Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Common Cause

Common Cause is a United States-based advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John W. Gardner, a Republican who had served in President Lyndon B. Johnson's cabinet, as a "citizens' lobby" aimed at fostering government accountability and citizen participation in politics.^[1]^[2]
Headquartered in Washington, D.C., with more than 25 state organizations, the group describes itself as nonpartisan and grassroots-driven, focusing on issues such as restricting the influence of large campaign donations, safeguarding voting access, and enforcing ethical conduct among public officials.^[1] It claims a membership of 1.5 million supporters and attributes to itself contributions toward reforms like the 26th Amendment lowering the national voting age to 18 and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibiting "soft money" contributions to political parties.^[1]^[2]
Although established with a bipartisan ethos, Common Cause has drawn scrutiny for its leadership, which in recent decades has included multiple former Democratic politicians and figures like Robert Reich, alongside employee political donations disproportionately favoring Democrats and funding from donors such as George Soros, leading critics to question its nonpartisan credentials despite its advocacy for transparency measures that have occasionally aligned with conservative priorities like curbing corporate political spending.^[3]^[4]

Founding and Early History

Origins and John Gardner's Role

Common Cause was established on August 18, 1970, by John W. Gardner, a Republican with extensive experience in public service, including his tenure as U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare from 1965 to 1968 under Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson.^[5]^[6] Gardner, who had resigned from the administration amid frustrations with bureaucratic inertia and escalating national divisions over the Vietnam War, sought to create a vehicle for ordinary citizens to counter perceived unaccountability in government institutions.^[7] In an open letter announcing the organization's launch, he positioned Common Cause as a "citizens' lobby" dedicated to fostering greater responsiveness from elected officials through collective action, rather than relying on elite-driven reforms.^[5]^[8] The founding principles emphasized nonpartisan citizen empowerment, institutional transparency, and structural reforms to address root causes of public disillusionment, such as opaque decision-making processes and limited avenues for public input, which had intensified amid Vietnam-era secrecy and pre-Watergate corruption exposures like influence-peddling scandals.^[2]^[9] Gardner advocated for empirical, evidence-based measures—such as mandatory financial disclosures for public officials—over sweeping ideological changes, drawing on his firsthand observation that government failures stemmed from eroded civic engagement rather than inherent partisan flaws.^[2] This approach reflected a commitment to causal realism, prioritizing verifiable accountability mechanisms to rebuild trust without aligning with any political party, as evidenced by the organization's deliberate exclusion of partisan endorsements from its charter.^[1] Initial response to the call for membership was swift, reflecting widespread frustration with governmental detachment and enabling Common Cause to establish a grassroots foundation independent of traditional lobbying structures.^[5] By framing the effort as a renewal of America's participatory traditions, Gardner aimed to shift power dynamics from insulated elites toward informed public involvement, setting the ideological groundwork for subsequent advocacy without delving into specific policy campaigns.^[8]

Initial Growth and Key Reforms (1970s)

Following its founding in 1970, Common Cause rapidly expanded its membership base, achieving approximately 240,000 active members by the mid-1970s through grassroots recruitment emphasizing citizen accountability in government.^[10] This growth facilitated the establishment of state-level chapters, with early examples including organization in Florida by congressional districts as of 1973, enabling localized advocacy alongside national efforts.^[11] The organization's structure as a "citizens' lobby" under John Gardner prioritized petition drives and public mobilization, such as the campaign supporting ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting age to 18 and was credited in part to Common Cause's lobbying in key states like Wisconsin.^[12] A primary focus of this period was campaign finance transparency, where Common Cause led external advocacy for the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) amendments of 1974, which imposed contribution limits, established public financing for presidential campaigns, and mandated disclosure of political spending to curb undisclosed influence.^[12] Gardner's leadership positioned the group as a key proponent of these reforms amid post-Watergate scrutiny, with members providing congressional testimony and coordinating with allies to pressure lawmakers.^[2] Additional successes included a 1973 coalition effort resulting in the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, granting elected local governance and reflecting Common Cause's push for democratic accountability in federal oversight.^[12] These initiatives highlighted the potential of mass membership to influence legislation, yet empirical outcomes underscored constraints on grassroots lobbying against institutional inertia; for instance, while FECA advanced disclosure, its spending caps faced immediate constitutional challenges in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), revealing how judicial incentives and political entrenchment could dilute reforms despite public mobilization.^[13] Early ethics pushes, including advocacy for congressional codes amid Vietnam-era distrust, similarly yielded partial measures but struggled to fully realign entrenched executive and bureaucratic powers, as evidenced by persistent debates over war authority post-1973.^[14]

Organizational Structure and Operations

Leadership and Governance

Virginia Kase Solomón assumed the role of President and CEO of Common Cause in early 2024, becoming the organization's tenth president, the fourth woman, and the first Hispanic individual to hold the position.^[15] With over 30 years of experience in advocacy, organizing, and policy from prior roles including CEO of the League of Women Voters, Solomón has emphasized expanding the group's capacity for coordinated campaigns across state affiliates to advance democratic reforms.^[16] Under her leadership in 2025, Common Cause has intensified efforts to influence national policy debates, including responses to executive actions on conflicts of interest, while maintaining claims of nonpartisan operation.^[17] The National Governing Board serves as Common Cause's primary oversight body, comprising volunteer members drawn from business, legal, and civic leadership sectors to guide strategic direction and ensure accountability.^[18] Currently chaired by Martha Tierney, the board includes figures such as Chris Melody Fields Figueredo of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center and Vanessa Gonzalez of GIFFORDS, reflecting a mix of policy experts and advocates added in recent years like 2024.^[19] This composition aims to balance expertise with grassroots input, though the predominance of established institutional leaders has prompted questions about potential divergence from the founder's emphasis on broad citizen mobilization over elite-driven agendas.^[18] Historically, leadership transitioned from founder John W. Gardner, who chaired the organization from 1970 to 1977 and prioritized citizen-driven reforms as a Republican former cabinet official, to subsequent presidents who adapted to evolving political landscapes.^[20] Governance relies on a hybrid model of volunteer board oversight and a professional paid staff of approximately 100, focused on coordinating 35 state entities through data-informed metrics on affiliate engagement and campaign outcomes to sustain nonpartisan advocacy.^[1] Decisions under extended tenures, such as those spanning multiple decades in senior roles, have correlated with shifts toward intensified litigation and organizing tactics, warranting evaluation against Gardner's original causal framework of empowering ordinary citizens rather than institutional insiders.^[1]

Funding Sources and Financial Transparency

Common Cause, as a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, derives its funding primarily from individual contributions and foundation grants, with fiscal year 2024 revenue totaling $8.4 million, of which $8.2 million came from contributions and grants.^[21] These contributions include small-scale grassroots donations from its claimed base of over 1.5 million supporters and activists, though IRS filings do not break out membership dues separately, suggesting many are modest individual gifts rather than structured dues.^[22] Foundation grants supplement this, enabling operations without reliance on large corporate or partisan funding, though specific grantors like the MacArthur Foundation have provided support to affiliated efforts, potentially aligning with progressive policy emphases despite the organization's nonpartisan claims.^[23] The affiliated Common Cause Education Fund, a separate 501(c)(3) entity focused on research, education, and litigation, reported $25.1 million in revenue for fiscal year 2024, nearly all ($24.6 million) from contributions and philanthropic grants, maintaining distinct finances to comply with tax rules prohibiting lobbying by (c)(3)s.^[24] This separation allows the (c)(4) arm to engage in direct advocacy and limited political activities, with 2024 federal lobbying expenditures at $120,000 and total contributions to federal election cycles amounting to $7,953, figures that underscore relatively modest political spending compared to the group's advocacy against "big money" in politics.^[25] IRS Form 990 filings for both entities reveal total expenses of $9.3 million for the (c)(4) and $17.0 million for the (c)(3), reflecting lean operations sustained by diversified but donor-dependent revenue streams.^[21]^[24] Transparency practices include public disclosure of donors contributing $2,500 or more in annual reports, listed by name, state, and contribution range without exact amounts, with smaller gifts ($250+) available upon request; anonymous donations over $25,000 require executive committee approval to mitigate undue influence.^[26] While this policy promotes accountability, critics argue it obscures full traceability of indirect funding through progressive-leaning foundations and affiliates, potentially undermining claims of independence given the predominance of grants from entities with left-of-center grantmaking histories, even as aggregate data shows no dominance by mega-donors.^[27] Such patterns raise questions about consistency, as the organization's small election contributions mirror the "dark money" dynamics it opposes, though on a far smaller scale verifiable via FEC reports.^[25] Overall, financial data from IRS filings indicate sustainable but constrained budgets, reliant on recurring small donations amid broader donor ecosystem influences.^[28]

Membership, Affiliates, and Grassroots Model

Common Cause employs a decentralized grassroots model that coordinates national strategy from its Washington, D.C. headquarters with operations through more than 25 state organizations, enabling localized, issue-specific advocacy campaigns while maintaining unified national priorities.^[1] This structure aligns with founder John Gardner's 1970 conception of a "people's lobby," intended to empower individual citizens as counterweights to professional lobbyists and institutional insiders by fostering volunteer-led pressure on elected officials.^[1] Gardner, a former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under President Lyndon B. Johnson, envisioned ordinary Americans pooling efforts to demand transparency and accountability, drawing on the post-Watergate era's public disillusionment with elite influence.^[29] The organization claims support from over 1.5 million members and grassroots activists nationwide, a figure encompassing both dues-paying members and email list subscribers mobilized for actions such as petition drives and voter outreach.^[1] State affiliates, operating in over 25 locations, handle on-the-ground coordination with local volunteers, including training sessions and district-level canvassing, to amplify national campaigns without relying on top-down directives.^[30] Historical mobilization efforts in the 1970s demonstrated the model's potential for scale, as rapid sign-ups fueled early successes like pushing for campaign finance disclosures, though precise peak active volunteer numbers from that period remain undocumented in contemporary records.^[12] From a causal standpoint, the efficacy of this volunteer-centric approach is constrained by the inherent challenges of sustaining grassroots participation against institutional inertia, where entrenched political and economic interests resist structural changes. Empirical trends in U.S. civic engagement reveal broader declines in organizational volunteering since the 1970s, with rates stagnating amid rising opportunity costs of time and eroding trust in collective action, which likely mirrors Common Cause's experience of fluctuating mobilization despite its claimed membership base.^[31] While the model facilitates targeted bursts of activity—such as state-level petitions gathering thousands of signatures—it struggles to generate persistent pressure, as initial enthusiasm often dissipates without proportional policy breakthroughs, underscoring the limits of decentralized citizen lobbying in overcoming systemic barriers.^[1]

Policy Advocacy Areas

Campaign Finance and Money in Politics

Common Cause has advocated for comprehensive campaign finance reforms since its founding, emphasizing contribution limits, public financing of elections, and mandatory disclosure to curb perceived undue influence by wealthy donors and special interests. The organization played a key role in the post-Watergate push for the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) amendments of 1974, which established public disclosure requirements for contributions over $10 and capped individual contributions at $1,000 per candidate per election, aiming to enhance transparency and reduce secret funding.^[2] These provisions have since enabled tracking of over $16 billion in federal contributions during the 2020 election cycle alone, though enforcement relies on the Federal Election Commission. Following the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which invalidated restrictions on independent expenditures by corporations and unions as violations of free speech under the First Amendment, Common Cause intensified efforts to overturn the ruling through a constitutional amendment, arguing it amplified "dark money" from undisclosed sources and eroded equality in political voice.^[32] The group promotes small-donor matching systems, such as Seattle's "democracy vouchers" implemented in 2017, where residents receive $100 in public funds to allocate to candidates, which increased small-donor participation to 13% of contributions by 2021 while reducing reliance on large donors.^[33] At the state level, Common Cause supported Massachusetts' 1998 disclosure law, which mandates pre-election reporting of ad funding, allowing voters access to donor information during campaigns and reducing anonymous influence in races.^[34] While disclosure measures like those in FECA have empirically improved transparency—evidenced by public databases revealing donor patterns—reforms targeting spending limits or public financing often rest on assumptions of direct causal links between contributions and corruption that lack robust support in data. Peer-reviewed analyses, such as those examining legislative voting post-contribution, find limited evidence of quid pro quo corruption, with factors like constituent interests and ideology explaining most policy outcomes rather than donor pressure.^[35] Critics from free-market perspectives argue that equating money with corruption overlooks voter agency and the role of funds in disseminating information, as affirmed in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which distinguished contribution limits (upheld to prevent corruption) from expenditure caps (struck down as speech restrictions). Moreover, disparities in spending reveal imbalances not solely favoring corporations; Federal Election Commission data from the 2016 cycle show corporate PACs disbursing $178 million compared to $50.7 million from labor unions, yet unions directed 92% of their contributions to Democrats versus corporations' more balanced split.^[36] Such empirical patterns challenge narratives of uniform "big money" dominance, suggesting reforms may inadvertently constrain competitive speech without proportionally addressing partisan funding skews, as union expenditures—often from aggregated member dues—exert targeted influence comparable to corporate outlays in scale relative to their resources.^[37] Common Cause's focus on corporate reform, while achieving disclosure gains, has drawn scrutiny for underemphasizing these asymmetries, potentially reflecting selective causal framing over comprehensive data on influence dynamics.^[38]

Electoral Processes and Voting Reforms

Common Cause has opposed strict voter identification requirements at polling places, arguing that such laws impose unnecessary barriers to voting without addressing prevalent forms of fraud, and has litigated against them in states like Pennsylvania and Georgia as measures that suppress turnout among eligible voters.^[39]^[40] Empirical analyses of election data, including reviews by academic institutions, confirm that in-person impersonation fraud—the type voter ID primarily targets—occurs at rates below 0.0001% of ballots cast, with comprehensive databases documenting fewer than 500 proven instances nationwide since 2000 amid billions of votes.^[41]^[42] Conservative advocates counter that absolute rarity does not negate the causal risk in razor-thin margins, as seen in audits of close races like Georgia's 2018 gubernatorial contest where discrepancies exceeded documented fraud but highlighted verification gaps, emphasizing personal voter responsibility over presumptive access.^[43] The organization supports implementation of voter-verified paper audit trails (VVPAT) for all electronic voting systems, contending that paper records enable post-election audits to detect and correct discrepancies, thereby safeguarding against manipulation or errors in direct-recording electronic (DRE) machines.^[44] Security experts have demonstrated vulnerabilities in paperless systems, including remote exploits and unaltered vote tampering in laboratory tests of machines used in multiple states, underscoring how lack of auditable backups amplifies risks from outdated software and insufficient encryption.^[45]^[46] While Common Cause frames VVPAT as essential for trust without restricting access, critics from election integrity perspectives argue that reliance on expansions like no-excuse absentee voting—without uniform safeguards—introduces higher fraud vectors, as evidenced by elevated discrepancy rates in mail-in systems during 2020, where audits revealed operational errors affecting thousands of ballots in states like Pennsylvania.^[47] Common Cause advocates for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a state-level agreement to allocate electoral votes to the presidential candidate winning the national popular vote, which had secured pledges from states totaling 209 electoral votes as of 2023, short of the 270 needed for activation.^[48]^[49] Proponents, including the group, assert this reform equalizes voter influence across states, citing instances like the 2000 and 2016 elections where popular vote winners lost the presidency. Opponents highlight potential incentives for fraud concentration in populous urban areas, where population density could amplify small-percentage manipulations, and note that the Electoral College's federalist structure incentivizes broader geographic turnout, with data showing higher per-capita campaigning in swing states versus safe ones under a pure popular system.^[43] The compact's constitutionality remains untested, as it circumvents federal amendment processes but could face Supreme Court challenges on interstate commerce or republican government grounds.^[50]

Government Ethics and Accountability

Common Cause has advocated for measures to enforce ethical standards on public officials, emphasizing disclosure requirements and restrictions on conflicts of interest in post-election conduct. A primary effort involved supporting the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012, which prohibits members of Congress and their staff from using nonpublic information derived from their positions for personal securities trading and mandates disclosure of financial transactions within 30 days.^[51] The organization also backed the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) in 2008 amid bribery scandals, urging its permanence and enhanced authority to investigate violations independently of congressional committees.^[52] In lobbying reforms, Common Cause has pushed for stricter post-employment restrictions and transparency in official interactions with former regulators, including extensions of cooling-off periods to curb the revolving door between government and industry. These initiatives aim to mitigate undue influence on policy decisions, distinct from campaign-related funding. The group has filed ethics complaints against administrations for violations, such as 57 against the Trump administration for improper use of government platforms.^[53] The STOCK Act increased financial disclosures and deterred some exploitative trading, with empirical analysis showing reduced buy transactions by House members and evidence of curbed personal gains from official positions.^[54]^[55] However, enforcement gaps persist, as dozens of members violated disclosure rules in the decade following enactment, and high-profile cases like Senator Richard Burr's 2020 trades highlighted ongoing insider risks.^[56]^[57] Broader reviews of public sector ethics reforms indicate mixed effects on corruption levels, often failing to reduce recidivism due to entrenched incentives from centralized power structures that prioritize regulatory expansion over decentralization.^[58]^[59] Such rules enhance oversight mechanisms but seldom address root causal factors like concentrated authority, potentially entrenching bureaucratic enforcers without proportionally curbing misconduct.^[58]

Redistricting and Constitutional Issues

Common Cause advocates for independent citizen redistricting commissions to redraw electoral district boundaries, contending that these nonpartisan bodies mitigate the risks of partisan manipulation by elected officials. The organization opposes maps drawn predominantly for partisan advantage, promoting criteria such as compactness, contiguity, and respect for communities of interest to ensure representational fairness.^[60]^[61] In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), Common Cause challenged North Carolina's 2016 congressional redistricting plan in federal court, alleging it constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander that diluted the voting power of non-Republican voters. The plaintiffs presented evidence including the efficiency gap metric, which measures the difference in "wasted votes" between parties—votes that do not contribute to winning seats—revealing that Republicans secured 53% of the statewide vote but 77% of seats, yielding an efficiency gap of 12.5% in favor of Republicans. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling authored by Chief Justice Roberts on June 27, 2019, dismissed the claims as non-justiciable political questions, determining that no clear constitutional standards exist for federal courts to adjudicate excessive partisanship in districting, and that such matters fall to legislatures, Congress, or state processes.^[62]^[63] Following Rucho, Common Cause shifted emphasis to state-level litigation and reforms, participating in coalitions that achieved fairer legislative maps in Wisconsin. In February 2024, Governor Tony Evers signed new state assembly and senate districts into law after a state supreme court ruling invalidated prior Republican-drawn maps as unconstitutional gerrymanders; these revisions reduced the Republican seat advantage from a projected 64-35 assembly majority under old maps (despite competitive statewide vote shares) to a more proportional 54-45 split based on 2022 election data. Common Cause Wisconsin contributed through the Fair Maps Coalition, providing alternative maps and public testimony that highlighted deviations from least-change and compactness standards.^[64]^[65] Constitutional debates surrounding Common Cause's efforts center on the justiciability of partisan gerrymandering and the validity of remedial metrics. Proponents of judicial limits, as articulated in Rucho, defend legislative prerogative under Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which entrusts states with primary authority over congressional districting subject to political accountability via elections and reapportionment cycles, rather than unelected courts imposing partisan symmetry tests that lack historical or textual basis. Empirical critiques of anti-gerrymandering claims note that the efficiency gap, while quantifying vote-seat disproportionality, conflates deliberate manipulation with baseline geographic polarization; simulations of districting plans demonstrate that voter self-sorting into ideologically clustered communities—driven by migration patterns since the 1990s—generates "packed" districts naturally, amplifying efficiency gaps without mapmakers' intent. One analysis across U.S. states found that partisan gerrymandering's seat effects largely cancel nationally, with Democrats benefiting in some cycles (e.g., 8.1% average efficiency gap advantage in 2012 state legislatures) and Republicans in others, suggesting overstated causal impact relative to underlying electoral geography.^[62]^[66]^[67] Post-Rucho constraints have prompted Common Cause to pursue advisory commissions and state ballot initiatives, as in efforts to enshrine independent processes in Pennsylvania and Michigan constitutions, while decrying the decision for insulating extreme maps from federal scrutiny. These state successes underscore that political processes can yield reforms without judicial overreach, though persistent reliance on metrics like the efficiency gap invites scrutiny for ignoring confounding factors such as incumbency protection and turnout differentials, which independently skew outcomes.^[68]^[69]

Achievements and Legislative Impact

Major Policy Wins and Reforms

Common Cause played a pivotal role in the post-Watergate era reforms, contributing to the enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) amendments on October 15, 1974, which imposed limits on individual and PAC contributions to federal candidates, established the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for enforcement, and created a system of partial public financing for presidential campaigns through small-donor matching funds.^[12]^[70] These measures mandated timely disclosure of campaign finances, resulting in the FEC processing over 1.5 million disclosure reports by 2024, enabling public scrutiny of more than $20 billion in federal election spending since inception. The organization's grassroots mobilization, including petitions signed by over one million citizens, helped build bipartisan congressional support amid scandals that eroded trust in undisclosed political funding.^[12] In government ethics, Common Cause advocated for the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, signed into law on October 26, which required high-level federal officials to file annual financial disclosures and imposed a one-year cooling-off period before former executives could lobby their agencies, aiming to curb conflicts of interest and the revolving door.^[12] This legislation established the Office of Government Ethics and led to thousands of annual disclosures, though enforcement challenges persisted, with only about 20% of covered officials facing investigations for violations in subsequent decades per GAO audits. Bipartisan backing, including from Senate Republicans, underscored the reforms' foundation in restoring accountability without partisan targeting.^[12] At the state level, Common Cause supported efforts culminating in Minnesota's omnibus elections bill signed by Governor Tim Walz on May 22, 2024, which ended prison gerrymandering by directing the counting of incarcerated individuals at their last known home addresses for redistricting purposes rather than prison locations.^[71]^[72] This change, advocated by Common Cause Minnesota through testimony on HF4043, addresses distortions where rural prison-hosting districts gained inflated representation—potentially shifting up to 10,000 votes in affected areas based on 2020 census data—while aligning with similar reforms in 13 prior states like New York (2010) and Maryland (2011).^[73]^[74] Regulatory advocacy yielded the Federal Communications Commission's 3-2 vote on April 25, 2024, to restore net neutrality under Title II classification, prohibiting broadband providers from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content, a policy Common Cause had pushed since the 2015 Open Internet Order to safeguard equal internet access for organizing and information flow.^[75] The rules, effective mid-2024, reimposed transparency mandates that had lapsed in 2017, potentially benefiting low-income users by curbing data discrimination, though critics noted minimal prior ISP abuses under lighter regulation from 2017-2024 FCC data.^[76]

Legal Victories and Judicial Influence

Common Cause has engaged in extensive litigation on redistricting, electoral processes, and ethics enforcement, yielding a record of partial successes amid notable federal setbacks that highlight judicial deference to political mechanisms. In the 2019 Supreme Court case Rucho v. Common Cause, the organization challenged North Carolina's congressional district maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders, but the Court ruled 5-4 that such claims present non-justiciable political questions unsuitable for federal judicial resolution.^[62] The decision, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, emphasized that excessive court involvement in districting risks undermining democratic accountability by overriding legislative and electoral remedies, leaving challenges to state constitutions or political processes.^[77] This outcome constrained federal oversight of partisan map-drawing, despite lower courts finding the maps dilutive of voters' influence based on efficiency gap metrics exceeding 10% in affected districts. State-level courts have provided avenues for Common Cause victories, particularly on racial gerrymandering claims. In Common Cause v. Lewis (2017), a three-judge panel invalidated portions of North Carolina's state legislative maps for packing Black voters into fewer districts, violating the state constitution's Whole County Provision and equal population requirements; subsequent remedial maps were enacted after appeals.^[78] Empirical analysis in the case showed districts engineered to achieve over 90% correlation between Republican vote share and seat allocation, underscoring causal links between map design and representational skew. A significant federal triumph occurred in Moore v. Harper (2023), stemming from Common Cause's challenge to North Carolina's 2022 congressional maps as partisan gerrymanders. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 against the independent state legislature theory, holding that state courts retain authority to review legislative election laws under state constitutions, thereby preserving checks on unchecked legislative power in apportionment. This precedent, rejecting arguments for absolute legislative supremacy, reinforced judicial roles in enforcing baseline electoral fairness without endorsing boundless intervention, as evidenced by the Court's remand for state court reconsideration under traditional limits.^[79] Common Cause exerts judicial influence through amicus curiae participation, filing briefs in over 20 Supreme Court cases annually on average since 2010, providing data-driven arguments on voter dilution and transparency.^[80] Examples include supporting respondents in Trump v. Anderson (2024) to uphold Section 3 disqualification mechanisms under causal interpretations of insurrection clauses, and advocating ethics reforms in cases probing judicial disclosures.^[81] Such filings contribute factual appendices on dark money flows—e.g., undisclosed contributions exceeding $1 billion in federal races from 2010-2020—but empirical studies indicate amicus impact varies, with ideological alignment correlating more to citation rates than evidentiary novelty.^[82] Critics, drawing from Rucho's rationale, contend repeated litigation risks "lawfare" that evades voter-mediated accountability, as federal precedents since 2019 show only 15% of partisan gerrymander suits succeeding amid rising state-level map challenges.^[68]

Criticisms and Controversies

Allegations of Partisan Bias and Left-Leaning Shift

Common Cause was founded in 1970 by John W. Gardner, a Republican who had served as U.S. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under President Lyndon B. Johnson, with the explicit aim of creating a nonpartisan citizens' lobby to promote government accountability and reform.^[27] Initially, the organization pursued bipartisan goals, such as campaign finance reform and opposition to the Vietnam War, attracting a broad membership base. However, critics have alleged a leftward ideological shift over time, pointing to leadership patterns where the last three presidents—Bob Edgar (2007–2013), Chellie Pingree (2003–2007), and others—were former Democratic politicians, and current board chair Martha Tierney has expertise in progressive election law advocacy.^[3] In state affiliates, such as Rhode Island, nearly all board members have been registered Democrats, prompting accusations of partisan capture despite the group's nonpartisan claims.^[83] Common Cause maintains it remains independent and focused on systemic reforms, rejecting bias allegations as mischaracterizations of its policy work.^[1] Empirical indicators of left-leaning alignment include selective advocacy against conservative figures and policies. For instance, Common Cause opposed Republican nominees such as Robert Bork in 1987, Newt Gingrich's speakership in 1995, Tom DeLay's leadership in 2006, Jeff Sessions' attorney general confirmation in 2017, and Clarence Thomas' judicial record, while supporting Democratic nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson in 2022.^[27] Its Democracy Scorecards, which evaluate lawmakers on "pro-democracy" bills like the Freedom to Vote Act and John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act—measures overwhelmingly backed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans—reveal stark partisan disparities, with Democratic members consistently scoring higher.^[84] Post-2020 activities have emphasized challenges to Republican-led election policies, such as gerrymandering suits primarily targeting GOP-drawn maps, further fueling claims of uneven scrutiny despite bipartisan rhetoric.^[27] Funding sources underscore ties to progressive networks, deviating from the organization's founding ethos. Between 2018 and 2023, Common Cause received over $1.4 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a left-leaning donor-advised fund; $625,000 from the North Fund; $800,000 from Democracy Fund Voice; and significant contributions from the Open Society Action Fund.^[27] Its affiliated Common Cause Education Fund draws from liberal foundations including the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Tides Foundation, supporting advocacy against Citizens United and for union-aligned reforms.^[85] Independent assessments, such as those rating the group as left-center biased due to policy preferences, align with these patterns, though Common Cause attributes its donor base to shared commitments to democracy rather than ideology.^[86]

Concerns Over Free Speech and Overreach

Critics of Common Cause's campaign finance reform agenda argue that proposals such as contribution limits, public funding mandates, and efforts to overturn Citizens United v. FEC (2010) constitute overreach by subordinating First Amendment protections to speculative anti-corruption goals.^[87] In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that independent expenditures by corporations, unions, and individuals on political speech do not give rise to corruption or its appearance, affirming that such spending constitutes core protected expression rather than mere "money in politics." Common Cause, which filed an amicus brief urging reversal of corporate speech bans, has persistently advocated for constitutional amendments or legislation to impose aggregate spending caps and disclosure requirements that opponents contend chill advocacy by raising compliance costs and deterring grassroots participation.^[88] Empirical analyses post-Citizens United indicate that relaxing expenditure restrictions expanded the volume and diversity of political discourse, countering claims of diminished pluralism. A decade after the decision, independent expenditures surged from $147 million in 2008 to over $1 billion in 2018, correlating with increased ad volume from non-incumbent and outsider groups, which enhanced electoral competition without evidence of reduced viewpoint diversity.^[89] Conversely, pre-2010 restrictions under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 suppressed certain issue advocacy, as evidenced by a 30-50% drop in broadcast ads from regulated entities in the months before elections, effectively muting non-candidate voices during critical periods.^[90] In Arizona's now-defunct matching funds system, struck down in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett (2011), public subsidies to opponents of privately funded candidates demonstrably chilled speech, with candidates reducing expenditures by up to 20% to avoid triggering matching funds that amplified rivals' messages.^[91] While Common Cause frames these reforms as essential to combat undue influence and perceived corruption, data undermine the causal link between unregulated spending and systemic graft. The United States maintains a Corruption Perceptions Index score of 69 in 2023 (ranking 24th globally), reflecting low actual public-sector bribery despite high campaign expenditures exceeding $14 billion in the 2020 cycle, suggesting that robust enforcement of anti-bribery laws—such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and federal prosecutions—addresses corruption independently of spending caps. Countries with stringent limits, like Canada (CPI 76 but with historical speech suppression via "election advertising" bans), show no consistent superiority in curbing elite capture, implying that limits often entrench incumbents by limiting challengers' access to amplification. First-principles scrutiny reveals that equating expenditures with corruption presumes quid pro quo without evidence of prevalence, as independent speech rarely translates to policy favors absent direct coordination, which remains prosecutable under existing statutes.^[92] These concerns highlight a philosophical tension: reform advocates' intent to level the playing field risks paternalistically restricting citizens' associational rights, as upheld in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), where the Court invalidated expenditure ceilings for distorting electoral pluralism without proven anti-corruption gains. Overreach manifests in Common Cause-backed bills like the DISCLOSE Act, which impose donor disclosure on issue groups, potentially exposing advocates to harassment and reprisals, as seen in IRS targeting of Tea Party organizations post-2010.^[93] Such measures, while aimed at transparency, empirically correlate with self-censorship among minority viewpoints, reducing the marketplace of ideas rather than purifying it.^[94]

Questions of Effectiveness and Selective Focus

Critics of Common Cause argue that its long-term efforts to reform campaign finance and related processes have yielded mixed results at best, with limited durability in reducing financial influences on politics. Despite advocacy leading to measures like the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, which established public funding for presidential campaigns, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which restricted soft money contributions, total spending in U.S. federal elections has risen dramatically over subsequent decades. Data from the Center for Responsive Politics show expenditures increasing from approximately $1.6 billion in the 1980 election cycle to $14.4 billion in 2020, even as regulatory frameworks expanded. ^[95] This upward trend, accelerated post-Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 but evident earlier, indicates that top-down restrictions often fail to curb overall money flows, as participants adapt through vehicles like super PACs and independent expenditures. ^[96] Such outcomes have prompted skepticism about the efficacy of process-oriented interventions, with conservative analysts asserting that Common Cause overemphasizes rule changes without addressing root causal factors like electoral incentives and voter disengagement, leading to persistent influence peddling. ^[3] For instance, corruption scandals, including those involving public officials, have continued unabated despite these reforms, often stemming from personal or relational ties rather than direct contributions, underscoring a gap between procedural fixes and substantive accountability. ^[3] Empirical reviews of campaign finance laws similarly find no clear evidence of reduced policy capture or enhanced democratic responsiveness, as spending correlates strongly with electoral success but circumvention tactics erode intended constraints. ^[97] Common Cause's selective emphasis on certain issues has also drawn scrutiny, particularly for apparent disparities in targeting influences aligned with one political side over the other. Conservative critiques, such as those from the Capital Research Center, highlight the organization's focus on conservative networks like the Koch brothers or the American Legislative Exchange Council while relatively sparing progressive counterparts, including labor unions' substantial political expenditures exceeding $1.7 billion in the 2020 cycle alone. ^[3] ^[95] This pattern is compounded by Common Cause's acceptance of millions in funding from left-leaning donors, including $2.625 million from George Soros-linked entities since 2000, which contrasts with its broad condemnations of large-scale private money in politics. ^[3] Such inconsistencies, noted in analyses of the group's donor base and advocacy priorities, suggest a tilt that prioritizes critiquing right-leaning power structures, potentially reflecting institutional biases rather than uniform application of reform principles across ideological lines. ^[27]

Recent Developments and Current Activities

Post-2020 Election Engagements

Following the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Common Cause intensified efforts to combat what it characterized as disinformation undermining voter confidence, including claims of widespread fraud propagated by former President Donald Trump and allies. The organization published the October 2021 report "As a Matter of Fact: The Harms Caused by Election Disinformation," documenting tactics such as false narratives about vote tallies and ballot integrity, arguing these eroded public trust and facilitated suppression.^[98] Empirical reviews, including audits in states like Georgia and Arizona, state-level recounts, and dismissals in over 60 lawsuits by November 2021, verified isolated irregularities—such as improper ballot handling in a small number of cases—but no systemic fraud altering outcomes, with fraud rates remaining under 0.0001% in verified instances per the Heritage Foundation's database of prosecuted cases. In legal engagements tied to 2020 fallout, Common Cause filed an amicus curiae brief on January 30, 2024, in Trump v. Anderson before the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting Colorado's exclusion of Trump from the primary ballot under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, citing his alleged incitement of the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach as insurrection.^[99] The brief emphasized uniform enforcement of constitutional disqualifications to prevent selective application, though the Court unanimously reversed Colorado's ruling on March 4, 2024, holding states lack authority to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates absent congressional action. Critics from conservative outlets, such as the Federalist Society, contended such advocacy reflected selective outrage, prioritizing accountability for one side's irregularities while minimizing scrutiny of expanded no-excuse mail voting and drop-box protocols that enabled potential localized abuses without bipartisan safeguards. Common Cause also sustained voter protection amid persistent fraud allegations, staffing the 866-OUR-VOTE hotline and deploying observers for subsequent elections, framing these as defenses against intimidation tactics disguised as integrity measures.^[100] A 2022 internal assessment noted coalition successes in countering suppression claims, but the group's "Under the Microscope" report critiqued election denialism as a profit-driven ecosystem, attributing post-2020 distrust to partisan influencers rather than unresolved procedural flaws like unchallenged signature mismatches in battleground states.^[101] This approach drew accusations of one-sidedness, as conservative analyses highlighted overlooked causal factors, including uneven enforcement of absentee ballot verification, contributing to verifiable discrepancies in under 1% of ballots per state audits, yet prompting broader skepticism without equivalent institutional response.

Initiatives from 2023 to 2025

In 2023, Common Cause intensified advocacy for reinstating net neutrality protections, urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to proceed with rulemaking initiated after the confirmation of Commissioner Anna Gomez, culminating in the FCC's 3-2 vote on April 25, 2024, to restore open internet rules prohibiting broadband providers from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing content.^[102]^[103] This effort addressed concerns over internet service provider interference, though critics argued the rules imposed unnecessary regulatory burdens without evidence of widespread abuse post-2017 repeal.^[76] Common Cause contributed to redistricting reforms in Wisconsin, supporting litigation that led to the state Supreme Court's December 2023 ruling invalidating Republican-drawn legislative maps as unconstitutional gerrymanders, prompting the adoption of fairer maps in early 2024 that enhanced district competitiveness and better aligned with statewide partisan balance based on vote shares.^[103]^[104] These maps reduced extreme partisan skew, with post-implementation analysis showing increased electoral viability for both parties in previously safe seats, though durability remains contingent on future court adherence to non-partisan criteria.^[105] In Minnesota, Common Cause's campaigns against prison gerrymandering—where incarcerated individuals are counted in prison locations rather than home communities, inflating rural voting power—succeeded in 2024 legislative reforms mandating that prisoners be tallied at their last known residence for redistricting purposes, thereby correcting representational distortions affecting urban and minority districts.^[103]^[106] This change, enacted amid broader democracy package discussions, aligned with empirical evidence from prior state adoptions showing reduced vote dilution, though implementation awaits the 2030 census cycle for full verification.^[107] By May 2025, Common Cause expanded its leadership structure to bolster campaign infrastructure, appointing Alma Couverthie as Senior Vice President of Campaigns and Organizing to coordinate member mobilization and policy pushes, amid ongoing efforts to counter perceived threats to electoral integrity.^[108] The organization also voiced support for congressional stock trading bans in 2025, endorsing bills like those reintroduced by Representatives Krishnamoorthi and Fitzpatrick to prohibit members from trading individual stocks based on nonpublic information, though passage stalled amid partisan disagreements on enforcement mechanisms.^[109]^[110] In August 2025, Common Cause issued a policy statement opposing mid-decade redistricting manipulations, reaffirming commitments to independent commissions and fair maps amid emerging congressional boundary challenges, emphasizing data-driven processes to prevent partisan entrenchment.^[111] These initiatives reflect Common Cause's focus on structural reforms, with outcomes like net neutrality and gerrymandering corrections demonstrating measurable shifts in policy durability, albeit vulnerable to regulatory reversals or judicial review.^[12]

References

[1]
About Us - Common Cause
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy.National Governing Board · Financials · Common Cause Education Fund · CareersMissing: founders | Show results with:founders
[2]
JOHN GARDNER - COMMON CAUSE - PBS
Common Cause became one of the staunchest advocates of campaign finance reform. In 1971, they sued both the Democratic and Republican parties for violating ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
[3]
Uncommon Hypocrisy: Common Cause claims to seek good ...
May 16, 2014 · The last three presidents of the supposedly “independent, nonpartisan” organization have been Democratic politicians, one of whom went on to be ...
[4]
https://www.thehill.com/policy/finance/215589-common-cause-occupiers-rally-against-corporate-political-spending
[5]
Common Cause Turns 45
Aug 18, 2015 · Common Cause, Gardner's ambitious project, was launched 45 years ago today. In an open letter to the nation, he described it as a “citizens' ...Missing: founding context Watergate distrust
[6]
John W. Gardner (1965–1968) - Miller Center
Gardner, a liberal Republican, quickly faced challenges from liberal factions of Congress and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which accused HEW of dragging its ...
[7]
Public Advocate | John W. Gardner - Spotlight Exhibits
In 1970, Gardner founded nonpartisan Common Cause in an effort to mobilize American citizens to help take control of what felt like a nation completely out of ...
[8]
John W. Gardner, 89, Founder of Common Cause and Adviser to ...
Feb 18, 2002 · John W. Gardner, an eloquent voice for citizen participation who founded the Common Cause lobby, championed campaign finance reform and introduced Medicare.
[9]
[PDF] America in the Post-Watergate Era: Politics of Distrust and the Myth ...
John. Gardner in his book explaining the founding of Common Cause, called for a vast overhaul of campaign finance reform and for greater government transparency ...
[10]
Leading voice in civic studies speaks at Constitution Day event - JMU
Sep 10, 2025 · Though Common Cause had grown to about 240,000 active members in the 1970s and largely retained them through the mid-1990s, Levine said ...
[11]
Our History - Common Cause Florida
Jun 7, 2024 · Like Colorado, volunteer activists within Florida's burgeoning membership, organized by congressional districts as early as 1973, soon ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[12]
Our Impact - Common Cause
Common Cause has been fighting for and winning key democracy reforms since our founding in 1970. We've worked to protect voters, limit Big Money's influence on ...Missing: mission | Show results with:mission
[13]
The Business PAC Phenomenon: An Irony of Electoral Reform
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is the root of the PAC growth of the ... According to Common Cause, between 1974 and 1976 corporate and trade ...
[14]
John W. Gardner | Mike Kirst Biography Project
Background: Link: https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/us-history-biographies/john-william-gardner. John W. Gardner (born 1912) had a varied and ...Missing: reason motivation
[15]
Virginia Kase Solomón Named Tenth President of Common Cause
Dec 14, 2023 · Solomón, the current CEO of the League of Women Voters, will become Common Cause's tenth president, the fourth woman, and the first Hispanic person to lead the ...
[16]
Virginia Kase Solomón - Common Cause
As President and CEO of Common Cause, Virginia leverages her 30 years of experience in advocacy, organizing, and policy to deliver pro-democracy wins at every ...
[17]
Virginia Kase Solomón on the Trump Administration and Potential ...
May 19, 2025 · Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, talked about President Trump's decision to accept a luxury plane from Qatari royals.
[18]
National Governing Board - Common Cause
Common Cause's national governing body is a distinguished group of business, legal, and civic leaders from across America. Currently led by Martha Tierney, ...Missing: composition | Show results with:composition
[19]
Common Cause Announces Five New Board Members
Jun 24, 2024 · Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, The Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Executive Director; Vanessa Gonzalez, GIFFORDS Vice President, Political ...Missing: composition | Show results with:composition
[20]
John W. Gardner - Inductee Details - The University of Oklahoma
He was the Founding Chairman of Common Cause from 1970 to 1977, and in 1979 he founded the Independent Sector, a coalition of corporate, foundation, and ...
[21]
Common Cause - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica
Since 2013, the IRS has released data culled from millions of nonprofit tax filings. Use this database to find organizations and see details like their ...
[22]
Common Cause - GuideStar Profile
IRS filing requirement. This organization is required to file an IRS Form 990 or 990-EZ. Sign in or create an account to view Form(s) 990 for 2024, 2023 and ...
[23]
Common Cause Education Fund - MacArthur Foundation
The Common Cause Education Fund (CCEF) works to promote greater citizen participation in the political process and a more open and accountable government.Missing: founders | Show results with:founders<|separator|>
[24]
Common Cause Education Fund - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica
Source: Form 990 tax filings from 2012 to 2024 ... This consists of separate releases by the IRS of Form 990 documents processed by the agency, which we update ...
[25]
Common Cause Profile: Summary - OpenSecrets
Common Cause organization profile. Contributions in the 2024 cycle: $7953. Lobbying in 2024: $120000. Outside Spending in the 2024 cycle: $0.
[26]
Donor Transparency Policy - Common Cause
Common Cause is committed to a policy of open and full transparency and therefore makes information about our funding sources, including individual donors, ...Missing: separation | Show results with:separation
[27]
Common Cause - InfluenceWatch
Common Cause is a lobbying and advocacy group focused on advancing left-of-center policy priorities at the national, state, and local levels.Missing: Governing composition
[28]
Financials - Common Cause
2023 Consolidated Financial Statements And Supplementary Information · 2023 Common Cause Education Fund IRS Form 990 · 2022 Common Cause IRS Form 990 · 2022 ...
[29]
Thematic Window: The Rise of Citizen Groups - PBS
When John Gardner formed Common Cause in 1970 as a citizens' advocacy group to make government and politics more open and accountable, it was part of a ...
[30]
Common Cause: Fighting For The Democracy We Deserve ...
With the support of over 1.5 million members, Common Cause wins concrete, pro-democracy reforms that break down barriers to participation, ...About Us · Contact · Find Your Representatives · Common Cause WebstoreMissing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
[31]
Associations Without Members - The American Prospect
Dec 19, 2001 · ... membership associations were fueled by the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s ... In the early 1970s, when John Gardner launched Common Cause ...
[32]
Citizens United - Common Cause
FEC (2010) have brought more imbalance to our political system, given a bigger voice to wealthy special interests, and eroded our campaign finance laws. The ...
[33]
People Funded Elections - Common Cause
has taken root in Seattle and is being explored elsewhere. People funded election systems mean: Ordinary people are able to run ...Missing: advocacy | Show results with:advocacy<|separator|>
[34]
[PDF] Shining a Light: Success of the Massachusetts Disclosure Law
Campaign finance information is available beforeelections. Voters know the donors behind the advertisements they see. Page 3 ...Missing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
[35]
[PDF] Perceptions of Corruption and Campaign Finance: When Public ...
The government will of- fer evidence that amounts to a declaration that “the system appears corrupt to me”—where the “me” could be an expert, politician, poll.
[36]
Vital Stats: The widening gap between corporate and labor PAC ...
Mar 31, 2017 · That difference only grew as time went on, resulting in a discrepancy of $178.1 million in corporate PAC giving compared to just $50.7 million ...Missing: disparities | Show results with:disparities
[37]
[PDF] The Impact of Money in Politics on Labor and Capital: Evidence from ...
Jul 11, 2022 · While Citizens United impacted both corporations and unions, union political contribu- tions have been a relatively small share of total ...
[38]
Money in Politics - Common Cause
Citizens United invited huge sums of dark money into our democracy. We're demanding reforms that put ordinary people ahead of billionaire campaign donors.
[39]
3 Important Things to Know about Voter Identification
Mar 19, 2025 · Voter ID creates more problems than it solves. Voter ID puts up obstacles to the ballot box by requiring people to bring additional documents ...Missing: positions | Show results with:positions
[40]
Stopping Voter Suppression - Common Cause
Some elected officials are trying to silence voters by creating needless barriers to the ballot box. Common Cause is fighting back against these anti-democracy ...
[41]
[PDF] voter fraud with vote-by-mail - UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute
Apr 7, 2020 · 4 A detailed examination of this resource demonstrates that absentee ballot fraud is rare, with just 207 fraudulent absentee ballot cases out of.
[42]
Low rates of fraud in vote-by-mail states show the benefits outweigh ...
Jun 2, 2020 · Elaine Kamarck and Christine Stenglein write that a database of voter fraud convictions gathered by the Heritage Foundation shows that ...<|separator|>
[43]
Electoral College and Election Fraud | Becker Friedman Institute
Jul 26, 2023 · The electoral college discourages election fraud by making it more difficult and costly to manipulate votes in swing states.Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[44]
Voter verified paper trail is necessary to protect integrity of elections
Jan 30, 2014 · Common Cause strongly supports requiring a voter verified paper audit trail for all voting systems, and believes that the goal of every election ...
[45]
[PDF] Security Analysis of the Democracy Live Online Voting System
Jun 7, 2020 · Democracy Live's OmniBallot platform is a web-based sys- tem for blank ballot delivery, ballot marking, and (optionally) online voting. Three ...Missing: unsecured | Show results with:unsecured
[46]
The science behind election security
Oct 22, 2024 · Bredt Family Professor of Engineering J. Alex Halderman has spent the past decade making the technology behind American voting systems more ...
[47]
[PDF] Voting System Security and Reliability Risks
Similarly, while proper safeguards can ensure attacks on voter registration databases don't prevent a legitimate voter from casting a ballot or having her vote ...
[48]
National Popular Vote - Common Cause
Learn about the National Popular Vote movement and how it aims to fix the broken Electoral College system in the US presidential elections.
[49]
National Popular Vote & Electoral College - Common Cause
We deserve presidential elections where every voter has an equal voice and where the winning candidate must engage with all 50 states.
[50]
About | National Popular Vote
where he co-invented the rub-off instant lottery ticket used by state lotteries. In the 1980s, he and attorney Barry Fadem were active in promoting adoption of ...
[51]
Common Cause backs quick Senate action on STOCK Act
Jan 30, 2014 · A Senate hearing today on legislation to block insider stock trading by members of Congress and their staffs gives lawmakers what should be a welcome ...Missing: involvement | Show results with:involvement
[52]
Government Accountability Groups Urge House to Strengthen the ...
Nov 22, 2024 · Congress created the OCE, with Common Cause's strong support, under intense public pressure in the wake of a series of bribery and corruption ...
[53]
https://www.commoncause.org/articles/heres-why-common-cause-filed-57-complaints-against-the-trump-administration-for-violating-federal-ethics-laws/
[54]
[PDF] “Trading” Political Favors: Evidence from the Impact of the STOCK Act
In addition, the evidence from our study suggests that the STOCK Act is effective in deterring politicians from exploiting their official positions for ...
[55]
What explains trading behaviors of members of congress? Evidence ...
We also find evidence of a significant reduction in the number of buy transactions following the passage of the STOCK Act.Missing: effectiveness | Show results with:effectiveness
[56]
Exclusive: Congressman Tim Moore failed to properly disclose ...
Jun 16, 2025 · Indeed, dozens of members of Congress have violated the STOCK Act's disclosure provisions this decade, according to various media reports.<|separator|>
[57]
[PDF] Failures of the STOCK Act and the Future of Congressional Insider ...
On February 13, 2020, Senator Richard Burr sold personal stocks in thirty-three separate transactions worth between $628,000 and $1,720,000.1.Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
[58]
Public sector reforms and their impact on the level of corruption
Anti‐corruption policies developed in the public sector are reforms aimed to prevent or eradicate corrupt behaviors in public administration and service ...
[59]
The Stock Act Ten Years Later: The Need for a New Congressional ...
Dec 18, 2022 · This Note argues a regulatory scheme modeled after Rule 10b5-1 plans would be a more effective and politically-feasible model for regulating securities trading ...
[60]
Unlocking Fair Maps: The Keys to Independent Redistricting
Dec 11, 2024 · Redistricting, the redrawing of voting district boundaries, is integral to effective democracy in the United States. Every 10 years following ...
[61]
Independent and Advisory Citizen Redistricting Commissions
Alaska. Alaska Redistricting Law. Independent Commission with no partisan balance. State legislative districts only. 5 members: Governor chooses 2, ...
[62]
[PDF] 18-422 Rucho v. Common Cause (06/27/2019) - Supreme Court
Jun 27, 2019 · Held: Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions be- yond the reach of the federal courts. Pp. 6–34. (a) In these cases, the ...
[63]
Common Cause v. Rucho
In 2016, Common Cause filed a lawsuit in response to congressional districts drawn by the North Carolina legislature, calling the map a partisan gerrymander ...
[64]
Fair Voting Maps for Wisconsin: What's Next? - Common Cause
Apr 10, 2024 · It has been nearly two months since the enactment into law of fair state legislative district voting maps for Wisconsin effective for the 2024 elections.
[65]
Wisconsin Has Fair Legislative Voting Maps!
Feb 19, 2024 · Today, Wisconsinites also can begin celebrating new, far more fair and representative state legislative district voting maps that will be in ...
[66]
[PDF] Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap - Chicago Unbound
Nicholas Stephanopoulos & Eric McGhee, "Partisan Gerrymandering and the Efficiency Gap" (Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 493, 2014) available at ...
[67]
Widespread partisan gerrymandering mostly cancels nationally, but ...
Legislative redistricting plans determine how voters' preferences are translated into representatives' seats. Political parties may manipulate the ...
[68]
Rucho Revisited: 5 Takeaways on the 5 Year Anniversary
Jun 27, 2024 · Related Issues · Rucho v. Common Cause · What was it all about? · 1. Partisan Gerrymandering Has Gotten Worse · 2. Legislators are Using Rucho as a ...
[69]
Fight for Fair Maps Continues Two Years After Rucho v. Common ...
Jun 27, 2021 · States should use constitutional amendments and legislation to empower people, not politicians, in the community districting process.
[70]
[PDF] legislative history of federal election campaign act amendments of ...
We are here today to testify on the. FEC's recommendations for amendments to the. Federal. Election. Campaign. Act of. 1971, as amended. (FECA). ... Common Cause, ...
[71]
Minnesota Just Became The Latest State to Eliminate Prison ...
May 22, 2024 · A new law will end the practice of counting incarcerated people where prisons are located, which skews political power within the state.
[72]
Minnesota ends prison gerrymandering
an omnibus elections policy bill — into law, officially ending prison gerrymandering in ...
[73]
Whether it's good policy or not, the public ... - Common Cause
Ending prison gerrymandering, the practice of counting those serving prison time where they are incarcerated was a major victory for fair districts and ...
[74]
How many states have ended prison gerrymandering? About a dozen
Oct 26, 2021 · While many people are familiar with redistricting at the Congressional level, these districts are often so big that prison populations rarely ...Missing: Common | Show results with:Common
[75]
FCC Votes to Restore Net Neutrality - Common Cause
Apr 25, 2024 · The move restores the FCC's authority under Title II of the Communications Act to oversee broadband providers and enforce the open-internet protections.
[76]
Internet Access & Net Neutrality - Common Cause
Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to restore Net Neutrality. The move restores the FCC's authority under Title II of the Communications ...
[77]
Rucho v. Common Cause - Oyez
A case in which the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
[78]
Common Cause v. Lewis - Common Cause North Carolina
Common Cause successfully challenged North Carolina's state legislative map. After some of the map was struck down as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in ...
[79]
Moore v. Harper: A victory for American democracy - Common Cause
The US Supreme Court rejected a dangerous power grab by North Carolina politicians, issuing a historic pro-democracy ruling in our case of Moore v. Harper!
[80]
Common Cause Urges SCOTUS to Rule Quickly in Trump v. U.S. to ...
Apr 8, 2024 · Common Cause filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States urging the court to decide Donald J. Trump v. United States expeditiously.Missing: judicial | Show results with:judicial
[81]
[PDF] Common Cause - Supreme Court of the United States
Jan 30, 2024 · Amicus Curiae Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to fair elections, due process, and ensuring that government at ...
[82]
[PDF] The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court
To the extent that amicus briefs provide additional legal arguments and factual background, under this model they offer information of no relevance to judges.
[83]
Common Cause Under Fire for Partisanship - Nearly Every Board ...
Feb 14, 2025 · On Monday, Republican State Representative Brian Newberry took to social media to criticize Common Cause Rhode Island.
[84]
Common Cause Releases Scorecard of Lawmaker Support for Pro ...
Sep 9, 2024 · Common Cause released its 2024 Democracy Scorecard, tracking the positions of every Member of Congress on issues vital to the health of our democracy.Missing: endorsements patterns<|separator|>
[85]
Common Cause Education Fund - InfluenceWatch
The Common Cause Education Fund exists to raise tax-deductible dollars from liberal donors and foundations that can be used to support the progressive policies ...<|separator|>
[86]
Common Cause - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check
We rate Common Cause Left-Center Biased based on advocacy for positions favored by the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to a clean fact- ...
[87]
Campaign Finance Reform | Cato Institute
Sep 24, 1997 · I described the threat to the First Amendment posed by campaign finance regulation, and the gentleman from Common Cause stated that it was not ...<|separator|>
[88]
Legal | Citizens United v. FEC
On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruling an earlier decision.
[89]
Citizens United After 10 Years: More Speech, Better Democracy
Jan 16, 2020 · On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that prohibited corporations and labor unions from independently voicing their ...
[90]
Suppressing Political Speech? - Brookings Institution
Jul 9, 2007 · American election campaigns conducted since the enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) richly registered the values, ...Missing: limits | Show results with:limits
[91]
[PDF] Does Public Financing Chill Political Speech? Exploiting a Court ...
In 2011, the Supreme Court struck down the matching provisions in Arizona's campaign finance law on the grounds that they violate free speech by chilling ...Missing: suppress | Show results with:suppress
[92]
Staring at the Sun: An Inquiry into Compulsory Campaign Finance ...
Dec 14, 2017 · Advocates of more extensive donor disclosure laws typically invoke Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis's famous maxim that “sunlight is said to ...
[93]
The FEC at 50: Protecting Free Speech from Campaign Finance ...
Jun 4, 2025 · The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the First Amendment ... election campaigns represent the exercise of First Amendment ...
[94]
Analysis: Citizens United Led to More Speech, Better Democracy
Jan 16, 2020 · Federal Election Commission. The analysis highlights seven key outcomes of the ruling over the decade since it was handed down. “Citizens United ...Missing: impact | Show results with:impact<|control11|><|separator|>
[95]
Cost of Election - OpenSecrets
Here are the amounts spent on all federal elections, by cycle. These figures include all money spent by presidential candidates, Senate and House candidates.Election Trends · 2024 · Most Expensive Races
[96]
Total Outside Spending by Election Cycle, Excluding ... - OpenSecrets
The 2010 election marks the rise of a new political committee, dubbed "super PACs," and officially known as "independent-expenditure only committees," which can ...
[97]
Campaign Finance "Reform": The Good, The Bad and the ...
Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) will be debated in the U.S. Senate as early as mid-July 1999 and in the U.S. House of Representatives ...
[98]
As a Matter of Fact: The Harms Caused by Election Disinformation ...
Oct 28, 2021 · This intentional use of false information to affect the participation of voters in elections is known as “election disinformation.” The United ...
[99]
Anderson Amicus Brief - Common Cause
Jan 29, 2024 · Common Cause filed our brief before the Supreme Court urging them to disqualify Donald Trump under the 14th Amendment. Related Issues. Trump ...Missing: v. | Show results with:v.
[100]
Election Protection - Common Cause
Election Protection · Deploying thousands of on-the-ground volunteers at polling places · Recruiting a team of legal experts to staff the 866-OUR-VOTE hotline ...
[101]
Under the Microscope - Common Cause
Nevertheless, the nonpartisan Election Protection community scored some key successes as a coalition to protect voters from voter suppression. Common Cause ...
[102]
Common Cause Urges FCC to Approve Net Neutrality Proposal
Apr 3, 2024 · In 2023, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel signaled interest in restoring net neutrality, just after the confirmation of commissioner Anna Gomez.
[103]
Common Cause Wrapped 2024
Dec 9, 2024 · Common Cause restored net neutrality, brought fair maps to Wisconsin, ended prison gerrymandering in Minnesota, and more.
[104]
Prison Gerrymandering: Districting Behind Bars - Common Cause
May 17, 2024 · When the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the congressional and state district maps last December and ordered new, fairer ones to be ...
[105]
The Court ordered fairer maps. Now reformers want to change how ...
Jul 16, 2025 · With court-ordered maps that have made more Wisconsin legislative races competitive for both political parties, pro-democracy advocates are ...
[106]
End Prison Gerrymandering - Common Cause
This counting method known as prison gerrymandering, distorts our democracy by artificially inflating the vote strength of rural places with prisons.
[107]
Minnesota Poised to Improve Democracy, Make Elections More ...
Today, Gov. Walz signed into law HF3, also known as the Democracy for the People Act legislation that protects the freedom to ...
[108]
Common Cause Expands Leadership Team to Build Power ...
May 2, 2025 · She will lead the work to build political power by organizing Common Cause's membership ... Common Cause and our 1.5 million members will ...
[109]
Six Ways Common Cause is Fighting Six Months of Attacks
Jul 23, 2025 · Here at Common Cause, we're leading the charge to ban congressional stock trading, because public service should never lead to private profit.Missing: involvement | Show results with:involvement
[110]
Reps. Krishnamoorthi, Fitzpatrick, Mills, and Ocasio-Cortez Re ...
Jan 9, 2025 · WASHINGTON – Today, Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) joined with Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), ...Missing: Cause | Show results with:Cause
[111]
Policy Statement on Mid-Decade Redistricting Response
Aug 12, 2025 · Common Cause reaffirms its unwavering commitment to fair representation, fair maps, and people-centered democratic processes in every state.