Big Money’s Influence on Politics Shows Why We Need Campaign Finance Reform 

In the 15 years since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC allowed unlimited money to be poured into elections, we’ve seen the outcome many feared: The ultra-wealthy’s power has soared while the public’s trust in government has collapsed. Because when dollars are considered speech, most Americans are vastly outmatched. Among people who donate to political action committees (PACs), most give less than $100. In 2024, however, the top donor to outside-spending groups spent more than $290 million. In a new Roosevelt report and fact sheet, researcher Rachel Funk Fordham explains why campaign finance reform should be an urgent priority for anyone who cares about democracy.

In states that had outside-spending limits overturned by Citizens United, governments grew more conservative without a corresponding shift in voter ideology, and partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts intensified. These states also reduced their corporate tax rates and adopted pro-corporate policies in the years after the ruling, while policy areas unrelated to business saw no change. At the national level, big money in politics has limited candidate pools and constrained policy agendas.

In the long term, Funk Fordham argues for overturning Citizens United, passing legislation to regulate campaign finance, and publicly financing campaigns. A more immediate strategy would include “candidates, journalists, and pro-democracy organizations drawing sustained attention to the role of outside spending in elections” and “making reliance on outside spending an electoral liability.”

As Funk Fordham writes, “On the 15-year anniversary of the decision,  campaign finance reform must once again be placed at the heart of any progressive policy agenda that takes seriously the need for democratic renewal.”

Read the report: Citizens United and the Decline of US Democracy: Assessing the Decision’s Impact 15 Years Later

The Macroeconomic Risks of the Government Shutdown

The government has been shut down since Wednesday. With the monthly jobs report scheduled for today delayed and the president threatening permanent layoffs, it’s clear that this standstill will have an impact on the broader economy.

“Given the slowdown in GDP growth during the first half of this year, which was itself driven by a breakdown in government functioning, failure to restore stability to the federal government and to quickly resolve a shutdown poses a substantial risk to the economy,” Roosevelt Principal Economist Michael Madowitz said in a statement.

“[It’s] an especially unfortunate time to lose monthly jobs reports and other economic statistics, which could prove unusually costly if their absence delays a policy response to inflation or recession in the months ahead.”

How Higher Education Became a Business 

In the first half of the 20th century, higher education enjoyed an era of flourishing, with rising enrollment and increased public investment. Then came neoliberalism and its 50 years of privatization, financialization, and disinvestment. In a new report, law professor and Roosevelt Society Reimagine America Fellow Luke Herrine traces these transformations in college funding and structure, and the lasting impacts of austerity and market logic on higher education today.

“The privatizing effects of the Neoliberal Era have increased inequality and polarization among public colleges,” Herrine writes. “Richer colleges have gotten richer while serving richer students, and poorer colleges have gotten poorer while serving poorer students.” And as shown by the administration’s current efforts to bend universities to its will, “the future of state higher education systems is up for grabs in a way that it hasn’t been for generations.”

Read the report: The Neoliberalization of Higher Education: Changes in State Funding and Governance Throughout the 20th Century

What We're Reading

• On Trump’s BLS pick: The administration withdrew its nomination of EJ Antoni for Bureau of Labor Statistics chief after backlash from economists calling him too partisan for the job. The labor data agency should be “beneficial and boring,” Roosevelt’s Michael Madowitz told The Guardian. 
  • “There are parts of the US government that do economic policy and parts that do plumbing . . . putting ideological policy folks in charge of the plumbing,” he says, would cause “lasting chaos.”
• On pension funds: Because of the United States’ patchwork retirement system, our dollars are often invested in corporations whose business models hurt the public interest, from fossil fuels to union busters. “We need to not have our retirement security completely bound up in financial markets,” Roosevelt Senior Fellow Lenore Palladino told In These Times. 
  • As workers’ rights dwindle and unreliable investments in cryptocurrencies make their way into our retirement funds, Palladino argues for “actually using [pension funds] for positive, community and worker-oriented investments.” 
• On regressive tax policy: The president’s idea to eliminate taxes on home sales would primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans, Roosevelt Senior Fellow Beverly Moran argues in The Conversation. “Meanwhile, America’s millions of renters, disproportionately people of color and women, would receive no benefit. . . .”
• On vaccines and working moms: Trump’s attacks on immunizations and Tylenol are “adding weight to this burden that women are already carrying as family health managers” and even insidiously contributing to the panic around women’s economic participation, Roosevelt Fellow Jessica Calarco told The 19th. 
  • Calarco argues that by fearmongering about their children’s health, the administration is sending a message: “Whether it’s quit a job and stay home or spend six hours a day on the internet researching what is and what isn’t safe for your children,” she says, “it’s your responsibility as a mother to keep your kids safe no matter what.”