New York has a powerful new tool to counter Citizens United. ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ 
Brennan Center for Justice The Briefing
This week, I’m turning The Briefing over to my colleague Joanna Zdanys, who writes about a big step toward reducing the outsize influence of megadonors.
—Michael Waldman
American politics is awash in big money. Ever since the Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United ruling largely deregulated political spending, the influence of wealthy campaign donors has ballooned. The 2022 elections were the most expensive midterms ever, and megadonors dominated the spending: just a handful of big donor families gave more than all 3.7 million small donors. This influence imbalance drowns out everyday voters’ voices. No wonder so many Americans think politicians are more attuned to their donors’ interests than the public’s.
But we don’t need to accept the status quo, and New York State is showing us how to curtail the influence of big money. Earlier this month, New York State lawmakers passed the state budget for fiscal year 2024, including nearly $40 million for the state’s small donor public campaign financing program. The voluntary program, which launched in November 2022, is the nation’s boldest response to unfettered wealth in our politics. The funding in this year’s budget will keep this groundbreaking program on track for the 2024 election cycle, and the state will be better off for it.
Just like on the national stage, campaigns in New York are dominated by big money. In last year’s statewide elections, the 200 biggest donors to candidates gave almost $16 million — more than all 206,000 of the state’s small donors of $250 or less put together.
A recent Brennan Center analysis shows that the program will upend this narrative and make small donors the most important source of campaign funding in the state. If public financing had been available in last year’s legislative elections, the financial power of small donors could have increased sixfold, from 11 percent to as much as 67 percent. That’s a clear win for democracy.
The voluntary program provides participating candidates a multiple match on small donations they receive from constituents. For statewide races, donations from New York residents of $250 or less are matched six to one. That means a $10 contribution plus the $60 match becomes $70 for the candidate. In legislative elections, donations from district residents are matched on a sliding scale that offers the highest match to the smallest contributions. These innovations make small contributions — and the constituents who make them — far more significant to political candidates.
Participating candidates will be able to fund competitive campaigns by relying on constituents who give modest amounts, rather than spending hours dialing for dollars from big donors and catering to special interests. They will be able to fundraise the same way they campaign: by spending time with voters. This shift will encourage a new and more representative population of donors and strengthen officials’ connections to their constituents. And it will give voters a bigger say in the decisions that affect their lives.
New Yorkers overwhelmingly support small donor public financing. A recent poll found that a majority of New York voters across demographics including race, age, and political party support the state’s small donor matching program. Whether they’re upstate or downstate, Democrat or Republican, New Yorkers are unhappy with business as usual in Albany, and they want an alternative to the dominant sway of big donors.
Public financing of campaigns is the most powerful reform available to counter the outsize influence of megadonors in politics. And it’s a reform on the march. At least 14 states and 24 municipalities across the country have adopted public financing programs. New York’s program is the strongest example we’ve seen enacted so far, and it stands as a model for the rest of the nation to follow in undoing the antidemocratic effects of Citizens United.
At a time when many Americans are frustrated with a political system that favors the wealthiest, reforms like New York’s public financing system show how we can push back. Our democracy will be stronger for it.

 
Not Enough Diversity on the Bench
Despite modest progress over the past year, many state supreme courts across the country still fail to reflect the diversity of the populations they serve. The Brennan Center’s updated resource tracking diversity on the bench finds that only 20 percent of high court seats are held by people of color, and 58 percent are held by men. Overwhelmingly, the justices have backgrounds in private practice, other judgeships, or prosecution, while only a small percentage have served as public defenders or civil legal aid attorneys. “Understanding the disparities in representation on state supreme court benches can be the first step toward building a more inclusive and effective judiciary,” Amanda Powers and Alicia Bannon write. Read more
Asian Americans and the Making of ‘American’
Over the last three centuries, Asian Americans have been integral to shaping U.S. citizenship and democracy, as well as what it means to be an American. Celebrating Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Heritage Month offers an opportunity to recognize this rich history and the strides the nation has made toward fair representation. At the same time, Clara Fong, Jasleen Singh, and Cherie Vu write, “It is a reminder that there is much work to be done to address the unique challenges facing our diverse communities.” READ MORE
Celebrating Black Election Officials
Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Jim Crow–era literacy tests and poll taxes prevented Black citizens from voting. Veronica Degraffenreid’s grandfather was among those turned away from the polls in rural Bertie County, North Carolina. Just a few decades later, she became North Carolina’s director of election operations. For her and many other Black election officials across the country, she writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer, “We are especially mindful of the solemnity of our civic and constitutional responsibilities because we realize the struggles that led to our enfranchisement and our ability to hold our positions.” Read more
Bringing Clarity to ‘Single-Subject Rules’
Most state constitutions prohibit ballot proposals that group unrelated subjects together. But inconsistent interpretations of what constitutes a single subject have left state courts struggling with how and when to enforce these restrictions. In State Court Report, Montana Supreme Court clerk Kevin Frazier argues it’s time to revisit and clarify the jurisprudence. Otherwise, he writes, “undemocratic efforts to push through unpopular proposals may go unchecked.” Read more
Tackling Racism in State Constitutions
Two appeals courts rejected challenges to felony disenfranchisement provisions in Florida and Mississippi. Though excluding people with past felony convictions from the ballot box is rooted in Jim Crow–era efforts to disenfranchise Black Americans, both courts ruled that subsequent modifications to the provisions removed their discriminatory taint. “It raises the question of whether these laws can ever truly be divorced from their racist origins,” assistant law professor Quinn Yeargain writes in State Court Report. Read more
Closing Biased Racial Profiling Loopholes
President Biden has asked the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to update their racial profiling rules, which currently permit pervasive discrimination. To ensure federal safety and security efforts are based on facts, not prejudice, the new guidelines must strengthen protections for race, religion, national origin, and gender and outline steps to ensure compliance. It’s crucial for the departments to establish effective guidelines, Faiza Patel and the American Civil Liberties Union’s Hina Shamsi write in Just Security, as “bias in intelligence-gathering negatively impacts the quality of information and leads to real harm to communities of color.” READ MORE

 
Coming Up
Wednesday, June 7, 3–4 p.m. ET
 
Join us for a live discussion about the death penalty, justice, and empathy on Wednesday, June 7, at 3 p.m. Panelists Alex Mar, author of Seventy Times Seven: A True Story of Murder and Mercy, and journalist Josie Duffy Rice will be led in conversation by moderator Laura Coates of CNN. RSVP today
 
 
Tuesday, June 13, 6–7 p.m. ET
 
The most extreme Supreme Court in decades is on the verge of changing the nation — again. How did we get here? How will overreach by the justices impact the 2024 election? And what can we do to protect American democracy from a deeply political, fiercely partisan Supreme Court? Join us for a discussion of Brennan Center President Michael Waldman’s new book, The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America, about the Court’s devastating 2021–2022 term. He will be joined by moderator George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, as well as constitutional law scholars Wilfred Codrington III and Cristina Rodríguez. RSVP today
 
Produced in partnership between 92NY’s Newmark Civic Life Series and the Brennan Center for Justice
Want to keep up with Brennan Center Live events? Subscribe to the events newsletter.

 
News
  • Lauren-Brooke Eisen on rethinking how law enforcement is deployed // LA-IST
  • Elizabeth Goitein on FBI violations of surveillance rules // NEW YORK TIMES
  • Daniel Weiner on New York Rep. George Santos’s indictment // TALKING POINTS MEMO

 
 
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271
646-292-8310
Want to change how you receive these emails or unsubscribe? Click here to update your preferences.
Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn YouTube Website