Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Alaska's Constitutional Convention spending spree & the first step in dumping Trump

Welcome to The Fulcrum’s daily weekday e-newsletter where insiders and outsiders to politics are informed, meet, talk, and act to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives.


Part I: Alaska's Constitutional Convention spending spree

This is the first part in an exclusive weekly series of articles in The Fulcrum by J.H. Snider on Alaska’s 2022 periodic constitutional convention referendum divided into four parts. Part I describes the spending spree over the referendum. Part II will propose a deterrence theory to explain the extraordinary amount the no side spent. Part III describes the failure of the referendum’s marketplace for campaign finance disclosures. Part IV will provide recommended reforms to fix this broken marketplace.

In 2022, Alaska’s periodic constitutional convention referendum had blowout campaign expenditures compared to all other referendums on the ballot across all fifty U.S. states. Surprisingly, a large fraction of that spending can best be explained not as a means to defeat a specific referendum, which was handily done by a 40% margin, but to preserve convention opponents’ reputation for political invincibility, thus enabling the defeat of future convention referendums in Alaska and other states without bearing the costs of a fight.

Read More.

The first step in dumping Trump

Former President Trump has been called many things from a would be tyrant to an alleged sexual predator. In the aftermath of the 2022 elections, a new moniker may sound his death knell– a loser. He lost in 2020, as did his party. With inflation running high in a midterm election, he led his party to vastly underperform. Many Republicans are now advocating ditching him but no plan has emerged as to how to do so given Trump has a loyal base in the party.

The first step Republicans should take to distance themselves from Trump is to back the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which outlines roughly a dozen ideas to reduce the ability of future presidents to weaken democratic institutions through the abuse of power. Doing so would provide cover to Republican politicians still hesitant to publicly repudiate Trump because the act supports executive reform that would apply to all future presidents, irrespective of party.

Read More.

Podcast: McCarthy’s headaches & what rebels want

There have not been multiple ballots in a speaker election in 100 years, as Kyle Kondik wrote for the Crystal Ball earlier this week. On Thursday, January 5, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California offered new concessions to a group of conservative Republicans that have prevented him from winning the majority of votes needed to secure Speaker of the House. Mr. McCarthy has not yet been able to lock in the 218 votes he needs to win the Speakership. In the seventh, eighth, and ninth rounds of voting, held on Thursday, 20 Republicans voted for other candidates, and one voted “present.”

Listen.

Read More

From Cradle to Sidewalk
person sitting beside building looking straight to the street at golden hour
Photo by Ev on Unsplash

From Cradle to Sidewalk

Youth homelessness is a problem, and Tim Coogan, Cisco leader, shared his personal experience through “One Night Changed Everything: Why I Sleep Out for Covenant House” to raise awareness and funds for youth homelessness. This is a national problem.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress, on a single night in January 2024, over 38,000 unaccompanied youth were experiencing homelessness. This demonstrates a 10% increase from 2023.

Keep ReadingShow less
A woman typing on her laptop.

Pop-ups on federal websites blaming Democrats for the shutdown spark Hatch Act concerns, raising questions about neutrality in government communications.

Getty Images, Igor Suka

When Federal Websites Get Political: The Hatch Act in the Digital Age

As the federal government entered a shutdown on October 1st, a new controversy emerged over how federal agencies communicate during political standoffs. Pop-ups and banners appeared on agency websites blaming one side of Congress for the funding lapse, prompting questions about whether such messaging violated federal rules meant to keep government communications neutral. The episode has drawn bipartisan concern and renewed scrutiny of the Hatch Act, a 1939 law that governs political activity in federal workplaces.

The Shutdown and Federal Website Pop-ups

The government shutdown began after negotiations over the federal budget collapsed. Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, needed Democratic support in the Senate to pass a series of funding bills, or Continuing Resolutions, but failed to reach an agreement before the deadline. In the hours before the shutdown took effect, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, posted a full-screen red banner stating, “The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government. HUD will use available resources to help Americans in need.” Users could not access the website until clicking through the message.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Postal Service Cuts Funding for a Phoenix Mail Room Assisting Homeless People

Margarita Moreno works at the mail room in the Phoenix campus of Keys to Change, a collaborative of 15 nonprofit organizations that serve homeless people.

Credit: Ash Ponders for ProPublica

U.S. Postal Service Cuts Funding for a Phoenix Mail Room Assisting Homeless People

Carl Steiner walked to the window of a small gray building near downtown Phoenix and gave a worker his name. He stepped away with a box and a cellphone bill.

The box is what Steiner had come for: It contained black and red Reebok sneakers to use in his new warehouse job.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Quickest Way to Democratic Demise: A Permanent Emergency

U.S. President Donald Trump, October 20, 2025.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The Quickest Way to Democratic Demise: A Permanent Emergency

In 2016, Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, declared an economic emergency to confront the country’s spiraling financial crisis. What was billed as a temporary measure quickly expanded – and never truly ended. The “state of emergency” was renewed repeatedly, granting the president sweeping authority to rule by decree. Venezuela’s legislature was sidelined, dissent was criminalized, and democratic institutions were hollowed out under the guise of crisis management.

That story may feel distant, but it’s a warning close to home. Emergencies demand swift, decisive action. In the face of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or public health crises, strong executive leadership and emergency powers can save lives. Mayors, governors, and presidents must be able to cut through bureaucracy when every minute counts.

Keep ReadingShow less