Congress finally got the message from the American people. And the message they received is clear: major political donors should have more money and more influence on politics.
During every election cycle it seems that all anyone can talk about is the necessity for a dramatic change in the political system. Yet, each time a new Congress is sworn in, it seems to be more of the same.
The outcome of yesterday’s special election in Georgia’s 6th congressional district proves one thing: Democrats can’t just spend their way into a seat.
In a recent Bloomberg article Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) was quoted saying that he and his colleagues “need to hear from people who are in that business” to get a clearer picture of how to tax carried interest.
For all the noise made about Constitutional originalism when discussing the Supreme Court, the really radical departures from the traditions of our democracy in the last century have come from conservative justices and their stances on political spending.
The Supreme Court’s argument for allowing unlimited campaign expenditures hinges on the differences between political contributions and independent expenditures.
The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United unleashed a tide of money into our political system, placing our democracy in peril.
A level playing field, in which all Americans have equal political power, is at the core of everything America is and aspires to be. If “all men are created equal,” then shouldn’t all men, and women, too, have an equal opportunity to influence the political life of our country?
This is a case where a man of substantial wealth has already had an amazing amount of ability to further increase his own personal wealth through a powerful political position.
So far in the 2016 election, 992 million dollars has been raised by the candidates and 502 million has been raised by the Super PACs supporting them. Take a moment and let that sink in. That is $1.5 billion in the presidential race alone.
Who has power and who doesn’t? Ultimately the future of our country and the well-being of our citizens rests almost entirely in the answer to those basic questions.
In this op-ed, legendary venture capitalist and Patriotic Millionaire Alan Patricof calls on his peers in the fund management business to set their self-interests aside.
Good news is there a very simple way to start a conversation with your elected officials about the influence of money in politics and the imbalance of our system.
Should businesses be trying to influence policy to increase their profits? Sometimes, lobbying and spending money on campaign donations to gain access to legislators seems like a good idea.
Yesterday, The Center for Political Accountability announced that Chair of the Patriotic Millionaires Morris Pearl has joined their Board of Directors. Pearl brings career experience and a commitment to reforming the influence of money in politics to this already established board.
Let’s look into exactly what liberties the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is ‘denying’ American consumers.
Yesterday, at Cleveland Public Square just outside the Republican National Convention, Chair of the Patriotic Millionaires Morris Pearl joined by Republican political strategist John Pudner of Take Back Our Republic to discuss campaign finance reform.
Very few of these business owners are invited to testify before a congressional committee that can take action about their complaints. The individuals who are granted the opportunity to argue their case before Congress often have one thing in common: they are wealthy political donors.
Maybe each of the above situations is a violation of the Hobbs Act. Maybe none of them are. The difficult thing is that we don’t really have a law against political corruption.
We figured if every self-interested corporation, industry group, and billionaire in America has a lobbyist, why shouldn’t regular American citizens? So we signed ourselves up for the job.