With the start of every election cycle, money is offered by corporations, banks, millionaires,
and special interest groups to political elites along with electoral candidates in
order to increase competition and endorse political platforms. Election races can
often morph into costly campaigns that require candidates to constantly generate funding
in order to retain both relevancy and influence. An issue emerges when considering
the groups behind the big money in elections who oftentimes endorse candidates to
further their own agendas. This can include backing certain political candidates who
will potentially create legislation in favor of wealthy special interest money as
opposed to the general public.
Money flow
Money spent on elections may work to fund corporations who will then back political
action committees (PACs) in a cyclical nature; money in politics holds great power
in all election cycles.
The influence of wealthy donors on the democratic process has only grown with time;
in fact that the 2020 general election cost an estimated 5.7 billion USD in comparison to the 2000 general election which cost around half that amount at
2.13 billion USD . The application of the money in question can be utilized as hard money, rigid money where contributions and donors must be specified, or soft money, fluid money where outside groups can generate funding anonymously. This funding
is often spent on primary eligibility, advertisements, bus-tours, campaign management,
social media intiatives, and much more. The high barrier of financial entry makes
it difficult for candidates to win political races without donating countless hours
to fundraising efforts and networking.
Money dominates the current political climate and it is essential that attention is
drawn to this fact, especially in campus communities. Follow the dollar through this
resource guide as we take a comprehensive look on how our democratic system operates
through the lens of big private money.
Wealth is power. It is essential to recognize billionaires, corporations, political
nonprofits, and more have the capacity to greatly impact every facet of the election
process down to the candidates that remain by the end of an election race. They can
easily utilize funding as a means to convert their own needs into political influence,
which has substantial impacts on everyday American citizens who should be the sole
directors of election outcomes.
Dark money
Money from these groups can be utilized to running phone banks, door-to-door campaigning,
and even running advertisements in favor of a political candidate.Dark money consists of these groups that opt for political spending without needing to disclose
their identity.
The controversy of dark money lies in the lack of transparency it provides to the
American people. The inherent anonymity of dark money––which is what makes it “dark––”
leads to voters being unaware of the origins of the partisan information they receive.
The inherent bias that exists with such propaganda (on both sides of the political
spectrum) can lead to civilians being victims of the influence of cognitive biases
and logical fallacies. This could mean for the ultimate electing of politicians that
don’t necessarily align with the beliefs of the uninformed individuals, but because
consumers consume what they are presented with, they elect candidates who implement
policies that are so much greater than that individual’s error due to being uninformed.
The implications of this is that one person’s vote could ripple across the population
and ultimately lead to the altering of their own lives, that of informed voters, and
everyone else because of the political candidate that ended up being elected–– especially
since a good percentage of the American populace is unaware of the reality of elections and what their individual impact implies.
This lack of information has a great magnitude of influence because it could not only
lead to an uninformed voting of certain political candidates, but also leads to citizens
not voting at all. As articulated in the NPR radio series, "On the Sidelines of Democracy" Megan Davis is an example of a prideful nonvoter as she quoted “I feel like my voice doesn't matter.” Hence, in addition to the wealthy exercising control over the elections, uninformed
voters and nonvoters may only perpetuate this magnitude of power. Thus, this institution
of dark money, which allows for the wealthiest to implement their political agendas
with anonymity, allows for what is clearly an undemocratic means of population control.
The wealthiest evidently have multiple means of controlling our lives. It is crucial
as consumers of information to be able to recognize the influence wealth has on a
system that was founded on democratic values. In order to think critically about a
system that has become so intertwined with wealth being the currency for impact both
socioeconomically and politically, learning more about the topic is fundamental towards
a truer democracy. Our lack of awareness only makes it easier for wealthy donors to
circumvent the law and further exercise their control over election campaigns.
Dark money can be supplied under different organizational titles to ensure validity
under current legislation such as:
SUPER PACS
Some of the most prominent forms of dark money involve Political Action Committees (PACs) which are a 527 organization that works to raise and spend money during election
cycles. These PACs can represent businesses, labor unions, or ideological values in order
to privately raise money for specific election campaigns and gain a political advantage
over the opposing candidate.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is one such organization ––or PAC––that pushes for a conservative political agenda from the funding of dark
money. For example, the NRA financed millions of dollars on running advertisements
against the Biden campaign during the 2020 elections.
Independent expenditure-only committees, otherwise known as super PACs, were established in 2010 and allow for large sums of private money to be channeled
into election campaigns by corporations, billionaires, and political elites. These are organizations that may receive an limitless quantity of donations from
anonymous contributors which allows them to forward their political agenda. The Democratic
party, has also had substantial amounts of dark money spending through the 2020 election,
with organizations like Defending Democracy Together and the National Association of Realtors super PAC being
the means of such financing.
The stark difference between PACs and super PACs though is that super PACs can not directly donate to federal candidates or parties. This leads to the voices of the masses to be drowned out during election campaigns
in favor of private money. Super PACs were created following two major Supreme Court
decisions:
The nonpartisan group, Citizens United, created a film titled Hillary: The Movie which discussed opinions on Senator Hillary Clinton being an effective president;
the film faced the potential of being affected by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act(BCRA). In order to circumvent this, Citizens United brought the Federal Elections
Commission (FEC) to court. The applied restrictions on “electioneering communications,”
and Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations or labor unions from funding such
communication from their general treasuries. In addition to this, Sections 201 and
311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the
communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support. They argued
that Sections 201 and 203 were First Amendment violations in regards to their film.
In January 2010, the Court ruled that the First Amendment “prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications
by corporations including: nonprofits, labor unions, and other associations.” This case ruled that putting limitations on union and corporate spending to influence
elections is unconstitutional.
Nonprofit organization, SpeechNOW, sued the FEC in February of 2008 claiming the $5,000
USD federal limit on how much individuals can give to a political committee such as
its own, limited how much it could spend supporting candidates and represented a violation
of the Constitution's First Amendmentguarantee to freedom of speech. They found that restrictions on individual contributions
to independent organizations which seek to influence elections is unconstitutional
and independent expenditure. In May of 2013, the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia ruled in favor of SpeechNOW.org, citing that the FEC could
not enforce limitations on contributions for independent groups.
These cases were instrumental in the creation of super PACs as they both involved
litigants challenging campaign finance restrictions as violations of the First Amendment,
specifically freedom of speech. Corporations were given First Amendment protections,
including unlimited spending. Super PACs can raise funds from individuals, corporations,
unions, and other groups without any legal limit on donation size. These PACs do not
make direct contributions to political parties or candidates; instead they create
independent expenditures for electoral races through advertising campaigns, mailing
lists, or digital communications to gain a political advantage for the supported candidate.
Since there are no limits or restrictions on the sources of funding for these ventures,
unlimited amounts of donations can be used to advocate for or against specific political
candidates which tarnishes the integrity of our democratic system. The super PACs
must file financial reports with the FEC, but they are free to utilize resources in
their network to advocate for, or defeat certain candidates. The Center for Responsive Politics(CRP) reports that in 2020 alone, there were around 2,276 active super PACs who raised around
3.5 million USD and spent 2.1 million USD.
You can view more data regarding super PAC funding along with a current list of super
PACs here.
hybrid pacs, llcs/shells, & political nonprofits
Groups can also register as a hybrid PACoperating to provide funding to a candidate's committee (like a PAC) while also being
able to provide independent expenditures (like a super PAC). These groups must maintain
a separate bank account for these services and any unlimited contributions collected
cannot be utilized for candidate committees or any traditional PAC functions.
A great deal of dark money is contributed under the guise of political nonprofits which can also anonymously generate unlimited sums of money for preferred political
candidates. These groups are tax exempt and are not legally considered to be political organizations,
so they are allowed to anonymously receive and provide funding. Just like super PACs,
they cannot spend funding on candidates or political parties directly, and can use
the system to raise unlimited amounts of money. Oftentimes, political nonprofits are
organized under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code to ensure that they are able to continue to fuel dark money into politics. There
are various types of 501(c) organizations including:
The topic of billionaire philanthropy is well-rooted in the systemic oppression of
the working class and how wealth in the USA truly puts one above the law. As defined
by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, philanthropy is “an act or gift done or made for humanitarian purposes.” The concept of “weaponizing philanthropy” seems oxymoronic in that such a generous
deed shouldn’t possibly be adjacent to a term that is so negatively associated. However,
the billionaire class executes this fallacy with such perfection that something as
inherently good as philanthropy has become an entity intertwined with much corruption.
Billionaires are worth more than the gross domestic product (GDP) of most majority
nations. In addition, the wealth system in the USA which not only perpetuates the
wealth gap, but systematically promotes a societal complex in which poverty and excessive
wealth coexists should be subject to substantial reform. The Guardian reports that
American billionaires comprise 40 percent of all the wealth but only contribute to
a fraction of all taxes paid. The conversation to revolutionize such a dynamic begins
with how billionaires attain such an expansive magnitude of wealth to begin with,
how they can maintain it, and how they ultimately manipulate the system to work in
their favor.
One way billionaires attain large magnitudes of wealth is by being the sole bearer
of the net increase in profits of a successful business, while workers’ wages stay
stagnant.
It is thus the majority staff who get the undercut by getting paid barely livable
wages despite the company’s overall net growth. Minimum wage has been falling since the 1960’s, for example. Company profit and worker income are not increasing proportionally. In this system
at the organizational level, the wealth of those facilitating the company’s day-to-day
activity barely if at all accumulates. However, the head of the organizations see
a consistent positive correlation between the company’s profit and their own income.
As a matter of fact, CEO’s compensation has risen over 900 percent past four decades. The accumulation of wealth also may begin with generational wealth as well. However,
the fact of the matter is that regardless of one’s work ethic, one of the primary
ways to attain an insurmountable amount of wealth is through capitalizing and profiting
off the working class.
the american tax system
The first income tax was instituted in the USA upon the advent of the Civil War in
order to finance it. This value is entirely dependent on one’s personal taxable income, which is determined taxable at the government’s discretion. It also varies depending
on the way one files for taxes whether it be single, head of household, married filed
separately, or married filed jointly. There are then tax brackets within such categories where a certain range of income is subject to a certain percentage
of which would be taxed, and it increases as one’s income increases, to a maximum
value of 37 percent. A marginal tax rate is then usually applied to the minimum dollar
amount of the individual’s tax bracket, and then the same corresponding percent to
the taxable income is applied to any additional income over that minimum value. There
are other types of taxes such as Capital Gains, Social Security, and Medicare rates
as well.
Although standardized, these taxes become very avoidable for the wealthiest. For example,
unearned income has lower tax brackets than income from wages. The issue here lies
therein that a majority of a billionaire like Warren Buffet’s wealth comes primarily
from unearned income but the average person’s income comes primarily from their wages. Due to this disparity,
wealthy people pay less in taxes overall on their income than the majority people
which further promotes wealth accumulation for the already wealthy.
Billionaire philanthropy is another way the wealthiest exacerbate a system of which
they already benefit. In addition, such acts of philanthropy only require more money
to come out of the pockets of the working class. Citizens contribute a certain amount
of tax for every amount of money billionaires contribute through philanthropy in the
form of lost tax revenue.
Donor-advised funds (DAF) for example, are means by which billionaires engage in charity to promote political
groups that promote their own agenda. In other words, philanthropists donate a sum
of money of which they gain tax benefits and deductions for, and then are able to
guide where that money is being allocated for charitable spending. They are consequently
making purchases without the burden of tax, except these purchases ultimately impact
the lives of day-day American citizens. Fidelity Investments, is one such example
of a DAF. They receive billions of dollars annually from philanthropists who guide
where the assets will go. Such assets of groups like Fidelity, have gone towards “bankrolling” groups that work to implement policies that are anti-immigration, such as the Federation
for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
Another such example of which the lines between philanthropy and societal control
blur is seen with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which is a non-profit
charity organization that works to implement their libertarian/conservative agenda.
For example, they are funded by the Charles Koch institute, who is run by billionaires
with a clear political agenda. According to an article from The Intercept, tax disclosures show that the Charles Koch Foundation and Charles Koch Institute
increased annual giving to the group, providing 779,068 USD to ALEC in 2017. For context,
ALEC is involved in the advocacy of legislation called the Stand Your Ground law that
prevented the family of Trayvon Martin from being treated with justice. The successes
of this team quite literally portray the direct correlation between wealth and policy
control.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is an example of an instance which serves to imply
the impact of wealth on civilians. This organization was founded by Mark Zuckerberg
and Priscilla Chan and it provides grants to different arenas pertaining to research
and development as well as proactive reform in areas such as housing. Although the
surface of such acts of philanthropy seem admirable, the irony therein lies how this
company works to solve a fraction of the problems perpetuated by a co-founder of it, Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.
The housing crisis in the Menlo Park region had beenattributed to Facebook’s relocation there from Palo Alto. This relocation contributed to a massive jump in rent prices
of that region which jump-started the housing crisis there. People of color were at
the forefront of this crisis. As Rhodes and Bloom brilliantly articulated in their article on charitable billionaires, Zuckerberg is “sticking plaster” on a problem that Facebook
“aided and abetted.” However, the more explicit picture that is seen by the majority
of people is the image of generosity that Zuckerbeg fronts when displaying this initiative.
Thus, the condemnation of the more backwards and camouflaged activities of Zuckerberg
isn’t as prominent and allows for him to pursue in this system of instituting insubstantial
solutions to problems that Facebook created and exacerbates greatly.
Thus, generous acts of charity and acts of philanthropy become inherently nothing
other than self-serving when it comes to billionaires. Philanthropy, in essence, is
a beautiful painting distracting its audience from the corruption of capitalism, with
the wealthiest yielding the paintbrush.
Each and every presidential election is a costly experience. Although political leaders
make it seem almost effortless to mobilize voters and gain recognition in the public
consciousness, there are many costs associated with running an election campaign.
Between bus tours, advertisements, and campaign branding, it is necessary for candidates
to generate enough funding to amplify their message. In addition to self-financing,
candidates can receive funding from small donors, PACs, corporations and parties.
The amount of money it takes to pull off a successful election campaign has been increasing
gradually over time. For example, during the 1992 general election, the combined campaigns of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot spent
195.6 million USD, which is equivalent to around 360 million USD when adjusted for
inflation. To win the 2004 election, George W. Bush spent 345 million USD which was the most expensive campaign
at the time; this was soon surpassed in 2008 where the total amount of money spent by and for Barack Obama’s election campaign
was around 730 million USD.
general election spending - 2012 v. 2016
During the 2012 presidential election, Obama spent around 722.4 million USD to get
re-elected; this was in addition to PACs spending of around 130 million USD and the
Democratic National Convention (DNC) spending of around 292 million USD. With the use of these resources, President
Obama was able to mobilize voters and get reelected after generating around 1.14 billion
USD; his political opponent, Mitt Romney, was only able to gather around 450 million
USD along with 386 million from the Republican National Convention (RNC) and 418 million USD from PACs which totals around 1.3 billion USD.
For the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton's campaign spent a total of 768.5 million USD, vastly more than the 440 million USD that Donald Trump's campaign spent. It is interesting
to note that the New York Times reported that Trump paid his companies around 12 million USD over the course of the election
for flights, meals and services, hotel stays, and as well as office spaces. The power
of self-financing accompanied through contributions from donors and PACs allow for
widespread funding and generally more successful election campaigns.
During the 2012 presidential election, Obama spent around 722.4 million USD to get re-elected; this is in addition to PAC spending of around 130 million USD
and DNC spending of around 292 million USD. With the use of these resources, President
Obama was able to mobilize voters and get reelected after generating around 1.14 billion
USD; his political opponent, Mitt Romney, was only able to gather around 450 million USD along with 386 million from the RNC and 418 million USD from PACs which totals around 1.3 billion USD.
general election spending - 2020
The 2020 election race hosted a large variety of potential candidates through the
primary stage while working to garner attention from the general public. Throughout
the election campaigns they were able to receive donations from private organizations
and work closely with leadership PACs and super PACs along with dark money outlets
to receive sufficient funding. The costs of the 2020 election campaigning as a whole
amongst all candidates cost around 14 billion USD which is the most expensive election in U.S. history. In addition to this, the CRP reports that it cost nearly twice the amount of the previous election cycle.
The election was estimated by the CRP to cost around 11 billion USD for total election campaign spending; the election was able to exceed expectations
even with the threat of a global pandemic garnering funding from billionaire donations
along with donations from the general public. "Donors poured record amounts of money
into the 2018 midterms, and 2020 appears to be a continuation of that trend, but magnified,”
says Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the CRP. “Ten years ago, a billion-dollar presidential candidate would have been difficult
to imagine. This cycle, we’re likely to see two.
Follow the Dollar in the 2020 elections:
Presidential Candidate
Large Contributions
Small Individual Contributions
Total Spending*
Donald Trump (R)
$396,152,428
$378,084,012
$1,090,633,916
Joe Biden (D)
$646,035,524
$406,562,408
$1,614,843,740
Bernie Sanders (D)
$87,741,080
$114,813,795
$205,531,676
Source: Data is based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on 03/22/21.
*Note: Combined data spending is contingent on money raised from both the campaign
committees of each candidate in addition to the money raised from external sources.
The 2020 general elections were interesting due to the presence of grassroots campaigns
as a means of election funding. This implied little support from large political action
committees of which fuel the campaigns for other candidates. As shown in the table
above, the total campaign spending of Senator Sanders was a slight fraction of that
of other candidates. Senator Elizabeth Warren is another such candidate who applied
grassroots support as a means of campaign funding.
The phrase “money makes the world go round” rings true in the world of American politics.
Money passes through the hands of donors, lobbyists, and politicians, influencing
elections and our legislative process. Let’s follow the dollar by examining prominent
politicians with dark money affiliations, outlining how money in lobbying works, and
analyzing current legislation that aims to target campaign finances.
private money in elections
The 2020 Presidential election saw more than $1 billion in “dark money," so it is important to think critically about this process. Where
does all this money come from and where does it go?
Joe Biden (2020 Presidential candidate - Democratic)
President Joe Biden received nearly $174 million in support from anonymous donors through multiple channels, such as anonymous contributions
from Sixteen Thirty Fund that contributed generously to pro-Biden super PACS like
Future Forward USA, American Bridge 21st Century, Priorities USA Action and Unite
the Country. The money can be used to generate attack ads against opposing political
candidates, TV airings, digital ad spending, and more.
Donald Trump (2020 Presidential candidate - Republican)
Former President Donald Trump received nearly $25.2 million in dark money and a known channel for the source of money came from pro-Trump super PAC America First Actionthat is affiliated with a non-profit dark money group America First Policies. Through
the organization One Nation, Senate Republicans raised an additional $125 million in dark money.
Lobbying is the act of attempting to influence a public official (e.g. your representative)
on an issue. Any citizen or group of citizens can attempt to lobby the government,
and the practice is protected by the First Amendment, albeit with regulations meant
to prevent bribery and corruption. Despite this, most lobbying is done professionally
on the behalf of corporate interests, with corporate lobbyists spending approximately
$3,000,000,000 in 2020, representing 87.85 percent of all lobby spending that year.
The cycle of lobbying works like this:
1. Special interest groups hire lobbyists to convince politicians/lawmakers to push
for specific legislation that would be beneficial to the interests of the group.
2. The lobbyists then work to petition lawmakers and can do so in two ways: grassroots
lobbying and direct lobbying.
3. The lawmakers, if persuaded, can then vote in favor of the specific legislation.
Once the bill is passed, then the special interest group would reap the benefits.
To elaborate more on the two types of lobbying:
1. The first is grassroots lobbying whose method is to influence legislation through
the public. To qualify as grassroots lobbying, the organization cannot state their position on a specific legislation. The tactics of grassroots lobbying must target the public in its messaging so publicizing
an open letter, creating an online petition, or organizing a public demonstration/rally
can work.
2. The second type of lobbying is direct lobbying where the method is to influence
legislation by communicating to members of legislative (lawmakers or people who communicate
with lawmakers). In this type of lobbying, it is up to the lobbyist to gather evidence
regarding the proposed changes and why they’re advocating for it. The lobbyists would
also have to provide legal help to the legislators so as to cover any loopholes with
the proposed legislation.
One interesting trend is that former lawmakers tend to become lobbyists since they already have connections
with politicians and the practice of lobbying has the potential to be a lucrative
job.
CURRENT legislation
Lobbyists can influence policies by pushing for very specific legislation that benefits
their special interest groups. But to understand how that comes to be, one must understand
the process of how a bill can become law:
1) A bill is proposed in the House where it is then referred to a committee for study.
The committee then releases the proposal to the House.
2) The bill is scheduled for floor consideration in the House where the House can
debate and amend the proposal. Once the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435
votes) in the House, the bill moves to the Senate.
3) The bill is assigned to another committee in the Senate and, if released, it is
debated, amended, and voted on. A simple majority (51 of 100) is needed to pass the
bill.
4) Once a simple majority is reached, a conference committee made of House and Senate
members collaborates to compromise on differences between the House and Senate versions
of the bill. The final conference report must be approved by the House and Senate
before legislation can proceed.
5) The legislation is presented to the President and the President has 10 days to
sign or veto the bill.
6) If the President doesn’t sign the bill within 10 days and the Congress is in session,
the bill can become a law.
While it does seem that the election outcome is susceptible to corruption from big
money, there is currently a bill seeking to rectify campaign finance to make it fairer.
Let’s look into the current legislation in works that aims to target campaign finances:
mandating candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns
expanding voter registration and voting access and limiting removing voters from voter
rolls
expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; expanding
disclosure rules pertaining to organizations spending money during elections, campaign
advertisements, and online platforms; and revising disclaimer requirements for political
advertising.
However, the obstacle it currently faces is that the bill has trouble reaching the
floor consideration. In 2019, the HR1/S1 bill couldn’t pass the Senate due to a Republican-led
Senate. However, HR1 was proposed again this year and the latest update was that it has failed in the Senate as of August 2021. Legislation like HR1 can make voting easier and more accessible with many groups benefiting
greatly; for example, college students often struggle to have accessibility in regards
to voting in their college communities, but the expansion of accessible options will
work to help them participate in the political process.
According to Dataforprogress.org, 67 percent of Americans support the For the People Act, which is composed of 77
percent of Democratic voters support, 68 percent of Independent voters support, and
56 percent of Republicans. There is an overwhelming bipartisan support for this piece
of legislation. John Sarbanes - the sponsor of the For the People Act - urges for the need of “structural democracy
reform” which includes the need to curb voter suppression, gerrymandering, and limit
the hegemonic use of dark money in American politics that many special interest groups.
Congressional Democrats believe that this is a critical and transformative piece of
legislation because Republican state legislatures have implemented legislation, infringing
on young, disabled, and black people’s right to vote.
Many Republicans in the House and the Senate stand in firm opposition to the For the
People Act because they believe that Democrats, such as Senator Rick Scott who claims that they are trying to “commit further fraud and its an extreme power
grab to federalize elections." In addition, Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, a Republican Senator from Mississippi says that “We need to have confidence that
our vote counts and that there is one person for one vote. I am totally against this
bill and I will continue to fight this bill every day.”
In addition to HR1/S1, there is also HR4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act which passed in the House as of August 2021. This legislation works to establish that a state, along with all of its political subdivisions, should be subject to pre-clearance
of voting practice changes for a 10-year period if
15 or more voting rights violations occurred in the state during the previous 25 years;
10 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years, at least 1 of which was
committed by the state itself; or
3 or more violations occurred during the previous 25 years and the state administers
the elections.
The Brennan Center for Justice is a vocal supporter of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act because the bill aims to “strengthening legal
protections against discriminatory voting policies.“ In addition, the bill would enable
voters to challenge any act of voting discrimination in court. Lastly, the bill would
provide more access to voters in Native American tribal reservations.
Every individual has the power to advocate for their own beliefs. Political change
is not a spectator-sport, and can instead allow us to take part in cultivating inclusive
political culture through advocacy efforts. Joining organizations and groups, peacefully
protesting, calling local legislators, and lobbying are just some ways for an individual
to get involved and create change in their communities.
advocacy groups
Organizations throughout the nation are taking great strides in drawing attention
to the effect money has on our political system. Becoming a community activist is
a great way to have your voice be heard and to make our elections accessible and more
representative of the public.
Some advocacy groups working toward democratic reform include:
COMMUNITY PARTNERS
The Center for Civic Justice collaborates and works closely with advocacy groups such as:
Democracy Matters is a non-partisan campus-based national student organization, that
works to get people back in power of their democratic system and showcasing the effects
of money in politics. Through offering internships to high school students and paid
internships to college undergraduates, Democracy Matters mentors the next generation
of leaders dedicated to strengthening our democracy. Students can organize actions
campaigns and projects connecting pro-democracy reforms to issues of environment,
civil rights, education, health care, foreign policy, and more. Stony Brook University’s
Democracy Matters chapter is established as a part of the Center for Civic Justice
with members working to create and update this resource guide.
The Andrew Goodman Foundation (AGF) partners with colleges and universities throughout
the United States in order to create dynamic hubs of student civic participation and
grassroots organizing. They are focused on experiential civic education, which the
Andrew Goodman Foundation believes is essential to the health of our democracy. Stony
Brook University’s AGF chapter is established as apart of the Center for Civic Justice
and has been fundamental to voter engagement and civic engagement intiatives on campus.
Anyone can become an activist through joining advocacy groups, by signing petitions,
contacting your Senators, and educating your peers on the legislation in question.
Activism doesn't have to stop there, take time to research and understand legislation
that affects your values or passions. Advocate for what you believe in.
The Follow the Dollar resource guide aims to make democracy more accessible to you. With these resources,
we hope you will have gained an array of information regarding money in politics.
Our day-to-day decisions can host a multitude of broad effects on our political system
and we hope that this guide provides you with the necessary information that can get
you started on your journey through community activism. Have your voice be heard and always make sure to Follow the Dollar!
Source: 
Source: 
Source: 
. 
