

Former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold has decided to jump back into the national spotlight with LegitAction, a new online political advocacy group that plans to help local grassroots organizations raise their public profiles.

Relying on social media as well as traditional platforms like newspapers, the Wisconsin Democrat founded LegitAction in March to educate the public about threats to “four pillars” of American democracy: the Supreme Court, presidential elections, voting rights, and campaign-finance reform. Feingold does not want to diminish the importance of resisting President Trump on a daily basis, but he worries that these four pillars of democracy are vulnerable to attack as long as Americans are distracted by Trump’s daily outrages. The group is “a good connector organization” that can work with smaller groups to “broaden” their reach, objectives, and accomplishments, says Feingold, who recently lost a close November comeback bid against Republican Senator Ron Johnson, who beat him in 2010. 

Supporting the Senate Democrats’ filibuster of Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch is high on LegitAction’s list of initial moves. Feingold says his nomination undermines the legitimacy of the high court. “It is simply illegitimate because it was Barack Obama’s appointment, not Donald Trump’s,” Feingold tells The American Prospect. “This president doesn’t have a right to fill this seat at all.”

The group would like to see a number of electoral reforms. With two of the past three presidents reaching the White House without winning the popular vote, Feingold views the Electoral College as an anachronistic embarrassment that undermines popular sovereignty. He argues that it is time to “either pass a constitutional amendment to get rid of it, or to assist the efforts to create a compact of the states” through a National Popular Vote initiative. Under this plan, when the total number of electoral votes in states whose legislatures have ratified the pledge reaches 270, each state must assign their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the nationwide popular vote. Eleven states with a combined total of 165 electoral votes have already signed on, pushing the measure 60 percent of the way toward the mark that will trigger the compact.

Threats to voting rights have mushroomed in recent years. Gerrymandering, voter-ID laws that disproportionately affect minorities, and preventing ex-felons from voting even after they are released from jail all hamper the right to vote in many states.

Campaign-finance reform, of course, was Feingold’s signature issue in the Senate. The 2002 law that bears his name, the McCain-Feingold Act (officially, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) banned soft-money donations to national candidates and parties. However, it fueled the rise of nonprofit “527” organizations—groups that are free to take large gifts from wealthy individual donors, labor unions, and corporations, and are not subject to spending limits. (These organizations cannot make donations to federal candidates, however.) Feingold argues that the Citizens United decision, which upended the 2002 reforms, has “gutted our campaign-finance system,” and has been “brutally exploited to allow unlimited money and non-disclosure.”

LegitAction plans to voluntarily disclose its contributors’ names, even though as a 501c(4) nonprofit, it is not legally required to do so. “We are more than happy to have everyone know who is supporting us, and we’re proud of the people that support us,” Feingold says. “We’re not worried about hiding them like the right-wingers.”

Feingold, who will not accept a salary for his work on behalf of the group, intends to serve as LegitAction’s spokesman, addressing these issues through speaking engagements and op-ed articles. He served in the Senate from 1993 to 2011 and currently teaches at Stanford University Law School’s Law and Policy Lab. 

New PAC Will Back Every Single Democrat Running for Congress

For the past two decades, Democratic fundraiser and operative Jonathan Zucker has been fed up with the way his party doles out funds to candidates.

The problem, as Zucker sees it, is that Democrats distribute most of their funds to candidates running in swing districts that the party sees as winnable, instead of divvying the money up evenly between every Democratic general election candidate. By picking winners and losers, Zucker argues, the party ignores large portions of the country and makes it harder for candidates to make incursions into Republican strongholds.

Zucker’s solution is a new PAC dubbed It Starts Today that sets out to solicit donations for every Democrat running in one of the 468 congressional races set for 2018. The former executive director of the digital fundraising platform ActBlue, Zucker has built his new PAC around a high-technology gimmick and simple math, asking donors to give at least one cent per month to each of those 468 candidates—a mere $4.68 a month.

“You never know which district will have a rock-star candidate emerge on the Democratic side, or say, a district where a Republican incumbent gets caught up in a scandal, but you know that without funding you can’t take that advantage,” says Zucker.

Zucker’s aim is to fix what he sees as a party-wide problem that is hurting Democrats at every level. On election night, Republicans not only won the White House, but secured six- and 44-seat majorities in the Senate and House respectively. They also cemented their grip on state governments, where the GOP now controls 32 Legislatures and 33 governorships. To Zucker, this is the price Democrats have paid for ignoring large portions of the country for decades.

Zucker acknowledges that targeting only contested races can efficiently allocate scarce resources in the short term. But the consequences of this targeted spending, he argues, have been ruinous. In 2016, there were 79 congressional districts where the Democratic Party either didn’t field a candidate, or ran a race with less than $10,000 in funding. Altogether, Democrats in those 79 districts raised $88,000 compared to the $111 million raised by Republicans.

The money raised by It Starts Today will not be distributed until the primaries are over. After that the PAC will send out equal payments to every Democratic nominee’s campaign within 10 days. As additional money comes in, further donations will be disbursed in weekly installments to every Democratic campaign in equal measure.

This will make general election money perpetually available to all Democratic office seekers, explains Zucker, something that he says will help level the playing field for progressive candidates who may lack the resources to run effective campaigns. This will free the party up to take a risk on long-shot candidates instead of focusing only on swing states, says Zucker, making it less likely that Democrats will miss low-profile politicians with enormous potential.

Even if Democrats fail to take back Congress, Zucker predicts that It Starts Today will help overall turnout. He says Democrats can make inroads in the kinds of small, rural communities that have been sending Republicans to Washington, and where Democrats have failed to field challengers for years. Zucker even thinks it could make an impact at the top of the ticket.

“What if we had turned out 12,000 voters that weren’t excited about Clinton, but weren’t voting for Trump?” asks Zucker. “That flips Michigan and Pennsylvania. And there were 24 state legislative races in Wisconsin without a Democrat on the ballot, and another 15 with under $10,000—just one thousand [voters] from each of them. That changes the presidency.”

The ACLU’s New Rallying Cry: “See You in Court, and See You in the Streets.”

The day after Donald Trump’s election, the American Civil Liberties Union posted the words “See you in court” on its homepage next to an image of the incoming president. Now, the ACLU has a slightly longer message for Trump: “See you in court, and see you in the streets.”

That’s the rallying cry of a new ACLU platform called, which the civil-rights group recently set up to mobilize grassroots efforts to resist Trump and his administration. The program gives the ACLU a new weapon in its battle to protect Americans against threats to civil liberties and democracy.

“We can’t just write letters to the administration,” says Faiz Shakir, the group’s national political director. “We have to marshal mass mobilization and strengthen public opinion.”

Since Election Day, the ACLU has received a massive outpouring of donations, totaling an estimated $79 million, and has helped spearhead numerous legal challenges to Trump administration policies, including a successful suit to block deportation of immigrants under Trump’s refugee executive order.

To help lead its new grassroots program, the ACLU has recruited some progressive stars, including Melanie Garunay, Barack Obama’s former digital organizing director; Becky Bond, former digital organizer for Bernie Sanders; and Kenneth Pennington, Sanders’s former digital director. The program will enable the ACLU to tap its two million members and 50 state affiliates for direct action.

Upcoming actions include a town hall in Miami, Florida, which will broadcast online, on March 11. During the town hall, the group will run a “resistance training” workshop. This will consist of three key components, says Shakir: the legal rights of organizers or protesters, a discussion of immigration issues, and a call to action detailing how participants can engage in their communities.

 “The ACLU is known for wonderful litigation, and has been involved in essentially every major fight for equality,” explains Shakir. “We’re now adding a major new tool to the tool shed.”

Another First for Trump: A Policy Arm Operating Totally in Secret

Donald Trump isn’t the first president to enjoy the support of nonprofit groups that promote his policy agenda, but he may be the first whose outside backers operate entirely in secret.

When Trump allies announced last week the formation of America First Policies, a 501(c)(4) issue group that will be the president’s main outside advocacy vehicle, observers immediately drew comparisons to Organizing for Action, the nonprofit that allies of Barack Obama launched after he won reelection in 2012. But unlike Organizing for Action, which agreed under pressure to publicly disclose its big-money benefactors every quarter, Trump’s America First has given no indication that it intends to disclose who its funders are.

Such political nonprofits are not required by law to disclose their donors, but watchdogs worry that without public reporting, advocacy operations like America First could become dark money slush funds that allow anonymous donors to influence critical policy debates—with the public none the wiser. The group is run by conservative operatives like the Trump campaign’s digital director Brad Parscale and Vice President Mike Pence’s former top advisor Nick Ayers, and will run digital and TV ads to promote such Trump priorities as winning Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, repealing Obamacare, and cracking down on immigration.

“There’s nothing wrong with policy advocacy,” says Meredith McGehee, of the bipartisan campaign-finance reform group Issue One. “The problem here is that you have a group that is directly connected with the president, and it can well be anticipated that the donors who make contributions to this entity will ensure that the president or his aides know exactly what they’ve done. That will buy them both access and influence.”

Moreover, America First won’t be the only top-secret group advocating for Trump. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, both prominent supporters of Trump during his campaign, are also leading a nonprofit called the Greater America Alliance that will reportedly advocate for various parts of Trump’s agenda. At the top of the list will be the Gorsuch nomination and Trump’s economic and infrastructure plans. The group plans to spend $80 million on policy fights in 2017 alone, Politico reports. Two GOP operatives who ran the Great America super PAC, which spent about $22 million on behalf of Trump’s presidential campaign, will run the Alliance. And like America First, the Greater America Alliance has announced no plans to disclose its donors.

Yet another group, a 501(c)(4) dubbed the 45 Committee, is investing at least $4 million in ads to ensure that Trump’s cabinet picks are confirmed, according to a Washington Examiner report. The 45 group is also expected to finance attack ads on Democratic senators it deems vulnerable in the 2018 midterm elections. That group is affiliated with a super PAC dubbed Future45, which is financed by conservative mega-donors Sheldon Adelson and the Chicago-based Ricketts family. Together, the two groups spent tens of millions backing Trump in the presidential campaign.

The secrecy surrounding pro-Trump advocacy groups is in line with the president’s own hostility to transparency, says Adam Smith, communications director for the money-in-politics watchdog Every Voice. Smith pointed to Trump’s refusal to disclose all his business ties, release his tax returns, or even publish a list of his campaign bundlers. This culture of secrecy could have real ramifications for pending policy battles on the Hill, says Smith, including the administration’s push for Wall Street deregulation.

“When it comes to the Dodd-Frank fight, when Congress starts introducing bills and these groups start running ads, we deserve to know whether its his Wall Street friends funding them,” Smith says. “If you’re the president of the United States and you have all these ties to Wall Street and rich people, people deserve to know who they are.”

DeVos Finally Gets Hearing -- Before the Same Senators She Helped Elect

Campaign-finance questions will loom large over the Senate’s Tuesday confirmation hearing for billionaire and education lobbyist Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s pick for education secretary.

Having initially postponed the hearing, senators now face a mounting list of questions about DeVos. The latest is why she failed to disclose a $125,000 political donation, something the Trump transition team initially failed to catch. Also sure to come up are DeVos’s business ties and secret political giving, not to mention the recent report that she and her husband have 250 companies registered to a single address in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Awkwardly, though, much of DeVos’s campaign money has gone to the very senators now screening her nomination. Five of the Republicans on the committee have received more than $250,000 between them from DeVos and her family. (They are North Carolina’s Richard Burr, Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, South Carolina’s Tim Scott, and Indiana’s Todd Young.) And there are 21 more senators, not on the committee, who have together received nearly $1 million from DeVos and her family.

DeVos herself makes no bones that such contributions can sway lawmakers. “I have decided to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence,” she wrote in a 1997 Roll Call op-ed. “Now I simply concede the point. They are right.” She went on to admit, “We expect a return on our investment.”

DeVos has certainly reaped a handsome return on the big campaign money she has spent to promote far-right policies. In Michigan, DeVos spent millions to elect Republicans, including Governor Rick Snyder and members of the GOP-controlled legislature, who then rubber-stamped her for-profit schools agenda. Her sway over the legislature was so great that state lawmakers who crossed her were removed from chairing committees, and subject to well-funded attacks when they sought re-election, according to The New York Times.

The resulting for-profit schools explosion in Detroit, a district with a student body that is 97 percent children of color, diverted money away from the city’s public schools while leaving families with no good choices. Taxpayers are pumping millions into failing or nonexistent charter schools that operate with little oversight. A lawsuit filed by Detroit families alleges that the city’s schools denied them literacy. Seventy-one percent of eighth graders in Michigan aren’t proficient in math while 71 percent of fourth-graders aren’t proficient in reading, according to the 2016 Kids Count report released by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

DeVos, in the meantime, appears to be cashing in. About 80 percent of charter schools in Michigan are run by for-profit companies, like K12 Inc., a for-profit chain of online charter schools, in which the DeVos family has invested. A key question for the Senate now is whether she profited from Michigan’s experiments in education.

In Flint, Michigan, policies that hurt the city’s black residents also enriched DeVos, only this time the casualty was clean water, not public schools. For more than two years, toxic water has been poisoning Flint’s mostly black residents. That’s partly because the DeVos-backed Mackinac Center for Public Policy advocated for the state to appoint emergency managers to replace elected officials in cities with persistent budgetary shortfalls. The DeVos-funded Republican majority in state government adopted this plan, and in 2013, Snyder appointed Darnell Earley to act as the emergency manager for Flint. In a cost-saving measure, Earley switched the city’s safe and clean water supply over to lead-laced water. The rest is history.

And again, DeVos effectively profited from the water crisis she helped create. She chairs the Windquest Group, an investor in Boxed Water, a company that promoted its brand by offering to donate water to Flint whenever customers bought the product.

This story has been updated. 

House Democrats Have a Plan to Go After Trump’s Conflicts

On Wednesday morning, Donald Trump held a long-awaited press conference to address how he will deal with the potential conflicts of interest posed by his massive business empire. For weeks, ethics watchdogs have called on the president-elect to fully divest from his business operations and place them in a blind trust.

Trump ignored those demands, announcing that he will retain ownership of his businesses, which his sons will oversee in a trust. To address concerns about possible violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clause, Trump said that he will donate all of earnings from hotel bookings made by foreign governments to the U.S. Treasury. (Sheri Dillon, Trump’s attorney has argued that his hotel holdings do not violate the Emoluments Clause.)

Trump continued to insist that none these measures were required by law and that he was making these moves voluntarily. “[My sons] are going to be running it in a very professional manner. They’re not going to discuss it with me. Again, I don’t have to do this. They’re not going to discuss it with me,” Trump said.

In response, House Democrats plan to launch a “Democracy Reform Task Force” that aims to hold Trump accountable for conflicts of interest and ethical lapses. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has tapped Maryland Congressman John Sarbanes, a leading proponent of ethics reform, to head the task force.

Trump’s plan “doesn’t come close to solving the problems that these conflicts of interest present,” Sarbanes says in an interview with the Prospect. “This notion that giving it to his sons to look after is absurd as representing any real distancing from these conflicts.”

“Without fully divesting ownership, there’s no way to avoid potential for divided loyalties. When he goes to make a decision [as president], somewhere in his brain, if he still has business ownership, he’s got to be thinking if the decision as president will hurt or benefit his business,” Sarbanes adds.

While the Democrats’ new task force won’t have any formal power to investigate Trump, Sarbanes said that members will hold ethics forums around the country; provide resources to ranking Democrats on relevant committees; and highlight Democratic legislation—like Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s bill that would require Trump to fully divest or Wisconsin Senator Tammy Baldwin’s bill to ban “golden parachute” bonuses for private-sector executives entering public service—that address the ethical concerns of Trump’s administration. “[The task force] can be a very effective clearinghouse on this broad issue of accountability,” Sarbanes says.

Sarbanes hopes that the task force will serve as a rapid-response operation to deal with Trump administration ethics concerns as they emerge. He also wants to see the group organize campaigns like the one that public-interest organizations led in early January that generated a flood of constituent calls to House Republicans after news broke that they planned to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics. The calls were widely credited with forcing Republicans to back off the plan.

The Democrats’ ethics task force could become their primary tool for challenging the impending ethical dilemmas of the Trump administration, especially since they aren’t optimistic that congressional Republicans will monitor or rein in any new Trump conflicts that come to light.

Sarbanes is setting out to recruit members of the Democratic caucus to help articulate “nimble, timely” responses as needed while crafting an overarching message that Democrats are leading the way on holding Trump accountable. “We want to be in the middle of that conversation,” he says, adding “I don’t see that coming from the other side of the aisle.”

As part of, the House task force will also focus on other democracy and campaign-finance issues that are part of its larger “By the People” package and, further, will seek to “expose the GOP’s special-interest agenda.” 

New Jersey Public School Employees Sue Over Alleged Political Retalitation

It’s no secret that school board politics can create bitter enemies, but rarely do such battles end in actual employee firings.

But nine New Jersey public school employees are claiming that a school board feud cost them their jobs, and they've recently filed a provocative federal lawsuit, each seeking $100,000 in damages.

The former employees of Elizabeth Public Schools—the fourth-largest school district in New Jersey—say they were fired for exercising their First Amendment rights of political speech and association after they campaigned for certain school board candidates who ultimately lost. In what could turn out to be a costly twist, the school board says it might file a countersuit, alleging nothing less than federal racketeering violations.

The whole drama is unfolding against the backdrop of a bitter political feud that’s divided two competing factions within the local Democratic party.

The case centers on the district’s November 2015 school board election, when three of nine seats were up for grabs. Two rival Democratic blocs endorsed different slates of candidates, though the elections are technically nonpartisan.

According to the federal complaint, one faction, known as “Continue The Progress” (CTP), has maintained a majority on the school board for about two decades. In 2015, three candidates (Tony Monteiro, Elcy Castillo-Ospina, and Michelle Velez-Jont) ran on the CTP ticket.

The other Democratic faction, backed by Elizabeth’s mayor of 25 years, J. Christian Bollwage, supported three CTP opponents (Charlene Bathelus, Stephanie Goncalves, and Daniel Nina). Prior to the 2015 election, the school board comprised five CTP members and four Bollwage-backed members. But all the CTP candidates lost, giving the mayoral faction a 6–3 majority.

The plaintiffs allege that upon taking power, the Bollwage faction “purged” the district of employees who openly supported or were perceived to support the CTP candidates. They claim their contracts were terminated not due to performance, “but rather due to retaliation” for political activity. Their 28-page complaint, drafted by an attorney with a Philadelphia-based law firm, alleges First Amendment violations, due process violations, and violations of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

The stakes for this kind of suit are high. In the September 2015 issue of The American Prospect, Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, an assistant professor of public affairs at Columbia, reported on the growing threat of “employer mobilization”—when employers recruit workers into political activity (or retaliate against them for their own political activity). Workers are already subjected to threats, harassment, and other forms of retaliation for union activity, and Hertel-Fernandez says that “it is not a stretch to imagine that in our deeply polarized era, employers might adopt more aggressive political tactics in the same way they have fought unionization.”

In a statement released to Union News Daily (named for the New Jersey county Elizabeth is located in, not the labor movement), Elizabeth district spokesperson Pat Politano said the allegations made against the district, the superintendent, and the school board are “false, frivolous, and will be defended vigorously.” All contract renewals made since January 2016, he said, were done in accordance with state and federal law and Department of Education regulations. According to NJ.Com, Politano’s former job involved consulting for the political campaigns of mayor-backed board members.

Politano said the school district is “considering all appropriate legal actions” in response to the complaint, including the possibility of filing the racketeering counterclaim, arguing that previous boards of education saw the district “as a source of personal benefit to themselves and their political allies.”

In this northern New Jersey city, it seems corruption charges can fly both ways—even within the same party.

Jeff Sessions Is Public Enemy Number One for Voting-Rights Groups

(Flickr/Gage Skidmore) 

Common Cause, a nonpartisan political advocacy and watchdog group, rarely wades into political nomination battles. In its nearly half-century of existence, the group has come out in staunch opposition to just a handful of nominees it found extraordinarily hostile to its core mission. Now it will oppose the confirmation of Trump’s expected nominee for attorney general, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, citing his troublesome record on voting rights.  

“We do not believe and do not have confidence, because of his past history and actions, that he will enforce critical voting-rights laws,” Common Cause President Karen Hobert Flynn said during a meeting with reporters on Tuesday morning. “He has for decades been an outspoken critic of the Voting Rights Act, one of the country’s most critical pieces of civil and voting rights legislation.”

The group pointed to Sessions’s past statements calling the VRA a “piece of intrusive legislation,” to his approval of the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision to gut the law’s crucial Section 5, and to his failed legal crusade against three civil rights activists who were registering voters while he was a U.S. attorney in Alabama in the 1980s as evidence that the senator would be hostile toward robust voter protections.

“We believe that if he becomes attorney general, the Voting Rights Act is on the chopping block and many of the recent victories in the courts that we’ve seen that have struck down laws designed to suppress minority voting will be threatened under a Sessions-led Justice Department,” Hobart Flynn added. 

Since 2010, 20 states have passed restrictive voting laws. The Obama DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has successfully challenged the legality of several of those voter-suppression laws that required photo identification or used racial gerrymandering to create redistricting maps. But Common Cause is concerned that a Sessions Justice Department would be far less vigilant in its enforcement of voting rights. 

The group’s announcement that it will attempt to block Sessions’s nomination could hold some sway. It boasts a membership base of some 700,000 members with chapters in 35 states. Its grassroots strength was on full display earlier this week when it helped lead a constituent call-in campaign to Republican House members who wanted to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Whether it can use that grassroots firepower to convince Sessions’s Republican Senate colleagues to vote against him will be a taller order. But Common Cause won’t be going it alone. On Monday, NAACP leaders staged a sit-in and were ultimately arrested in the senator’s Mobile office, calling on him to withdraw his name from consideration due to his voting-rights record and numerous allegations of racism.

Recent confirmations opposed by Common Cause include Reagan Supreme Court justice nominee Robert Bork in 1987 and George H.W. Bush defense secretary nominee John Tower in 1989, both of whom failed to get confirmed. It also opposed Reagan’s nomination of Attorney General Edwin Meese and George W. Bush’s Federal Election Commission member Hans von Spakovsky, both of whom succeeded in their confirmations.   

Reforming Democracy in the Age of Trump

On November 10, Miles Rapoport sat down with Bob Herbert's Op-Ed.TV to discuss what led to Donald Trump's victory, what it means for voting rights and money in politics, and how democracy reformers should respond. Rapoport is a long-time democracy advocate who served as secretary of state in Connecticut, and president of both Demos and Common Cause, as well as a member of The American Prospect's board. His most recent feature, "From a Contentious Election to a Stronger Democracy" appeared in the Prospect's Fall 2016 issue.