The League in Times of Constitutional Crisis: Lessons from Watergate
The League of Women Voters of the United States (LWVUS) recently declared that a constitutional crisis is in full swing. With threats to the rule of law mounting, courts under attack, and a growing normalization of executive overreach, the League has spoken clearly: the guardrails of American democracy are being tested—and in some cases, dismantled.
At moments like these, it is vital to remember that while the League is nonpartisan, it is not apolitical. Our mission compels us to speak out in defense of democracy, particularly when our constitutional order is under threat. And we have done so before.
When President Nixon resigned in 1974, following two years of political scandal, illegal activity, and obstruction of justice, the League of Women Voters responded with a call for systemic reform. LWVUS President Ruth Clusen declared at the 1974 national convention: “The corruption, venality and arrogant usurpation of power which led to Watergate has had a deadly corrosive effect on political thought and life.”
She cited polling at the time showing that “66% [of Americans] distrust government,” and warned that if faith in institutions was not restored, democracy itself would be endangered.
The League understood Watergate not merely as a scandal of personalities, but as a rupture in the constitutional order that demanded structural repair. As Clusen stated, “We must recognize and then rectify those parts [of government] which stemmed from flaws in a still imperfect system.”
In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the League mobilized at every level to respond to an unprecedented breakdown in public trust and executive accountability. To that end, the League focused its efforts on three core areas: campaign finance reform, ethical governance, and rebalancing executive power.
Joining the Battle for Campaign Finance Reform
Among the most immediate lessons of Watergate was the corrupting influence of secret, unregulated campaign money. In response, the League took swift action. Mid-1973, as the Senate hearings uncovered evidence of slush funds and illegal campaign contributions, the LWVUS Council voted to launch an accelerated national study on campaign finance, “primarily as a reaction to the disclosures of potential misuse of campaign funds that have come to light in the Watergate hearings.” As such, the study group was mandated to “explore how to ensure transparency, equity, and integrity in elections.”
Local Leagues across the country held intensive study sessions in fall 1973 to reach consensus. In January 1974, just months after the study began, the League adopted a formal Campaign Finance position—the first time in League history that a national position was adopted between conventions. This position called for full and timely disclosure, an independent enforcement body, contribution limits, and public financing, declaring that, “The methods of financing political campaigns should ensure the public’s right to know, combat corruption and undue influence, enable candidates to compete more equitably for public office and allow maximum citizen participation in the political process.”
These principles directly informed the League’s support for the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, which created the Federal Election Commission and mandated sweeping campaign finance transparency. When opponents challenged FECA in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the League intervened in court to defend the law, reinforcing our commitment to restoring integrity in campaign finance.
Watergate effectively galvanized the League to take up the cause of campaign finance reform as never before. And it remains a core priority of our organization to this day.
Reining in Executive Power: A Study on the Presidency
In addition to election finance, Watergate raised fundamental questions about abuse of executive power. Responding to these concerns, the LWV’s 1974 national convention adopted a two-year study of the executive branch, with special focus on presidential powers, accountability, succession and tenure.
League members spent 1974–1975 scrutinizing issues like war powers, emergency powers, secrecy, and the proper limits of presidential authority—especially in light of Nixon’s excesses (e.g. secret bombings, claims of “executive privilege,” impoundment of funds, etc.). The outcome was a detailed Position on the Presidency, announced by the LWVUS Board in January 1976, which called for reining in unchecked executive power. The League concluded that “presidential power should be exercised within the constitutional framework of a dynamic balance between the executive and legislative branches”, and that “accountability and responsibility to the people require that unnecessary secrecy between the president and Congress be eliminated.” To that end, the League urged specific measures: requiring the president to report all international executive agreements to Congress for review; enforcing the War Powers Resolution by mandating that presidents consult Congress before hostilities and obtain approval for any prolonged troop deployment; subjecting national emergencies to regular congressional review and termination if necessary; and ensuring Congress had tools to counter presidential impoundment of funds (with the League backing the 1974 Budget and Impoundment Control Act).
This 1976 LWV position on the presidency—born directly from Watergate’s aftermath—closely complemented the League’s earlier positions on Congress, all aimed at restoring a healthy separation of powers and preventing future abuses. Notably, the LWV had already supported efforts in 1973–74 to curb executive overreach: for example, the League strongly endorsed “anti-impoundment” legislation to stop President Nixon from unilaterally withholding congressionally-approved funds and welcomed Congress’ passage of the War Powers Act in 1973 as a vital check on unilateral warmaking.
In sum, the League emerged from Watergate as a vocal proponent of structural reforms to ensure the president would be more transparent, law-bound, and constrained by oversight in the future. Its recommendations were grounded in specific abuses revealed during Watergate: secret bombings in Southeast Asia, refusal to spend appropriated funds, and Nixon’s invocation of “executive privilege” to evade oversight. The presidency study served to reinforce the League’s enduring commitment to constitutional equilibrium.
Promoting Transparency and Ethics Laws
Another outcome of Watergate was a renewed push for transparency in government. The League has always believed in government transparency, but Watergate gave new impetus to translate those principles into law.
The League played a key role in advancing the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, which required federal agencies to conduct public meetings. It was likewise a major supporter of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which created an independent counsel statute and required financial disclosures from top officials. LWVUS supported these measures as critical tools to ensure openness and prevent conflicts of interest. In League testimony and publications, they were framed as necessary to prevent future abuses of the kind witnessed during Watergate. LWV leaders hailed the reforms as critical tools to deter corruption and hold public officials accountable. “Sunshine” and ethics initiatives meshed perfectly with long-held League principles.
The Watergate scandal dramatically illustrated “the effects of unchecked money and quid pro quo practices” and catalyzed a nationwide movement for integrity in politics, a movement in which the League of Women Voters played a leading role through advocacy, testimony, and coalition work.
The Fight Goes On
The League's Watergate-era work laid the foundation for its modern identity as a champion of transparency, accountability, and democratic reform. Our campaign finance position, adopted in 1974, continues to shape our advocacy to this day, while our position on the presidency, adopted in 1976, remains a key reference point in debates about executive power. Our commitment to ethical governance, first made law in the 1970s, has likewise only deepened in the face of new challenges.
More than fifty years after Watergate, the League has once again sounded the alarm about rising attacks on democratic norms and the corrosion of checks and balances. As we face a new era of constitutional strain, we should draw strength from our history.
Watergate was a sore test of our democracy. The League met the moment with courage and conviction. We can—and must—do so again.