Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Staking a presidential bid on battling big money in politics fails for Bullock

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock

Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, whose reform-focused campaign struggled to resonate with voters, dropped out of the 2020 race on Monday.

Brian Blanco/Getty Images

Steve Bullock, the only Democratic presidential candidate focused mainly on achieving a top goal of democracy reformers, ended his campaign on Monday.

When the governor of Montana entered the already crowded field in May, he vowed to make his bid for the White House about "one big idea" — ending the influence of big money in politics as a prerequisite for addressing the nation's other big problems, from health care coverage to climate change.

Six months later, his fundraising and statistically insignificant standing in the polls remained lackluster enough that he'd only been invited to one debate and had little prospect of being asked to another. When announcing the end of his campaign, Bullock acknowledged that "the concerns that propelled me to enter in the first place have not changed."

A handful of the remaining contenders have added other aspects of the democracy reform agenda to their own platforms, but none made it a central pillar of their campaigns the way Bullock did. And generally they talk about these issues only when asked, as happened when November's debate in Atlanta turned for a few minutes to the perception that access to the voting booth is too difficult for too many.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Although Bullock's small campaign coffers and minimal poll numbers kept him out of much of the campaign conversation, his singular focus brought at least some attention to the cause of bolstering the system of campaign finance regulation. He often touted the "dark money" law he helped enact in Montana — requiring politically active nonprofits to register with the state and disclose their campaign spending — as evidence he could bring reform to Washington.

"I entered this race as a voice to win back the places we lost, bridge divides and rid our system of the corrupting influence of dark money," Bullock said Monday, but it was clear he would never be able to sell his message nationally because he would never "break through to the top tier of this still-crowded field of candidates."

While multiple polls have shown the public believes the political system is broken, Bullock's approach didn't come close to breaking through. He never scored above 1 percent in the dozens of polls used to determine who makes the debate stage.

Bullock also struggled to raise the money needed to keep his campaign alive. As of the end of September he had only raised $4.4 million — just one-seventeenth of what's been collected by the rival who's raised the most, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

The governor made a few headlines in September when he said he wanted to be the only candidate this year — and one of only a handful in the past two decades — to accept public matching funds in return for limiting campaign spending. But because the Federal Election Commission is effectively shuttered, he could not get permission to access that funding.

Of those still in the running, many have indicated support for campaign finance changes, but only a few have made a point to mention it in a prominent venue like a debate stage.

Of the candidates in the top tier, Sanders, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota are relatively regular advocates for enhancing voting rights, ending partisan gerrymandering and curbing big money influences. Former Vice President Joe Biden, the clear frontrunner in national polls, has essentially never highlighted his views on the issues in a way that's drawn attention.

Made with Flourish

Warren has taken her stances a step further than her competitors by releasing detailed plans to address reform issues. Her anti-corruption plan, published in September, includes restrictions on lobbying activity and increased disclosure requirements. Some of what Warren proposed overlaps with the comprehensive political process overhaul measure, HR 1, which the House passed in March.

As the sole House member still running for president, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is the only candidate who has voted for that measure. But all six Senators in the race have co-sponsored the companion bill that's stuck in the Republican Senate.

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less