FRANKFORT, Ky. – The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down aggregate limits on individual contributions to federal candidates, political parties and political action committees, saying existing limits are a violation of free speech.

Lisa Subeck, executive director of the grassroots political group United Wisconsin, calls the court's 5-to-4 decision a complete violation of the public trust.

And she says it takes the nation another step closer to, as she puts it, legalizing bribery in politics.

"Citizens believe one citizen, one individual, one vote,” Subeck stresses. “And essentially, what a decision like McCutcheon, particularly coupled with the Citizens United decision of 2010 does is, it gives an unlimited amount of power to those with the most money to purchase it."

The Citizens United decision, which in essence said corporations are people, is supported by those who believe that political contributions are a form of free speech, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

"It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party,” McConnell said. “It just respects the Constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support."

Richard Beliles, chairman of Common Cause of Kentucky, says since the Citizens United case in 2010, big corporations are now spending 26 times as much as they were before.

Beliles calls that very depressing.

"I mean these legislators, they're smart,” he stresses. “They can see where the money comes from – who's going to contribute to them. Who's going to wine and dine them."

Subeck of United Wisconsin adds campaign finance limits provide a crucial safeguard against corruption in the political system.

She says there is a growing bipartisan grassroots movement committed to overturning the Citizens United ruling.




get more stories like this via email

As cryptocurrency becomes more prevalent, it's also making its way into the political arena. With millions of dollars being funneled into campaigns across the country, including here in Ohio, questions are arising about the impact this new wave of funding will have on elections - and, more importantly, what it means for voters.

Mark Hays, a senior policy analyst in financial technology with Americans for Financial Reform, said it's important for Ohioans and everyone across the country to be aware of the money's origination.

"There's a small group of wealthy individuals tied to the crypto industry pouring unprecedented amounts of money into campaign spending to dictate a particular policy outcome that will help them to continue to profit from scammy and predatory practices," he cautioned.

Hays highlighted concerns that the influx of crypto money could sway political decisions to favor industry players. The FBI recently reported more than $4 billion lost in crypto-related scams in 2023 alone. Meanwhile, proponents of cryptocurrency argue it is a valuable tool for economic growth, suggesting that it could help modernize financial systems. However, critics warn that the current push for less regulation might leave consumers vulnerable to fraud and financial instability.

On the other side of the conversation, supporters of cryptocurrency see potential benefits, but some in Ohio are voicing concerns about the influence of large crypto donors on local elections.

Melissa Cropper, Ohio Federation of Teachers president, offered another perspective.

"Why are the cryptocurrency people pouring money into this election? Are they pouring money into the election because they want to make sure that the business stays unregulated? And if that's the case, that's not what we want here in Ohio," she questioned.

As more money from the crypto industry pours into Ohio's elections, the debate over how to regulate this relatively new technology intensifies. Proponents point to the potential for job creation and financial innovation, while critics worry that Ohioans may end up paying the price if regulations are weakened. With $174 million already spent nationally on the 2024 elections by the crypto industry, Ohio remains a key battleground in this debate.

New Yorkers are reeling from the news that Mayor Eric Adams has been charged with wire fraud, bribery and campaign finance offenses.

The charges center around whether the New York City leader received illegal foreign donations for his mayoral campaign from the Turkish government, as well as personal perks like luxury travel and lodging.

Adams is vowing to remain in office and fight the charges, even as calls grow for his resignation.

Daniel Coates, director of public affairs for the advocacy group Make the Road New York, feels the investigation corroborates mismanagement claims during Adams' time in office, citing what he sees as the mayor's scapegoating of migrants in budget talks.

"The mayor has used, multiple times, the costs the city has incurred supporting and receiving new migrants into the city as a reason to make cuts," Coates pointed out. "And then, throughout the budget process, ended up reversing those cuts."

Several city agency commissioners have already resigned, either as part of the corruption investigation or because they said it prevented them from doing their jobs.

Adams can choose to stay in office but the city's charter gives Gov. Kathy Hochul the power to remove him. If Adams is out, Jumaane Williams, the city's Public Advocate, would become the acting mayor. Williams would then have three days to set up a special election for his replacement.

Gov. Hochul has not given any indication she will remove Adams if he doesn't resign. But some community groups and public officials worry Adams remaining in power could be a setback for city progress on a variety of fronts.

John Kaehny, executive director of the group Reinvent Albany, noted the effects it may already be having on city workers.

"It will be incredibly demoralizing to the city's workforce and result in a big loss in productivity," Kaehny asserted. "And a decline in delivery of services that could most hurt the poor and most vulnerable."

While some doubt the strength of the federal government's case against Adams, Kaehny thinks it's solid. He observed the case falls outside the U.S. Supreme Court's 2016 McDonnell v. United States ruling, which narrowed the legal definition of public corruption, making it harder to prove an elected official engaged in bribery.


get more stories like this via email

Federal lawmakers will debate a number of bills this fall designed to improve hiring, retention and benefits for government workers.

Their proposals come as agencies and departments struggle with understaffing. Plus, gaps in knowledge or skills among their employees.

Max Stier, president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, said one issue is a lack of young people in government positions.

"Right now, it's 7% of the workforce or thereabouts is under the age of 30 in the federal government," said Stier. "That number drops to closer to 4% in the technology area."

Congress is expected to consider changes to the federal hiring process - which currently takes more than double the time of the private sector.

A 2% pay bump could also be on the horizon, as well as expanding paid leave for reserve military members.

Virginia politicians have often been a voice for federal workers given the Commonwealth's high number of government employees.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger - D-Glen Allen - is leading the charge to increase social security benefits for millions of Americans, including many current or former public servants.

Stier said beyond adding incentives to hire and retain talent, the federal government needs to improve internal practices - starting at the leadership level.

Internal communication pipelines, technology and customer service centers are often outdated, which ultimately harms the public.

"Americans want a government that's not political," said Stier. "They want a government that's serving them better. They want the expertise that the system is supposed to be based on, but they don't think they're getting that in most instances, and that lack of trust leads to sometimes a buy-in for bad solutions."

Former President Donald Trump has proposed eliminating or altering thousands of government positions if he wins this November.

Another likely debate this fall will be over remote work. Some lawmakers want federal employees to spend more time in the office rather than working from home.




get more stories like this via email