ALTOONA, Iowa – Another important campaign finance decision handed down Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court is provoking both celebration and consternation across the country.

The 5-to-4 ruling in McCutcheon v. the Federal Election Commission means instead of a total of $123,000, a single donor who gives to all Congressional candidates and one-third of Senate candidates in an election cycle can give as much as $3.5 million.

Clare Smith-Larson, a retiree from Altoona, Iowa, worries that those contributions will drown out voices of voters like hers.

"And it's been made very clear by a number of our senators that when you do campaign finance soliciting for donations, that the person who rises to the top of the list is the person who gives the most money," she points out.

Smith-Larson helped to organize a protest Wednesday at the state capitol in Des Moines, one of 140 held in 38 states and the nation's capital.

The Cato Institute and the other groups applauded the ruling, which says restricting the total amount a donor can give violates the donor’s First Amendment rights and doesn't prevent corruption.

But Paul Ryan, senior counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, says the McCutcheon ruling, combined with the Citizens United ruling of 2010, opens the floodgates wider to give the wealthy more influence over politicians.

However, he does see a small silver lining.

"The court did in fact leave the door open for more narrowly tailored corruption-preventing policies that Congress might pass, and that state legislatures and city councils across the country could certainly pursue," he explains.

Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way, says the McCutcheon decision, which she sees as a major threat to democracy, is bound to generate a wide range of responses.

"From amending the Constitution to small-donor public financing proposals,” she points out.

Other critics of the decision say the Court is ignoring previous laws passed by Congress, past presidents' decisions to sign those laws, and even the Court's own precedents.




get more stories like this via email

Child care advocates are pushing for increased funding as the budget deadline approaches this Friday.

Robyn Schelp, director of policy and advocacy for Kids Win Missouri, said ensuring increases to child care subsidies remain in the budget are vital for every Missourian whether they have children or not.

"It impacts the entire workforce," Schelp pointed out. "We have to stop thinking that this is a parent's issue. It isn't. If we want teachers in the classroom and doctors at their offices and whatnot, we have to make sure there's childcare for their kids."

The legislature adjourned after just about 10 minutes on Monday, following a record 41-hour filibuster which went to 4 a.m. Thursday without agreeing on a budget. Missouri lawmakers have only missed the budget deadline one time, in 1977.

Sen. Cindy O'Laughlin, R-Shelbina, the Senate Majority Leader said on social media Friday the Missouri Freedom Caucus only yielded the floor under the threat of a motion to end debate. She tried to introduce the Federal Reimbursement Allowance, which she said is crucial for funding to offset general revenue and vital for Medicaid services.

The budget includes child care subsidies under House Bill 2002. Schelp noted the House's proposal would support only 23,000 children, restricting expansion and compliance with federal guidelines.

"Our hope is that it stays with the governor's recommendation, of that $52 million," Schelp emphasized. "Allowing them to go to that 100th percentile of payment for infants and toddlers and then the 65th percentile for preschool and afterschool."

Sen. Bill Eigel, R-Weldon Spring, is leading an effort to convince fellow members of his party to approve abortion restriction legislation and a bill on ballot initiatives in Missouri before agreeing to a vote on the reimbursement allowance.

A plan to use public money to fund vouchers for students to attend private schools is drawing pushback from Louisiana teachers, who say the plan could devastate the public school system.

The program making its way through the Louisiana Legislature would be first available to low-income students and by the 2027-2028 school year, it would be available to all students.

Larry Carter, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, predicts the plan could cause significant budget cuts for public schools.

"These universal voucher bills are a step in the wrong direction," Carter argued. "We've seen in other states around the country, like Arizona and Ohio, where these bills have been passed, they're now facing a budget crisis, and we're hoping that we cannot go down that same road."

Carter pointed out the education savings account program known by the acronym LA GATOR would allow as much as $7,500 per student from families below 250% of the Federal Poverty Line, and $5,000 for those who make more.

The plan, House Bill 745 and companion Senate Bill 313, has been approved by the state House. The Senate is expected to vote on it by Friday or Monday.

Carter explained teachers are concerned classroom standards currently mandated for public schools would not be upheld in private or parochial schools.

"We want to make sure it has some accountability," Carter emphasized. "We think that's at least giving all education stakeholders and parents an opportunity to talk about whether this program is successful or not. And through accountability practices, we think that will help."

There is concern the plan would force public schools to eliminate many positions and needed programs. Carter fears the loss of funds could deprive students of the benefits of a public school education.

"If we're cutting that funding stream, Louisiana students will have fewer nurses and counselors, less options for after school program, and certainly limited access to field trips and AP courses that help prepare them for their next step in life," Carter outlined.

New York City advocates are excited yet concerned about the 2025 budget.

In recent weeks, funding was restored to certain education programs such as shelter-based community coordinators. They helped more than 40,000 city students living in temporary housing. Funding for school psychologists and social workers was also restored.

Randi Levine, policy director at Advocates for Children of New York, said other programs need to be saved.

"Funding is running out for the Mental Health Continuum, which is a program that provides students in 50 schools with access to expedited mental health care, and is very important especially when we have a youth mental health crisis," Levine asserted.

Other programs facing cuts include restorative-justice practices which help schools reduce suspension. The budget's feedback has been mixed considering many programs will stay, although some could still be cut. Although the programs began using short-term funding, Levine feels their lasting effects in a post-pandemic world make them a permanent necessity.

Immigrant education programs are on the chopping block too. Promise NYC provides child care for kids regardless of their immigration status, and the immigrant family communication and outreach initiative helps parents who do not speak English learn about their kids' school.

Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition, said it would be a mistake to cut funds for things such as the language access program.

"That program, which would expand language access across the city of New York, which would build an interpreter bank as well as build translation cooperatives across the city and could save the city millions of dollars, was defunded and not restored," Awawdeh pointed out.

He added the recently passed state budget does give New York City enough funding to restore certain initiatives, but not enough to bolster others. Awawdeh argued with housing unaffordability continuing and people struggling to make ends meet, the city has to step up to aid everyday New Yorkers.


get more stories like this via email