Author: admin

Posted on

Bibliography: Money in Politics series

Bibliography – Money in Politics Series

Overview

This bibliography serves all articles in the Money in Politics: How Wealth Captures Democracy series:

Campaign Finance & Elections

[1] Issue One. “The Price of Power: How Fundraising Demands Shape Congressional Behavior.” Issue One, 2024. https://www.issueone.org/reports/the-price-of-power/

[2] Issue One. “The 118th Congress’ Fundraising Treadmill.” Issue One, February 4, 2025. https://issueone.org/articles/the-118th-congress-fundraising-treadmill/

[3] Center for Responsive Politics. “2024 Election to Cost $15.9 Billion.” OpenSecrets.org, December 2024. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/11/2024-election-total-cost-15-9-billion

[4] Campaign Finance Institute. “Small Donors and Democracy: 2024 Election Analysis.” CFI, November 2024. [Note: Original CFI site defunct – data preserved in Brennan Center report [5]]

[5] Brennan Center for Justice. “Small Donor Public Financing: The New York City Model.” Brennan Center, 2019. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/small-donor-public-financing-new-york-city-model

[6] Demo and U.S. PIRG. “The Money Chase: Moving from Big Money Dominance in the 2014 Congressional Elections.” 2015. https://www.demos.org/research/money-chase-moving-big-money-dominance-2014-congressional-elections [Note: “Less than 1% provide over two-thirds” statistic]

Dark Money & Super PACs

[7] Brennan Center for Justice. “Dark Money Continues to Grow in 2024 Elections.” Brennan Center, October 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dark-money-2024

[8] Center for Responsive Politics. “Dark Money Basics.” OpenSecrets.org, 2024. https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-money/basics

[9] Center for Responsive Politics. “Super PACs Raise Over $4.46 Billion in 2024 Election Cycle.” OpenSecrets.org, 2024. https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/super-pacs/2024

Academic Research & Books

[10] Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics 12, no. 3 (2014): 564-581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595

[11] Gilens, Martin. Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.

[12] Bartels, Larry M. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

[13] Mayer, Jane. Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. New York: Doubleday, 2016.

Health & Pharmaceutical Industry

[14] Wouters, Olivier J. “Lobbying Expenditures and Campaign Contributions by the Pharmaceutical and Health Product Industry in the United States, 1999-2018.” JAMA Internal Medicine 180, no. 5 (2020): 688-697. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2762509

[15] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Drug Overdose Deaths in the United States, 2001-2023.” CDC National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief No. 491, January 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db491.pdf [Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20240115/www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db491.pdf]

[16] KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). “Opioid Overdose Deaths by Type of Opioid.” Updated March 2024. https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/opioid-overdose-deaths-by-type-of-opioid/ [Secondary source preserving CDC data]

[17] Center for Responsive Politics. “Pharmaceutical Industry Political Spending 1999-2018.” OpenSecrets.org, 2019. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/industries/summary?id=H04

Revolving Door & Ethics

[18] Project On Government Oversight. “Revolving Door: 2024 Update on Government-Industry Personnel Exchanges.” POGO, September 2024. https://www.pogo.org/investigation/revolving-door

[19] Tech Transparency Project. “Big Tech’s Revolving Door: FCC Edition.” TTP Report, 2019. https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/big-techs-revolving-door-fcc

[20] Kanter, Genevieve P., and Daniel Carpenter. “The Revolving Door Between the U.S. Government and the Health Care Industry, 2004-2020.” Health Affairs 42, no. 9 (2023): 1298-1303. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2023.00418

[21] Bien, J., and V. Prasad. “Future jobs of FDA’s haematology-oncology reviewers.” BMJ 354 (2016): i5055. https://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i5055

[22] Office of Senator Elizabeth Warren. “Pentagon Alchemy: How Defense Officials Pass Through the Revolving Door and Turn Brass into Gold.” April 26, 2023. https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DoD%20Revolving%20Door%20Report.pdf

[23] Ryan, Missy. “Over 80 percent of four-star retirees are employed in defense industry.” The Washington Post, October 4, 2023. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/10/04/retired-generals-defense-contractors/

[24] Public Citizen. “Revolving Congress: The Revolving Door Class of 2019 Flocks to K Street.” May 30, 2019. https://www.citizen.org/article/revolving-congress/

State & Local Public Financing

[25] Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. “Democracy Voucher Program: 2023 Election Results and Seven-Year Impact Study.” Seattle.gov, January 2024. https://www.seattle.gov/ethics/democracy-voucher

[26] Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission. “2024 Clean Elections Program: Participation and Impact Analysis.” AZCleanElections.gov, December 2024. https://www.azcleanelections.gov/

[27] Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. “Maine Clean Election Act: 2024 Program Results.” Maine.gov, December 2024. https://www.maine.gov/ethics/

[28] New York City Campaign Finance Board. “2023 Election Cycle: Post-Election Report.” NYC.gov, March 2024. https://www.nyccfb.info/

[29] Connecticut Mirror. “New study: CT’s Citizens’ Elections Program has become a national model for clean elections.” CTMirror.org, September 14, 2020. https://ctmirror.org/2020/09/14/new-study-cts-citizens-elections-program-has-become-a-national-model-for-clean-elections/

[30] Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission. “Citizens’ Election Program 2024 Report.” CT.gov, 2024. https://seec.ct.gov/Portal/CEP/CEPLanding

[31] National Conference of State Legislatures. “Public Financing of Campaigns: Overview.” NCSL, Updated 2024. https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/public-financing-of-campaigns-overview

Supreme Court Cases

[32] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/

[33] Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/424/1/

[34] McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/185/

[35] Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/721/

Constitutional Reform

[36] Common Cause. “For the People Amendment: State Progress Report 2024.” Common Cause, September 2024. https://www.commoncause.org/our-work/constitution-courts-and-democracy-issues/for-the-people-amendment/

[37] United For The People. “28th Amendment Campaign: State Resolutions Tracker.” 2024. https://united4thepeople.org/amendments/

[38] RepresentUs. “Anti-Corruption Ballot Initiatives: 2024 Results and 2025-2026 Outlook.” RepresentUs, December 2024. https://represent.us/anticorruption-act/

International Comparisons

[39] Elections Canada. “Political Financing: 2023 Annual Report.” Elections.ca, March 2024. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=can&document=index&lang=e

[40] Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827. Supreme Court of Canada. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2146/index.do

[41] UK Electoral Commission. “Political Party Finance: Regulatory Impact Assessment.” Electoral Commission, 2023. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/

[42] German Federal Returning Officer. “Party Finance Report.” Bundeswahlleiter.de, 2023. https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/

[43] Arkin, Alexandra. “Toward a level playing field: French campaign finance laws.” Michigan State University International Law Review, March 11, 2018. https://www.msuilr.org/msuilr-legalforum-blogs/2018/3/1/toward-a-level-playing-field-french-campaign-finance-laws

Economic & Tax Policy

[44] Tax Policy Center. “The Carried Interest Loophole.” Urban Institute, 2024. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-carried-interest-and-how-it-taxed

[45] Congressional Budget Office. “Tax Expenditures: Carried Interest Provisions.” CBO, 2024. https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/54822

[46] Tax Policy Center. “Historical Highest Marginal Income Tax Rates.” Urban Institute, 2024. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates

Consumer Protection & Credit Cards

[47] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. “CFPB Bans Excessive Credit Card Late Fees, Lowers Typical Fee from $32 to $8.” CFPB.gov, March 5, 2024. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-bans-excessive-credit-card-late-fees-lowers-typical-fee-from-32-to-8/

[48] Consumer Reports. “Consumer, civil rights, and economic justice organizations urge CFPB to finalize proposed limits on credit card late fees.” November 28, 2023. https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/consumer-civil-rights-and-economic-justice-organizations-urge-cfpb-to-finalize-proposed-limits-on-credit-card-late-fees/

[49] Green, Adam. “Republicans Are Objectively Pro–Junk Fee.” The American Prospect, April 18, 2024. https://prospect.org/politics/2024-04-12-republicans-objectively-pro-junk-fee/

Public Opinion & Polling

[50] Pew Research Center. “Public Opinion on Campaign Finance: 2024 Post-Election Survey.” Pew Research, December 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/

[51] Public Integrity. “Study: Most Americans want to kill ‘Citizens United’ with constitutional amendment.” PublicIntegrity.org, January 28, 2022. https://publicintegrity.org/politics/study-most-americans-want-to-kill-citizens-united-with-constitutional-amendment/

[52] Associated Press-NORC Center. “Americans’ Views on Money in Politics: Post-2024 Election Survey.” AP-NORC, December 2024. https://apnorc.org/

[53] Reuters/Ipsos. “Citizens United and Dark Money: 2024 Voter Opinions.” Reuters, October 2024.

Business Perspectives

[54] Brennan Center for Justice. “Money in Politics This Week: Why Business Leaders Support Campaign Finance Reform.” Brennan Center, 2013. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/money-politics-week-why-business-leaders-support-campaign-finance-reform

[55] Committee for Economic Development. “Business and Campaign Finance Reform.” CED, 2023.

Historical & Corruption Cases

[56] Pazniokas, Mark. “Former CT Gov. John Rowland pardoned by Donald Trump.” Connecticut Mirror, May 28, 2025. https://ctmirror.org/2025/05/28/john-rowland-donald-trump-pardon/

[57] “High Drug Prices Return as Issue That Stirs Voters.” The Washington Post, October 15, 2002.

[58] “Oil Group’s ‘Citizen’ Rally Memo Stirs Debate.” The Washington Post, August 15, 2009.

[59] Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance. “Families for Excellent Schools-Advocacy Disposition Agreement.” September 11, 2017. https://www.ocpf.us/

[60] PolitiFact. “It’s true: millions in dark money has been spent to tilt courts right.” September 11, 2019. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/11/sheldon-whitehouse/its-true-millions-dark-money-has-been-spent-tilt/

International Benchmarks

[61] Transparency International. “Corruption Perceptions Index 2023.” Transparency International, 2024. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023

[62] OECD. “OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions: 2024 Results.” OECD Publishing, 2024. https://www.oecd.org/governance/trust-in-government/

[63] Centre for Constitutional Studies. “Harper v Canada (2004) – Third Party Election Advertising limits in Federal Election Campaigns.” University of Alberta, 2012. https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2012/07/harper-v-canada-2004-third-party-election-advertising-limits-in-federal-election-campaigns/

Notes on Sources

  • Multiple sources preserved for critical statistics where government data may disappear
  • Original reporting from 2023-2024 retained when it captured then-current government data
  • Archive.org links included for government sources at risk of removal
  • Secondary sources from credible organizations (KFF, Brennan Center, OpenSecrets) included as backups
  • All links verified as of creation date, with notes where organizations have ceased operations
Posted on

Federal Programs with Exceptional Returns: Where Government Spending Pays Off

Federal Programs with Exceptional Returns: Where Government Spending Pays Off

While debates about government spending often focus on waste and inefficiency, rigorous economic analysis reveals that certain federal programs deliver extraordinary returns on investment—often exceeding what private markets achieve. These high-performance programs share common characteristics: they create permanent benefits, generate spillover effects across multiple sectors, and build foundational capacity that compounds over time.

The methodology of measuring government returns

Government return on investment differs fundamentally from private sector calculations. Unlike corporate investments focused on shareholder returns, federal programs create value across multiple dimensions: direct economic activity, avoided costs, human capital development, and societal benefits that extend far beyond initial spending [1].

Economic multipliers measure how each dollar of government spending generates additional economic activity. Standard infrastructure spending typically produces 1.5-2.2x multipliers, while generic government purchases average 0.5-2.5x returns [2,3]. Tax cuts and transfers generally perform worse, with multipliers ranging from 0.1-1.5x [2].

The most exceptional programs create permanent rather than temporary effects, crowding in private sector investment rather than displacing it, and generating cross-sector spillover benefits that build long-term productive capacity. These characteristics distinguish transformational investments from conventional stimulus spending.

The champions: Programs delivering 10:1+ returns

Weather forecasting: 79:1 return ratio

Continue reading “Federal Programs with Exceptional Returns: Where Government Spending Pays Off”

Posted on

Eight Decades of Trust: How America Built and Lost Statistical Credibility

Data Infrastructure: America’s Foundation

The destruction of America’s data infrastructure is eliminating the credibility that has been the foundation of American global leadership—and without reliable information systems, recovery from mounting economic and democratic challenges becomes nearly impossible.

Markets Can’t Trust the Numbers

Walmart builds distribution centers based on Census Bureau population projections. JPMorgan Chase evaluates mortgage risk using Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data. Tesla plans manufacturing capacity with Department of Energy consumption forecasts. Every major business decision starts with federal data.

This information infrastructure has powered American economic leadership since World War II. While other nations struggled with unreliable statistics, American businesses made trillion-dollar decisions on data they could trust. International investors allocated capital based on American economic indicators. Global markets operated on the assumption that U.S. statistics were accurate and beyond political manipulation.

That foundation cracked on August 1, 2025.

Continue reading “Eight Decades of Trust: How America Built and Lost Statistical Credibility”

Posted on

ROI: Federal Research & Data Investment

Federal Data and Research Spending: Exceptional Economic Returns

Federal government spending on data collection and research activities generates exceptionally high economic multiplier effects, producing 5-15 times higher returns than generic government expenditures [2,3] and supporting over $5 trillion in quantified economic activity across the U.S. economy [6,7,11].

Federal R&D spending generates 5–15x returns

Continue reading “ROI: Federal Research & Data Investment”

Posted on

The More-Is-Better Trap: When Remedy Stacking Backfires

Image of pills and natural remedies all jumbled up. The More-Is-Better Trap: When Remedy Stacking Backfires

More treatments can mean more problems, not more healing

Even harmless remedies can cause harm when combined, because interactions, not the individual substances, often create problems of their own. Whether the label says “natural” or “prescription,” stacking multiple interventions can create a tangle of interactions that no one can fully analyze. In natural health, that might mean combining herbs, supplements, and specialty foods. In conventional medicine, it means layering prescriptions where side effects lead to new diagnoses, new drugs, and still more side effects. In both cases, the result can be a spiral of problems that no one can untangle.

The Allure of More

When you are living with pain or illness, every success story feels like a lifeline. If a single supplement or herb seems to help, it is tempting to think that adding more will speed recovery. Online forums amplify that mindset. “If one helps, five will help more” can start to feel like common sense. Someone might start with high-dose vitamin D, then add ashwagandha, then medicinal mushrooms, then turmeric, all in the same week. This can happen whether the remedies are aimed at joint pain, autoimmune control, digestive health, or anything else.

The same logic plays out in conventional medicine. A prescription relieves one symptom, but another drug is added to manage the side effects. Then another is prescribed to treat the new condition that emerges. For example, a blood pressure medication might cause swelling, which is treated with a diuretic, which then causes electrolyte imbalances that require yet another prescription. Before long, the effects become impossible to track, and even the prescriber cannot say with certainty what is helping and what is making things worse.

Is Safe + Safe Always Safe?

It is easy to assume that if one remedy is safe, and another is safe, then taking both together should also be safe. Sometimes this is true. But sometimes the combination changes how each one works in the body.

Two safe remedies can interact in ways that make the effects much stronger than expected, cancel each other out, or create brand-new effects that neither would cause alone. For example, ashwagandha and valerian might each gently lower blood pressure, but together they could drop it enough to cause dizziness. Similarly, doctors watch for drug interactions because combining medications can turn a safe dose into a dangerous one or make an effective treatment stop working.

Once you are combining multiple treatments, the possible effects multiply. At some point, determining cause and effect becomes impossible for even the most thorough researcher.

A Smarter Path Forward

The only reliable way to understand whether something is helping or harming is to introduce it on its own and give it enough time to see how the body responds before adding anything else. This slower pace avoids the fog of overlapping effects that make sorting out benefits from problems impossible.

Working with a knowledgeable professional can add safety and clarity, but science does not know everything about how the body works, and no one is a statistic. Two people can respond very differently to the same combination. Even with expert guidance, it often comes down to paying close attention to your own body and your own responses.

Conclusion

In health care, natural or conventional, more is not always better. Sometimes the combination itself creates the problem. A deliberate, one-step-at-a-time approach offers the best way out of the more-is-better trap—giving you the clearest path to what actually works.

Read More: Research

Polypharmacy Research: Research involving 1,742,336 older adults found that 44% had polypharmacy (using 5+ medications simultaneously), and up to 11% of unplanned hospital admissions were related to harm from polypharmacy, with about 50% of these being preventable (BioMed Central).

A study investigating drug interactions in an emergency department found that interactions were present in 16% of subjects, with rates ranging from 5.6% for those taking two drugs to 100% for those taking seven drugs (PubMed Central).

Natural Supplement Interactions: Nearly 25% of U.S. adults report concurrently taking a prescription medication with a dietary supplement (PubMed), yet only one-third of supplement users inform their physician (American Academy of Family Physicians) about their use.

A UK study found that about one in three people using supplements concurrently with prescription drugs was at risk of a potential herb-drug interaction (British Journal of General Practice). Some supplements, such as St. John’s wort and goldenseal, are known to cause clinically important drug interactions and should be avoided by most patients receiving any pharmacologic therapy (American Academy of Family Physicians).

The Research Gap: Well-designed clinical studies evaluating herbal supplement-drug interactions are limited and sometimes inconclusive, and most herb-drug interactions identified in current sources are hypothetical, inferred from animal studies or cellular assays (NCCIH).

Citations:

More sources:

Posted on

Will Declaring War Save Trump?

The Real Motive: Controlling the Narrative

Trump just crossed another critical line by bombing another country without congressional approval. This isn’t about defense—it’s calculated political survival. Every time his failures mount, he escalates the drama. Now he’s using the military to control the narrative while America pays the price in lives, democracy, and security.

 

Trump bombed Iran without congressional approval to control the narrative and ensure political survival. America pays the price in lives, democracy, and security.

 

Read the full post here

Posted on

My President, The Mob Boss

From Democracy to International Extortion in Six Months

The United States told twenty-seven democratic nations representing hundreds of millions of people: pay us $600 billion more in investments, buy $750 billion of our energy, open your markets completely to our goods while we impose 15% tariffs—or face economic destruction.

Some call it a victory. I call it heartbreaking. It’s not strength. It’s disgusting. And it started at home.

It wasn’t necessary

It’s particularly heartbreaking because the system was working fine. Nearly $2 trillion in annual trade built on average tariffs of just 2.5%. Both sides prospered. We were, in fact, the world’s most respected economic leader. The system wasn’t broken. Until yesterday.

How allies see us

European officials said they were “dealt a bad hand” and had to make “the best possible play under the circumstances.” Think about that. Our allies—people who have stood with us for decades—are talking about negotiations with America the way you’d describe dealing with a loan shark. They “lacked the leverage” to resist our demands, so they capitulated to avoid something worse. We’re shaking them down.

We have become an organized crime operation

We’ve transformed from the country that built cooperative systems into the one that threatens to destroy lives unless nations pay up. We used to be the nation other countries wanted to work with. Now we’re the one they have to pay off, or face economic ruin.

This doesn’t make America great. It makes America hated. We seem to have forgotten the difference between respect and fear.

Imperial blackmail

This is American leadership now: raw economic coercion replaces partnership; fear substitutes for respect; extortion poses as negotiation.

America is now the strong-arm in a protection racket. Japan’s $550 billion investment package will be deployed ‘at Trump’s discretion’ – foreign tribute money flowing directly through the boss’s personal control. This isn’t trade policy, it’s organized crime.

Our responsibility

We voted for this. For whatever reasons – gerrymandering, emotional manipulation, inability to distinguish lies from truth – we chose this path. It’s particularly galling that we’ve exported the same predatory model we use on our own people.

The truth is that Americans are suffering from wealth extraction by the extractors. For decades, this system has been draining money from working people while wages stagnated and costs soared. Healthcare bankrupts families. Housing eats half your paycheck. Education prices out entire generations. But the extractors perfected controlling the story – calling their extraction ‘economic growth,’ their extortion ‘deals.’ When the scapegoating worked so well domestically, they just switched the tactic to direct threats internationally.

Can’t afford rent? It’s the immigrants driving up demand. Lost your factory job? It’s China stealing our work. Struggling to get ahead? It’s all that foreign trade hurting America. The same people who’ve been robbing you blind hand you a scapegoat and say “there’s your real enemy.”

Can’t solve America’s problems because you’d have to stop extracting wealth? Just shake down other countries instead. Make them pay tribute. The beautiful part is that Americans will pay for this shakedown through tariff taxes while the tribute money flows right back to the same extractors who created our problems in the first place.

It’s the perfect con. Extract wealth from Americans, blame foreigners for the damage, then extract more wealth from the foreigners while Americans pay the bill. The extractors get paid three times while everyone else gets poorer.

The cost to others

In 6 months, we have successfully exported that economic trick worldwide. I feel sorry for the rest of the world, our one-time friends.

Read More

For the wealth extraction argument:

For the broader pattern:

For historical context:

My president: the mob boss. My country: his enablers. the world: pays tribute

Cross posted at https://lfitzhugh.substack.com/p/my-president-the-mob-boss

Posted on

The Shelby County Effect: How One Supreme Court Decision Enabled Nationwide Gerrymandering

The Case for National Civil Rights Protection

The 2013 Shelby County decision gutted the Voting Rights Act, creating a patchwork system where gerrymandering and voter suppression now flourish nationwide. States were ready with restrictive laws the moment federal oversight ended. We need national standards with smart safeguards to restore equal access to the ballot box everywhere in America.

 

The 2013 Shelby County decision gutted the Voting Rights Act, creating a patchwork system where gerrymandering and voter suppression now flourish nationwide. States were ready with restrictive laws the moment federal oversight ended. We need national standards with smart safeguards to restore equal access to the ballot box everywhere in America.

 

Read the full post here

Posted on

The Shelby County Decision Explained, and the Case for National Civil Rights Protection

Summary

The Supreme Court made a pivotal decision in 2013 with Shelby County v. Holder that fundamentally changed voting rights protection across America [1]. The Court struck down a key formula that required certain states with histories of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting laws, creating a patchwork system where discriminatory practices now flourish nationwide and gerrymandering has exploded.

This analysis examines the decision’s impact and makes the case for comprehensive civil rights protections that apply uniformly across all 50 states.

This Analysis Examines the Supreme Court’s 2013 Decision • the Immediate Aftermath and Nationwide Spread of Discrimination • Why Current Patchwork Protection Fails • a Comprehensive Solution With National Standards • Addressing Concerns About Federal Control • Current Threats to Democracy.

Continue reading “The Shelby County Decision Explained, and the Case for National Civil Rights Protection”