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

Trump’s Tariffs: a burden on workers, a boon for the wealthy

An illustration of a deconstructed dollar bill.

Getty Images, rob dobi

Trump’s Tariffs: a burden on workers, a boon for the wealthy

Earlier this year, President Trump imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, claiming they would fix trade imbalances and protect jobs. However, instead of helping American workers, these tariffs act as hidden taxes; they drive up costs and feed inflation. While average Americans bear the brunt of higher prices and lost jobs, the wealthy are insulated from the worst effects.

Many economists assert that tariffs are stealth taxes, that is, the burden is not distributed equally—while corporations may adjust by diversifying suppliers or passing costs along, working households cannot escape higher prices on essential goods like groceries and electronics. Analysts estimate these tariffs could add $1,250 to the annual cost of living for the average American household—a substantial burden for families already struggling with inflation. Additionally, according to the well-regarded Tax Foundation, the tariffs are projected to reduce GDP by 0.5% and result in the loss of approximately 292,000 jobs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Figurines of manual workers with stacks of coins

Getty Images/Glow Images

Ending De Minimis Trade Hurts Average Americans

Among the international trade issues making headlines is President Trump’s recent announcement to abandon current U.S. law regarding small, low-value packages containing products purchased by Americans from overseas. The initial Executive Order was paused just days later. But the threat remains, making damaging economic repercussions imminent.

The process for such small-dollar shipments is de minimis entry. The term means “pertaining to tiny or trivial things,” emphasizing why its usage only applies to goods under a lower-priced threshold.

Keep ReadingShow less
Latino Freeze Movement: Do Economic Boycotts Create Real Change?
white and black printer paper

Latino Freeze Movement: Do Economic Boycotts Create Real Change?

President Donald Trump has implemented executive orders that some have perceived as targeting Hispanic, Latino communities, particularly in relation to immigration policies, which they argue have contributed to increased tensions and uncertainty among individuals and their families in the United States.

Historically, the Hispanic, Latino community has significant shaped the U.S. economy and culture. As political tensions have escalated in recent weeks, it has led to organized economic activism. One such effort, the Latino Freeze Movement (LFM), has directly responded to Trump’s policies and rhetoric toward the community.

Keep ReadingShow less
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