Hubbry Logo
Common CauseCommon CauseMain
Open search
Common Cause
Community hub
Common Cause
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Common Cause
Common Cause
Common Cause
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Common Cause is a watchdog group based in Washington, D.C., with chapters in 35 states. It was founded in 1970 by John W. Gardner, a Republican, who was the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the administration of President Lyndon Johnson as well as chair of the National Urban Coalition, an advocacy group for minorities and the working poor in urban areas.[1] In its early days, Common Cause focused its efforts on ending the Vietnam War and lowering the voting age from 21 to 18.[2]

Key Information

Sometimes identified as liberal-leaning,[3][4] Common Cause has also been identified as nonpartisan and advocates government reform.[5][6][7] It is identified with the reformist "good government" movement[8][9][10] and is often described as a watchdog group.[4][11] The organization's tagline is "holding power accountable" and its stated mission is "upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process."[12]

Issue areas

[edit]

The organization's stated issue areas are "money in politics", "voting and elections", "ethics", "a fair economy", and "media and democracy".[13]

Constitutional conventions

[edit]

Common Cause opposes and actively lobbies against modern-day efforts to call an Article V convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution by both progressive and conservative groups, such as that by the progressive political action committee Wolf PAC to limit large monetary donations to political candidates parties and groups,[14] and by the conservative advocacy group Citizens for Self-Governance's "Convention of the States" initiative,[15] which is backed by some Republican politicians.[16][17]

In a May 2016 report entitled The Dangerous Path: Big Money's Plan to Shred the Constitution, Common Cause wrote that "There is nothing to prevent the convention, once convened, from proposing additional changes that could limit or eliminate fundamental rights or upend our entire system of government."[16][15][18] While a constitutional convention could conceivably overturn the controversial Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC and limit the role of money in politics (as advocated by groups such as Wolf PAC),[19] Common Cause suggests that the risk of a runaway convention is too great[14] because "state legislatures, the majority of which are controlled by Republicans, would likely control the agenda at a constitutional convention" and as a result it is extremely unlikely "that a convention controlled by those legislatures would really do anything productive on money in politics, on voting rights, on democracy in general".[20] Any amendments would need to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.[21]

Ethics

[edit]

Common Cause lobbied Congress to pass the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, requiring government officials to disclose their finances and restricting the "revolving door" between government and business. In 1989, they lobbied for passage of a new Ethics in Government Act, which ended special-interest honoraria for members of Congress and closed a loophole that allowed members to convert campaign funds to personal use.[22]

The organization's efforts led to ethics probes and the resignations of House Speakers Jim Wright in 1988[23] and Newt Gingrich in 1995.[24]

During the 2016 presidential elections, Common Cause suggested that the Clinton Foundation would create ethics and conflict of interest challenges for Hillary Clinton should she become president.[25][26] They criticized Hillary Clinton's plan to give Chelsea Clinton control of the foundation[27] and called for an independent audit and full disclosure of the foundation's donors.[28][29]

The public interest group also criticized Donald Trump for his refusal to release his tax returns during the 2016 presidential election.[30] The organization has been outspoken about the potential conflicts of interest from Trump's businesses and called for Trump to put his assets into a blind trust[31] instead of handing over control of his businesses to his children.[32][33]

Money in politics

[edit]

In 1972, Common Cause sued President Richard Nixon's re-election campaign, the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act in an attempt to force Nixon's campaign to report early campaign contributions.[34] The lawsuit forced the disclosure of the names of several Nixon donors.[35] In 1974, Common Cause supported passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), encompassing public financing of presidential campaigns and oversight of campaign ethics through the Federal Election Commission.[36]

Publicly-financed elections

[edit]

Common Cause has advocated public financing of elections in order to decrease the influence of special-interest contributions. The group's most successful campaign finance reform efforts have been in New York City in 1999;[37] Connecticut in 2005; Montgomery County, Maryland in 2014;[38] Portland, Oregon in 2016; Howard County, Maryland in 2017; Prince George's County, Maryland in 2018; and California.[39][40]

Voting and elections

[edit]

Redistricting

[edit]

The organization has sought to end the practice of gerrymandering in several states.[41] In 2016, it filed a lawsuit in North Carolina challenging the constitutionality of district maps.[42] The organization's North Carolina chapter has led a campaign to create a nonpartisan redistricting process, which has bipartisan support in the state.[43] Common Cause is also challenging redistricting in Democratic-controlled states, such as Maryland.[44] Common Cause took a neutral position on 2025 California Proposition 50,[45] which led to several members of the California branch resigning in protest.[46]

Voting machines

[edit]

Common Cause advocates a voter-verified paper audit trail for election machines in all states. The organization has documented complaints about electronic voting machines.[47]

[edit]

Common Cause is in favor of establishing a national popular vote for presidential elections to replace the current electoral college system.[48] Following the November 2016 U.S. presidential election, Common Cause called for the National Popular Vote Compact to counteract what it called the "anti-democratic" outcome in that election.[49]

Voter identification

[edit]

Common Cause is partner organization of VoteRiders.[50]

Organizational overview

[edit]

Leadership

[edit]

Karen Hobert Flynn became the organization's president in June 2016. She served in this role until her death in March 2023.[51][52] Virginia Kase Solomón was named as the tenth President of Common Cause on December 14, 2023.[53]

The following individuals have served as president of Common Cause:

The following are three of the most prominent individuals who have served as chairs of Common Cause's board:

Funding

[edit]

Common Cause has an annual combined budget of around $18 million. This includes its sister organization, the Common Cause Educational Fund.[70] Common Cause is organized as a 501(c)(4) organization, and its sister organization, the Common Cause Educational Fund, is a 501(c)(3) organization.[70]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Common Cause

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Common Cause is a United States-based advocacy organization founded in 1970 by , a Republican who had served in President Lyndon B. Johnson's cabinet, as a "citizens' lobby" aimed at fostering government accountability and citizen participation in politics.
Headquartered in , with more than 25 state organizations, the group describes itself as nonpartisan and grassroots-driven, focusing on issues such as restricting the influence of large campaign donations, safeguarding voting access, and enforcing ethical conduct among public officials. It claims a membership of 1.5 million supporters and attributes to itself contributions toward reforms like the 26th Amendment lowering the national to 18 and the of 2002 prohibiting "soft money" contributions to .
Although established with a bipartisan ethos, Common Cause has drawn for its leadership, which in recent decades has included multiple former Democratic politicians and figures like , alongside employee political donations disproportionately favoring Democrats and funding from donors such as , leading critics to question its nonpartisan credentials despite its advocacy for transparency measures that have occasionally aligned with conservative priorities like curbing corporate political spending.

Founding and Early History

Origins and John Gardner's Role

Common Cause was established on August 18, 1970, by John W. Gardner, a Republican with extensive experience in public service, including his tenure as U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare from 1965 to 1968 under Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson. Gardner, who had resigned from the administration amid frustrations with bureaucratic inertia and escalating national divisions over the Vietnam War, sought to create a vehicle for ordinary citizens to counter perceived unaccountability in government institutions. In an open letter announcing the organization's launch, he positioned Common Cause as a "citizens' lobby" dedicated to fostering greater responsiveness from elected officials through collective action, rather than relying on elite-driven reforms. The founding principles emphasized nonpartisan citizen , institutional transparency, and structural reforms to address root causes of public disillusionment, such as opaque processes and limited avenues for public input, which had intensified amid Vietnam-era secrecy and pre-Watergate exposures like influence-peddling scandals. Gardner advocated for empirical, evidence-based measures—such as mandatory financial disclosures for public officials—over sweeping ideological changes, drawing on his firsthand observation that government failures stemmed from eroded rather than inherent partisan flaws. This approach reflected a commitment to causal realism, prioritizing verifiable accountability mechanisms to rebuild trust without aligning with any , as evidenced by the organization's deliberate exclusion of partisan endorsements from its . Initial response to the call for membership was swift, reflecting widespread frustration with governmental detachment and enabling Common Cause to establish a foundation independent of traditional structures. By framing the effort as a renewal of America's participatory traditions, Gardner aimed to shift power dynamics from insulated elites toward informed public involvement, setting the ideological groundwork for subsequent advocacy without delving into specific policy campaigns.

Initial Growth and Key Reforms (1970s)

Following its founding in , Common Cause rapidly expanded its membership base, achieving approximately 240,000 active members by the mid-1970s through recruitment emphasizing citizen in . This growth facilitated the establishment of state-level chapters, with early examples including organization in by congressional districts as of 1973, enabling localized advocacy alongside national efforts. The organization's structure as a "citizens' lobby" under John Gardner prioritized petition drives and public , such as the campaign supporting ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the to 18 and was credited in part to Common Cause's in key states like . A primary focus of this period was campaign finance transparency, where Common Cause led external advocacy for the amendments of 1974, which imposed contribution limits, established public financing for presidential campaigns, and mandated disclosure of political spending to curb undisclosed influence. Gardner's leadership positioned the group as a key proponent of these reforms amid post-Watergate scrutiny, with members providing congressional testimony and coordinating with allies to pressure lawmakers. Additional successes included a 1973 coalition effort resulting in the District of Columbia Act, granting elected local governance and reflecting Common Cause's push for democratic accountability in federal oversight. These initiatives highlighted the potential of mass membership to influence , yet empirical outcomes underscored constraints on against institutional inertia; for instance, while FECA advanced disclosure, its spending caps faced immediate constitutional challenges in (1976), revealing how judicial incentives and political entrenchment could dilute reforms despite public mobilization. Early ethics pushes, including advocacy for congressional codes amid Vietnam-era distrust, similarly yielded partial measures but struggled to fully realign entrenched executive and bureaucratic powers, as evidenced by persistent debates over war authority post-1973.

Organizational Structure and Operations

Leadership and Governance

Virginia Kase Solomón assumed the role of President and CEO of Common Cause in early 2024, becoming the organization's tenth president, the fourth woman, and the first individual to hold the position. With over 30 years of experience in advocacy, organizing, and policy from prior roles including CEO of of Women Voters, Solomón has emphasized expanding the group's capacity for coordinated campaigns across state affiliates to advance democratic reforms. Under her leadership in 2025, Common Cause has intensified efforts to influence national policy debates, including responses to executive actions on conflicts of interest, while maintaining claims of nonpartisan operation. The National Governing Board serves as Common Cause's primary oversight body, comprising volunteer members drawn from business, legal, and civic leadership sectors to guide strategic direction and ensure . Currently chaired by Martha Tierney, the board includes figures such as Chris Melody Fields Figueredo of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center and Vanessa Gonzalez of , reflecting a mix of policy experts and advocates added in recent years like 2024. This composition aims to balance expertise with input, though the predominance of established institutional leaders has prompted questions about potential divergence from the founder's emphasis on broad citizen mobilization over elite-driven agendas. Historically, leadership transitioned from founder , who chaired the organization from 1970 to 1977 and prioritized citizen-driven reforms as a Republican former cabinet official, to subsequent presidents who adapted to evolving political landscapes. Governance relies on a hybrid model of volunteer board oversight and a professional paid staff of approximately 100, focused on coordinating 35 state entities through data-informed metrics on affiliate engagement and campaign outcomes to sustain nonpartisan advocacy. Decisions under extended tenures, such as those spanning multiple decades in senior roles, have correlated with shifts toward intensified litigation and organizing tactics, warranting evaluation against Gardner's original causal framework of empowering ordinary citizens rather than institutional insiders.

Funding Sources and Financial Transparency

Common Cause, as a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, derives its funding primarily from individual contributions and foundation grants, with fiscal year 2024 revenue totaling $8.4 million, of which $8.2 million came from contributions and grants. These contributions include small-scale grassroots donations from its claimed base of over 1.5 million supporters and activists, though IRS filings do not break out membership dues separately, suggesting many are modest individual gifts rather than structured dues. Foundation grants supplement this, enabling operations without reliance on large corporate or partisan funding, though specific grantors like the MacArthur Foundation have provided support to affiliated efforts, potentially aligning with progressive policy emphases despite the organization's nonpartisan claims. The affiliated Common Cause Education Fund, a separate 501(c)(3) entity focused on , , and litigation, reported $25.1 million in revenue for 2024, nearly all ($24.6 million) from contributions and philanthropic , maintaining distinct finances to comply with tax rules prohibiting by (c)(3)s. This separation allows the (c)(4) arm to engage in direct and limited political activities, with 2024 federal expenditures at $120,000 and total contributions to federal cycles amounting to $7,953, figures that underscore relatively modest political spending compared to the group's against "big . IRS filings for both entities reveal total expenses of $9.3 million for the (c)(4) and $17.0 million for the (c)(3), reflecting lean operations sustained by diversified but donor-dependent revenue streams. Transparency practices include public disclosure of donors contributing $2,500 or more in annual reports, listed by name, state, and contribution range without exact amounts, with smaller gifts ($250+) available upon request; anonymous donations over $25,000 require executive committee approval to mitigate . While this policy promotes , critics argue it obscures full of indirect through progressive-leaning foundations and affiliates, potentially undermining claims of given the predominance of grants from entities with left-of-center grantmaking histories, even as aggregate data shows no dominance by mega-donors. Such patterns raise questions about consistency, as the organization's small election contributions mirror the "dark money" dynamics it opposes, though on a far smaller scale verifiable via FEC reports. Overall, financial data from IRS filings indicate sustainable but constrained budgets, reliant on recurring small donations amid broader donor ecosystem influences.

Membership, Affiliates, and Grassroots Model

Common Cause employs a decentralized model that coordinates national strategy from its headquarters with operations through more than 25 state organizations, enabling localized, issue-specific advocacy campaigns while maintaining unified national priorities. This structure aligns with founder John Gardner's 1970 conception of a "people's lobby," intended to empower individual citizens as counterweights to professional lobbyists and institutional insiders by fostering volunteer-led pressure on elected officials. Gardner, a former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under President , envisioned ordinary Americans pooling efforts to demand transparency and accountability, drawing on the post-Watergate era's public disillusionment with elite influence. The organization claims support from over 1.5 million members and activists nationwide, a figure encompassing both dues-paying members and list subscribers mobilized for actions such as drives and voter outreach. State affiliates, operating in over 25 locations, handle on-the-ground coordination with local volunteers, including training sessions and district-level , to amplify national campaigns without relying on top-down directives. Historical efforts in the demonstrated the model's potential for scale, as rapid sign-ups fueled early successes like pushing for disclosures, though precise peak active volunteer numbers from that period remain undocumented in contemporary records. From a causal standpoint, the of this volunteer-centric approach is constrained by the inherent challenges of sustaining participation against institutional inertia, where entrenched political and economic interests resist structural changes. Empirical trends in U.S. reveal broader declines in organizational since the 1970s, with rates stagnating amid rising opportunity costs of time and eroding trust in , which likely mirrors Common Cause's experience of fluctuating mobilization despite its claimed membership base. While the model facilitates targeted bursts of activity—such as state-level petitions gathering thousands of signatures—it struggles to generate persistent pressure, as initial enthusiasm often dissipates without proportional policy breakthroughs, underscoring the limits of decentralized citizen in overcoming systemic barriers.

Policy Advocacy Areas

Campaign Finance and Money in Politics

Common Cause has advocated for comprehensive reforms since its founding, emphasizing contribution limits, public financing of elections, and mandatory disclosure to curb perceived by wealthy donors and special interests. The organization played a key role in the post-Watergate push for the (FECA) amendments of 1974, which established public disclosure requirements for contributions over $10 and capped individual contributions at $1,000 per candidate per election, aiming to enhance transparency and reduce secret funding. These provisions have since enabled tracking of over $16 billion in federal contributions during the 2020 election cycle alone, though enforcement relies on the . Following the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which invalidated restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and unions as violations of free speech under the First Amendment, Common Cause intensified efforts to overturn the ruling through a , arguing it amplified "dark money" from undisclosed sources and eroded equality in political voice. The group promotes small-donor matching systems, such as Seattle's "democracy vouchers" implemented in 2017, where residents receive $100 in public funds to allocate to candidates, which increased small-donor participation to 13% of contributions by 2021 while reducing reliance on large donors. At the state level, Common Cause supported ' 1998 disclosure law, which mandates pre-election reporting of ad funding, allowing voters access to donor information during campaigns and reducing anonymous influence in races. While disclosure measures like those in FECA have empirically improved transparency—evidenced by public databases revealing donor patterns—reforms targeting spending limits or public financing often rest on assumptions of direct causal links between contributions and corruption that lack robust support in data. Peer-reviewed analyses, such as those examining legislative voting post-contribution, find limited evidence of quid pro quo corruption, with factors like constituent interests and ideology explaining most policy outcomes rather than donor pressure. Critics from free-market perspectives argue that equating money with corruption overlooks voter agency and the role of funds in disseminating information, as affirmed in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which distinguished contribution limits (upheld to prevent corruption) from expenditure caps (struck down as speech restrictions). Moreover, disparities in spending reveal imbalances not solely favoring corporations; Federal Election Commission data from the 2016 cycle show corporate PACs disbursing $178 million compared to $50.7 million from labor unions, yet unions directed 92% of their contributions to Democrats versus corporations' more balanced split. Such empirical patterns challenge narratives of uniform "big money" dominance, suggesting reforms may inadvertently constrain competitive speech without proportionally addressing partisan funding skews, as union expenditures—often from aggregated member dues—exert targeted influence comparable to corporate outlays in scale relative to their resources. Common Cause's focus on corporate reform, while achieving disclosure gains, has drawn scrutiny for underemphasizing these asymmetries, potentially reflecting selective causal framing over comprehensive data on influence dynamics.

Electoral Processes and Voting Reforms

Common Cause has opposed strict voter identification requirements at polling places, arguing that such laws impose unnecessary barriers to voting without addressing prevalent forms of , and has litigated against them in states like and Georgia as measures that suppress turnout among eligible voters. Empirical analyses of election data, including reviews by academic institutions, confirm that in-person impersonation —the type voter ID primarily targets—occurs at rates below 0.0001% of ballots cast, with comprehensive databases documenting fewer than 500 proven instances nationwide since 2000 amid billions of votes. Conservative advocates counter that absolute rarity does not negate the causal risk in razor-thin margins, as seen in audits of close races like Georgia's 2018 gubernatorial contest where discrepancies exceeded documented but highlighted verification gaps, emphasizing personal voter responsibility over presumptive access. The organization supports implementation of voter-verified audit trails (VVPAT) for all systems, contending that records enable post-election to detect and correct discrepancies, thereby safeguarding against manipulation or errors in direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines. experts have demonstrated vulnerabilities in paperless systems, including remote exploits and unaltered vote tampering in tests of machines used in multiple states, underscoring how lack of auditable backups amplifies risks from outdated software and insufficient encryption. While Common Cause frames VVPAT as essential for trust without restricting access, critics from election integrity perspectives argue that reliance on expansions like no-excuse absentee voting—without uniform safeguards—introduces higher vectors, as evidenced by elevated discrepancy rates in mail-in systems during 2020, where revealed operational errors affecting thousands of ballots in states like . Common Cause advocates for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a state-level agreement to allocate electoral votes to the presidential candidate winning the national popular vote, which had secured pledges from states totaling 209 electoral votes as of 2023, short of the 270 needed for activation. Proponents, including the group, assert this reform equalizes voter influence across states, citing instances like the and elections where popular vote winners lost the presidency. Opponents highlight potential incentives for fraud concentration in populous urban areas, where could amplify small-percentage manipulations, and note that the Electoral College's structure incentivizes broader geographic turnout, with data showing higher per-capita campaigning in swing states versus safe ones under a pure popular system. The compact's remains untested, as it circumvents federal amendment processes but could face challenges on interstate commerce or republican government grounds.

Government Ethics and Accountability

Common Cause has advocated for measures to enforce ethical standards on public officials, emphasizing disclosure requirements and restrictions on conflicts of interest in post-election conduct. A primary effort involved supporting the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012, which prohibits members of Congress and their staff from using nonpublic information derived from their positions for personal securities trading and mandates disclosure of financial transactions within 30 days. The organization also backed the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) in 2008 amid bribery scandals, urging its permanence and enhanced authority to investigate violations independently of congressional committees. In lobbying reforms, Common Cause has pushed for stricter post-employment restrictions and transparency in official interactions with former regulators, including extensions of cooling-off periods to curb the between and industry. These initiatives aim to mitigate on policy decisions, distinct from campaign-related funding. The group has filed complaints against administrations for violations, such as 57 against the Trump administration for improper use of platforms. The STOCK Act increased financial disclosures and deterred some exploitative trading, with empirical analysis showing reduced buy transactions by House members and evidence of curbed personal gains from official positions. However, enforcement gaps persist, as dozens of members violated disclosure rules in the decade following enactment, and high-profile cases like Senator Richard Burr's 2020 trades highlighted ongoing insider risks. Broader reviews of public sector ethics reforms indicate mixed effects on corruption levels, often failing to reduce recidivism due to entrenched incentives from centralized power structures that prioritize regulatory expansion over decentralization. Such rules enhance oversight mechanisms but seldom address root causal factors like concentrated authority, potentially entrenching bureaucratic enforcers without proportionally curbing misconduct.

Redistricting and Constitutional Issues

Common Cause advocates for independent citizen commissions to redraw boundaries, contending that these nonpartisan bodies mitigate the risks of partisan manipulation by elected officials. The opposes maps drawn predominantly for partisan advantage, promoting criteria such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for communities of interest to ensure representational fairness. In (2019), Common Cause challenged North Carolina's 2016 congressional plan in federal court, alleging it constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander that diluted the voting power of non-Republican voters. The plaintiffs presented evidence including the efficiency gap metric, which measures the difference in "wasted votes" between parties—votes that do not contribute to winning seats—revealing that Republicans secured 53% of the statewide vote but 77% of seats, yielding an efficiency gap of 12.5% in favor of Republicans. The U.S. , in a ruling authored by Roberts on June 27, 2019, dismissed the claims as non-justiciable political questions, determining that no clear constitutional standards exist for federal courts to adjudicate excessive partisanship in districting, and that such matters fall to legislatures, , or state processes. Following Rucho, Common Cause shifted emphasis to state-level litigation and reforms, participating in coalitions that achieved fairer legislative maps in . In February 2024, Governor signed new state assembly and senate districts into law after a ruling invalidated prior Republican-drawn maps as unconstitutional gerrymanders; these revisions reduced the Republican seat advantage from a projected 64-35 assembly majority under old maps (despite competitive statewide vote shares) to a more proportional 54-45 split based on 2022 election data. Common Cause Wisconsin contributed through the Fair Maps Coalition, providing alternative maps and public testimony that highlighted deviations from least-change and compactness standards. Constitutional debates surrounding Common Cause's efforts center on the of partisan gerrymandering and the validity of remedial metrics. Proponents of judicial limits, as articulated in Rucho, defend legislative prerogative under Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which entrusts states with primary authority over congressional districting subject to political accountability via elections and reapportionment cycles, rather than unelected courts imposing partisan symmetry tests that lack historical or textual basis. Empirical critiques of anti-gerrymandering claims note that the efficiency gap, while quantifying vote-seat disproportionality, conflates deliberate manipulation with baseline geographic polarization; simulations of districting plans demonstrate that voter self-sorting into ideologically clustered communities—driven by migration patterns since the 1990s—generates "packed" districts naturally, amplifying efficiency gaps without mapmakers' intent. One analysis across U.S. states found that partisan gerrymandering's seat effects largely cancel nationally, with Democrats benefiting in some cycles (e.g., 8.1% average efficiency gap advantage in state legislatures) and Republicans in others, suggesting overstated causal impact relative to underlying . Post-Rucho constraints have prompted Common Cause to pursue advisory commissions and state ballot initiatives, as in efforts to enshrine independent processes in and constitutions, while decrying the decision for insulating extreme maps from federal scrutiny. These state successes underscore that political processes can yield reforms without judicial overreach, though persistent reliance on metrics like the efficiency gap invites scrutiny for ignoring confounding factors such as incumbency protection and turnout differentials, which independently skew outcomes.

Achievements and Legislative Impact

Major Policy Wins and Reforms

Common Cause played a pivotal role in the post-Watergate era reforms, contributing to the enactment of the amendments on October 15, 1974, which imposed limits on individual and PAC contributions to federal candidates, established the for enforcement, and created a system of partial public financing for presidential campaigns through small-donor matching funds. These measures mandated timely disclosure of campaign finances, resulting in the FEC processing over 1.5 million disclosure reports by 2024, enabling public scrutiny of more than $20 billion in federal election spending since inception. The organization's grassroots mobilization, including petitions signed by over one million citizens, helped build bipartisan congressional support amid scandals that eroded trust in undisclosed political funding. In government ethics, Common Cause advocated for the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, signed into law on October 26, which required high-level federal officials to file annual financial disclosures and imposed a one-year cooling-off period before former executives could lobby their agencies, aiming to curb conflicts of interest and the . This legislation established the Office of Government Ethics and led to thousands of annual disclosures, though enforcement challenges persisted, with only about 20% of covered officials facing investigations for violations in subsequent decades per audits. Bipartisan backing, including from Senate Republicans, underscored the reforms' foundation in restoring accountability without partisan targeting. At the state level, Common Cause supported efforts culminating in Minnesota's omnibus elections bill signed by Governor on May 22, 2024, which ended by directing the counting of incarcerated individuals at their last known home addresses for purposes rather than locations. This change, advocated by Common Cause Minnesota through testimony on HF4043, addresses distortions where rural prison-hosting districts gained inflated representation—potentially shifting up to 10,000 votes in affected areas based on 2020 census data—while aligning with similar reforms in 13 prior states like New York (2010) and (2011). Regulatory advocacy yielded the Federal Communications Commission's 3-2 vote on April 25, 2024, to restore under Title II classification, prohibiting providers from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content, a policy Common Cause had pushed since the 2015 Open Internet Order to safeguard equal for organizing and information flow. The rules, effective mid-2024, reimposed transparency mandates that had lapsed in 2017, potentially benefiting low-income users by curbing data discrimination, though critics noted minimal prior ISP abuses under lighter regulation from 2017-2024 FCC data. Common Cause has engaged in extensive litigation on , electoral processes, and ethics enforcement, yielding a record of partial successes amid notable federal setbacks that highlight judicial deference to political mechanisms. In the 2019 case Rucho v. Common Cause, the organization challenged North Carolina's congressional district maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders, but the Court ruled 5-4 that such claims present non-justiciable political questions unsuitable for federal judicial resolution. The decision, authored by Roberts, emphasized that excessive court involvement in districting risks undermining democratic accountability by overriding legislative and electoral remedies, leaving challenges to state constitutions or political processes. This outcome constrained federal oversight of partisan map-drawing, despite lower courts finding the maps dilutive of voters' influence based on efficiency gap metrics exceeding 10% in affected districts. State-level courts have provided avenues for Common Cause victories, particularly on racial claims. In Common Cause v. Lewis (2017), a three-judge panel invalidated portions of North Carolina's state legislative maps for packing Black voters into fewer districts, violating the state constitution's Whole County Provision and equal population requirements; subsequent remedial maps were enacted after appeals. Empirical analysis in the case showed districts engineered to achieve over 90% correlation between Republican vote share and seat allocation, underscoring causal links between map design and representational skew. A significant federal triumph occurred in (2023), stemming from Common Cause's challenge to North Carolina's 2022 congressional maps as partisan gerrymanders. The ruled 6-3 against the independent state legislature theory, holding that state courts retain authority to review legislative election laws under state constitutions, thereby preserving checks on unchecked legislative power in . This , rejecting arguments for absolute legislative supremacy, reinforced judicial roles in enforcing baseline electoral fairness without endorsing boundless intervention, as evidenced by the Court's remand for state court reconsideration under traditional limits. Common Cause exerts judicial influence through amicus curiae participation, filing briefs in over 20 cases annually on average since 2010, providing data-driven arguments on voter dilution and transparency. Examples include supporting respondents in (2024) to uphold Section 3 disqualification mechanisms under causal interpretations of insurrection clauses, and advocating ethics reforms in cases probing judicial disclosures. Such filings contribute factual appendices on dark money flows—e.g., undisclosed contributions exceeding $1 billion in federal races from 2010-2020—but empirical studies indicate amicus impact varies, with ideological alignment correlating more to citation rates than evidentiary novelty. Critics, drawing from Rucho's rationale, contend repeated litigation risks "" that evades voter-mediated accountability, as federal precedents since 2019 show only 15% of partisan gerrymander suits succeeding amid rising state-level map challenges.

Criticisms and Controversies

Allegations of Partisan Bias and Left-Leaning Shift

Common Cause was founded in 1970 by , a Republican who had served as U.S. of Health, Education, and Welfare under President , with the explicit aim of creating a nonpartisan citizens' lobby to promote and . Initially, the organization pursued bipartisan goals, such as and opposition to the , attracting a broad membership base. However, critics have alleged a leftward ideological shift over time, pointing to leadership patterns where the last three presidents—Bob Edgar (2007–2013), (2003–2007), and others—were former Democratic politicians, and current board chair Martha Tierney has expertise in progressive advocacy. In state affiliates, such as , nearly all board members have been registered Democrats, prompting accusations of partisan capture despite the group's nonpartisan claims. Common Cause maintains it remains independent and focused on systemic reforms, rejecting allegations as mischaracterizations of its work. Empirical indicators of left-leaning alignment include selective advocacy against conservative figures and policies. For instance, Common Cause opposed Republican nominees such as in 1987, Newt Gingrich's speakership in 1995, Tom DeLay's leadership in 2006, ' attorney general confirmation in 2017, and ' judicial record, while supporting Democratic nominee in 2022. Its Democracy Scorecards, which evaluate lawmakers on "pro-democracy" bills like the Freedom to Vote Act and John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act—measures overwhelmingly backed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans—reveal stark partisan disparities, with Democratic members consistently scoring higher. Post-2020 activities have emphasized challenges to Republican-led election policies, such as suits primarily targeting GOP-drawn maps, further fueling claims of uneven scrutiny despite bipartisan rhetoric. Funding sources underscore ties to progressive networks, deviating from the organization's founding ethos. Between 2018 and 2023, Common Cause received over $1.4 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a left-leaning ; $625,000 from the North Fund; $800,000 from Democracy Fund Voice; and significant contributions from the Action Fund. Its affiliated Common Cause Education Fund draws from liberal foundations including the , , , and , supporting advocacy against Citizens United and for union-aligned reforms. Independent assessments, such as those rating the group as left-center biased due to policy preferences, align with these patterns, though Common Cause attributes its donor base to shared commitments to rather than ideology.

Concerns Over Free Speech and Overreach

Critics of Common Cause's reform agenda argue that proposals such as contribution limits, public funding mandates, and efforts to overturn (2010) constitute overreach by subordinating First Amendment protections to speculative anti- goals. In , the ruled 5-4 that independent expenditures by corporations, unions, and individuals on political speech do not give rise to or its appearance, affirming that such spending constitutes core protected expression rather than mere "." Common Cause, which filed an amicus brief urging reversal of corporate speech bans, has persistently advocated for constitutional amendments or to impose aggregate spending caps and disclosure requirements that opponents contend chill advocacy by raising compliance costs and deterring grassroots participation. Empirical analyses post-Citizens United indicate that relaxing expenditure restrictions expanded the volume and diversity of political discourse, countering claims of diminished pluralism. A decade after the decision, independent expenditures surged from $147 million in to over $1 billion in , correlating with increased ad volume from non-incumbent and outsider groups, which enhanced electoral competition without evidence of reduced viewpoint diversity. Conversely, pre-2010 restrictions under the (BCRA) of 2002 suppressed certain issue advocacy, as evidenced by a 30-50% drop in broadcast ads from regulated entities in the months before elections, effectively muting non-candidate voices during critical periods. In 's now-defunct matching funds system, struck down in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett (), public subsidies to opponents of privately funded candidates demonstrably chilled speech, with candidates reducing expenditures by up to 20% to avoid triggering that amplified rivals' messages. While Common Cause frames these reforms as essential to combat and perceived , data undermine the causal link between unregulated spending and systemic graft. The maintains a Corruption Perceptions Index score of 69 in 2023 (ranking 24th globally), reflecting low actual public-sector bribery despite high campaign expenditures exceeding $14 billion in the cycle, suggesting that robust enforcement of anti-bribery laws—such as the and federal prosecutions—addresses independently of spending caps. Countries with stringent limits, like (CPI 76 but with historical speech suppression via "election advertising" bans), show no consistent superiority in curbing , implying that limits often entrench incumbents by limiting challengers' access to amplification. First-principles scrutiny reveals that equating expenditures with presumes without evidence of prevalence, as independent speech rarely translates to policy favors absent direct coordination, which remains prosecutable under existing statutes. These concerns highlight a philosophical tension: reform advocates' intent to level the playing field risks paternalistically restricting citizens' associational rights, as upheld in (1976), where the Court invalidated expenditure ceilings for distorting electoral pluralism without proven anti-corruption gains. Overreach manifests in Common Cause-backed bills like the DISCLOSE Act, which impose donor disclosure on issue groups, potentially exposing advocates to and reprisals, as seen in IRS targeting of Tea Party organizations post-2010. Such measures, while aimed at transparency, empirically correlate with among minority viewpoints, reducing the rather than purifying it.

Questions of Effectiveness and Selective Focus

Critics of Common Cause argue that its long-term efforts to reform and related processes have yielded mixed results at best, with limited durability in reducing financial influences on politics. Despite advocacy leading to measures like the of 1974, which established public funding for presidential campaigns, and the of 2002, which restricted soft money contributions, total spending in U.S. federal elections has risen dramatically over subsequent decades. Data from the Center for Responsive Politics show expenditures increasing from approximately $1.6 billion in the 1980 election cycle to $14.4 billion in , even as regulatory frameworks expanded. This upward trend, accelerated post-Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 but evident earlier, indicates that top-down restrictions often fail to curb overall money flows, as participants adapt through vehicles like super PACs and independent expenditures. Such outcomes have prompted about the of process-oriented interventions, with conservative analysts asserting that Common Cause overemphasizes rule changes without addressing causal factors like electoral incentives and voter disengagement, leading to persistent influence peddling. For instance, scandals, including those involving public officials, have continued unabated despite these reforms, often stemming from personal or relational ties rather than direct contributions, underscoring a gap between procedural fixes and substantive accountability. Empirical reviews of laws similarly find no clear of reduced capture or enhanced democratic responsiveness, as spending correlates strongly with electoral but circumvention tactics erode intended constraints. Common Cause's selective emphasis on certain issues has also drawn scrutiny, particularly for apparent disparities in targeting influences aligned with one political side over the other. Conservative critiques, such as those from the , highlight the organization's focus on conservative networks like the Koch brothers or the while relatively sparing progressive counterparts, including labor unions' substantial political expenditures exceeding $1.7 billion in the 2020 cycle alone. This pattern is compounded by Common Cause's acceptance of millions in funding from left-leaning donors, including $2.625 million from George Soros-linked entities since 2000, which contrasts with its broad condemnations of large-scale private . Such inconsistencies, noted in analyses of the group's donor base and advocacy priorities, suggest a tilt that prioritizes critiquing right-leaning power structures, potentially reflecting institutional biases rather than uniform application of reform principles across ideological lines.

Recent Developments and Current Activities

Post-2020 Election Engagements

Following the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Common Cause intensified efforts to combat what it characterized as undermining voter confidence, including claims of widespread propagated by former President and allies. The organization published the October 2021 report "As a Matter of Fact: The Harms Caused by Election ," documenting tactics such as false narratives about vote tallies and integrity, arguing these eroded public trust and facilitated suppression. Empirical reviews, including audits in states like Georgia and , state-level recounts, and dismissals in over 60 lawsuits by November 2021, verified isolated irregularities—such as improper handling in a small number of cases—but no systemic altering outcomes, with rates remaining under 0.0001% in verified instances per the Heritage Foundation's database of prosecuted cases. In legal engagements tied to 2020 fallout, Common Cause filed an brief on January 30, 2024, in before the U.S. , supporting Colorado's exclusion of Trump from the primary ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, citing his alleged incitement of the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach as insurrection. The brief emphasized uniform enforcement of constitutional disqualifications to prevent selective application, though the Court unanimously reversed Colorado's ruling on March 4, 2024, holding states lack authority to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates absent congressional action. Critics from conservative outlets, such as the , contended such advocacy reflected selective outrage, prioritizing accountability for one side's irregularities while minimizing scrutiny of expanded no-excuse mail voting and drop-box protocols that enabled potential localized abuses without bipartisan safeguards. Common Cause also sustained voter protection amid persistent fraud allegations, staffing the 866-OUR-VOTE hotline and deploying observers for subsequent elections, framing these as defenses against intimidation tactics disguised as integrity measures. A 2022 internal assessment noted coalition successes in countering suppression claims, but the group's "Under the Microscope" report critiqued election denialism as a profit-driven ecosystem, attributing post-2020 distrust to partisan influencers rather than unresolved procedural flaws like unchallenged signature mismatches in battleground states. This approach drew accusations of one-sidedness, as conservative analyses highlighted overlooked causal factors, including uneven enforcement of absentee ballot verification, contributing to verifiable discrepancies in under 1% of ballots per state audits, yet prompting broader skepticism without equivalent institutional response.

Initiatives from 2023 to 2025

In 2023, Common Cause intensified advocacy for reinstating protections, urging the (FCC) to proceed with rulemaking initiated after the confirmation of Anna Gomez, culminating in the FCC's 3-2 vote on April 25, 2024, to restore open rules prohibiting providers from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content. This effort addressed concerns over interference, though critics argued the rules imposed unnecessary regulatory burdens without evidence of widespread abuse post-2017 repeal. Common Cause contributed to redistricting reforms in , supporting litigation that led to the state Supreme Court's December 2023 ruling invalidating Republican-drawn legislative maps as unconstitutional gerrymanders, prompting the adoption of fairer maps in early 2024 that enhanced district competitiveness and better aligned with statewide partisan balance based on vote shares. These maps reduced extreme partisan skew, with post-implementation analysis showing increased electoral viability for both parties in previously safe seats, though durability remains contingent on future court adherence to non-partisan criteria. In , Common Cause's campaigns against prison —where incarcerated individuals are counted in prison locations rather than home communities, inflating rural voting power—succeeded in legislative reforms mandating that prisoners be tallied at their last known residence for purposes, thereby correcting representational distortions affecting urban and minority districts. This change, enacted amid broader democracy package discussions, aligned with empirical evidence from prior state adoptions showing reduced vote dilution, though implementation awaits the 2030 census cycle for full verification. By May 2025, Common Cause expanded its leadership structure to bolster campaign infrastructure, appointing Alma Couverthie as Senior of Campaigns and Organizing to coordinate member mobilization and pushes, amid ongoing efforts to counter perceived threats to . The organization also voiced support for congressional stock trading bans in 2025, endorsing bills like those reintroduced by Representatives Krishnamoorthi and Fitzpatrick to prohibit members from trading individual stocks based on nonpublic information, though passage stalled amid partisan disagreements on enforcement mechanisms. In August 2025, Common Cause issued a policy statement opposing mid-decade manipulations, reaffirming commitments to independent commissions and fair maps amid emerging congressional boundary challenges, emphasizing data-driven processes to prevent partisan entrenchment. These initiatives reflect Common Cause's focus on structural reforms, with outcomes like and corrections demonstrating measurable shifts in policy durability, albeit vulnerable to regulatory reversals or .

References

  1. https://www.commoncause.org/about-us/
  2. https://www.pbs.org/johngardner/chapters/6.html
  3. https://capitalresearch.org/article/commoncause/
  4. https://www.thehill.com/policy/finance/215589-common-cause-occupiers-rally-against-corporate-political-spending
  5. https://www.commoncause.org/articles/common-cause-turns-45/
  6. https://millercenter.org/president/lbjohnson/essays/gardner-1965-secretary-of-health-education-and-welfare
  7. https://exhibits.stanford.edu/john_w_gardner/feature/public-advocate
  8. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/18/us/john-w-gardner-89-founder-of-common-cause-and-adviser-to-presidents-dies.html
  9. https://dl.tufts.edu/downloads/9z903b054?filename=q811kw52k.pdf
  10. https://www.jmu.edu/news/2025/09/10-peter-levine-constitution-day.shtml
  11. https://www.commoncause.org/florida/resources/our-history/
  12. https://www.commoncause.org/our-impact/
  13. https://www.aei.org/articles/the-business-pac-phenomenon-an-irony-of-electoral-reform/
  14. https://mikekirstbiographyproject.com/john-w-gardner/
  15. https://www.commoncause.org/press-releases/virginia-kase-solomon-named-tenth-president-of-common-cause/
  16. https://www.commoncause.org/people/virginia-kase-solomon/
  17. https://www.c-span.org/program/washington-journal/virginia-kase-solomn-on-the-trump-administration-and-potential-conflicts-of-interest/660027
  18. https://www.commoncause.org/about-us/national-governing-board/
  19. https://www.commoncause.org/press/common-cause-announces-five-new-board-members/
  20. https://halloffame.outreach.ou.edu/Inductions/Inductee-Details/john-w-gardner
  21. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/526078441
  22. https://www.guidestar.org/profile/52-6078441
  23. https://www.macfound.org/grantee/common-cause-education-fund-44922/
  24. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/311705370
  25. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/common-cause/summary?id=D000049556
  26. https://www.commoncause.org/donate/donor-transparency-policy/
  27. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/common-cause/
  28. https://www.commoncause.org/about-us/financials/
  29. https://www.pbs.org/johngardner/chapters/6b.html
  30. https://www.commoncause.org/
  31. https://prospect.org/2001/12/19/associations-without-members/
  32. https://www.commoncause.org/work/citizens-united/
  33. https://www.commoncause.org/work/citizen-funded-elections/
  34. https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/shining-a-light-report.pdf
  35. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=faculty_scholarship
  36. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/vital-stats-corporate-and-labor-pac-spending/
  37. https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Citizens_United_20220711.pdf
  38. https://www.commoncause.org/issues/money-in-politics/
  39. https://www.commoncause.org/pennsylvania/articles/3-important-things-to-know-about-voter-identification/
  40. https://www.commoncause.org/issues/stopping-voter-suppression/
  41. https://latino.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/LPPI-VRP-Voter-Fraud-res.pdf
  42. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/low-rates-of-fraud-in-vote-by-mail-states-show-the-benefits-outweigh-the-risks/
  43. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/electoral-college-and-election-fraud/
  44. https://www.commoncause.org/press/voter-verified-paper-trail-is-necessary-to-protect-integrity-of-elections/
  45. https://internetpolicy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/OmniBallot.pdf
  46. https://cse-report.engin.umich.edu/2024/10/25/the-science-behind-election-security/
  47. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Fact_Sheet_Voting_System_Security.pdf
  48. https://www.commoncause.org/work/national-popular-vote/
  49. https://www.commoncause.org/issues/national-popular-vote-electoral-college/
  50. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/about
  51. https://www.commoncause.org/press-releases/common-cause-backs-quick-senate-action-on-stock-act/
  52. https://www.commoncause.org/press/government-accountability-groups-urge-house-to-strengthen-the-office-of-congressional-ethics-and-make-it-permanent/
  53. https://www.commoncause.org/articles/heres-why-common-cause-filed-57-complaints-against-the-trump-administration-for-violating-federal-ethics-laws/
  54. https://business.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5326/files/HuangXuan_STOCKAct.pdf
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1059056024005835
  56. https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-congressman-tim-moore-failed-204454458.html
  57. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2021/05/58-0-Mesiya-Failures-of-the-Stock-Act-UPDATED.pdf
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356278/
  59. https://wustllawreview.org/2022/12/18/the-stock-act-ten-years-later-the-need-for-a-new-congressional-insider-trading-regulatory-scheme/
  60. https://www.commoncause.org/resources/unlocking-fair-maps/
  61. https://www.commoncause.org/work/independent-and-advisory-citizen-redistricting-commissions/
  62. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
  63. https://www.commoncause.org/work/common-cause-v-rucho/
  64. https://www.commoncause.org/wisconsin/articles/fair-voting-maps-for-wisconsin-whats-next/
  65. https://www.commoncausewisconsin.org/2024/02/wisconsin-has-fair-legislative-voting.html
  66. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1946&context=public_law_and_legal_theory
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10288623/
  68. https://www.commoncause.org/articles/rucho-revisited-5-takeaways-on-the-5-year-anniversary/
  69. https://campaignlegal.org/update/fight-fair-maps-continues-two-years-after-rucho-v-common-cause
  70. https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/legislative-history/legislative_history_1979.pdf
  71. https://boltsmag.org/minnesota-ends-prison-gerrymandering/
  72. https://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2024/05/20/minnesota_ends_prisongerrymandering/
  73. https://www.commoncause.org/minnesota/articles/whether-its-good-policy-or-not-the-public-deserves-better-than-the-chaos-ending-this-session/
  74. https://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/news/2021/10/26/state_count/
  75. https://www.commoncause.org/press-releases/fcc-votes-to-restore-net-neutrality-2/
  76. https://www.commoncause.org/issues/internet-access-net-neutrality/
  77. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/18-422
  78. https://www.commoncause.org/north-carolina/work/common-cause-v-lewis/
  79. https://www.commoncause.org/north-carolina/work/moore-v-harper-a-victory-for-american-democracy/
  80. https://www.commoncause.org/press-releases/common-cause-urges-scotus-to-rule-quickly-in-trump-v-u-s-to-avoid-perception-of-bias/
  81. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299190/20240130132143061_23-719%2520Trump%2520v%2520Anderson%2520Brief%2520for%2520Amicus%2520Curiae%2520Common%2520Cause%2520in%2520Support%2520of%2520Respondents.pdf
  82. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4504&context=faculty_scholarship
  83. https://www.golocalprov.com/news/Common-Cause-Under-Fire-for-Partisanship-Nearly-Every-Board-Member-Is-a-D
  84. https://www.commoncause.org/press/common-cause-releases-scorecard-of-lawmaker-support-for-pro-democracy-bills-in-118th-congress/
  85. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/common-cause-education-fund/
  86. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/common-cause/
  87. https://www.cato.org/testimony/campaign-finance-reform
  88. https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/
  89. https://www.ifs.org/research/citizens-united-after-10-years-more-speech-better-democracy/
  90. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/suppressing-political-speech/
  91. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/renos/files/dowlingenosfowlerpanagopoulos.pdf
  92. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/staring-sun-inquiry-compulsory-campaign-finance-donor-disclosure-laws
  93. https://www.ifs.org/blog/the-fec-at-50-protecting-free-speech-from-campaign-finance-lawfare/
  94. https://www.ifs.org/news/analysis-citizens-united-led-to-more-speech-better-democracy/
  95. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/cost-of-election
  96. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/by_cycle
  97. https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/campaign-finance-reform-the-good-the-bad-and-the-unconstitutional
  98. https://www.commoncause.org/resources/as-a-matter-of-fact-the-harms-caused-by-election-disinformation-report/
  99. https://www.commoncause.org/resources/anderson-amicus-brief/
  100. https://www.commoncause.org/issues/election-protection/
  101. https://www.commoncause.org/resources/under-the-microscope/
  102. https://www.commoncause.org/press-releases/common-cause-urges-fcc-to-approve-net-neutrality-proposal/
  103. https://www.commoncause.org/articles/common-cause-wrapped-2024/
  104. https://www.commoncause.org/articles/prison-gerrymandering-districting-behind-bars/
  105. https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2025/07/16/the-court-ordered-fairer-maps-now-reformers-want-to-change-how-theyre-drawn-in-the-future/
  106. https://www.commoncause.org/work/end-prison-gerrymandering-2/
  107. https://www.commoncause.org/minnesota/press-releases/minnesota-poised-to-improve-democracy-make-elections-more-accessible/
  108. https://www.commoncause.org/press/common-cause-expands-leadership-team-to-build-power-protect-democracy/
  109. https://www.commoncause.org/articles/six-ways-common-cause-is-fighting-six-months-of-attacks/
  110. http://krishnamoorthi.house.gov/media/press-releases/reps-krishnamoorthi-fitzpatrick-mills-and-ocasio-cortez-re-introduce-bill-ban
  111. https://www.commoncause.org/resources/policy-statement-on-mid-decade-redistricting-response/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.