The American Congressional Exchange (ACE) project at the Bipartisan Policy Center enables members of Congress from opposite parties to visit each other’s districts, have valuable discussions on shared interests, and build the cross-party relationships that are essential for collaborative problem solving in an increasingly polarized Congress and nation away from the pressures of Washington.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
High view over Pacific heights and San Francisco Bay at sunset
Getty Images
Class A for Residents, Class B for Investors
Nov 14, 2026
Neighborhood residents should be able to build ownership without surrendering control to whoever brings the largest check. I propose a neighborhood corporation with Class A shares for residents and Class B shares for outside investors. Pacific Heights and Cow Hollow could examine the first model, then make its documents and lessons available to other neighborhoods.
The distinction must mean something. Class A would protect resident governance. Class B would let outside capital participate on disclosed economic terms. The corporation would own assets it voluntarily acquires and operate agreed services. It would govern those assets and contracts; government authority over zoning, taxes and public streets would remain subject to public law.
Every eligible adult resident should be able to obtain a Class A share at a modest cost, with a hardship arrangement so money does not exclude participation. Renters and homeowners would qualify equally. A resident who operates a local business would qualify through residence. Outside business and property owners would participate through Class B.
One eligible resident would have one governance vote, regardless of investment size. Residents would elect a majority of volunteer directors and approve major changes to the company’s purpose, resident control and sale of essential assets. The final charter would need reviewed voting provisions that make these protections legally effective.
Class A transfers would be restricted to eligible residents. The rules must explain what happens when someone moves, dies or loses eligibility, including valuation and any redemption process. Publish a defined neighborhood boundary and a fair eligibility review. Nobody should discover after investing that an undefined rule can erase their rights.
Class B investors would receive the economic rights specified in the offering, potentially including distributions from earnings and a stated position when assets are sold. They would have no ordinary voting control. Legally required protective rights would remain. Buying more Class B shares would not automatically convert money into resident votes.
The business must earn its place. Begin by testing a shared neighborhood services business, such as coordinating maintenance purchases for participating merchants and property owners. Publish demand estimates, supplier quotes, fees, operating costs and insurance. Existing homes and businesses would join only through voluntary contracts. A corporate share would not confer ownership of a neighbor’s building.
Before choosing that first business, ask residents and merchants what they already pay for, what service is missing and whether they would sign a contract at the proposed price. Publish competing supplier quotes and proposed service fees. Directors with an interest in a supplier should disclose it and leave the decision. A useful service should prove demand before raising acquisition capital.
An illustrative operating test could serve fifty customers paying $100 monthly, producing $60,000 annual revenue. If administration, suppliers, insurance and services cost $54,000, only $6,000 would remain before tax and reserves. These are assumptions for discussion. They demonstrate how narrow a margin can be, not a forecast or promised return.
At thirty customers, the same fee would produce $36,000, leaving an $18,000 shortfall against those costs. Before spending, show which expenses could shrink, how much working capital is required and when the board would stop a losing project. Property acquisition would require a separate appraisal, financing plan and budget.
Run the corporation with the financial discipline residents expect from a publicly traded company. Publish quarterly accounts, debts, executive compensation and transactions involving directors or their relatives. Hold an annual meeting with questions from shareholders. Arrange an independent annual financial review or audit appropriate to its size and legal obligations.
A public stock market listing would be a later decision with its own offering, reporting and trading requirements. The Securities and Exchange Commission explains that securities offerings generally require registration or an applicable exemption. A neighborhood purpose does not waive those rules. No shares are being offered or issued through this proposal.
Redemption needs equal clarity. State who can request repayment, how shares are valued, permitted windows, reserves and limits. Explain what happens if several people seek cash together or the corporation cannot lawfully pay. A share certificate must identify enforceable rights and financial risks. It cannot honestly promise instant repayment from money that does not exist.
The volunteer Community DataBank would provide an information foundation. Its $7,520 public service pilot would maintain resident contacts by consent, decision files and spending records. Any City grant would pay only for approved public purposes. Investment proceeds and company operations would have separate accounts, budgets and responsibilities.
Allow another $25,000 to prepare the ownership proposal: $12,000 for corporate, securities and redemption feasibility; $5,000 for accounting and a business model; $3,000 for resident governance meetings and documents; $2,000 for a shareholder register; and $3,000 contingency. These are planning allowances, with professional quotes still needed.
Seek founding contributions or grants whose terms permit that preparation. The combined DataBank and preparation allowance would be $32,520. It excludes buying property, conducting a share offering, operating the company and listing on an exchange. Additional public money would require its own authorized public purpose and approved terms.
Ask the two neighborhood associations to invite residents through their own newsletters. Preserve their private email lists. Hold open meetings where supporters and skeptics can examine the same draft charter and numbers. People who buy no shares would retain access to publicly funded information and ordinary civic participation.
The Fillmore’s reported surviving stock certificates give this proposal a serious responsibility. Their original promises and alleged loss of control require investigation. Our own documents should make ownership, voting, transfers and redemption understandable before anyone contributes money. Residents should be able to replace directors who break the rules.
Outside investment can help finance useful work when its rights are clear and residents retain meaningful control. Begin with a small business people actually want, publish the losses as readily as the profits, and expand only when the accounts justify it. The neighborhood should understand precisely what it owns and how it can keep it.
Sources and editorial notes
Prepared for Doug Comstock | Sources checked October 23 2026
Article text 980 words excluding title byline and these notes
This is a proposed ownership model, not an investment solicitation. No corporation has been formed or shares offered. Resident directors and the DataBank team would serve as volunteers. The share classes, eligibility, voting, economic rights, transfers and redemption rules require corporate, securities and tax review before adoption.
Offers and sales of shares
The SEC states that securities offers and sales require registration or an available exemption. The appropriate route depends on the final issuer, investors and terms; calling an enterprise a neighborhood corporation does not choose an exemption.
SEC exempt offerings • California DFPI securities oversight
Public reporting and trading
The SEC distinguishes a registered public offering, reporting obligations and listing standards. The article proposes financial transparency as an operating practice; an actual public offering or exchange listing would be a separate undertaking.
Proposed partners and recruitment
The associations are prospective partners. Each would need to agree before its own newsletter could invite residents. Existing private subscriber lists would remain with the associations.
Pacific Heights Residents Association • Cow Hollow Association
Financial assumptions
The operating example is illustrative: 50 customers × $100 × 12 months = $60,000; $54,000 assumed costs leave $6,000 before tax and reserves. At 30 customers, $36,000 revenue leaves an $18,000 shortfall. The additional preparation allowances total $25,000; with the volunteer DataBank’s $7,520 cash budget, combined preparation and pilot costs are $32,520. These figures exclude acquisition capital, an offering, exchange listing and ongoing company operations.
Rights and historical accounts still to be established
Class A economic rights and Class B distributions and claims must be specified alongside voting protections. The labels alone create no protection. Redemption depends on lawful terms and available funds. The Fillmore barbershop certificates and alleged loss of control are the author’s reported account; original certificates and company records have not been examined.
John van Sicklen Maeck II is a writer based in San Francisco.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
A demonstrator holds a sign in front of the Federal Courthouse in Detroit, Michigan.
(Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)
Beyond Airstrikes: Why America Must Rethink Its Counterterrorism Strategy in Nigeria
Nov 13, 2026
When American forces carried out airstrikes against suspected Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day 2025, the operation offered a glimpse of renewed security cooperation between Washington and Abuja. But for Nigerians living in communities threatened by terrorism, kidnapping and armed attacks, a more pressing question remained: Would the strikes make their lives any safer?
That question deserves attention in Washington. The United States has spent decades helping Nigeria combat terrorism through military equipment, intelligence sharing and training. Yet armed violence continues to disrupt everyday life across northern Nigeria, raising doubts about how the success of American counterterrorism assistance should be measured.
The December operation followed a diplomatic confrontation after President Donald Trump accused Nigeria of failing to protect Christians and threatened military intervention. Nigeria subsequently welcomed American assistance, leading to coordinated strikes against suspected militants in Sokoto State.
Military strikes can disrupt terrorist operations, destroy equipment and eliminate commanders. But they cannot, by themselves, guarantee the safety of communities or restore confidence in government institutions.
The United States and Nigeria have maintained security cooperation for more than five decades. According to a 2024 State Department fact sheet, Washington had $590 million in active government-to-government military sales cases with Nigeria. Major transactions included a $497 million sale of 12 A-29 Super Tucano aircraft and a $997 million sale of 12 AH-1Z attack helicopters.
Between fiscal years 2019 and 2023, the United States also provided more than $8 million in counterterrorism training, equipment and advisory support, alongside approximately $5 million for international military education and training. These figures cover different programs and stages of assistance, rather than a single amount already spent.
The partnership extends beyond weapons. It includes military professionalization, intelligence cooperation, border security and efforts to improve accountability within Nigeria's security institutions.
These investments have strengthened areas of Nigeria's military capacity but the continued vulnerability of civilians raises a larger question: What should count as success?
In northeastern Nigeria, Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) have sustained an insurgency that has devastated communities around the Lake Chad Basin. In the northwest, armed bandit networks have expanded kidnapping for ransom, cattle rustling and attacks on rural settlements. Although some groups operate in overlapping areas, their motivations and organizational structures differ.
That distinction matters treating every armed group as a terrorist organization risks overlooking the criminal economies, local grievances and failures of law enforcement that sustain different forms of violence.
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data project (ACLED) reported more than 400 kidnapping incidents across northwest Nigeria in 2026 by the time of its analysis. In June, at least 39 civilians were abducted in Maradun, Zamfara State, after reportedly traveling to negotiate improved relations with an armed group.
A separate ACLED assessment found that armed bandits accounted for more than 80 percent of recorded mass abductions since the beginning of 2025.
These figures do not establish that American counterterrorism operations have failed. They demonstrate that Nigeria's civilian-security crisis extends well beyond the militant organizations targeted by airstrikes.
Having reported on terrorism and violent conflict in northern Nigeria, I have seen how insecurity affects communities beyond the immediate violence. Farmers struggle to access their fields, families live with uncertainty, and residents face restrictions on movement that interfere with ordinary economic and social life.
For people living under these conditions, security is measured less by the number of militants killed than by whether they can travel safely, earn a living and send their children to school.
This is where Washington should reconsider its approach.
The United States and Nigeria have already recognized the importance of broader security reforms. During the 2024 U.S.–Nigeria Binational Commission, both governments committed to deepening military and law enforcement cooperation while protecting civilians, respecting human rights and strengthening democratic institutions.
They proposed a standing security working group and closer cooperation on border and aviation security, terrorist financing, criminal investigations and explosives detection. They also discussed specialized police units to respond to kidnappings, improved police complaint mechanisms, crime mapping, police reform and stronger criminal justice institutions.
Their commitments extended to civilian harm prevention, community peacebuilding, farmer–herder conflict resolution and protection of freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and religious liberty.
These agreements offer a starting point for measuring whether cooperation is improving everyday security. Washington should press for transparent assessments of civilian casualties, kidnapping trends, accountability for abuses and the ability of displaced communities to return safely.
It should also support Nigerian institutions responsible for investigating and prosecuting violent crimes, rather than relying predominantly on military responses.
Religious freedom must remain part of this policy. But Nigeria's security crisis cannot be understood exclusively through attacks against Christians. Muslims have also suffered extensively from terrorism and banditry. A policy focused on protecting all civilians would better address the country's complex security realities.
The stakes extend beyond Nigeria. As Africa's most populous country and an influential regional democracy, Nigeria plays an important role in West African stability and international cooperation. Persistent insecurity weakens public confidence in elected leaders, disrupts civic participation and creates opportunities for armed groups to exercise influence where state institutions are absent.
For the United States, supporting Nigeria therefore involves more than defeating terrorist organizations. It means helping a democratic partner build institutions that citizens can trust.
A stronger bilateral relationship should connect security assistance with civilian protection, public accountability and sustained diplomatic engagement. Such cooperation would demonstrate that American foreign policy can support democratic governance while confronting violent extremism.
Ultimately, the success of U.S.-Nigeria counterterrorism cooperation should be judged by whether Nigerians can live without fear, participate freely in civic life and trust the government institutions responsible for their safety. Until those outcomes become central measures of progress, even successful airstrikes will remain an incomplete answer to Nigeria's security crisis.
Idris Mohammed is a Ph.D. student at the University of Alabama concentrating in Journalism & Creative Media and a fall Fulcrum Fellow.
Keep ReadingShow less
Residents vote at polling station in St. Timothy's Episcopal Church on November 03, 2026 in West Des Moines, Iowa.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The Fork in the Road: What the 2026 Midterms Mean for MAGA, Democrats, and the GOP
Nov 13, 2026
The political earthquake of the 2026 midterm elections has left Washington, DC, in a state of whiplash, delivering a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration and fracturing the expansive coalition that carried him to the White House just two years ago. For Donald Trump, his inner circle, and his most ardent followers, the message from the American electorate is unmistakable: the governing chaos, policy overreaches, and exhausting political theater of the last two years will not fly for the next two
Instead of showing humility following a historic defeat, the president’s immediate elevation of immigration hardliner Stephen Miller to White House Chief of Staff signals a defiant doubling down rather than a constructive course correction. For millions of voters—including the critical Latino demographics alienated by the administration's aggressive deportation campaigns—Miller’s promotion feels like a structural mistake that will only deepen the administration's isolation. If MAGA is to survive past Trump’s tenure, the movement must undergo a radical transformation, moving away from unilateral aggression and toward sustainable governance. As former conservative acolyte Rod Dreher soberly observed following the wreckage of the midterms, “MAGA couldn't deliver on good government. And if you can't deliver on good government, it doesn't matter how charismatic the leader is. It's not going to work.”
At the same time, Democrats must resist the tempting delusion that these midterm victories signal the definitive end of populism. It would be a catastrophic mistake to misread a rejection of administrative chaos as a sweeping endorsement of progressive ideology. Let us be clear: half of the country voted for Trump in 2024 largely because of the crippling economic pressures and inflation felt at the end of the Biden administration. Just as in 2016, millions of everyday Americans chose Trump not out of malice, but because they genuinely believe parts of the progressive agenda have drifted too far into radicalism, leaving traditional values and economic anxieties behind. Warning his party against taking the wrong lessons from their victory, Senator Cory Booker cautioned, “If we make Donald Trump the center of our focus, we will lose this moment in history. We need to deal with the American people's problems.”
Traditional Republicans, meanwhile, face an existential crisis after completely losing their institutional identity to a single leader. Unconditional capitulation to Trumpism has left the party hollowed out, punished at the ballot box by voters craving stability and principled leadership. For the GOP, the time for blind deference is over if they wish to remain a viable national force. As a post-election analysis from RealClearPolicy bluntly summarized, “It's time to look past Donald Trump... the GOP must begin rebuilding a governing coalition around the principles of liberty, constitutional government, economic opportunity, family, and national purpose – or, Republicans will become a feeble, permanent opposition.”
We have arrived at a critical fork in the road for all three political factions. MAGA must choose between evolution or extinction. Democrats must choose between pragmatic moderation or alienating the very swing voters who just handed them a lifeline. And traditional Republicans must decide whether they will reclaim their principles or continue to exist as a hollowed-out vessel.
The path to the White House in 2028 will not be won by the faction that executes the most ruthless political strategy, but by the leaders who listen to the true will of The People.
Americans are fatigued by a useless, unending political tug-of-war designed solely to retain institutional power. The next chapter of American politics belongs to those who stop fighting for total ideological dominance and instead roll up their sleeves to solve our collective societal ills.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
The U.S. Constitution.
Getty Images, Bill Oxford
Just the Facts: What Does the Constitution Say About the Attorney General's Duty
Nov 13, 2026
A recent CNN interview with Attorney General Todd Blanche ignited debate about the role of the Department of Justice after he said, "If you work in this administration, you have a lawyer. It's me, and we will defend you." He also argued that every attorney general represents members of an administration and suggested that the Constitution protects executive branch officials.
Here are the facts, the relevant constitutional provisions, and the key areas of nuance.
Fact #1: The Constitution Does Not Create the Office of Attorney General
The U.S. Constitution does not mention the attorney general, define the office's duties, or demand the attorney general to defend administration officials. Congress created the position in the Judiciary Act of 1789, and it later became the head of the Department of Justice.
Bottom line: The attorney general's responsibilities come primarily from federal statutes enacted by Congress, not from explicit constitutional text.
Fact #2: The Constitution Does Assign Law-Execution Responsibilities to the Executive Branch
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires that the president "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is known as the Take Care Clause.
In practice, the Department of Justice and the attorney general help presidents carry out this constitutional responsibility.
Bottom line: The Constitution assigns law-execution duties to the president and executive branch, but it does not specifically state that the attorney general's constitutional duty is to defend administration officials.
Fact #3: The Department of Justice Often Defends Executive Branch Officials
Historically, the Department of Justice has frequently represented federal agencies and executive branch officials sued or called upon to defend official actions. Blanche's statement that attorneys general traditionally represent administration officials reflects a longstanding governmental practice.
However, that practice rests largely on statutes, regulations, and legal precedent rather than a constitutional provision specifically directing the attorney general to do so.
Bottom line: DOJ lawyers generally defend executive branch officials acting in their official capacities, but the Constitution does not expressly mandate that practice.
Fact #4: Congress Has Constitutional Oversight Powers
During the CNN interview, Dana Bash noted that congressional oversight constitutes a constitutional function. Courts and legal scholars have long recognized Congress's authority to conduct investigations and oversight as part of its legislative responsibilities.
Blanche responded that he welcomes legitimate oversight yet argued that threats of impeachment or investigations without factual basis go beyond proper oversight.
Blanche also declined to rule out potential investigations of members of Congress under certain circumstances. When asked whether Democratic lawmakers could face investigation based on statements they had made, he responded, "It depends on what's said. So yes ... there could be." Blanche added that while Americans enjoy free speech protections, "when the threats become so vile and so dangerous ... you have to draw the line." When Bash later referenced suggestions that some lawmakers could be imprisoned, Blanche again declined to categorically reject the possibility, saying, "Well, it depends on what the crime is and what they've done."
Bottom line: Congress has well-established oversight authority, but disagreements often arise over where oversight ends, and partisan investigation begins. Blanche's comments also highlighted a separate constitutional debate over when, if ever, elected officials' political rhetoric could become the subject of criminal investigation.
Fact #5: The Constitution Protects the Executive Branch, But Not from All Oversight
Blanche stated that "the Constitution absolutely protects members of the executive.
That statement is partially correct, but it requires context.
The Constitution establishes a separation of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Courts have recognized various protections for the executive branch, including certain executive privileges and immunities under specific circumstances. At the same time, Congress can oversee executive branch officials, and courts can review their actions, and, in some cases, Congress can initiate impeachment proceedings.
Bottom line: The Constitution protects the executive branch's institutional interests, but those protections exist alongside Congress's oversight powers and the judiciary's authority to interpret the law.
Fact #6: The Attorney General's Client Is the United States
A common misconception is that the attorney general serves as a president's or administration official's personal lawyer.
The attorney general's ultimate responsibility is to represent the United States' interests and enforce federal law. While that commonly involves defending administration actions, the Department of Justice has declined to defend a policy, law, or official action when it concluded the position was unlawful or unconstitutional. [usconstitution.net]
Bottom line: The attorney general represents the government, not the personal interests of government officials.
The Verdict
The most accurate interpretation of Blanche's remarks is that the Constitution does not explicitly make it his job to defend administration officials. Rather, the Constitution places law-execution responsibilities within the executive branch, while federal statutes and longstanding practice assign the attorney general a central role in representing the executive branch and defending official government actions. [usconstitution.net], [law.cornell.edu], [whitehouse.gov]
In short, the Constitution does not say, "The attorney general shall defend members of the administration." Instead, it establishes an executive branch charged with faithfully executing the laws, a Congress empowered to conduct oversight, and a system of checks and balances that ensures continuing tension between those two responsibilities. [law.cornell.edu], [law.cornell.edu], [yahoo.com]
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More