MAYDAY.US

With all eyes on Washington these past few months, MAYDAY has also kept our eyes on the biggest threats to democracy around the country, fighting big money, gerrymandering, and corruption. And there's good news: we've had a lot of victories - but there's more work to do!

Here's an update on what we've done since April with your continued support:

Defending small donor elections in Minnesota: When state legislators in Minnesota secretly tried to end a small donor election program and allow unlimited spending in state elections, we helped pressure Governor Mark Dayton into fighting for a budget that protects the program and keeps big money out. This month our chapter in Minnesota came together for a meeting - and so are folks in other states!

Marching to end Gerrymandering in Pennsylvania: In Pennsylvania gerrymandering is rampant and lobbyists can give huge gifts to politicians. MAYDAY endorsed and joined the March on Harrisburg for 26 miles of their 100-mile march to raise support (and a lot of media buzz) for three anti-corruption bills in the Pennsylvania legislature. Plus, we got a master class in what Pennsylvania's ludicrously gerrymandered districts look like close up.

Photos: MAYDAY activists marching against corruption in Pennsylvania's March on Harrisburg

Fighting Dark Money in Missouri: In a state described as "ground zero" for corruption, we've been very busy:

We co-hosted an anti-corruption tour that brought together activists, legislators, and anti-corruption experts to build support for comprehensive ethics reform.

We raised our voices to bring a historic dark money disclosure bill to the brink of getting a vote.

Now, we’re gearing up with Clean Missouri to help pass a constitutional amendment to increase government transparency and accountability.

Calling out shameful campaign spending in Montana: As campaigns and special interests spent a record $17 million on the Congressional race in May, we went to the press to condemn it with a successful letter to the editor campaign. Letters from MAYDAY supporters were published in major newspapers all across the state, and our efforts made money in politics a key campaign issue.

Excerpts from MAYDAY members’ letters to the editor

Fighting for small donor elections in Maryland: In June, we partnered with allies in Howard County, Maryland to send calls and emails to County Councilors in support of a bill to set up a small-donor elections program. The council passed the bill 4-1, making Howard the second county in Maryland to do so!  

$17 million dollars in just 3 months. That’s how much candidates and outside groups spent on the recent congressional race in Montana between Republican Greg Gianforte and Democrat Rob Quist. It’s a record-breaking amount; by comparison, Montana’s previous congressional election cost $9 million. MAYDAY supporters all across Montana voiced their concerns about big money politics in letters to the editor leading up to the election. 

Montanans have long stood up against elites hoping to buy their way into power. In the late 1800s, copper barons spent huge sums to purchase voters, judges, and offices. In the most egregious example, “Copper king” W.A. Clark infamously bribed his way to a seat in the U.S. Senate, remarking afterwards, “I never bought a man who wasn’t for sale”. To fight corruption, in 1912 Montanans passed the Corrupt Practices Act, which for over 100 years prohibited direct corporate spending on campaigns. Unfortunately, in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the 100-year-old act. (On what basis? That it interfered with corporations’ right to free speech as set out by Citizens United).

Given Montana’s history, the record-smashing spending by candidates and outside groups alike in the recent race reeked to many of the corruption of yore. MAYDAY supporters took particular issue with the spending by Greg Gianforte, a multi-millionaire who had already spent a record $6 million of his own money in a failed race for governor in 2016.

Although Quist and Gianforte both raised boggling amounts of money for the short time span, Gianforte’s average donors were $2,000 and up – including a $1.5 million donation he gave himself. Gianforte also received help from huge outside superPACs, which spent 6.3 million (the majority of the $7.1 million in outside spending) on his behalf.

Chris, a member from Missoula, alluded to Montana’s anti-corruption history in calling out the obscene spending in the race:

“Both Greg Gianforte and Rob Quist are spending huge amounts of money to get elected to Congress, and are supported by millions from outside (and out-of-state) groups. The money corrupts our political system and leads our elected officials to depend on their big donors, instead of the vast bulk of their natural constituency...

Montana has a strong history of opposing people who try to buy political power, and I'm fairly sure that a large majority of Montanans don't want dark money to overpower the voices of regular voters.”

Jon, also from Missoula, did the same, drawing a direct line from Citizens United to the glut of money in the race:

“In politics, money buys access and influence. Our Supreme Court has said that this is not corruption. But common sense leads to a different conclusion…We need a representative in Congress who hasn’t been bought by corporate interests or by the wealthiest Americans; someone who will tend to the interests of the common folks of Montana and to those who are most vulnerable.”

Evan, a supporter in Butte, voiced his concerns about Gianforte’s wealth in an op-ed published in multiple news outlets:

“Remember, in 2016 he wrote a personal check for nearly $6 million, buying tens of thousands of TV ads to persuade you he was a regular guy who should be governor. Now he’s buying ad after ad to bash his opponent and tell you he’ll go to Washington, D.C., and “drain the swamp” of big-money influence – while he supports tax cuts for the rich…

The average Montana worker would need to work 222 years to equal Gianforte’s one year earnings. Given his immense wealth, whose interests do you think Gianforte will represent back in the D.C. swamp? Yours? Or will he help continue tilting the economic playing field toward people like himself?”    

   Jonathan, another supporter, decried a system in which millionaires, not ordinary folks, frequently run for office:

“If you’re someone who is thinking about what is best for Montana, think about this. Values are not something you discover when you decide to run for office. Do you want someone to represent us whose goal in life was to get rich so he could buy himself power? Someone who has lived in a world that is worlds apart from most of us (and I’m not just talking about dinosaurs)?”

In the end, Gianforte pulled out a 20,000 vote victory against Quist and a Libertarian challenger. However, MAYDAY supporters stayed optimistic about the impetus for change in the way that elections are run. 

One supporter, Chris from Missoula, pointed to solutions in his letter to the editor that the newly-elected Gianforte can support. In Congress, Chris wrote, Gianforte can “make fighting big money in politics a priority, support the Government by the People Act (to create a system of small-dollar funding for congressional elections).” The bill, HR 20, would go a long way in weaning campaigns off huge donors and outside interests.

Will Gianforte support the bill? Given the financial factors that helped elect him, it’s unlikely.

By Teddy Rube, National Organizer

This post is part of a series on the March On Harrisburg, a non-partisan, volunteer run movement supporting three democracy bills in the Pennsylvania State Legislature. You can read more about the March in our earlier blog post.

Last Saturday and Sunday, MAYDAY’s campaign director Chris and I joined activists for the first two days of their intrepid 100-day March on Harrisburg in support of three anti-corruption reform bills in the Pennsylvania Legislature. We marched through all sorts of interesting features: through towns, over roads, along train lines, across bridges, rivers, and hiking trails. What we couldn’t see, though, was that we were constantly crossing and recrossing (and recrossing!) some of the most ingeniously gerrymandered electoral districts in the country.

At the end of Sunday’s grueling 15-mile march, Maddie Whitehill, one of the March’s coordinators, sat down with me to talk about Pennsylvania’s gerrymandering woes.

“I’m exhausted, though it’s not because of the walking,” she said, laughing. “As we marched, we were trying to figure out, what districts we were passing through? It should be an easy question – in a democracy!” She shook her head. “But no! It’s a complete and utter nightmare.”

Maddie’s frustration isn’t surprising, given that Pennsylvania’s electoral districts, both for Congress and the state’s legislature, have been consistently ranked as some of the most gerrymandered in the country. In Pennsylvania, state legislators are responsible for drawing district lines, and invariably, legislators draw lines to benefit themselves and their parties at the expense of the democratic system.

“In this state, we’re walking through districts that have been so gerrymandered that two houses right next to each other are in separate districts,” Maddie pointed out. Chris and I experienced this first hand. During the 26.5 miles we walked over two days, we crossed 11 Congressional district lines (but just through 5 districts), 8 state senate district lines (for only 4 districts), 17 state house lines (through 11 districts).

Even looking at the maps from the comfort of my computer, it’s dizzying to keep track of. The districts we walked through are beyond mangled, with bizarre angles, undulating curves, and chunks ripped out of them, clearly designed to stuff voters into a specific district (called “packing”) or to spread them out, called “cracking”) (The process is summarized well in this hilarious (and NSFW) video by Last Week Tonight’s John Oliver). You can puzzle out the district lines yourself, below: 

Our route through from Philadelphia (bottom right) to Collegeville (top left) through Pennsylvania’s State House districts

Our route through Pennsylvania’s State Senate districts

Our route through southeastern PA’s congressional districts, with the infamously mangled 7th district highlighted in yellow

Big Money and Gerrymandering

Critics of reform often point out that gerrymandering has been a part of politics since the Republic was founded, and they’re right. However, what’s changed is the huge amount of money that’s poured into our political system since 2010′s Citizens United decision and is now dedicated to intensifying gerrymandering’s impact.

“People in, Money Out” is March on Harrisburg’s slogan, and for the Harrisburg marchers, gerrymandering is inextricably linked with the issues of big money corruption plaguing Pennsylvania and the country. As Maddie described, gerrymandering in Pennsylvania is a tool of wealthy politicians and parties to protect incumbents at the expense of the actual voices of voters in the districts.

“Right now, these districts defend politicians who already are in office. It’s extremely difficult for someone without money to run in a cracked district, where voters are separated out. You might have to travel across the state in order to reach voters.” In districts like Pennsylvania’s 7th, which at its furthest protuberances stretches nearly 80 miles, wealthy candidates who can pay to get their message around the district—whether by personally traveling, or through TV and other advertising—have an immense advantage over candidates with less funding. New candidates, unfamiliar with the distant and often disparate communities in a gerrymandered district, face a huge uphill battle.

Gerrymandering also allows the leadership of political parties to consolidate their own power at the expense of even their own voters—and they’ve been doing it for years. Maddie told me about a state legislator, Fred Taylor, who had challenged his party leadership in 1990. To neutralize Taylor in the 1992 elections, the Democratic leadership redrew his district, Pennsylvania’s 51st, to specifically exclude his house. Not to be deterred, Taylor bought a new home and moved into the new district, only to have—surprise!—the leadership redraw the maps around his house again, leaving him out.

In 1992, that type of targeting was considered egregious, and the story a unique anecdote. However, as mapping technology—and the funds to pay for it—have grown in leaps and bounds, it’s become routine. In the past few years in Pennsylvania, Maddie said, “political parties have started to use software to draw what is most likely to get them elected.” This mapping software helps explain why the districts we walked through are so minutely drawn.

Rise of the robots? Detail of Pennsylvania’s 7th district, drawn with a software-generated precision.

The problem’s only likely to worsen, Maddie told me, “since ISPs (internet service providers) can now sell your internet data,” referring to the repeal in April of federal internet privacy rules that prevented ISPs from selling online browsers’ private information. With the privacy rules repealed, it’s probable that politicians and parties with deep pockets will be paying telecom companies hand over fist for the ability to minutely draw around your yard, based on everything from the banana peels in your garbage to that book you ordered on Amazon last year. It’s gerrymandering à la Fred Taylor, but on an a staggering scale.

(Fun fact: After Trump signed the privacy repeal bill in April, Salon published a great article about how big data will worsen gerrymandering. The congressional districts they profiled? Pennsylvania’s 6th and 7th.)

Marching for Solutions

March on Harrisburg describes gerrymandering as “a distortion of the relationship between citizen and government,” and they’re right. Politicians hand-picking their own voters, with the help of complex software and lots of money, isn’t how representative democracy is supposed to work. Fortunately, activists like the Harrisburg marchers are talking the talk and walking the walk.

One of the three bills the March is supporting is SB 22/HB 722, which would create an independent redistricting commission. The details are complex, but the March on Harrisburg and their major ally Fair Districts PA feel that this is the best shot Pennsylvania has at beating gerrymandering in decades.

Members of the March’s legislative committee met with every single state representative and senator in the lead-up to the march. Sean Leber, March on Harrisburg’s web designer who also participated in the lobbying meetings, told me that the bill has strong bipartisan support in both houses of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. Much of the pushback, Sean and Maddie told me, comes from the leaders of both parties, who for obvious reasons don’t want to surrender the ability to gerrymander their way into power.

After marching 100 miles through dozens of district lines, the March on Harrisburg will steamroll into the state capitol on Monday, energized and ready to make the case to legislators that gerrymandering needs to be stopped. You can follow their activities on Facebook or their website

People around the country are fed up with their voices not being heard, and marchers in Pennsylvania are showing one way to do something about it. The March on Harrisburg, a 100-mile trek from Philadelphia to Harrisburg to stop corruption is truly an example of democracy in action.

MAYDAY is proud to be an official endorser of the March, and I joined with the effort earlier this week to talk with marchers and learn more.

The March kicked off on a rainy day in Philadelphia

The goal of the March is to pass three bills: Automatic voter registration, an end to lobbyist gifts, and redistricting reform to end gerrymandering in the state. You can still hop on the March or link up in Harrisburg. Check their website, http://marchonharrisburg.org, to find out where they are and what’s next.

Signs at the kick-off included demands to end gerrymandering and get People in, Money Out

Being on the March is a truly unique experience in democracy. What do you do when you’re walking all day? You tend to meet new people and have conversations. And it can get pretty interesting!

I learned about the entire effort behind the March on Harrisburg in which citizen lobbyists have met with all 50 state senators and at least 180 of 203 state representatives. That was the lead-up to the march itself which will culminate with rallies and possibly peaceful civil disobedience from the 22nd through the 24th at the state capitol.

Everyone on the march has a unique story. In just over a day, I met folks working on redistricting with Fair Districts Pennsylvania, students who recently graduated and were inspired to get involved, old people, young people, and many others. (Plus, amazing volunteer cooks keep the marchers well fed and there’s nothing like turning the corner and seeing a table of soup after a long march in the rain!) The opening rally featured an awesome line-up of speakers including organizers, academics, religious leaders, veterans, and activists from the Black Lives Matter Pennsylvania chapter.

The idea for the March itself came out of conversations between lead organizer Michael Pollack and other folks on the Democracy Spring March from Philadelphia to Washington DC last year. That march, to end big money politics and fix our democracy, culminated with 1100 people arrested in peaceful civil disobedience at the nation’s capitol. If that’s not a sign that people are paying attention and want change, then I don’t know what is.

The marching group in Haverford

It’s really inspiring to see so many people come together to take action to save our democracy. Of course, not everyone has time to join a week-and-a-half long march. But that’s one of the reasons why the march is so important. For every person on the march, I’m willing to bet there are hundreds of folks who support their efforts but can’t be there.

Judge Neil Gorsuch has been characterized as eminently qualified for the Supreme Court by Republican senators, yet he seems to have an odd amount of difficulty answering the most basic questions about the role of big money in our democracy. Here’s a round-up of critical questions about the role of money in politics that Judge Gorsuch failed to answer in his first full day of questioning, and what we still need to hear.

Why Won’t Judge Gorsuch Agree That Buying Votes Is Corruption?

When asked by Senator Leahy if vote-buying is corruption, Gorsuch refused to answer the question, instead suggesting that Justice Kennedy would agree. When pressed, Gorsuch replied, “I’d follow the law...and that would certainly follow within my understanding of the law.”

Yet, it’s not clear how answering the question would impugn his ability to rule in future cases. We need to know how Gorsuch would define corruption in order to understand if he would rule fairly in the most important cases that involve the role of money in our democracy. By refusing to answer the most basic question about vote-buying, Gorsuch is really refusing to let us know anything about whether he thinks economic power should translate into political power, if he thinks it’s acceptable for wealth inequality to deepen racial divisions in our politics, or whether it’s fair to have a system where it’s more difficult for women to run for office, to name just a few examples.

Strict Scrutiny Dodge

In response to questions from Senator Klobuchar about his concurring opinion in Hickenlooper v. Riddle, Gorsuch evaded three direct questions about whether he believes strict scrutiny should be applied to all laws limiting campaign contributions.

Such an extreme view could be used to strike down the last remaining checks on the power of big donors. A poll conducted just weeks before Gorsuch’s nomination found 63% of voters – including 56% of Trump voters – said it was “very important” President Trump nominates a Supreme Court justice who is open to limiting the influence of big money in politics. It's still not clear if that's what voters are getting but the evidence doesn't point in the right direction.

Does Gorsuch Not Understand Citizens United?

In response to a question from Senator Leahy about Congress’ role in legislating to limit corruption in the wake of Citizens United, Gorsuch said, “I think there is lots of room for legislation in this area that the Court has left. The Court indicated that if proof of corruption can be demonstrated that a different result may obtain on expenditure limits….”

Gorsuch’s answer leaves serious questions about his understanding of Citizens United that must be answered. As Rick Hasen notes, "Either Judge Gorsuch does not understand the scope of Citizens United and its holding, or he is trying to soften its harshness by wrongly suggesting Congress has room to legislate spending limits." Either way he must clarify his position so voters and senators can determine whether they support his confirmation.

Gorsuch Wouldn’t Say Whether Disclosure Was In The Public Interest

Senator Whitehouse pointed to Gorsuch’s own nomination as a prime example of the role of dark money spending to influence political outcomes, pressing the nominee about his thoughts on a group spending $10 million supporting his nomination, asking, “Do you think that there’s a public interest in the public knowing who’s contributing?”

Yet, ultimately Gorsuch refused to say whether he thinks disclosure is in the public interest, asserting that “It would be a politics question and I’m not, with all respect senator, going to get involved in politics.” In response, Whitehouse replied, “Do you really think that a Supreme Court that decided Citizens United doesn’t get involved in politics?”

Gorsuch’s refusal to say whether disclosure is in the public interest makes it impossible to know how he would address the issue of big money influencing our elections. His assertion that this is simply “a politics question” is insufficient, and seems especially like a dodge in light of Whitehouse’s rebuttal that the Court’s decision in Citizens United was totally political.

Senators Should Continue To Press Gorsuch On These Key Questions

These days, it’s hard to reach a Senator. During last week’s Congressional recess, Republican and Democratic senators alike ducked town halls and stayed out-of state to avoid their constituents. However, MAYDAY activists were not to be deterred! Last week, determined MAYDAY members sprang into action, taking to local offices and meeting with staff to pressure key senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee to oppose Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Last month, MAYDAY members voted to push key senators on the Judiciary Committee to raise the issue of Citizens United and oppose Gorsuch’s nomination based on his troubling record on campaign finance law and corporate personhood.

On Friday, members delivered letters opposing Gorsuch to the local offices of Senators Graham, Franken, and Durbin. The letters called attention to Gorsuch’s checkered record on money issues, and pointedly demanded the Senators stay true to their past public statements on Citizens United.

Meeting with Senator Franken’s staff in St. Paul

After delivering a letter on behalf of over 1,000 MAYDAY supporters at Senator Franken’s office in Saint Paul, Minnesota, our activist lead met with staff to urge the Senator to oppose the nominee. Sharon Coombs eloquently summed up our demands:

“Neil Gorsuch's record as a judge almost guarantees that he will uphold Citizens United, thus allowing corporations and individuals the right to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence our elections. We expect Sen. Franken to support his words with action and to vigorously oppose the Gorsuch nomination. The President who nominated Gorsuch lost the popular vote by 2.9 million votes. The Gorsuch nomination does not represent the will of the majority of real people.”

MAYDAY members urged Senator Graham to oppose Gorsuch as well. Graham has said that “Citizens United has gotta be fixed” and even that “we’re gonna need a constitutional amendment to fix this problem.” Activists demanded he stick to his promises, delivering a letter to his Columbia office on behalf of MAYDAY members in South Carolina.

MAYDAY members deliver a letter to Senator Graham’s office in Columbia

These successful events have given us momentum – but there’s so much more to do before March 20. Along with our partners, we’re organizing a comprehensive campaign against Gorsuch’s nomination in the coming weeks, and we need your help. You can sign up on our website for more information about town halls, letters to the editor, and other things you can do to fight big money at the Supreme Court.

The South Dakota Senate voted to repeal the citizen-backed Anti-Corruption Act in a 27-8 vote yesterday, in a brazen rejection of the will of the people. MAYDAY South Dakota activists along with our partners at Represent.Us rallied and packed the senate gallery during the vote, making it impossible to ignore opposition to the repeal. All the while, MAYDAY South Dakota's massive aerial banner proclaiming “SHAME ON YOU! RESPECT OUR VOTE!” flew over the capitol. While yesterday's vote was a setback, MAYDAY South Dakota won't stop fighting every enemy of democracy until reform is back in place. 

Become a member now to help fight against the enemies of democracy in South Dakota.

Call the Governor and tell him it is unacceptable to sign the bill for repeal: 605.773.3212

MAYDAY South Dakota’s aerial banner got the attention of media all across the state:

MAYDAY South Dakota activists, along with our partners at Represent.Us, packed the senate gallery during the repeal vote.

The reaction by MAYDAY South Dakota activists and residents from all around the state who came to Pierre yesterday to oppose the repeal was inspiring, and MAYDAY South Dakota isn't done fighting.

MAYDAY South Dakota activist Ethelle Bean summed it up nicely when she said, "The people of South Dakota are not stupid or hoodwinked. We knew what we were voting to put in place. I knew what I was voting on!... I want and expect integrity and ethics in my government."

By Teddy Rube, Senior Organizing Associate

Late last night, the Trump administration announced that Kris Kobach’s voter suppression commission is going to be shuttered. That’s great news, and a victory for MAYDAY activists who have fought hard against it. But democracy activists also need to stay vigilant, as the Trump Administration’s vote-suppressing work will likely continue.

First off, why this is great news.

This commission’s been a threat to democracy ever since it started. Trump set up the commission to investigate his laughably false and dangerous claim that 3 to 5 million people illegally voted in the 2016 election.

Led by Kris Kobach, who’s made himself famous as a one-man voter-suppression machine, and made up of commissioners like Hans von Spakovsky (the “dark prince of voter fraud alarmism”) the commission’s intentions have been clear from the get-go. It attempted to provide a veneer of academic legitimacy to the Trump administration’s well-documented war on the right to vote.

The commission’s lies about illegal voting are intended to justify draconian policies on the state level like Voter ID and purging voter rolls, that make it harder to vote and discriminatorily target minority and low-income citizens. And when that happens, special interests, corporations, and big donors far too often continue to win.

What has MAYDAY done here:

We’ve been fighting Kobach’s commission from day one, when we joined an action outside of the White House in July on its first meeting. Since then MAYDAY members have been constantly taking action, protesting the commission in person, pillorying it in letters, op-eds, and on social media, and standing up for disenfranchised communities.

Above: protests outside the Kobach Commission’s first meeting in July.

When Kobach brought the commission to St. Anselm College’s Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire to give its second meeting – and first public one - an academic imprimatur, we followed.

Cleanup Carl, MAYDAY’s hazmat-suited campaign prop (and superhero for democracy), joined over 100 protesters and voting rights leaders to show how toxic his commission is for voting rights and denied him the credibility he craved. On the same day Kobach tried to falsely claim that illegal student voting tipped elections in New Hampshire, our protests made sure the media American people realized those claims were bogus.

Above: We brought Cleanup Carl to Kobach’s public meeting in Manchester, NH on September 12th. He couldn’t take the heat.

The commission never met again. Thanks to the work of our coalition of democracy organizations and activists, it was consistently exposed as a blundering, biased, and mendacious body. In terms of finding evidence of voter fraud, the panel was as effective as the team of investigators Trump sent to Hawaii in 2011 to find evidence President Obama wasn’t American – which is to say, not at all. That’s the real reason it shut down.

What comes next: Secret Investigations by DHS?

The White House isn’t giving up on this dangerous scheme. Their press release stated that the commission’s work will be continued by the Department of Homeland Security. Other reports have suggested that Kobach will continue to serve in an advisory role, and that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will also be involved.

First, this means that the White House isn’t changing its tune. Hints of Kobach’s continued role guarantee that Trump’s administration will continue on its vote-suppressing course. No surprise there.

Second, it means that instead of holding their business in public meetings, DHS can plot its “investigation” behind closed doors, without bipartisan input or correction from voting rights activists, expert organizations, or the media. The only positive thing about the first commission was that it had to hold public meetings, allowing MAYDAY members and allied organizations to use them as flashpoints to expose Kobach’s fraudulent work.  

Third, it means that two departments with little experience with electoral integrity and voting rights issues will be making decisions that could strip voting rights away from millions. For example: As Ari Berman reported last summer, Kobach’s talked about using DHS’ database of non-citizens, SAVE, to check for illegal voters and eliminate them. But SAVE doesn’t update when a non-citizen is naturalized, meaning that DHS could strip millions of their voting rights wrongly (Florida was sued in 2013 for trying to do something similar with the system). And that’s just one scenario.

We shouldn’t be talking about fraud. We should be talking about reforms that revitalize our broken voting system.

Americans know that our election system needs to be updated – but we can’t allow politicians to write laws that rig them in their favor.

Instead of fraud hunts, we should be talking about expanding the franchise and bringing voting system into 21st century. Politicians can pass Automatic Voter Registration, online registration, felon re-enfranchisement, and repeal Voter ID – policies that will help people get to the ballot.

They could also support the nonprofit, non-partisan Electronic Registration Information Center, which actually identifies abnormalities in the voting rolls and, even better, helps sign up people to vote. Or end the racial and partisan gerrymandering that’s depriving millions of real choices in elections.

MAYDAY’s fighting to make bold progress on these issues. In Florida, we’re supporting the Say Yes to Second Chances initiative, which could re-enfranchise 1.5 million citizens by repealing racist Jim Crow-era felon disenfranchisement laws. More than 10 states and DC have passed Automatic Voter Registration, and we’re helping fight to pass it in more states in 2018. In Georgia, we’re battling Secretary of State Brian Kemp – a Kobach clone who’s abused his power to restrict voting rights.  

In 2016, 10 of our endorsees won seats in halls of power across America.

As we fight in Congress, state legislatures, and city halls, we shift political power in America to the people. We elect future national leaders. And we create real improvements for us, the people.

Victories, our contributions, and long-term impact

South Dakota

MAYDAY monthly members helped pass the most sweeping fundamental reform ever seen. Initiative 122 was a full Anti-Corruption Act, largely organized by our partners at Represent.Us, including small-donor elections and lobbying reform.  After we sent financial support from monthly members' contributions, Initiative 122 won 51%-49%. If you are not a monthly member yet, you can help make transform democracy by becoming one.

Washington, DC

In one of our national symbols of corruption (maybe Chicago and New York could compete), citizens are consistently shafted by big money interests when it comes to affordable housing and more. Our 2 reformers, David Grosso and Robert White, won seats in city council as fierce advocates for small-donor election laws. We will fight to help them pass Fair Elections DC to transform political power there and strike a blow to the heart of US corruption.

Missouri

Voters approved our endorsed bill on campaign contribution limits. Republican Fred Sauer helped it get onto the ballot, and we congratulate the campaign on this victory that is a solid start to helping Missourians take back their government.

North Carolina

In this hot political state, mega-donor Art Pope has been calling the shots. But after we ran ads supporting pro-democracy candidates, Governor-Elect Cooper and Supreme Court Justice-Elect Morgan will ensure that North Carolina is a place where big money politics and anti-democratic legislative maps go to die. (And yes, we do think judicial elections are ridiculous.) Furthermore, with our support in a heated primary, Congressman Walter Jones will continue to be a key Republican voice for small-donor elections in the US Congress and across the nation.

Arizona

Arizona is a historic battleground for fundamental reform. Voters have consistently supported small-donor election laws passed through ballot measure, while political elites in legislatures and the Court have ignored their will. We're starting to change that. With the election of Ken Clark to the Arizona House, we're taking a stand that if you support reform, we’ll have your back; and if you oppose reform, we'll defeat you at the ballot box.

Maine

Maine is vital to the movement. They just passed small-donor elections in 2015, and we cannot see this momentum reversed by big money interests. Wit the election of Troy Jackson to the Maine Senate, we have a tireless advocate for small-donor elections. He will be OUR advocate in the halls of power to protect Maine's historic fundamental reform.

US Congress

Longtime, bipartisan reformers Walter Jones, Jamie Raskin, and Pramila Jayapal all faced dangerous big money opponents in their primaries. Fortunately, with our support, they successfully reached or kept their seats in US House of Representatives. Senator Michael Bennet came out full-throat for reform this year, and we supported his re-election, as well.

How we leveraged your contributions into political change

Throughout the 2016 cycle, we were very, very frugal with your contributions. We had an average of 3 staff during the cycle. Volunteers not only filled in the gaps, but created and executed some core aspects of the campaign. For example, Rebecca A. answered supporter emails, posted on social media, led phone banking trainings and campaigns, and even found new vendors. Connie B. created a candidate questionnaire our state teams used for endorsements. Rachel P. logged supporter calls and directed them to Congress. Aaron S. taught himself a new programming language to automate some of the process.

While many political campaigns use expensive campaign tactics that toy with the margins, we're focused on inexpensive tactics that fundamentally reshape the dynamics of a race.

Nimble, effective, high-impact campaigns

Example 1: In the 2016 primary, we supported lifelong reformer Jamie Raskin against corporate influence-peddler Kathleen Matthews. But Matthews was being called a former journalist because she'd been a TV news anchor. We shot a video of Zephyr praising Raskin's commitment to reform, and mentioning that Matthews was part of the problem.  A volunteer, Nick, edited the video, which we paid $40 to boost on Facebook. We organized a press event with the Washington Post and Zephyr, who then embedded the video on their site and adopted our frame of the race. Boom. A $40 ad spend and some staff and volunteer time, and Washington Post coverage. Even more importantly, the paper’s and other media’s coverage shifted, accurately referring to Matthews as a former Marriott executive instead of a former journalist, after this incident.

Example 2: We printed a giant fake check to deliver to Zephyr Teachout's opponent. It cost $60 online. We walked into a candidate forum with it, and got coverage in the press that a huge protest before the debate did not receive. If you're clever and aggressive, you can maximize your return.

Example 3: We worked on the two college campuses in Zephyr Teachout’s district, giving out free pizza and free Cards Against Humanity. We told students to go vote, then come get some free stuff! We used the opportunity to tell them that the Congressional race was very important.

Example 4: In Missouri, Washington, California, New York, DC, Louisville, Illinois, and elsewhere, we offered to help our members with some expenses of hosting events. And in turn, those members recruited their friends to help elect reformers and pass reform.

The list goes on. We operated on a shoestring budget but did a lot.

Digital ads

Of course, we spent money in some more traditional ways. We created digital ads calling out our opponents' corruption, and boosting our principled reformers. These included Facebook videos, Facebook events, Facebook graphics, Google display ads, and Google search ads. They were seen 4.6 million times.

What did we learn?

Ultimately, Donald Trump's coattails were huge. Voters were, as Lessig predicted, sick of corrupt big money politics in 2016. They voted for the candidate who campaigned against big money political corruption (even if he didn’t propose any campaign finance reforms). But his voters went down the ticket as Republican, while many of our endorsees were Democrats. At the top of the ticket, Hillary Clinton didn't campaign forcefully for fundamental change in America. Thus, many of our Democratic endorsees were hurt by the Trump wave. That said, some still outperformed, and it's unclear at this point how much our campaigning helped them. Furthermore, big money interests did their work: they ran big ad spends against Zephyr Teachout, Russ Feingold, and Jason Kander, which hurt at least on the margins. This is a learning opportunity for both parties: make sure your candidate at the top of the ticket channels the anger that Americans are feeling at a broken, corrupt political system. And, of course we'd like to tell them, incorporate fundamental reform into those campaigns.

How can we be sure our elected reformers will not corrupt?

The Oneanta Daily Star reports:

“A poll released Tuesday shows John Faso holding a one-percentage-point lead over Zephyr Teachout in the race for New York's 19th Congressional District seat.

“The poll by Time Warner Cable News and Siena College shows Republican candidate Faso at 43 percent and Democratic candidate Teachout at 42 percent.

“The two are running for a seat held by outgoing Rep. Chris Gibson, R-Kinderhook, who is retiring from politics at the end of his term.

“The poll, conducted from Sept. 20-22, surveyed 678 likely voters in the district. It has a margin of error of 3.8 percentage points.”

    In President Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation on January 17th 1961 he stated: “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.” This ominous reminder from the one time supreme allied commander of WWII originally contained the term military-industrial congressional complex speaking to the dangers of not just the infrastructure of military spending, but how its very nature is promoted and influenced by congress. Dangers lie in the political contributions by these industries to members of congress, lobbying to support these contracts and industries, and endless networks of contracts to private industries. This alone is insidious, but lack of oversight within the budgets of our armed forces, and blatant disregard, are fueling a pipeline of missing and overspent money.

    In a June 2016 report by the Department of Defense (DOD) office of Inspector General found that the U.S. Army made 2.8 trillion in incorrect adjustments in a single quarter of 2015, as well as 6.5 trillion in incorrect adjustments for the year. These figures were also reported in Reuters in August of 2016. These staggering figures speak to the blatant disregard for oversight in the institutions commissioned to defend (and some might argue modern day imperialize) the interests of the United States. The specific DODIG report is available here (http://www.dodig.mil/pubs). The DOD report found that the U.S. Army “materially misstated” their financial statements even going so far as to falsifying reports and stating that they were outright missing over 16,000 financial data records. Changes to some accounts resulted in a domino effect down the line of spending causing a current of errors and changes along the way. According to Reuters’ interview of Jack Armstrong, retired Defense Inspector General Official whose job it was to oversee the audit of the U.S. Army general fund, states that the accounting juggling and falsification were already being made in 2010. The question remains how long the practice of cover-ups and accounting juggling have been going on?

    Why is this even important? In an election season that continues to lack in substantial policy discussion, both mainstream Presidential candidates have spoken to a belief in the increase in government spending on the defense (offense, depending on how you look at it) apparatus of the United States. This is concerning not only because of the bloated and wasted spending currently occurring, the lack of oversight and action by offices charged with oversight, but also because those in charge of our federal government want to spend more without looking where it is going to begin with. The flagrant spending in the military industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us of is alive, well and being flaunted in the public’s face. However, defense is always a good political tool to obtain votes so few to no politicians on the national stage are taking on defense spending or the size of the military.

More than half of all tax breaks flow to the top tier of wealthy Americans. 

Our vote is now bundled by politicians based on a strategic drawing of districts. This practice is known as gerrymandering. 

The value of our voice is now a direct result of the size of our political donation capacity. As a result, our vote matters less and less. 

And the politicians we elect are beholden to their biggest donors, not to the voters that empowered them. 

So why vote? Eric Liu believes it’s time to bring joy back to the ballot box. As the founder of Citizen University and former special assistant to President Clinton, Liu has a deep interest in restoring the authenticity and sense of community to our democracy. 

Liu points to elections in other countries as festive, carnival-like events wherein community members look forward to the day. In a recent TED talk, Liu announces a pilot project in four U.S. cities called the Joy of Voting. 

Liu’s concept brings together artists, creators, and other influencers to make voting joyful again. These groups are organizing events that foster a “culture of voting” on a local level. In Miami, there are all-night parties where the only way to get in is with proof that you’re registered to vote. 

With 28 projects across the country, Liu and his colleagues are redefining what it means to be a participant in American democracy. With art projects, creative and politically stimulating events, the Joy of Voting is testing a new method of engaging citizens. 

Friend,

The first Presidential debate is rapidly approaching. As moderator, NBC’s Lester Holt gets to decide which questions the candidates will be forced to answer. Let that sink in… one person gets to decide what issues get addressed in what promises to be the most watched debate in American history

Four ways corruption is costing our country

Kleptocracy (noun) is defined as a “government by those who seek chiefly status and personal gain at the expense of the governed” according to Merriam Webster. While pundits, voters, political operatives and others could find examples of corruption, how are we might we measure the true cost of corruption? 

Since the department of Justice defines public corruption as “crimes involving abuses of the public trust by government officials”, a definition of what corruption is set by the federal government. However, there is very little empirical evidence as to the effect of government corruption on government spending and resource allocation. This should come as no surprise to anyone given that politicians write the rules by which they play the game. This lack of checks leads to furtherance of self-interests, at the expense of citizens. 

In the May/June 2014 issue of the Public Administration Review journal, Cheol Liu of City University of Hong Kong, and John Mikesell of Indiana State University published The Impact of Public Officials’ Corruption on the Size and Allocation of U.S. State Spending. Using conviction data by state for the period between 1976 and 2008 for over 25,000 people, Liu and Mikesell discovered four factors that were consistent for corruption in states. The convictions were then compared to the number of state employees to account for state population difference. In order to ensure validity, the authors based the corruption convictions on federal corruption laws (because local laws vary by state). This showed that convictions were not just a measure of law enforcement activity in that particular state, and used variables that accounted for reverse causality. 

The study identified the following factors in the most corrupt states. It is worth noting that corruption was found to exist in both red and blue states, consistent with other findings that this is not a partisan issue. 

1. The most corrupt states spend more money on and favor capital construction projects. These types of projects involve large, non-standard activities with few contractors, lacking transparency and susceptible to bribes. 

2. Real per capita total wages of public official salaries are higher in the most corrupt states. Higher salaries benefit only the employees, and those employees were also more likely to engage in deficit financing, thus masking the true cost of government spending. 

3. The most corrupt states spent more money on law enforcement and prisons speaking to the direct legal cost of corruption. Corruption leads to unfair laws and inconsistent enforcement for the benefit of the private prison industry. 

4. The most corrupt states spent less money on education at all levels, public welfare, health, and hospitals. While the merits of healthcare costs are the topic of another discussion, these sectors offer less room for public corruption. 

It’s time to hit the polls! Get out the vote for Tim Canova and show all of America that we won’t stand for the big money status quo that Debbie Wasserman Schultz defends. All of our hard work pays off now!

Three ways to vote!

Look up your polling location:

If you live in Broward County, check here! If you live in Miami-Dade County, check here!

Vote by mail:

Here’s how to vote by mail in Broward County. Here’s how to vote by mail in Miami-Dade County.

Vote early:

Find early voting locations in Broward County. Find early voting locations in Miami-Dade County.