News Clips

The refusal of the state’s most prominent business organization to discuss the ramifications of a constitutional change it’s supporting adds another undemocratic layer to an initiative that already has many, said Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio, which opposes State Issue 1. She said the Chamber and its members will sink lots of corporate money into the fight to cut voters’ power, but it doesn’t want to be open with them. “One of the challenges with corporate donations and business organizations is that the money does the talking,” Turcer said. “It gets spent on elections, but we don’t hear directly from the people behind it. And we should expect to hear that because at the end of the day, a corporation doesn’t get to vote. At the end of the day, a corporation is an artificial entity. (Behind them are) human beings making decisions and we should understand what is happening. Or at least the press should have an opportunity to ask questions.” The position the Chamber is taking in favor of State Issue 1 is out of step with four former governors of both parties, five former Ohio attorneys general, and more than 240 organizations — such as Turcer’s — who are adamantly opposed to the measure because they believe it would effectively lock Ohio voters out of their state Constitution.

“I don’t think it’s going to stop Republicans from drawing racist maps,” Aunna Dennis, executive director of the voting rights group Common Cause, told CNN. “But I think that this empowers those of us pushing back and fighting that.”

Viki Harrison, director of constitutional convention programs at Common Cause, said her organization supports efforts to curb gun violence, but she said calling a convention “could put all of our civil rights up for grabs.” “A constitutional convention is not the way to go and could actually make reducing gun violence worse at the end of the day because gun interests could re-write the constitution,” she told The Washington Times. “With no rules in place, and many convention proponents advocating for the same number of delegates per state, gun control would not be the topic taken up at a convention.”

Common Cause North Carolina, a group that has mounted legal challenges to the legislature’s attempt to expand gerrymandering and limit Black voting power, applauded the court’s rebuke of Alabama. “Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for American democracy and voters everywhere. This decision should serve as a clear warning to North Carolina politicians that racist gerrymandering and attacks on voting rights will not stand,” said Bob Phillips, the group’s executive director.

“We’re very hopeful that what came out in Alabama will bode well for Florida,” said Kathay Feng, vice president of programs for Common Cause, which is among the plaintiffs suing Florida in federal court over the congressional map. Feng said justices clearly signaled that the “Voting Rights Act is not dead.” “Protections against racial gerrymandering are not dead and if the historical record and the facts show themselves to be worthy, the Supreme Court will find there is racial gerrymandering and will order” a remaking of the map, she added.

"We do not have a clear picture of who is pumping significant money into our elections," Stephen Spaulding, the vice president of policy at Common Cause, told Salon. Especially after the disastrous 2013 Supreme Court decision dismantling much campaign finance law, he explained, there's "a universe of money influencing our elections that are coming from somewhere in large amounts, but we don't know where it's coming from." While cautioning there's no legal way to distinguish real candidates from people who are in it for the grift, Spaulding did agree that campaign finance reform could make it less appealing to run for office merely as a brand-building or money-gathering exercise. He highlighted the DISCLOSE Act that Democrats support, but Republicans have filibustered to death in the Senate. The act would make dark money giving much more difficult, making it hard for candidates, both those sincerely running and those with ulterior motives, to enjoy the backing of wealthy interests who don't want their involvement known. He also called for the federal government to take more proactive steps to enforce laws that do exist, so people like Santos can be snagged before they get too far into the process — or even get elected.