Newsflash:
Issues ERA 3 State Strategy End Corporate Rule Oligarchy Enshrined
Tuesday, 20 May 2014 01:21

Oligarchy Enshrined

Written by  Cole Stangler | In These Times
David Barrows waves a flag during a protest against money in politics outside the Supreme Court on Oct. 8, 2013. David Barrows waves a flag during a protest against money in politics outside the Supreme Court on Oct. 8, 2013. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Why the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon ruling is good news for the super-rich and bad news for progressive Democrats.

At the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference, a conservative election lawyer and a baby-faced electrical engineer from Alabama with a made-for-TV Southern drawl began plotting how to unravel federal campaign finance regulations.

Shaun McCutcheon had one of those “rich people problems”: He wanted to give money to more Republican candidates than the Federal Election Commission allowed. During CPAC’s Ronald Reagan Banquet, he started chatting up activist lawyer Dan Backer, according to The Huffington Post. This was low-hanging fruit, Backer assured him. A well-crafted legal challenge could take out the FEC’s so-called aggregate limits on campaign contributions—rules that blocked individuals from giving more than $48,600 to federal candidates and $74,600 to political parties and PACs in each election cycle.

Sure enough, less than a year after lawyers representing McCutcheon and the Republican National Committee filed a complaint against the FEC, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. On April 2, a 5-to-4 majority sided with the GOP’s budding benefactor, striking down the FEC’s aggregate contribution limits.

The full impact of the ruling won’t be felt until perhaps 2016, when presidential fundraising kicks into high gear. But campaign finance experts agree: McCutcheon v. FEC will encourage more money to flow into electoral campaigns, reduce the number of stakeholders in the American political system and strengthen the hand of party committees on both sides of the aisle. And, according to Supreme Court observers, the nature of the majority’s ruling invites further challenges that could topple what’s left of campaign finance law.

One impact, however, has been overlooked: The court’s ruling could well hurt the electoral prospects of progressive Democrats.

The worst, it seems, is yet to come.

A tilted playing field

The frenzy over the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision often ignored a basic fact: The nation’s campaign finance laws have long favored the rich. Since at least 1976, when the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo decision struck down campaign spending limits, the wealthy have exercised their First Amendment “speech” rights through a combination of tactics: “soft-money” contributions, self-financed campaigns, and plain old maximum-allowable donations to candidates and parties.

“People who have lots of capital, lots of resources, who want to be involved in the political process have always worked hard to find ways,” says Bob Biersack, a 30-year-veteran of the FEC who’s now a senior fellow at the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending. “There have always been ways available to them.”

The Supreme Court has simply afforded our privileged elite more options. Citizens United infamously allows unlimited outside spending on elections. In the 2011-2012 election cycle, Super PACs spent close to$1 billion—including millions from undisclosed donors. Still, that was a fraction of the whopping $7 billion tab for the total election.

McCutcheon opens up more attractive investment opportunities for the politically inclined super-rich, particularly for those who prefer the personal touch of a direct contribution over the anonymity of a super PAC. Whereas a pre-McCutcheon donor was capped at $123,200 total in a given election cycle, she’s now free to spend as she pleases—so long as each donation respects the $5,800-per-candidate-per-racecontribution limit still in effect. As Justice Elena Kagan observed, if one considers each party’s 435 House candidates, 33 Senate candidates, 50 state committees and three main fundraising committees, a single donor can give as much as $3.5 million in direct contributions each cycle.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, about 600 donors gave close to the legal limit of $123,200 in the last election.

The portrait of this donor class is predictable: A Huffington Post analysis that focused on a smaller group of McCutcheon-limit donors found that almost half came from the financial services sector. Others hailed from the energy industry, law practices and miscellaneous business ventures. A solid majority gave to Republicans.

McCutcheon doesn’t just make it easier for the rich to give. It also makes it easier for parties and committees to aggressively court them—something that can’t be said for Citizens United.

The three main fundraising committees of each party no longer have to compete amongst themselves to win the maximum allowable $32,400 contribution from a single donor. Before McCutcheon, contributions to party committees were capped at $32,400 total per election cycle. However, since the ruling, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) can now ask the same Greenwich, Connecticut, hedge-fund manager to write each of them a $32,400 check. (These Democratic organizations declined to comment on how McCutcheon impacts their fundraising strategy.)

The Court’s ruling means that the field of influential political players will continue to shrink, according to Biersack. This trend, already fueled by an unprecedented acceleration of economic inequality, was sent into hyperdrive by Citizens United.

“What [McCutcheon] does is magnify something that was already happening,” Biersack says. “It puts the focus of political professionals of all kinds, including candidates and office-holders, on a very small group of people and institutions that have big capital resources that the political professionals need and want.”

Citizens United introduced Americans to the comically nefarious Super PACMcCutcheon will familiarize voters with newly empowered “joint fundraising committees.” These committees have been popular among the major fundraisers of both parties because they are able to sweep up large sums of money at a time. For example, in 2012 donors were able to write a single megacheck to joint fundraising committees, such as the Romney Victory Fund, which then divvied up the donations among all players: the presidential campaign, the national party committee and participating state party committees. Often used at events featuring candidate appearances, joint-fund-raising committees allow less prominent candidates or state committees to piggyback on the big name draws that command the fat checks. The old aggregate limits restricted how many entities could link up under a single joint fundraising committee. However, under McCutcheon, these super committees have become cash-guzzling monstrosities capable of swallowing up a seven-figure check from a single donor in one big gulp, then regurgitating it out to all participating committee members. Party officials can now “essentially go to one donor who’s willing and able to give $3.5 million, and ask for that kind of money dispersed to various candidates,” says John Bonifaz, president of Free Speech for People, a group that advocates for public financing of elections.

The $3.5-million-check scenario is unlikely, as a committee would need to include all the party’s federal candidates. But the larger the pool of participants in these committees grows, the larger the checks can be. On April 9, one week after the ruling, the three main Republican fundraising committees—the Republican National Committee (RNC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC)—joined forces to form the Republican Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee. The Victory Fund is allowed to accept a single contribution of $97,200 and distribute it evenly among the participating committees. On April 15, a group of GOP senators formed their own joint-fundraising committee that’s capable of reeling in a $98,800 check from a single donor.

This pushes up the price that donors are expected to pay for access to elected officials, says Lisa Rosenberg, a former staffer for then-Sen. John Kerry (D- Mass.) and a lobbyist for the Sunlight Foundation, which advocates for more transparency in government.

“You’re going to get these members of Congress, elected officials, or would-be elected officials, soliciting these million-dollar checks,” says Rosenberg. “ ‘Oh come to my joint-fundraising committee on behalf of all these candidates.’ That’s going to be the invitation from John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi.”

Bonifaz agrees: “If you’re a donor who wants to maintain influence and access with those in leadership, you’re likely to give at that level. It means that we have increased even further the kind of disproportionate influence the very wealthy have over our politics.”

Full speed ahead

McCutcheon leaves existing campaign finance law on very shaky ground. The Chief Justice John Roberts-led majority dismissed the notion that limits on campaign contributions are necessary to ensure equality of representation.

“It would seem as if this court believes there should effectively be special speech rights for the wealthiest people in America,” says Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, which supports electoral reforms to reduce the amount of money in politics. “They have so turned the speech argument around that they’re saying your right to speech is dependent on the size of your wallet.”

Rick Hasen, University of California-Irvine law professor who specializes in campaign finance regulation, predicts that McCutcheon “will be an essential building block to challenging other campaign contribution limits.”

McCutcheon drastically narrows the legal grounds on which the FEC can enforce any contribution limits. Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Court has justified its regulation of campaign finance on the basis of preventing “corruption or the appearance of corruption.” In McCutcheon, Roberts adopted a more stringent definition of corruption as a quid pro quo—a direct exchange of money for a specific vote.

This quid pro quo standard may provide the justification to challenge any contribution limits. “That lays the groundwork for the argument that we have laws like that—they’re called bribery laws,” says Nyhart. “So why do we need anything more?”

Hasen agrees, saying that Roberts’ opinion reads like an invitation to challenge the existing bans on soft-money contributions to political parties. Until 2002, outside groups like corporations and unions were able to give unlimited donations directly to parties, which the parties would then disburse. In response to critiques that such donations circumvented campaign finance law by allowing wealthy donors to make indirect donations to candidates, Congress outlawed these types of “soft-money” contributions. That’s part of the reason Super PACs cannot directly coordinate with candidates or parties.

So what’s going to fall first? Contribution limits to candidates or soft-money donations to parties?

“Part of it depends upon what gets challenged,” says Hasen. “The lawyers [will decide] which cases to file when. But I do think that the Roberts Court has been moving slowly, but steadily, toward knocking these things down. So if we have the same nine justices the next time these issues face the court, I expect them to fall.” 

Underdogs beware

After Citizens United, progressives warned that Republicans were on the verge of buying the presidency, the House and the Senate. In 2010 and 2012, at least, this turned out not to be the case. Much like its landmark predecessor, McCutcheon is unlikely to threaten the ability of the Democratic Party to win federal elections.

The current Republican dominance in Congress is, above all, a structural phenomenon, argues Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, which advocates for voting rights and electoral reform. Thanks to how House districting works, rural, conservative-leaning parts of the country are overrepresented, stifling the ambitions of the nation’s liberal-leaning, mostly urban-dwelling majority. Barring sudden demographic changes or electoral reforms (such as proportional representation or a national popular vote) or, say, a massive popular movement that threatens the two-party stranglehold—conservative America is likely to remain overrepresented in Congress.

Rather than swing Democratic seats to the GOP, McCutcheon is far more likely to impact what kind of Democrat is able to compete in the donation-grubbing, free-spending, advertising-saturated, deeply perverse world of 21st-century American elections. Two groups in each party, it seems, stand to gain most: Candidates who can count on the support of party leadership and those who rely heavily on large individual contributions. Each of those scenarios is bad news for progressives.

“There’s more big money. Big money is never on the side of progressive candidates. Never,” says Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.).“Big money is always going to support big money shills, and progressives are not big money shills.”

Left-leaning House Democrats are often at odds with their party’s leadership. Sometimes that tension spills over to fundraising and campaigning. In 2010, for example, Congress watchers reported that the DCCC, under the leadership of Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) abandoned one of the most progressive members of the House— Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) vice-chair Grayson. Grayson lost badly to a Tea Party challenger, but won his seat back in 2012. Ongoing intra-party tension could leave some CPC members on the outside of key joint fundraising committees, which in the post-McCutcheon world will only grow more powerful.

As it is, incumbent progressives trail the rest of the Democratic Party’s representatives, both in total amount raised from all sources (PACs, committees and individuals) and in the percentage of total donations that come from wealthier donors. In These Times compared the types of donations received by the 68-member CPC with those of the 55-member New Democrat Coalition (NDC), a proudly neoliberal House caucus that bills itself as the “pro-growth, fiscally responsible wing of the Democratic Party.” During the 2012 cycle, the CPC representatives reeled in an average of $584,000 in individual contributions of more than $200. Those contributions made up an average of 42 percent of total contributions per candidate. NDC members, on the other hand, took in an average of more than $1 million in such contributions—48 percent of total contributions per candidate.

That data belies the common myth that for every Charles and David Koch, there’s a Hollywood billionaire bankrolling an army of liberals fighting his or her pet causes. Tom Steyer, the hedge-fund manager-cum-environmental activist, is the exception, not the rule.

“We have made tremendous strides over the past several years in establishing smaller contributions as one of the foundations of successful fundraising for progressives or a progressive party and McCutcheon sets that back,” says Grayson. “McCutcheon changes the incentives to once again have many members of Congress and the parties as a whole focus their attention on large contributions rather than small contributions.”

Because McCutcheon disproportionally empowers large individual donors, it thereby strengthens the base of the Democratic Party’s neoliberal wing—the ideological heirs of the Clinton-era, pro-corporate Democratic Leadership Council.
 
“The incentives have changed to basically induce me and other members to spend more time with big donors,” says Grayson. “I may or may not. It’s a decision we have to make.”
Following the money

By fueling symbiotic relations between party committees and their big donors, McCutcheon will likely make it more difficult for progressive Democratic challengers to unseat incumbents—whether they’re Democrats or Republicans.

The DCCC can be tough on some elected Democratic members of Congress, but we should pity the insurgents. “Where they’re ruthless and they really do a hatchet job, is on candidates,” says Howie Klein, a Los Angeles-based blogger who covers Democratic Party politics from his blog, Down with Tyranny!. Klein documents how, every two years, the DCCC overlooks promising progressive challengers in favor of milquetoast centrists. Ground zero this year may well be California’s 31st district, in the state’s Inland Empire region—arguably the most solidly Democratic district in the country with a Republican representative. The Democratic Super PAC, House Majority PAC, has called GOP Congressman Gary Miller “the most endangered Republican incumbent in the country.”

Instead of backing progressive challenger Eloise Gomez-Reyes, a former labor lawyer who calls for expanding Social Security benefits, the DCCC is throwing its weight behind Pete Aguilar, a banking lobbyist-turned-mayor of Redlands. As one of the 16 “top-tier” candidates who are part of the DCCC’s “Jumpstart” program, Aguilar has received “financial, communications, operational and strategic support” from the party committee since last May. In the last election, the DCCC-endorsed Aguilar somehow managed to place third in the Democratic-leaning district’s crowded “jungle primary” (which lumps together candidates from all parties), eliminating Democrats from the two-candidate November run-off and gifting the seat to the GOP. Post-McCutcheon, the DCCC will likely have more money for races like this and be able to more effectively muscle out primary candidates whose populist credentials it doesn’t like.

Rick Weiland, a left-leaning former adviser to Tom Daschle running for the Senate in South Dakota, knows what it’s like to be on the wrong side of those in the Democratic Party leadership who control the purse strings. Last year, Harry Reid and the DSCC tried to recruit a former U.S. representative, the centrist Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, to replace Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson, who is retiring following a stroke. But in May 2013, when Weiland announced his bid for the soon-to-be-open seat, the former congresswoman backed off. Reid has apparently held a grudge against Weiland ever since.

Today, Weiland is the only Democratic Senate candidate not to be formally endorsed by the DSCC. The NRSC has already held a fundraiser for his leading opponent in the GOP primary, Mike Rounds. The former governor has raised close to $2.9 million; Weiland’s campaign coffers stand at a paltry $740,000. (Weiland also appears to be a casualty of an ego-driven pissing match between former Senate Majority Leader Daschle and current Senate Majority Leader Reid.)

“The problem of big money and its effects on public policy is the reason I got into this race,” says Weiland, who opposes the Keystone XL pipeline, backs single-payer healthcare, and rails against Big Oil and Big Pharma. “It’s really at the cornerstone of my campaign.”

The O-word

With fewer and fewer political players in the game, more and more progressives are talking “oligarchy.” Chief among them is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. He tells In These Times that the recent Supreme Court rulings are “paving the way for oligarchy in America.” Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow, in a recent interview at the Economic Policy Institute, made a similar warning based on the nation’s rising economic inequality: “If that kind of concentration of wealth continues, then we get to be more and more an oligarchical country, a country that’s run from the top.”Jeffrey Winters, a political science professor at Northwestern, maintains we’re already there. (Winters was the author of In These Times’ March 2012 cover story, “Oligarchy in the U.S.A.”) He describes the United States as a “civil oligarchy”—as opposed to, say, “warring oligarchies” like 19th century Appalachia, or “ruling oligarchies” like ancient Athens and Rome. Oligarchy at its core, he says, is the “politics of wealth defense.”

Results from a forthcoming study support Winters’ assessment. Political scientists Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern have found that wealthy people and corporate interest groups exert far more influence over policy than average American citizens. By measuring the correlation between the political preferences of various income levels and 1,799 policy outcomes between 1981 and 2002, their fall 2014 article in Perspectives on Politics quantifies a fact that has long fallen on deaf ears in the United States: Political power is concentrated at the very top of the economic ladder.

Gilens says he hesitates to use the word “oligarchy” because it implies a group of a certain size and his data doesn’t show exactly how large a group of affluent individuals “have real influence over government policy-making.” He and Page prefer to talk about what they term “economic elite domination.”

Because of limited data, Gilens and Page only considered the policy preferences of the top 10th income percentile. But, says Gilens,“It would be surprising if within that group of people in the top 10 percent, that those in the top 1 percent didn’t have more influence than the remainder, and of course, those in the top one-hundredth of 1 percent even more influence.”

The study also doesn’t examine the mechanisms by which the rich exert their influence over public policy. Nevertheless, Gilens says he’s been able to rule out other potential factors based on prior research—such as, say, disproportionate levels of political engagement, interest or knowledge.


“The bottom line is that money in politics, generally, and campaign contributions, third-party spending and so on, is absolutely central in explaining the greater influence of people with money,” says Gilens.

The fight back

No one-shot remedy will level the electoral playing field. But an increasing consensus holds that a constitutional amendment strengthening campaign finance regulations is a necessary first step.

“I don’t know what the Congress could do to fix this that the Court wouldn’t rule as unconstitutional,” says South Dakota’s Weiland. “So we’ve got to change the Constitution. Then we can take a look at the best path forward to reform how these campaigns are funded and waged.”

Weiland says he’s handed out thousands of calling cards that, on the back, include his preferred language for an amendment: “So that the votes of all, rather than the wealth of the few, shall direct the course of this Republic, Congress shall have the power to limit the raising and spending of money, with respect to federal elections.”

Such an amendment would overturn the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo ruling in 1976, which allows for unlimited campaign spending. Without spending limits, it’s more difficult to make the constitutional case for contribution limits.

The Senate recently agreed to allow a floor vote on such an amendment—the first time that’s happened since Citizens United triggered calls to update the Constitution.

Others believe any such amendment needs to go even further. They say the problem lies in the concept of corporate personhood—a court precedent that goes back to 1886 and Santa Clary County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

Move to Amend, a coalition that includes groups like CODEPINK, the Sierra Club, Progressive Democrats of America and Free Speech for People, calls for a constitutional amendment to establish that “money is not speech” and that “human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.”

No matter how an eventual amendment reads, the road to ratification will be long. In order to be considered, a constitutional amendment needs to first earn the support of a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the nation’s state legislatures can request that a constitutional convention be held. But for an amendment to actually be ratified, it has to win approval from three-fourths, or 38, of the nation’s state legislatures.

Free Speech for People’s Bonifaz takes the long view: “In our history as a country, we have dealt with these kinds of major threats to our democracy in the past via a constitutional amendment.”

Seven previous constitutional amendments, he says, have addressed “egregious” Supreme Court rulings. The 19th Amendment, for example, overturned prior Supreme Court rulings that prevented women from exercising the right to vote.

“The power that we as a people have under Article 5 is designed to ensure that when the Supreme Court engages in this kind of egregious decision-making, or when we face some other kind of threat to the franchise and must lift up the promise of American democracy, that we have that power to use it. And I think we’re in that historic moment again.”

Nick Nyhart, meanwhile, offers an analysis that hasn’t exactly stood the test of time—the worse things get, the greater the chances of a popular backlash. He points to the demonstrations that followed theMcCutcheon decision. In some 150 towns and cities across the country, thousands of people turned out on short notice to protest the ruling.

“The good news,” says Nyhart, “is that as the system gets worse, as people see these headlines about individuals being able to give $3.5million directly to candidates through a bundling process … and see the tens of millions that other people are putting into politics, and the hundreds of millions being bundled by people like the Koch brothers, there is a reaction.”

Popular outrage may well be mounting. But time isn’t on the side of reformers. Each election cycle in the current climate threatens to make elected officials and political parties more beholden to big-pocketed contributors, and thus less likely to reform the system. Meanwhile, the Roberts majority has yet to consider a campaign contribution limit that it hasn’t decided to strike down.

One imagines the corporate donor class salivating: Who will be the next McCutcheon?

Cole Stangler is an In These Times staff writer and Schumann Fellow based in Washington D.C., covering labor, trade, foreign policy and environmental issues. His reporting has appeared in The Huffington Post and The American Prospect, and has been cited in The New York Times. He can be reached at cole[at]inthesetimes.com. Follow him on Twitter @colestangler.

 

Original article on In These Times

Read 6921 times Last modified on Tuesday, 20 May 2014 01:29

ERA Articles

  • Take What is Yours, Ladies
    Take What is Yours, Ladies Sojourner Truth said “If women want rights more than they got, why don’t they just take them, and not be talking about it.” It looks like we will have to do just that. August 26th is Women’s Equality Day across our nation. Not so much for the women of North Carolina. 94 years ago in 1920, women won the right to vote after decades of fighting for the 19th Amendment. Women of color had to fight within the fight, and then fight on to realize that right in full.
    Written on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 16:33 Read more...
  • ERA isn't Nostalgia in Nevada
    ERA isn't Nostalgia in Nevada CARSON CITY — Mention the Equal Rights Amendment today and it might bring back memories of the 1970s, from huge protest marches to ”ERA Yes” buttons. But the proposed constitutional amendment, which fell three states short of the 38 needed to win ratification by a 1979 deadline that Congress later extended to 1982, is not a relic in Nevada. An effort is underway to get the amendment ratified by the Nevada Legislature in 2015.
    Written on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 09:44 Read more...
  • 90 years on, push for ERA ratification continues
    90 years on, push for ERA ratification continues

    Drafted by a suffragette in 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment has been stirring up controversy ever since. Many opponents considered it dead when a 10-year ratification push failed in 1982, yet its backers on Capitol Hill, in the Illinois statehouse and elsewhere are making clear this summer that the fight is far from over.

    Written on Monday, 11 August 2014 22:49 Read more...
  • The Big Banging “F” Word and Millennials
    The Big Banging “F” Word and Millennials The week before last, near the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, a whole lot of the “F” word was thrown around at a rally. I heartily approve and you don’t know “F” if you don’t. This is where I’m supposed to reassure you that I’m not going all potty-mouthed to make a point and offer comfort that you’re not alone in your ignorance. Yes and no.
    Written on Friday, 08 August 2014 15:36 Read more...
  • ERA Enters 2014 Gubernatorial Campaign

    Last week, State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago) bulldozed the measure, Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 75, through the upper chamber 39-11-06, a vote that included two Republicans - Kirk Dillard and Minority Leader Christine Radogno.

    Written on Friday, 30 May 2014 16:03 Read more...
  • Senate Democrats look to revive dormant Equal Rights Amendment
    Senate Democrats look to revive dormant Equal Rights Amendment

    SPRINGFIELD-Senate Democrats plan to make an end-of-session push this week to “rectify an historical wrong” -- and perhaps give women a strong reason to go to the polls this fall -- by putting Illinois on record in support of an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Written on Monday, 19 May 2014 23:16 Read more...
  • Pilgrimage
    Pilgrimage

    Each step I take brings me closer to fulfilling my promise to help pass the Equal Rights Amendment. It’s a promise I made a decade ago to my late mother-in-law, the Rev. Katrina Swanson. (Katrina was one of the “Philadelphia Eleven,” the first group of women to be ordained as priests in these modern times in the U.S., after the Anglican Church of China.) A promise made by my husband and me to her in her last year of life. A promise, indeed a vow, and now a dream moving to reality we will resurrect and see enacted the Equal Rights Amendment.

    Written on Friday, 25 April 2014 00:00 Read more...
  • Congresswoman Speier: The Deadline for Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment Should be Removed
    Congresswoman Speier: The Deadline for Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment Should be Removed

    Congresswomen Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco/San Mateo/Redwood City) issued the following statement today after offering a joint resolution to remove the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA was introduced into every Congress between 1923 and 1972, when it finally passed and was sent to the states for ratification upon three/fourths approval. Congresswoman Speier’s joint resolution has 109 original co-sponsors.

    Written on Friday, 28 March 2014 02:59 Read more...
  • Group wants ERA ratified
    Group wants ERA ratified

    State Sen. Nina Turner said Saturday that she supports efforts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment but noted that more work is ahead in reaching equality. The Cleveland-based Democrat was one of several political candidates in attendance during an event hosted by the Progressive Democrats of America at the Adena Mansion & Gardens Visitors Center, where Turner gave a fiery speech to a full crowd about the need to support such a change.

    Written on Monday, 24 March 2014 22:03 Read more...
  • Progressive Democrats to kick off ERA ratification push in Chillicothe
    Progressive Democrats to kick off ERA ratification push in Chillicothe

    A group of Progressive Democrats plans to push for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment with an event here later this month. State Sen. Nina Turner, D-Cleveland, will be the keynote speaker. Turner is the minority whip in the Ohio Senate.

    The group, which also is conducting the event to defend voter rights, also will honor a local woman with an award at the event.

    Written on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 13:35 Read more...
  • Lehigh Valley feminists waged campaign in schools, prison
    Lehigh Valley feminists waged campaign in schools, prison

    One of Mary Larkin's prized possessions is a beat-up, old, wooden cutting board in the shape of a mushroom, but you can't tell by looking at it that it is the product of a revolution.

    It was made by Larkin's daughter Debbie, who was one of the first girls to take shop in Parkland schools after the district relented in the mid-1970s to allow them to forgo home economics and do woodworking instead.

    Written on Tuesday, 11 March 2014 02:52 Read more...
  • Will Virginia be the First State to Ratify Equal Rights Amendment in the 21st Century?
    Will Virginia be the First State to Ratify Equal Rights Amendment in the 21st Century?

    Today SJ 78, a bill to ratify the stalled Equal Rights Amendment, was placed on the docket of the Elections subcommittee in the Virginia House. Could this signal GOP support for Constitutional pay equity? Even in the 21st century corporations continue to pay women less because they are women. Last week we learned that General Motors offered their first female CEO a salary 50% less than her male predecessors (the usual female pay discount is only 8%).

    Written on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 01:00 Read more...
  • Deadline Looms: ERA Ratification Assigned to Judiciary Committee in AZ Legislature
    Deadline Looms: ERA Ratification Assigned to Judiciary Committee in AZ Legislature

    Rep. Victoria Steele’s (D-9) bill to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (HCR2016) was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee late last week. (You’ll remember that mid-week, I reported it was languishing on the desk of House Speaker Andy Tobin.)

    Written on Tuesday, 18 February 2014 01:56 Read more...
  • Uphill Battle: Rep. Victoria Steele Introduces Bill to Extend ERA Ratification Deadline
    Uphill Battle: Rep. Victoria Steele Introduces Bill to Extend ERA Ratification Deadline

    There is an ideological perfect storm brewing in the Arizona Legislature. A memorandum supporting extension of the ratification deadline for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) has been assigned to a committee where five out of seven members have pledged to protect and fight for the rights of fetuses over the rights of women.

    Written on Thursday, 13 February 2014 14:37 Read more...
  • America the Beautiful is Not a Movie
    America the Beautiful is Not a Movie

    What I know about sports, I learned watching movies, but what I know about fair play and equality, I learned watching my parents.  Although movies Based on a true story, have evolved closer to reality since William Bendix played Babe Ruth, the brain damage of inequality requires more than A Hail Mary Pass at equal economic opportunity and Justice for All to tackle an Equal Rights Amendment fumbled by a deadline for ratification.

    Written on Monday, 10 February 2014 20:51 Read more...
  • Alice Paul: Honoring The Birthday Of An American Heroine
    Alice Paul: Honoring The Birthday Of An American Heroine

    In November 2014, Americans will be heading to the polls to vote in the midterm elections.

    Women will be voting.

    If Alice Paul had not been alive to fight for that right, women still might not have the opportunity to make their voices heard in the United States of America.

    January 11, 1885 was the day this great American woman was born and it is on this day that everyone should take a moment to recognize and celebrate her brave and progressive life.

    Written on Sunday, 12 January 2014 00:11 Read more...
  • Signature gathering drive underway for state equal-rights amendment
    Signature gathering drive underway for state equal-rights amendment

    People are out collecting signatures to get the Oregon’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) for women on the November 2014 ballot. This could mean a change to the state constitution to include language that specifically protects women.

    Oregon’s ERA for women has been out there several times before now, most recently before the legislative session in 2013, but it didn't pass.

    Written on Wednesday, 01 January 2014 22:30 Read more...
  • ERA December Update
    ERA December Update

    Congratulations Rhode Island!
    Rhode Island is the first state to have 100% of their Federal delegation supporting our legislation. A special thanks to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator Jack Reed, Rep. David Cicilline and Rep. James Langevin. We appreciate your support.

    Written on Thursday, 12 December 2013 01:19 Read more...
  • JFK'S Contribution to Women's Rights -- and What He Might Want Us to Do Next
    JFK'S Contribution to Women's Rights -- and What He Might Want Us to Do Next

    Just a few weeks before his death, on October 11, 1963, President Kennedy received the final report of the President's Commission on the Status of Women. A direct line runs between the work of this commission and the establishment of the National Organization for Women.

    Written on Saturday, 23 November 2013 21:02 Read more...
  • Debate over Equal Rights Amendment

    If an Equal Rights Amendment were to pass, women would have the written support of the Constitution. Instead of women having to prove that they were being discriminated against, violators of the amendment would face a harsher reality, having to prove their innocence.

    The benefits of ratifying the amendment are fairly simple. By passing the Equal Rights Amendment, the government would not only open doors of opportunity for women in the country, but also open them all around the world.

    Written on Wednesday, 20 November 2013 02:58 Read more...
  • Progressive Push - First Stop California
    Progressive Push - First Stop California

    UPDATE: Linda Sanchez and Louise Roybal-Allard are now cosponsors of HJ Res 43. As Progressives we should all be outraged that of the 15 members of the Progressive Caucus from California, there are 5 (3) who have not co-sponsored Representative Rob Andrews legislation, HJ Res 43, removing the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Unacceptable. They are well aware of the legislation and we must alert them to this fact.

    Written on Thursday, 07 November 2013 00:00 Read more...
  • The ERA and the NCGA 2013
    The ERA and the NCGA 2013

    Targeting women’s right to vote may be the undoing of extreme governance and an opportunity to take care of constitutionally unfinished business for women – an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). The newly declared war on the right of women in NC to vote looks to be the match to the fuse in the renewed push for passing an ERA.

    Written on Tuesday, 05 November 2013 00:00 Read more...
  • Senator Elizabeth Warren Signs On to SJ Res 15
    Senator Elizabeth Warren Signs On to SJ Res 15

    A Major Victory for ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) advocates happened today as Senator Elizabeth Warren becomes the 32nd co-sponsor on Senator Ben Cardin’s bi-partisan bill, SJRES15 to remove the deadline to ratify the ERA.

    Written on Thursday, 31 October 2013 16:47 Read more...
  • Monday Vintage Demonstrations on Equal Rights Amendment
    Monday Vintage Demonstrations on Equal Rights Amendment

    In the spirit of Moral Mondays the Onslow County Democratic Party announced that this Monday’s demonstration on  October 28th  will focus on pushing back against the wave of legislation negatively impacting  women’s rights to include the targeting of their voting rights. Demonstrators are civilly rallying from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm outside the Jacksonville City Hall at 815 New Bridge Street to support the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) checking state laws that are eroding women’s rights.

    Written on Thursday, 24 October 2013 17:46 Read more...
  • “Welcome to Ohio: Set Your Clocks Back 50 Years!”
    “Welcome to Ohio:  Set Your Clocks Back 50 Years!”

    “Seems like old times,” was former ODP chair, David Leland’s comment when we exchanged greetings at the Statehouse, October 2nd. Indeed it did. About 1000 enthusiastic women and men showed up for a rally entitled, “We Won’t Go Back: Stand Strong with Ohio’s Women!”

    Written on Thursday, 03 October 2013 13:49 Read more...
  • Poverty, Hunger, Inequality, Violence: American Women Are Being Screwed
    Poverty, Hunger, Inequality, Violence: American Women Are Being Screwed

    Women earn less than men. Compared to white men, Latinas earn 59 cents for every dollar earned by a white man, black women earn 68 cents on the dollar, white women earn 81 cents on the dollar, and Asian women earn 88 cents on the dollar

    Written on Thursday, 29 August 2013 00:43 Read more...
  • ERA 2013 Action Campaign Gains Momentum - White House Petition Passes 20,000 Signature Mark
    ERA 2013 Action Campaign Gains Momentum - White House Petition Passes 20,000 Signature Mark

    The new push to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) continues to grow as word spreads about the effort to get the Obama Administration to take a stand on the issue of equal rights for women. The ERA 2013 Action Campaign and its partner, ERA NOW, seek to gather 25,000 signatures on an official White House petition to trigger an official response from the Obama Administration, now needs only 4600 signatures by February 9th.

    Written on Tuesday, 05 February 2013 17:58 Read more...

ERA Legislation in your State

Unratified states Gold - Ratified States Purple

Sign the ERA Petition

ERADemandButton

On Friday, September 12th more than 150 activists will go to DC and Demand that their Senators and Representatives support removing the ratification deadline from the ERA (SJ Res 15 and HJ Res 113)

Button-SignERAPetition

Sign the Petition - Sen. Sanders Run as a Democrat in 2016

Button-SandersPetition

Sign the TPP Fast Track Petitions

MoveOn.org Petition - Congress Don't Renew Fast Track

Public Citizen Petition - Congress Must Reject Fast Track Authority

MoveOn.org Petition - Stop the Trans Pacific Partnership

CREDO Petition - Stop the Massive Corporate Power Grab

 

ERA 9/12 Senate Briefing

ERA - January 15th Round Table

Find Your Elected Officials

Enter your zip+4 and find your elected officials. This link provides name, address and phone number

ButtonFindElectedOfficials

Click on your state in the list to find out if your Senators and Representative are cosponsors of the Equal Rights Amendment. Then call and either Thank Them or ask them to support the legislation.

Sample scripts are below.

ERA Call Scripts

Thank You Script
I am a voter in your district and the Equal Rights Amendment is very important to me and all my friends. Thank you for supporting equal rights.

Request Support
I am a voter in your district and the Equal Rights Amendment is very important to me and all my friends. Equality is a human rights issue. The Equal Rights Amendment has been stalled and we believe removing the ratification deadline will most the process forward. Please cosponsor SJ Res 15 (for Senators) HJ Res 43 (for your Representative)

Writer a Letter to the Editor about the ERA

We need to add the Equal Rights Amendment to the National conversation. Use our tool to send a letter to the editor of your local paper.

  1. Enter your zip code to select a list of local papers
  2. Select the paper
  3. Use our talking points and/or write your own letter

button-LettertoEditor

Hand Deliver a Letter to your Senators or Representative

If your Senator(s) and/or Representative is not currently a supporter, they may not be aware that the legislation exists. Nothing sends a stronger message to a Congressional member than a personal visit to a district office by a voter with a written request for support. Phone calls and emails are incredibly important but nothing gets attention like a personal visit. Our Educate Congress page has information and a sample letter. Print the letter, sign it, deliver it.

Button-HandDeliver

Email Your Senators and Representatives

There is no faster way to send a message to your Congress members than using our Email Advocacy Tool.

  1. Enter your Zip +4
  2. Use our letter or feel free to edit and create your own

button-emailyourrep

Like ERA Action on Facebook!

ERA Videos

VA State Legislature

Marena Groll
Moral Monday - Fayetteville

January 15th Progressive Round Table

Tea with Friends of Alice - Chillicothe, Ohio

  • Sen. Nina Turner and Cathy White
    Sen. Nina Turner and Cathy White
  • Queen Nester and Sen. Nina Turner
    Queen Nester and Sen. Nina Turner
  • Awardees
    Dr. Jean Kerney, Senator Nina Turner and Portia A. Boulger Awardees
  • Sen. Nina Turner and Cathy White
  • Queen Nester and Sen. Nina Turner
  • Awardees