Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Voter prep: Tools for selecting the right candidates for you

voter tools
Malte Mueller/Getty Images
Kristin Shiuey
By Kristin ShiueyOct 31, 2022
Kristin Shiuey
See More Writings by author

Half of eligible voters participated in the 2018 midterm – the highest turnout rate in a century. And early indicators show Americans are on pace to match those numbers this year.

Highly contested races in Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and other states will determine control of the U.S Senate, as voters weigh in on the federal government’s performance on the economy, the state of democracy, abortion rights and other issues.

The abortion fight is also a critical factor in state contests, with gubernatorial and legislative races in the spotlight. Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, in which the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and gave states the authority to decide whether to permit abortions, voters are motivated to cast ballots on or before Nov. 8.

With so many issues in play, selecting a candidate to support can be exceedingly difficult, especially as a voter moves further down the ballot. Never fear – The Fulcrum has some suggestions.

Separating the candidates on the issues

Political advertising is designed to influence. Social media is full of mis- and disinformation. So you need an unbiased source of information about the candidates. One place to turn is Guides.vote, which produced nonpartisan information about races in every state as well as a national voter guide that distinguishes the Democratic and Republican positions on polarizing issues.

The guides provide insights into the candidates in state and federal races and describe their stances on numerous issues like education, the economy and the environment, making it easier for voters to decide which candidates best support the issues that matter most to them.

For example, the national guide for the U.S. House of Representatives details how Democrats and Republicans voted on various issues over the past six years. On the topic of abortion, the guide states that “Democrats voted to keep abortion legal” and “oppose making it a federal crime to perform an abortion after 20 weeks,” whereas Republicans “voted to ban or mostly ban abortion” by “let[ting] states ban abortion as they choose.”

The guide also covers the economy and taxes, noting that “Democrats voted to raise corporate and top-bracket taxes and raise federal investment in social programs and the economy”, while House Republicans opposed that proposal. The Republicans “opposed the infrastructure bill” and “pass[ed] $1.5 trillion 2017 tax cuts.” The guide provides several links for context of these and other issues spanning from gun laws to immigration.

Guides.vote has also provided a breakdown of the Supreme Court justices and the political leaning of the president who appointed them. It reviews several divisive cases, the court’s decisions and how the justices split on them.

With some states hosting more competitive races than others, certain “featured” guides (New Hampshire, Florida and Arizona for example) dive deeper into some races.

Additional reading:

New Hampshire is home to a Senate race between Republican Don Bolduc and the Democratic incumbent, Maggie Hassan. On the issue of the economy, the guide reveals that Hassan aims to increase government investment in that sector, previously supporting and drafting parts of the American Rescue Plan during the Covid-19 pandemic. Conversely, Bolduc opposes increasing government investment without offsets, stating: “No more bailouts, no more government handouts, no more spending packages without corresponding cuts.”

The guide for Florida highlights the races for Senate and governor. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio is defending his seat against Democratic Rep. Val Demings. Rubio has been very vocal about his stance on abortion, calling the “abortion epidemic” an “atrocity” and voting against codifying the right to an abortion. Demings is in favor of making abortion legal, expressing, “We must work relentlessly to preseve our right to choose and our right to privacy.”

In the race for governor, Democrat Charlie Crist is challenging Republican incumbent Ron DeSantis. The guide highlights DeSantis’ opposition to LGBTQ rights; largely aiming to limit provisions like health care for gender dysphoria treatments while also signing legislation banning “transgender females from participating in women’s sports and an anti-discrimination order for state employees that excluded LGBTQ people.” His rival, Crist, has a history of supporting expanded rights for LGBTQ people, including his position as vice chair of the House LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus.

The Arizona guide, which includes information on the race for secretary of state between Republican Mark Finchem and Democrat Adrian Fontes, largely focuses on election and voting issues like ballot verification and the validity of the 2020 presidential election. Finchem has expressed his support of hand-counting ballots instead of using electronic instruments to verify results while Fontes has opposed the proposal, stating: “Nobody who is serious about election administration believes that hand-counting is better [than technology].”

Other tools, like Vote 411, allow candidates to define their positions themselves. Produced by the League of Women Voters, the site invites candidates for races up and down the ballot to answer a series of questions regarding their stance on various issues of importance to constituents.

Users simply enter their address on the site and get a list of races that will appear on their ballot. They can then select a race and compare candidates’ responses to the posed questions. Not every candidate participates, which can make it difficult in some cases to get a complete picture of who is running.

Another resource, Ballotpedia, offers biographical information on candidates for office.

Who is funding candidates?

Voters may also want to consider where candidates get their financial support, either through direct campaign contributions or through political committees. Luckily, there are tools for that as well.

The federal government requires campaign fundraising and spending to be disclosed, and that data is available to the public on the Federal Election Commission website. Anyone can dive into campaign data to see which individuals have donated to a candidate, with the option to search by name, location, employer and occupation.

And then there’s the nonprofit OpenSecrets, which provides robust, expansive data on money in politics. The OpenSecets database, which is also free to use, goes beyond individual contributions to examine the funding role of super PACs, nonprofits, independent spending, lobbying and more.

With just a little bit of work, voters can get a strong understanding of who is funding campaigns. That, combined with a better understanding of candidates’ position on key issues, should help voters make informed decisions.


Latest news

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes
Media & Technology

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026