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. B rumbach 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.

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

Ending taxes on home sales would benefit the wealthiest households most – part of a larger pattern in Trump tax plans

File:Homes-for-sale-Burrus-02.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Ending taxes on home sales would benefit the wealthiest households most – part of a larger pattern in Trump tax plans

Not long after U.S. housing prices reached a record high this summer – the median existing home went for US$435,000 in June – President Donald Trump said that he was considering a plan to make home sales tax-free.

Supporters of the idea, introduced by U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as the No Tax on Home Sales Act in July, say it would benefit working families by eliminating all taxes on the sales of family homes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

"Just the Facts" on the new $100,000 H-1B visa fee, its impact on tech firms, startups, and healthcare, plus legal challenges and alternatives for skilled workers.

Getty Images, Popartic

Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What Is the $100,000 Visa Fee?

This is a new one-time $100,000 application fee for employers seeking to sponsor foreign workers under the H-1B visa program. The visa is designed for highly skilled professionals in fields like tech, medicine, and engineering.

Keep ReadingShow less
Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

Dave Anderson shares how the Fed’s rate cuts reveal misconceptions about fiscal vs. monetary policy and government intervention in U.S. free markets.

Getty Images, Royalty-free

Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

The Federal Reserve Board's move on Wednesday, Sept. 17, to lower the federal funds interest rate by one-quarter of a point signals that it is a good time to discuss a major misconception that most voters have about public policy.

It is typically assumed that Democrats stand for government intervention into free markets to counteract the inherent bias towards those who are more economically well off. It is also assumed that Republicans, in contrast, reject the idea of government intervention in free markets because it violates rights to property and the natural order of free markets, which promotes the greatest total welfare.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of a nurse's hand resting on the shoulder of an older man who's hand rests on top.

September is World Alzheimer’s Awareness Month. Dr. Dona Kim Murphey explains how systemic failures, Medicare privatization, and racial disparities are deepening the dementia care crisis.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

Profits Over Patients: Re-Examining Systems As Culprit in Dementia Care (or Lack Thereof)

September is World Alzheimer's Awareness Month. Alzheimer's is the most common kind of dementia, a disorder characterized by the progressive loss of brain cells and, in its final stages, complete dependence—the inability to remember, speak, move, or even eat or swallow unassisted. Many end up in nursing homes. Seven million people are impacted by dementia in the United States today, a number that will more than double in the next 25 years.

But awareness is not just about understanding the magnitude of the problem or content expertise on the choices we make as individuals to mitigate the enormous present and future challenges of this disease. It is about a consciousness of the role of systems, namely insurance and government, that are seriously undermining our ability to care.

Keep ReadingShow less