DURHAM, N.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened the floodgates of political spending by allowing unlimited spending by outside political groups, or super PACS.

And today, experts are gathering in Durham to examine how money in politics is a civil rights issue.

Chris Kromm, executive director of the Institute for Southern Studies, says money from special interest groups is a serious threat to democracy because it drowns out the voice of ordinary voters.

"It helps influence which candidates have the most resources and are considered viable, what issues get talked about during campaigns, who lawmakers listen to once they're in office and all this fundamentally goes against the idea that all citizens should have an equal say in the democracy, you know – one person one vote," he points out.

Kromm adds that North Carolina is an increasingly diverse state, but he says research finds the majority of big political donors are white residents, which causes a large disconnect between voters and candidates.

Spending in North Carolina's U.S. Senate race last year was more than $100 million, making it the most expensive Congressional race in history.

A recent New York Times report found that just 158 families, or the corporations they represent, have accounted for about half of the money spent in the 2016 race so far, spending $250,000 each.

Kromm contends that kind of spending restricts who can run for office.

"That limits our choices to just those who can amass huge sums of money,” he stresses. “So the question is no longer whether or not you have a good platform, good ideas, can inspire voters, but it's more about the size of your wallet. "

Kromm says that North Carolina was once a leader in cleaner elections with a program implemented in 2004 that gave judicial candidates a public campaign grant for agreeing to strict spending and fundraising limits.

"It passed with bipartisan support,” he states. “Eighty percent of judges used it. And a lot of judges who ran said it was great because instead of dialing for dollars and trying to hustle up money during the campaign, they were talking to voters about what they cared about as judges. "

The program was nixed in 2013 as part of HB 589, a sweeping voting reform bill currently challenged in federal courts.




get more stories like this via email

Civil rights groups are sounding the alarm about potential threats to American democracy posed by Project 2025, a roadmap created by the Heritage Foundation for the next Republican president.

The 900 page document calls for dismantling key protections against discrimination, access to reproductive health care, and more.

Maya Wiley, CEO of the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights, said Project 2025 aims to undo gains made 60 years ago with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

But she said this agenda isn't new.

"And either we're going to stand on the victory of ending slavery, and of understanding the role of a federal government in ensuring that we all have civil rights, or we will not have a democracy," said Wiley. "And this is a blueprint for ending it."

Donald Trump has recently distanced himself from Project 2025, after praising the Heritage Foundation's plans in 2022.

Heritage says the roadmap - which was co-authored by top Trump advisors - does not speak for any single candidate, it just provides recommendations.

Many of those track closely with Trump's priorities, including removing regulations and checks on presidential power.

AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said Project 2025 also calls for expanding child labor and rolling back workplace protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or "OSHA" - designed to prevent accidents, injury and death.

"Tell that to a woman who lost her son in a grain silo, that could have been prevented, because he was cleaning it without the proper equipment," said Shuler. "That is OSHA. These fines and these laws are there for a reason."

Project 2025 would ban both abortion and in vitro fertilization nationally, and restrict access to contraception.

Patrick Gaspard, CEO of the Center for American Progress, said he believes the roadmap's creators want to take the nation back not to 1964 but to 1864.

"When men made decisions for women," said Gaspard, "when people who looked like me did not have the full agency and franchise of this great American republic, when huge corporations worked folks like farm animals."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.




get more stories like this via email

Today is Black Women's Equal Pay Day and at 11 a.m. PT, advocates hope to get the topic trending with a "social media storm."

The wage gap is stark. Black women working full-time, year-round make 69 cents for every dollar made by non-Hispanic white men. And the number is 66 cents when you include all full-time, part-time and part-year workers.

Deborah Vagins, national campaign director for the nonprofit civil-rights group Equal Rights Advocates and director of its Equal Pay Today coalition, explained the day is intended to spark debate.

"Black women have to work all the way into July of this year to make what white non-Hispanic men would have made in 2023 alone," Vagins pointed out. "It's an acknowledgment of that pay gap."

Advocates are pressing Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would protect all workers against retaliation for discussing their pay. It would also ban the use of prior salary history when setting wages and require the federal government to collect pay data from employers, making it easier to root out disparities.

Vagins noted the fight for equal pay for equal work is more complex than the battle against racial and gender discrimination.

"It's also the lack of pay transparency in the workplace," Vagins emphasized. "It is setting salaries based on your prior salary history rather than on your qualifications for the job. It's jobs failing to have protections against harassment or pregnancy discrimination."

Vagins also cited the segregation of Black women into poverty-level minimum-wage work, particularly tipped jobs in the restaurant industry using a subminimum wage.


get more stories like this via email

In a blow to free speech and the right to assemble, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case involving the rights of protest organizers in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

McKesson v. Doe stemmed from protests over the 2016 police killing of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A protest organizer faced charges after a police officer was injured by the actions of an unknown protester.

Cicley Gay, board chairwoman of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, said an opinion by the Fifth Circuit now stands, allowing an organizer to be held liable for the individual actions of others at a protest based on negligence.

"This case without question infringes upon all of our First Amendment rights," Gay contended. "It's incumbent upon us to reject its premise and its intention, which is, frankly, to scare champions of justice and organizers away from mass protest."

The Fifth Circuit covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, and Gay noted the First Amendment still protects the right to assembly. Black Lives Matter protests have attracted diverse groups of people and a Harvard study shows 26 million participated in protests in 2020.

Protesting at college campuses across the country has been on the rise, with students complaining law enforcement involvement has made matters worse. Gay argued it is important for Mississippians to remember Martin Luther King Jr. and understand protest is at the core of every successful social movement in this country.

"We want our young people to be able to continue to raise their voices," Gay emphasized. "Oftentimes, protest is not pretty. It is intended to disrupt. And as long as people are doing it peacefully, they should be entitled to do so."

Gay stressed the Fifth Circuit decision essentially eliminates the right to organize a mass protest because organizers could be held financially liable if even one protester commits an illegal act.