It's no secret: America's electoral system faces a crisis of trust, driven by the proliferation of disinformation that threatens Americans' trust in elections. Businesses have a vested interest in a stable democracy, but what can they do to address these challenges? This Business for America webinar explores the risks facing our democracy, the state-of-play regarding state and federal elections policy, and practical actions the private sector can take to promote trust and transparency in campaigns and elections.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
We have extreme inequality in America, and it’s getting worse
Oct 07, 2024
Cooper is the author of “How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.”
Bloomberg recently reported that Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg is now worth over $200 billion. He’s not alone. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Tesla founder Elon Musk, and LVMH founder Bernard Arnault are also worth north of $200 billion.
The news is a searing reminder of the uneven distribution of wealth in America. In the same country as Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Musk reside millions of people without a reliable source of food. (Arnault lives in France.) Redistributing just a small portion of the richest Americans’ wealth could alleviate tremendous human suffering.
The problem is getting worse with time. According to Forbes magazine, “In 1987, the [world’s] 140 billionaires had an aggregate net worth of $295 billion.” But now, in 2024, there are “more billionaires than ever: 2,781 in all, 141 more than last year and 26 more than the record set in 2021. They’re richer than ever, worth $14.2 trillion in aggregate, up by $2 trillion from 2023 and $1.1 trillion above the previous record, also set in 2021.”
Forbes continued: “Much of the gains come from the top 20, who added a combined $700 billion in wealth since 2023, and from the U.S., which now boasts a record 813 billionaires worth a combined $5.7 trillion.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
What could that vast wealth do? Looking globally, Oxfam International recently explained that $1.7 trillion is “enough to lift two billion people out of poverty.” So just a fraction of the wealth of a small number of people could bring billions out of poverty.
The problem, though, isn’t just the top 0.1 percent. As Pew Research notes, America’s upper class is getting richer as its middle class is getting smaller: “The growth in income in recent decades has tilted to upper-income households. At the same time, the U.S. middle class, which once comprised the clear majority of Americans, is shrinking. Thus, a greater share of the nation’s aggregate income is now going to upper-income households and the share going to middle- and lower-income households is falling. The share of American adults who live in middle-income households has decreased from 61% in 1971 to 51% in 2019.”
America’s inequality, moreover, is markedly worse than other wealthy nations. The Gini coefficient is a common measure of a country’s inequality. It uses a scale of 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (complete inequality). According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2017, “the Gini coefficient in the U.S. stood at 0.434.” This number “was higher than in any other of the G-7 countries, in which the Gini ranged from 0.326 in France to 0.392 in the UK, and inching closer to the level of inequality observed in India (0.495).”
There are many reasons for this inequality. Among them: technological automation, inherited wealth, lax corporate regulation, liberal trade policies, outsourced labor, insufficient taxation and broken public schools. Some inequality, of course, is also driven by individual choice (people electing to spend time on less-lucrative activities) and work ethic (some people work more than others).
And, importantly, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with people getting rich. Some amount of inequality should even be encouraged. Hard work and ingenuity should be rewarded, as wealth must be created in order to be redistributed. And high-profile business successes motivate others to innovate and take risks that improve society at large.
But an excessive amount of inequality — see Zuckerberg, Bezos and Musk — allows large-scale human suffering to go needlessly unaddressed. This isn't just unfair. As the International Monetary Fund explained, it has widespread societal consequences: “growing inequality breeds social resentment and generates political instability. It also fuels populist, protectionist, and anti-globalization sentiments.”
These problems aren't surprising or complicated. They’re obvious consequences of a deeply flawed economic system. The same nation simply shouldn’t have a few jackpot winners hoarding billions and, at the same time, tens of millions struggling to get by.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Corporate black holes prevent fair play in the U.S. economy
Aug 23, 2024
Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.
NASA defines a black hole as “a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not get out.” This celestial abnormality can even distort space-time. Though invisible to the human eye, a black hole is detectable by the extent to which everything around it is morphed to its will.
The same is true of our biggest corporations. The total reach of companies like Amazon, Meta and Google seemingly exceeds human capabilities. Yet, the extent to which our laws, culture and daily lives revolve around these corporate black holes reveals a hard truth: Fair play does not characterize our economy. The best ideas may never come to fruition and the smartest people may never realize their potential — they lack the escape velocity necessary to operate beyond the pull of the black holes.
Affording every individual economic opportunity and liberty is at the core of our antitrust tradition. It’s the idea that motivated Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson to reorient our approach to goliath corporations. They realized that when some companies have an unearned advantage over others, there’s a need to help level the playing field. Roosevelt used publicity to call out CEOs who wanted to flout the rules. Taft leaned on the courts to enforce existing laws. Wilson created the Federal Trade Commission to spot new corporate shenanigans.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Each president thought creatively about how best to curtail corrupt, fraudulent and just plain bad business practices. They succeeded … sometimes. They also fell short … a lot. Teddy couldn’t help but assume that his fellow gentlemen would only do right by the American people. His predecessors likewise paid close attention to the interests and demands of the elite class that bankrolled their campaigns and demanded passes from too much regulatory scrutiny.
Those shortcomings shouldn’t distract from the larger message: They each acknowledged that fair play was more important than unjust economic growth.
Fair play is missing from today’s economy. Consumers are trapped in the orbits of a few massive corporations. You can quit Facebook, but your friends will demand you join WhatsApp or Instagram. Your social media still resolves around Meta.
Startups are likewise roped into these economic black holes. Companies like Amazon will extract everything from novel threats. They’ll lure employees from small businesses, or emulate the products of mom-and-pop shops. And, if necessary, they will simply absorb their competition via an acquisition.
The long-term ramifications of giant corporate black holes are significant. Consolidation across several industries has had a particularly pronounced effect on workers and their wages. Leading antitrust scholars forecast that Americans could be earning upwards of $10,000 more in annual income under more competitive conditions. Competition would not only boost incomes but also stretch dollars further. As companies bunch together they also tend to jack up prices. Americans may also have more career opportunities in a more competitive economy. The dominant corporations in their respective industries generally hire fewer workers — driving down total employment.
The laws of anti-competitive gravitational forces under which corporate black holes trap us in their orbit may finally be coming to an end. Like Copernicus realizing the sun’s pull, federal officials have awoken to the democracy-sapping effects of corporate black holes. FTC Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, for one, acknowledged that “society reaps the benefits of free enterprise only if it protects the system from monopolies and fraud.” His colleague, Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, has similarly called for the public interest rather than private profit to be at the center of our economic policies.
This emerging consensus justifies optimism but begs the question: How can individual Americans achieve the escape velocity necessary to wrest control over their economic fates from the biggest corporations? A full outline of those policy options exceeds the scope of this short essay. For now, the most important thing is realizing that our economy does not have to revolve around the priorities of corporate black holes. This Copernicus Revolution can serve as the basis for rewriting our collective narrative and understanding of what fair play means in the modern economy.
Keep ReadingShow less
The hidden iceberg: Why corporate treasury spending matters
May 13, 2024
Freed is president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability.
Too much media coverage and other political analyses focus on contributions by corporate political action committees but overlook the serious consequences of political contributions made directly from corporate treasury funds.
In talks with corporate executives, the default too often is almost exclusively on company political engagement through its PAC. This ignores what one political scientist has likened to an iceberg of spending, where disclosure is not required (and hence is “dark money”) or is partial (only by the recipient, not the donor) and totals are much greater than the amounts allowed for PAC spending.
This spending matters greatly. Donations from treasury funds have been crucial for reshaping state legislatures and influencing national politics and policy over the past 14 years. In the 2010 election cycle, so-called 527’s became a strategic part of the political funding process through targeted spending. Those organizations are nonprofits formed under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, which grants tax-exempt status to political committees at the national, state and local levels.
They have played a major role in underwriting changes in control of state legislatures and redistricting of political maps that followed. They have been crucial for the election of attorneys general engaging in lawsuits that impact women’s reproductive rights, voting rights, election administration and the regulatory powers of the U.S. government. They have played a major role in gubernatorial races by serving as conduits for money to evade contribution limits. These groups are the governors associations, state legislative campaign committees and attorneys general associations.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Companies are exposed to serious risks from political spending with treasury funds. It directly links their brands with controversial candidates and issues important to consumers, workers and shareholders. Accordingly, the Center for Political Accountability, unlike other research and advocacy groups, closely tracks corporate political spending from treasury funds, and its associated risk and consequences.
Let’s review the differences between corporate treasury spending and PAC spending.
Corporate treasury spending
- It draws directly from corporate profits. When a company gives to third-party groups, it loses control over its money and can be tarred with the consequences.
- It funds dark money groups, which are not required to disclose their donors.
- With no contribution limits, donations can run into six- and seven-figure sums, vastly above PAC giving. This is a dominant political spending source.
- These contributions have a major impact on state political races. They comprise almost a third of donations to 527 groups, which spend heavily in legislative, executive and judicial races. In a “massive change,” states are increasingly where policy gets made.
Corporate PAC spending
- PAC donations largely come from contributions from employees, not directly from a company’s profits.
- Donations to PACs, and donations they make, must be disclosed publicly.
- Donations to PACs, and donations they make, are strictly limited.
- Corporate PAC donations focus overwhelmingly on federal races, and attention to them diverts it from state politics and its immediate impact on voters, democracy and society more broadly.
The bottom line
More than ever, consumers, employees, shareholders and other stakeholders are keenly interested in supporting companies whose values align with their own. The political causes and candidates that a company supports are a key metric for assessing those values. Corporate PAC spending only partially illuminates the totality of a company’s political influence. To fully assess a company’s impact on the political landscape, contributions made from treasury funds must be closely examined.
The Center for Political Accountability focuses on company adoption of disclosure and accountability policies for company spending with treasury funds because of the much greater impact of this spending and the heightened risk that accompanies it. Our effort over the past two decades, using corporate governance and risk management, has made political disclosure and accountability the norm through “private ordering.” That’s when a critical mass of companies adopting a policy turns it from a practice to a standard.
Keep ReadingShow less
Big Philanthropy to the rescue? Think again.
May 10, 2024
Cain has served in leadership roles at numerous foundations, nonprofits and for-profit corporations. He was a founding partner of American Philanthropic.
As the media and elites across America take up a fight to “save democracy,” Big Philanthropy is casting itself in the role of superhero. Since 2011, the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for High Impact Philanthropy reports, some $5.7 billion has gone to programs supporting U.S. democracy, with grant announcements that often depict foundations as stepping up to forestall a doomsday.
The Carnegie Corporation, warning of a “fragility of our democracy ... unimaginable just a few years ago,” has pledged to strengthen social cohesion and combat polarization. The MacArthur Foundation is partnering with Carnegie and the Ford and Knight foundations, among others, in the $500 million Press Forward effort to “address the crisis in local news.” As Knight president Alberto Ibargüen put it to the New York Times: “There is a new understanding of the importance of information in the management of community, in the management of democracy in America.”
Even those typically allergic to Big Philanthropy want to affix capes to the shoulders of megadonors. “Big philanthropists have a potentially transformative role to play in rehabilitating our democracy,” wrote philanthropy scholar Rob Reich and his Stanford colleagues in the Stanford Social Innovation Review.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
There is a strong temptation to dismiss Big Philanthropy’s “transformative role in rehabilitating democracy” or, as Ibargüen put it, “managing democracy,” as a thinly veiled partisan and politically liberal effort to manage electoral outcomes.
After all, the “fragility of democracy” seems to have first appeared around the time George W. Bush ascended to the White House in 2000. Democracy made an extraordinary eight-year recovery during the Obama presidency but became even more frail when Donald Trump won election in 2016. Now democracy itself, as President Biden has campaigned, is on the ballot in 2024.
Let’s take Big Philanthropy at its word, however. After all, many of the largest so-called conservative foundations in America — the Charles Koch, Scaife, and Bradley foundations and the Searle Freedom Trust — also believe that they have a special role to play in architecting the restoration of American institutions. Their work, however, is more often cast in the language of strengthening citizenship, free markets, and America’s founding principles rather than democracy itself. Nevertheless, their philanthropic organizations and methods look like and behave similarly to their liberal counterparts.
Liberal or conservative, the professional philanthropic class shares a fundamentally progressive belief that it can design America and Americans from above: Salvation comes by way of experts and elites, top down, not bottom up.
Should Americans look to the nation’s largest nondemocratic, publicly unaccountable charitable foundations to save democracy?
Americans’ regard for elite institutions, including nonprofit and philanthropic organizations, is in precipitous decline. Gallup records a “historically low faith in U.S. institutions.” Last year Edelman found that trust in nonprofits decreased by 4 percentage points over the prior year and that 26 percent of those surveyed had “low” trust in philanthropy, a 5 percentage-point increase.
What’s more, 20 million households have stopped giving to government-sanctioned charities. Volunteering is in generational decline. And year-over-year charitable giving in the form of nonprofit donations saw its largest recorded drop in 2022, according to “Giving USA.” Additionally, that giving is concentrating at the top. Average Americans are shying away from the very institutions that propose their salvation.
Americans have every reason to be suspicious of Big Philanthropy. It has coalesced and concentered over the past 50 years as income and wealth inequality divided the nation. The ranks of the billionaire class swelled, and their philanthropic machinery and resources grew to scales unimaginable to most Americans. That behemoth philanthropy can somehow right our nation’s underlying economic wrongs and heal the social wounds that fueled its growth is a self-justifying fiction.
Big Philanthropy can’t possibly unite a divided nation for the simple reason that its very being is a symptom of a diseased economic and social order and, by extension, a broken and corrupt body politic. The liberal economic order that propels Big Philanthropy also undermines the equitable scatter of economic, social, and cultural goods. The rise of megadonors and accompanying megafoundations is a flashing red warning light that our system of democratic institutions is broken.
For all its talk about change, equity, and empowerment, philanthropy can’t help but conserve the inequitable structure that keeps it in power. America’s system of tax-incentivized giving encourages the creation of large concentrations of unaccountable wealth in the form of endowments, donor-advised funds, and perpetual foundations that allow powerful individuals to impose their will onto others in a wholly undemocratic way.
That’s why foundations — conservative and liberal alike — band together with America’s largest financial-services corporations to oppose any change to the self-serving laws governing tax-advantaged charitable giving. Before Big Philanthropy saves democracy, it must first preserve its tax advantages.
Herein lies the irony: By ensuring that they have a leg up on their fellow Americans through the tax code and a vast swath of other social and cultural institutions where they command extraordinary privilege, megadonors and the professional philanthropic class embody not democracy’s salvation but its antithesis.
Big Philanthropy’s ascent hastened democracy’s decline and weakened the civic bonds that foundations now aim to mend. The concentration of wealth and power obviates the need for voluntary association because, as Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in his Democracy in America, it’s in the absence of concentrated power that men and women must band together to accomplish great things. In a democracy, no one person has the power or resources to do great things of themselves, Tocqueville observed. So democratic citizens must unite and work together through the art of civil association.
This is not the case for the aristocracy, Tocqueville observed. Like today’s behemoth philanthropies funded by the superrich and governed by elites, Tocqueville’s rich and powerful had no need to marshal, confer, or band together with their fellow citizens to get things done. They could do great things by commanding they be so. And they did.
Thus, when Carnegie president Dame Louise Richardson pronounces, “We at Carnegie Corporation of New York believe that engaging in national and community service can help to inculcate an appreciation of the value of democracy and bring together people from all races, regions, and backgrounds and thereby strengthen the forces of social cohesion in our country,” we hear the imperial din of an aristocratic age, not democracy’s salvific chords.
This article was originally published in The Commons.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More