Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Another Democratic Gesture on Campaign Finance

Projecting a commitment to shrinking money's spread across public life is an increasingly unifying force in national Democratic politics this year. First there were the public financing proposals in the new House majority's sweeping political reform package (known as HR 1). Now it seems as though the party's presidential candidates are going to collectively foreswear corporate campaign cash.

Every candidate who has either formally declared or launched an exploratory committee — Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former Rep. John Delaney and former HUD Secretary Julián Castro — has promised to decline donations from corporate political action committees. It's a symbolically rich statement even if it's not much of a financial sacrifice.


As Politico's Morning Score notes, Hillary Clinton's campaign committee and her joint fundraising committee received a combined $8 million from corporate PACs, labor union PACs and other candidates' committees — 1.4 percent of the $585 million raised by her 2016 campaign.

But Gillibrand, Warren and Castro have gone an important step further, promising to disavow any super PAC that seeks to support them.

Read More

Business professional watching stocks go down.
Getty Images, Bartolome Ozonas

The White House Is Booming, the Boardroom Is Panicking

The Confidence Collapse

Consumer confidence is plummeting—and that was before the latest Wall Street selloffs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Drain—More Than Fight—Authoritarianism and Censorship
Getty Images, Mykyta Ivanov

Drain—More Than Fight—Authoritarianism and Censorship

The current approaches to proactively counteracting authoritarianism and censorship fall into two main categories, which we call “fighting” and “Constitution-defending.” While Constitution-defending in particular has some value, this article advocates for a third major method: draining interest in authoritarianism and censorship.

“Draining” refers to sapping interest in these extreme possibilities of authoritarianism and censorship. In practical terms, it comes from reducing an overblown sense of threat of fellow Americans across the political spectrum. When there is less to fear about each other, there is less desire for authoritarianism or censorship.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Vote" pin.
Getty Images, William Whitehurst

Most Americans’ Votes Don’t Matter in Deciding Elections

New research from the Unite America Institute confirms a stark reality: Most ballots cast in American elections don’t matter in deciding the outcome. In 2024, just 14% of eligible voters cast a meaningful vote that actually influenced the outcome of a U.S. House race. For state house races, on average across all 50 states, just 13% cast meaningful votes.

“Too many Americans have no real say in their democracy,” said Unite America Executive Director Nick Troiano. “Every voter deserves a ballot that not only counts, but that truly matters. We should demand better than ‘elections in name only.’”

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands outside of bars.
Getty Images, stevanovicigor

Double Standard: Investing in Animal Redemption While Ignoring Human Rehabilitation

America and countries abroad have mastered the art of taming wild animals—training the most vicious killers, honing killer instincts, and even domesticating animals born for the hunt. Wild animals in this country receive extensive resources to facilitate their reintegration into society.

Americans spent more than $150 billion on their pets in 2024, with an estimated spending projection of $200 million by 2030. Millions of dollars are poured into shelters, rehabilitation programs, and veterinary care, as shown by industry statistics on animal welfare spending. Television ads and commercials plead for their adoption. Stray animal hotlines operate 24/7, ensuring immediate rescue services. Pet parks, relief stations in airports, and pageant shows showcase animals as celebrities.

Keep ReadingShow less