Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Broad range of Hill staff diversity among senators seeking the presidency

Michael Bennet

Sen. Michael Bennet's staff is closest aligned to the overall demographics of the Democratic Party.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

All seven senators running for president have Capitol Hill staffs more racially diverse than the states they represent, and only two of them employ a smaller share of white people than the Democratic electorate they're seeking to win over.

The demographics of their offices, and those of all 40 of their colleagues in the Democratic Caucus, were revealed last week in the most recent edition of a report the Senate leadership has been commissioning over the past dozen years in an effort to promote more gender, ethnic and sexual identity diversity on that side of the Capitol.

Getting more people from different backgrounds and experiences to work (and have internships) on Capitol Hill has become an increasingly emphatic goal of those seeking to improve not only the functionality but also the public's perception of the legislative branch.

And in the opening stages of the 2020 presidential campaign, when the Democratic Party will be counting on increased turnout among minority voters, party leaders have been talking up their commitment to diversity with renewed intensity.


Kamala Harris of California has the Senate personal office staff with the highest share of non-white workers, at 70 percent. The only other black candidate in the Democratic field, Cory Booker of New Jersey, is No 3. with 61 percent staff of color. (In between is Hawaii's Brian Schatz.)

Bernie Sanders (28 percent) and Amy Klobuchar (38 percent) have the least diverse collections of aides among the Senate's current White House aspirants, but his Vermont and her Minnesota are also the whitest of the seven states represented by the contenders.

And both Sanders and Klobuchar increased the overall diversity of their staff in recent years, to the point that they are overrepresented by black people, Latinos and Asians on their payrolls compared to the demographics of their states.

Still, they are the two with groups of employees whiter than the Democratic Party. According to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank focused on boosting African-Americans' socioeconomic status and civic engagement, 41 percent of registered Democrats identify as people of color.

By that measure, Michael Bennet of Colorado (at 42 percent) and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York (46 percent) have come closest to assembling staffs that mirror the overall racial diversity of their party.

But Gillibrand has seen the number of black people on her staff drop in half over the past two years — to 11 percent of the roster (including her chief of staff, however) while they account for one in five members of the party nationwide.

The staffs of Klobuchar, Sanders and Bennet have smaller percentages of black people than the party overall, but in all three cases the percentages are higher than the black share of their states' populations.

Almost a quarter of Elizabeth Warren's staff is black, a much higher percentage than all the others except Booker and Harris.

At the same time, however, at a time when one in eight Democrats nationally identifies as Hispanic, Warren and Klobuchar are then only senators in the field with a smaller share of Latinos on their staffs than 12 percent. (The Minnesotan's staff is 4 percent Latino, half what it was two years ago.)

While his staff is the Senate's third most diverse, Booker is the only one of the seven with a staff that does not have a strong overrepresentation of Asian-Americans. (English-speaking members of this group are 3 percent of registered Democrats, the Pew Research Center says.)

The raw numbers for each office were not revealed in the study, and the number of staffers each senator may employ in these "personal" offices — not the aides they hire for committees or leadership jobs — varies considerably based on their number of constituents. Harris, for example, gets to hire many more people to serve California than Sanders gets to handle the needs of Vermont.


Read More

Private Prisons and ICE Exploit Loopholes, Harm Communities

Delaney Hall Detention Facility, Newark, New Jersey.

(Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

Private Prisons and ICE Exploit Loopholes, Harm Communities

While Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) terrorizes Black and brown communities with racial profiling, kidnappings, inhumane treatment, fatal abuse, and killings, private prison investors are asking how ICE can detain more people to increase their profits. Private prison corporations have long profited from immigration enforcement, but they are expecting a financial windfall under the current administration. These corporations are politically and financially situated to rapidly increase detention capacity and cash in on the president’s goal of deporting one million people per year. Stopping these corporations from lining politicians’ campaign coffers is a necessary first step in ensuring that our government is accountable to the people it serves, rather than the corporations it contracts with.

ICE and private prison corporations have long had a symbiotic relationship. Ninety percent of ICE's detainees were already being held in facilities owned or operated by private prison corporations before President Trump began his second term. CoreCivic and GEO Group, two of the largest private prison corporations that lead the multi-billion dollar industry, have been contracting with immigration enforcement for decades. By 2023, ICE contracts accounted for 43 percent of CoreCivic’s revenue and 30 percent of GEO Group’s revenue. The majority of each corporation’s lobbyists have held government positions, and GEO Group’s board of directors “has extensive links with ICE.” The relationship between private prisons and ICE is the embodiment of the “'revolving door’ between the federal government and the private sector.”

Keep Reading Show less
Federal Register Reports being printed out of a large machine.

Congress should strengthen the administrative state by writing clearer laws, limiting delegated authority, and requiring periodic reauthorization of agency powers.

Photo courtesy of Luka Jacobi-Krohn

Putting the Guardrails Back on Delegations of Power

Congress needs to write better laws instead of dismantling the administrative state.

Debates over the administrative state focus on whether these agencies have accrued too much power. Some argue that the solution is to severely weaken or, in extreme scenarios, dismantle these federal agencies. However, the issue is not the existence of these agencies but actually how Congress writes its laws. When statutes are drafted with vague language, agencies are left to interpret the scope, and courts are forced to set the boundaries. This results in constant litigation and generally regulatory instability. If Congress actually wants a more durable and accountable regulatory system, they need to start with themselves by writing clearer laws.

Keep Reading Show less
Businesspeople walking in line across world map, painted on asphalt

America's immigration debate reflects a deeper question: Does America still believe in itself? A historical look at immigration, assimilation, and American identity.

Klaus Vedfelt / Getty Images

What Immigration Debates Reveal About National Confidence

America has spent 250 years arguing about immigrants.

But beneath the arguments about visas, walls, asylum claims, deportations, and border security lies a more uncomfortable question:

Keep Reading Show less
The U.S. flag, waving, with the ends of it frayed.

The U.S. is falling short of what its national wealth makes possible for its people.

Americans Are Not As Well Off As People in Peer Nations – Us Safety Net’s Shortfalls Show Up in Global Data

As the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, the global data we collect and analyze shows that the country is failing to “promote the general Welfare,” as the Constitution’s framers promised a little more than a decade later.

We are scholars of human rights. Alongside the Human Rights Measurement Initiative, a nonprofit that tracks how well more than 200 countries and territories are meeting the human rights commitments their governments have made, we annually update scores measuring whether people can actually get the basics of a decent life, such as healthcare, adequate food and a quality education.

Keep Reading Show less