President Barack Obama participates in a discussion about poverty during the Catholic-Evangelical Leadership Summit on Overcoming Poverty, at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., May 12, 2015. From left, moderator E. J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post columnist and professor in Georgetown’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Robert Putnam, professor of public policy at the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government and Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Yesterday, President Obama traveled to Georgetown University to sit down with Harvard professor Robert Putnam and American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks to share his views on poverty in America. The President also outlined what we can do to ensure every American — no matter who they are, where they come from, or where they live — has access to the opportunities they deserve.

If you missed the discussion, here’s three important things that the President said.

President Barack Obama walks with mentees on the South Lawn of the White House, Oct. 14, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Last year, the President launched the My Brother’s Keeper initiative to address persistent opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color, and ensure that all young people can reach their full potential.

Share with us how you’re helping a young person in your community, or how someone you looked up to helped you get ahead.

P.S. — Join the conversation online and share your stories or videos on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram using the hashtag #MyBrothersKeeper, and we’ll feature some of your stories on WhiteHouse.gov and White House social media channels over the coming days.

President Obama Delivers a Statement on the Shooting in South Carolina

On Wednesday night, a gunman opened fire at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, killing nine people including pastor and state senator Clementa Pinckney. The Department of Justice is opening a hate crime investigation into this tragedy, and yesterday morning, the President gave a statement on the tragedy from the White House Briefing Room.

WATCH HERE

Your Health and Our Environment: How Can We Protect Both?

On Tuesday, the White House will convene a Summit to bring together health and medical professionals, academics, and other stakeholders to empower people and communities with the information and tools they need to protect public health in the face of climate change.

READ MORE

West Wing Week: “Her Map & Compass”

This week, the President congratulated My Brother’s Keeper mentees, presided over the ceremonial swearing-in of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General, and stopped by a congressional baseball game and picnic. Meanwhile, the First Lady crossed the Atlantic in the name of Let Girls Learn and Let’s Move!

READ MORE

Get this poison off our shelves
Top scientists just warned Monsanto’s herbicide probably causes cancer. It’s huge news and US regulators are scrambling to respond. But Monsanto is going all out to get the report retracted! Only a massive public campaign can get this poison suspended. Join the urgent call:

By CAP Action War Room

Two Small But Significant Steps To Make Elections Better Took Place This Week

There are two big pieces of election news this week out of Florida, known for its historically torrid election administration. The Supreme Court, following a string of rulings unleashing big money into politics, has finally found a small but significant campaign finance law that it is willing to uphold. Meanwhile, earlier this week, the Florida legislature passed a bill that would finally bring online voter registration to the state — should Gov. Rick Scott sign the bill. The decision and the law together augur a better approach to election administration in Florida and across the country.

In Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that campaign solicitation bans for judicial candidates are constitutional. This follows years of decisions where the Court facilitated the rise of big money in our politics, seven times since 2006. In the 5-4 decision, conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the four liberal-leaning justices, arguing that “Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot,” and therefore they “cannot supplicate campaign donors without diminishing public confidence in judicial integrity.

Unfortunately, Roberts’ decision did not go far enough. While he acknowledged that campaign contributions to judicial officials could give off the “appearance of corruption,” Roberts contained his opinion to the judiciary. This flies in the face of what we have seen in our elections, as big money’s influence has only increased thanks to Roberts’ Court especially since Citizens United. Ian Millhiser, editor of ThinkProgress Justice, broke down why Roberts’ reasoning is flawed:

Most Americans would undoubtedly agree that judges should not “follow the preferences” of their political supporters, as they would agree that judges should not “provide any special consideration to his campaign donors.” But the implication of the passage quoted above is that members of Congress, state lawmakers, governors and presidents should provide such consideration to their supporters and to their donors. The President of the United States is the president of the entire United States. A member of Congress represents their entire constituency. Yet Roberts appears to believe that they should “follow the preferences” of their supporters and give “special consideration” to the disproportionately wealthy individuals who fund their election.

As Justice Ginsburg noted in her concurring opinion, “Numerous studies [including some by CAP!] report that the money pressure groups spend on judicial elections ‘can affect judicial decision-making across a broad range of cases.’” It is inconceivable that big money in non-judicial elections would not have the same effect. The public understands that, which is why they have consistently shown that they are against the rising tide of big money in politics. According to one recent poll, 61 percent of voters oppose the Citizens United decision that ushered in this latest wave of big money politics.

This decision is only the latest demonstration of the importance of our court systems. For more information on the importance of our courts and how we can leverage them to create true progressive change, go to WhyCourtsMatter.org.

Although imperfect, hopefully this momentum on making our election system better for everyone will extend into Florida’s battle over online voter registration. Florida’s Republican-controlled House and Senate passed important legislation that would require online voter registration in the state by October 2017. As shown in over twenty other states that allow online voter registration, registering online is “more accurate, less expensive and a convenience to voters.” Despite the overwhelming evidence, Governor Rick Scott was previously reported to be working to kill the legislation. And his chief election official, Secretary of State Ken Detzner, came out against the bill, oddly claiming that “forces of evil” would sabotage such a system. Online voter registration is good for voters, good for Florida and Governor Scott should bring Florida’s election system into the 21st century by signing this bill into law.

BOTTOM LINE: After a string of poor decisions, and public momentum building for real reform on money in politics, the Supreme Court has finally taken steps, however late and limited, to stem the corrosive effects that big money has in our politics, at least in the judiciary. The Florida law behind the decision is an important piece of ensuring the integrity of the judiciary. But Florida can do even more to strengthen their election system, and Scott should take the opportunity to do so by bringing voter registration into the 21st century.