La corrupción flagrante en Estados Unidos es legal, aunque la Corte Suprema finja lo contrario. Después de que Elon Musk, quien alguna vez tuvo una fortuna de 327 mil millones de dólares, gastara 250 millones para elegir a Donald Trump, recibió poderes sin precedentes sobre el gobierno federal. Brandon Novick, del Center for Economic and Policy Research, afirma que la corrupción en la política de Estados Unidos no es nueva. Y es legal, gracias al fallo de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos en el caso Buckley contra Valeo de 1976.

"Esa decisión fue fundamental, ya que establecía que "el dinero es expresión" y que las personas pueden gastar ilimitadamente en las elecciones. En Citizen's United, el tribunal básicamente afirmó, basándose en esto, que las empresas, no solo los individuos, pueden gastar ilimitadamente en las elecciones," enfatizó Novick.

Para evitar la apariencia de corrupción quid pro quo, Novick dice que el tribunal más alto del país aclaró que el gasto ilimitado para influir en el resultado de una elección está bien, siempre y cuando el dinero se gaste de forma independiente y no en coordinación con la campaña oficial de un candidato.

Los multimillonarios no solo están comprando poder a los republicanos. Novick señala a Reid Hoffman, quien gastó unos 17 millones de dólares para que Kamala Harris fuera elegida. Cuando Hoffman pidió la destitución de Lena Kahn, presidenta de la Federal Trade Commission, Harris se negó a comprometerse a mantener a Kahn en su puesto.

"Este asunto es bipartidista. Las élites de ambos partidos no están trabajando para resolverlo. Pero la actual administración Trump es el mayor ejemplo de un control descarado de los multimillonarios, comprado mediante sobornos en los gastos de campaña," argumentó también Novick.

Los grupos pro buen gobierno llevan mucho tiempo argumentando que, en la democracia estadounidense, un ciudadano -no un dólar- debería equivaler a un voto. Novick insiste que solo hay dos vías viables para desvincular el dinero de la política. La Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos podría revocar decisiones anteriores, lo cual es improbable, ya que muchos de los jueces actuales participaron en Citizen's United.

"La única otra forma de superar esto es una enmienda constitucional para revocar su decisión y sacar el dinero de la política. Porque si el Congreso simplemente aprueba una ley, la anularán," mencionó además el entrevistado.

Apoyo para esta historia fue proporcionado por la Carnegie Corporation of New York


get more stories like this via email

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider arguments about removing spending caps between national political parties and individual candidates and watchdogs are taking a close look to see what potential outcomes would mean for states such as South Dakota.

On Monday, the nation's high court said it will hear arguments this fall. The National Republican senatorial Committee wants the court to lift restrictions on how much a political party spends on someone's campaign, if they are running for federal office.

Hilary Braseth, executive director of the nonpartisan watchdog organization OpenSecrets, said it is a big difference between the outcome of the controversial Citizens United ruling from 2010 concerning political action committees.

"Nowadays in elections, we often hear about super PACS," Braseth pointed out. "These groups are able to spend unlimited amounts, in so far, they don't directly coordinate with the candidates."

If the court sides with the plaintiffs, limits on coordinated spending would be a thing of the past. Supporters said it further advances free speech but skeptics countered it would worsen the problem with wealthy donors influencing politics. For federal races, rural states such as South Dakota have leaned more on out-of-state support. Braseth noted this case could fuel more of that activity, depending on the outcome.

Braseth suggested the dynamics of the case touch on the issue of fairness in representation. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs also argued removing restrictions would address "dark money" often associated with super PACS. However, Braseth pointed out it remains to be seen, adding there needs to be a concrete way of pulling back the curtains on campaign spending.

"We have got to have transparency around where that money is coming from, in order to maintain integrity in our governing systems," Braseth contended.

Braseth added even if it seems like "political noise," the case is worth paying attention to given how most voters feel about this broader issue.

"The one thing that both Democrats and Republicans across the U.S. can agree on is that a majority of folks think there's too much money in politics," Braseth stressed.

Pew Research Center said seven in 10 U.S. adults think there should be limits on election spending.


get more stories like this via email

Good-government groups are warning of big changes to the way federal campaigns are financed, after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case initially brought by Vice President JD Vance and Republican fundraisers.

The case would affect campaigns for the presidency, as well as the House and Senate from every state, including California.

Hilary Braseth, executive director of the nonprofit watchdog organization OpenSecrets, said right now there are limits on how political parties spend campaign cash, which is why billions in undisclosed dark money currently flows to super PACS.

"What we might end up seeing is more donors now giving large sums of money directly to the parties and being able to coordinate directly with them in spending for that candidate running for federal office," Braseth explained.

The plaintiffs argued campaign donations are legally considered free speech, so current limits on the way it can be spent are unconstitutional. Right now parties can accept millions but cannot coordinate directly with the candidates' campaigns. Critics said the current rules are supposed to limit the possibility of a quid pro quo, where donors are rewarded with official action once a candidate takes office.

Braseth stressed this case could test the country's system of accountability to preserve free and fair elections.

"The one thing that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on is that there's too much money in politics," Braseth emphasized. "It's clear that there's a growing resentment on behalf of the public, in a vast majority of folks, for the amount of money."

In the 2024 presidential election, Elon Musk spent $277 million to back President Donald Trump and was later given control of the Department of Government Efficiency.


get more stories like this via email

Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick are at odds after the governor vetoed Senate Bill 3, legislation which would have banned the sale of consumable THC in Texas.

Banning products like gummies and vapes were a top priority of Patrick during the legislative session and he told lawmakers he would call a special session if a bill was not passed. Abbott vetoed the legislation just before the deadline and Patrick said he's puzzled.

"The last time I talked to the governor, in the capital before session he said don't worry about the bill," Patrick said. "He said your bill is fine. That's what he told me in front of witnesses. In fact, he asked a couple of lawyers on my staff; he said can you give me some answers I can give because when I sign this, I need some answers to give."

In a statement, Abbott said the bill was well intended but he vetoed it because it would have been challenged in court. He urged lawmakers to regulate THC like they do alcohol. THC is the active chemical in marijuana that provides users a "high."

During the legislative session many people testified they use the products to ease chronic pain and anxiety. Patrick noted he believes Abbott wants to legalize marijuana but said as long as he's lieutenant governor he will not let it happen.

"Who are we as a state?" Patrick asked. "[Do] we think we are going to attract business here if we got a bunch of people high on marijuana, at very high levels? Is that who wants to come here and build their plant here? Open up a business, move their family here? We're not Colorado, and we're not Oregon and we're not Washington State. We're Texas."

Patrick also criticized Abbott for not making his concerns known while the legislature was in session. The bill is on the agenda for a special session starting July 21.


get more stories like this via email