Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Are U.S. companies living up to their commitments to democracy?

Superhero businessman revealing American flag
BrianAJackson/Getty Images

Fordham is a PhD student in political science at the University of Washington. Brumbach is an associate professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

“[A]s a company, we have a responsibility to engage. For this reason, we are working together with other businesses through groups like the Business Roundtable to support efforts to enhance every person’s ability to vote.”

These were the words of AT&T CEO John Stankey, responding to a Georgia law that limited absentee voting. A similar bill proposed in Texas prompted Dell CEO Michael Dell to issue the following statement: “Free, fair, equitable access to voting is the foundation of American democracy. Those rights — especially for women, communities of color — have been hard-earned. Governments should ensure citizens have their voices heard. HB6 does the opposite, and we are opposed to it.”

The pattern is clear: U.S. business leaders are increasingly vocal in support of democratic institutions.


The reasons that business leaders would support democracy are not unclear. Compared to authoritarian regimes, democracies produce greater economic growth, invest more in human capital, and create more stable societies through the rule of law. Consumers are also quick to punish firms that support politicians with extreme or undemocratic views. At the same time, however, democracy means that all segments of society, including business, must engage in compromise and power sharing with those that might have very different interests over taxation, regulation, immigration, and social issues.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

But are major U.S. firms living up to their stated commitments to democracy? This question is at the heart of this report from the Center for Political Accountability. While public statements in support of democracy and the rule of law are laudable, such talk means little if firms’ political spending is at odds with these commitments.

This question has taken on new importance as American democracy has come under strain over the past decade and a half. As the report highlights, large amounts of spending from corporate sources have supported gerrymandering efforts and restrictions on voting rights that have enabled state legislatures to enact unpopular policies across many policy realms, including abortion, LGBT rights, health care, and gun control. More recently, legislatures have even threatened to subvert presidential elections — which, if acted upon, would profoundly destabilize the rule of law in America.

There are two reasons why this report makes an important contribution. The first is that understanding political spending is no easy task. U.S. campaign finance law makes it easy to obscure the flow of money to candidates, parties, and especially to political organizations. So-called 527 organizations like the Republican State Leadership Committee, which this report focuses on, pool together unlimited contributions from many sources, making it difficult to hold specific donors accountable for how the money is spent.

The second reason is that political spending can have complex and unintended consequences for democratic institutions. Uniquely among wealthy countries, the United States puts most of its authority over democratic institutions like elections and legislative districting at the state level, where many big-spending political groups like the RSLC focus their efforts, often with little transparency. The decline of local newspapers and the dominance of national culture wars in media have made it much more difficult to track threats to democracy that arise from the state level — and whose political spending is financing them.

Political spending has long been a challenge for American democracy. But this challenge has become more urgent in recent years as society polarized and political spending grew larger and less transparent. In this light, the Center for Political Accountability’s efforts to shed light on political shareholders’ spending — giving employees, consumers, and citizens the tools to make informed economic and political decisions — have taken on new significance.

The link for those who want to read the Full Report:

https://www.politicalaccountability.net/wp-content...

Read More

Dictionary definition of tariff
Would replacing the income tax with higher tariffs help ‘struggling Americans’?
Devonyu/Getty Images

Could Trump’s tariffs have unintended consequences that hurt America?

The first few weeks of the Trump administration have been head-spinning. President Trump and his team were well-prepared to launch their policy agenda, signing over 50 executive orders, the most in a president's first month in more than 40 years. A major focus has been economic policy, first with immigration raids, which were quickly followed by announcements of tariffs on imports from America’s biggest trade partners.

The tariff announcements have followed a meandering and confusing course. President Trump announced the first tariffs on February 1, but within 24 hours, he suspended the tariffs on Mexico and Canada in favor of “negotiations.” Mexico and Canada agreed to enforce their borders better to stop migrants and fentanyl imports, which the Trump administration called a victory. Despite the triumphalist rhetoric, the enforcement measures were substantially the same as what both countries were already planning to do.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill: The Ascendancy of Indian Americans

The flag of India.

Canva Images

From Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill: The Ascendancy of Indian Americans

In the intricate landscape of global geopolitics, the ascendancy of Indian Americans stands as a quiet yet transformative force—a phenomenon that demands serious consideration. While traditional paradigms of power focus on military might or economic clout, the strategic leverage wielded by this diaspora is rewriting the rules of global influence. India’s economic trajectory reflects its ambitions on the global stage. Contributing 4% to global GDP today, the nation is poised to become the world’s third $10 trillion economy within two decades. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) predicts India will account for 18% of total global growth by decade’s end, a rise that challenges established economic hierarchies.

Trade data between India and the United States reflects the growing interdependence: In 2020, U.S. imports to India stood at $51.3 billion. This figure grew to $80.1 billion in 2024, alongside a trade deficit swelling from $24.2 billion to $41.5 billion. This trade expansion is mirrored by Indian-American professionals dominating key sectors of the U.S. economy. With a median household income of $119,000, Indian Americans outperform national averages and hold influential roles across corporate and governmental institutions. CEOs of global giants like Microsoft, Google, and Citibank exemplify this trend, along with leadership roles in companies like Apple, Intel, and Dell.

Keep ReadingShow less
Will Trump’s immigration crackdown be good or bad for the economy?

Roofers on an 8-12 pitch roof laying under-layment before installing roof tile. Roofer is throwing safety line out of the way.

Getty Images//TerryJ

Will Trump’s immigration crackdown be good or bad for the economy?

In his first days in office, President Donald Trump wasted no time showing he means business, announcing a crackdown on immigration. He declared a national emergency, signed a raft of executive orders, sent 1,500 active duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, and his Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) has initiated raids on thousands of migrants across the nation.

The issue of immigration has always been multifaceted, impacting both the economy and human rights, not to mention the expensive logistical operation necessary to deport millions of people. But my discussion below is focused specifically on this question: what will happen to the economy if many of the immigrant workers (who are also consumers and taxpayers) who fill many jobs in the construction, restaurant, health care, agriculture, and elder care industries, suddenly are whisked away?

Keep ReadingShow less
Tariffs: Not a tax, and not free money

United States trade cargo container hanging against clouds background

Getty Images//Iskandar Zulkarnean

Tariffs: Not a tax, and not free money

During the recent election season, there was much talk of Trump’s plan to lay tariffs on the importation of foreign goods. Pundits, politicians, and journalists to the left of center consistently referred to them as a tax on the American people. Many of those to the right of center, especially those of the MAGA contingent, seemed to imply they are a pain-free way for the federal government to raise money.

Some correctly said that the country essentially ran on tariffs in its early history. Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary and arguably the godfather of our initial financial system, successfully proposed and implemented a tariff system with two goals in mind. Fund the young American government and protect young American businesses against competition from established foreign companies. The second bill signed by President George Washington was a broad tariff bill.

Keep ReadingShow less