Mark Schmitt

Mark Schmitt is director of the program on political reform at the New America Foundation and former executive editor of The American Prospect



Recent Articles

Theory of Change at Year One

What was Obama selling? What did we expect when he took office? And how have those expectations worked out in practice?

(White House/Pete Souza)

This month marks not just the one-year anniversary of Barack Obama's inauguration but two years since those intense weeks of the Democratic nominating process in 2008, when Obama emerged as the likely nominee. What was Obama selling? How did he build his coalition? What did we expect when he took office? And how have those expectations worked out in practice?

Rick Perlstein, author of Nixonland and Mark Schmitt, executive editor of the Prospect discuss Obama at year one.

Citizens United and Electoral Exceptionalism.

"What will the effect be of the Supreme Court's Citizens United on elections?" Scott Lemieux asks below. For all the reasons he describes, the decision is enormous, radical, and wrong, and it will undoubtedly have sweeping impact on future election law as well as other areas of First Amendment and corporate law.

60 Was the Loneliest Number

The "filibuster-proof majority" was always an illusion. We might be better off without it.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg, file)

The consequences of Republican Scott Brown's victory in the race for the Senate seat from Massachusetts fall into two categories. The first involves the optics of the race itself and the message Brown's victory sends, about Obama's first year, the economy, anti-incumbent sentiment, and the generalized "fuck 'em all" feeling that seems to burst forth in American politics at times of stress.

The Campaign Finance Mainstream Shifts.

At a Brookings Institution event this morning, four of the most prominent mainstream scholar/advocates of campaign finance reform set forward a new approach -- albeit one that might seem familiar to Prospect readers.

Let's Make a Filibuster Deal

The Senate has two ways of working (or not): The dead-end filibuster and the fast-track budget process. Real reform should involve fixing both.

Sen. Tom Harkin speaks at the Summit on Integrative Medicine and the Health of the Public on Feb. 27, 2009. (The National Academy of Sciences/Patricia Pooladi)

As the Senate's near-miss passage of health-care reform faded in the rearview mirror, the road ahead became visible: Such victories will be rare, at least under the current configuration of the Senate and partisan alignments. The primary obstacle, of course, is that the Senate's right of unlimited debate creates a de facto supermajority requirement of 60 votes -- which is technically achievable, but barely -- to do anything. As our wandering colleague Ezra Klein put it succinctly at the end of last year, "After health care, we need Senate reform."