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

Dozens of Questions: How Are Trump’s Auto Parts Tariffs Affecting the Broader Economy?

Photo of a car being assembled by robotic arms

Lenny Kuhne via Unsplash

Dozens of Questions: How Are Trump’s Auto Parts Tariffs Affecting the Broader Economy?

President Donald Trump made economic waves earlier this year when he announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles and parts with the stated goal of revitalizing U.S. auto manufacturing. Yet as of summer 2025, the majority (92%) of Mexican-made auto parts continue to enter the United States tariff-free.

That’s because of a March 2025 revision that exempts cars and parts manufactured in compliance with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) from tariffs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Agribusiness and Hospitality Sectors, Threatened by Deportations, Poured Millions Into Republican Victories

Farm workers weed a bell pepper field in southern California.

Photo by Etienne Laurent/AFP via Getty Images

Agribusiness and Hospitality Sectors, Threatened by Deportations, Poured Millions Into Republican Victories

President Donald Trump’s messaging about deporting undocumented farm, food and hospitality workers has shifted multiple times in recent days, with his latest comments indicating he may be open to a middle-ground solution.

Despite appeals from affected industries and Trump’s comments in support of leniency in such sectors, ICE agents resumed deportation-related work last week, edging the Trump administration nearer to its goal of 3,000 arrests every day. This reversal comes as congressional Republicans continue their work on the “Big Beautiful Bill,” Trump’s wide-ranging policy initiative that would add $75 billion to the ICE budget over the next five.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Erosion of America’s “Soft Power” Will Have Economic Impacts
A person holding a stack of dollar bills that are flying away.
Getty Images, PM Images

Trump’s Erosion of America’s “Soft Power” Will Have Economic Impacts

President Donald Trump has championed a strong, often confrontational posture toward many nations, defining his foreign policy as “America First.” This is a new U.S. that the world is dealing with, no longer the chief architect of the multilateral world of markets, democracy, and human rights that the U.S. has been, albeit imperfectly, since World War II.

But since Trump has been in office for only five months, it’s too early to tell the ultimate impacts. However, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. The Trump administration’s posturing is causing an erosion of what is known as “soft power.” And that is starting to result in some negative economic impacts.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less