Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democracy Madness: Follow the money to the second round

basketball and democracy
enjoynz/Getty Images

The first-round results from the Money in Politics region of our Democracy Madness tournament looked like a typical March Madness bracket: The top seeds advanced, with a couple of low-level upsets spicing things up.

So now it's on to the Elite Eight, with our readers urged to take another shot at picking their favorite ideas for fixing the campaign finance system. (Our tournament of 64 democracy reform proposals has already seen ranked-choice voting and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact advance to the Final Four.)


The top six Money in Politics proposals all took care of business, but the seventh- and eighth-ranked entries both fell in minor upsets. In the matchup pitting limitations on foreign campaign contributions (No. 7) against limitations on lobbyists' campaign donations (No. 10), the curb on lobbyists came out on top. And in the battle of public financing options — subsidies for candidates (No. 8) versus vouchers for voters to donate (No. 9) — the underdog triumphed again.

But now they face the big dogs. Campaign vouchers are up against the top seed, the effort to effectively repeal the Citizens United decision by constitutional amendment, while the cap on lobbyists' donations battles the campaign to reveal "dark money."

The second round runs through Saturday, with the regional semi-finals and finals following next week.

Click the Vote Now button to make your selections. (You can click the matchups, then each label, for more about the proposals.)



Read More

Entrance Sign at the University of Florida

Universities are embracing “institutional neutrality,” but at places like the University of Florida it’s becoming a tool to silence faculty and erode academic freedom.

Getty Images, Bryan Pollard

When Insisting on “Neutrality” Becomes a Gag Order

Universities across the country are adopting policies under the banner of “institutional neutrality,” which, at face value, sounds entirely reasonable. A university’s official voice should remain measured, cautious, and focused on its core mission regardless of which elected officials are in office. But two very different interpretations of institutional neutrality are emerging.

At places like the University of Wisconsin – Madison and Harvard, neutrality is applied narrowly and traditionally: the institution itself refrains from partisan political statements, while faculty leaders and scholars remain free to speak in their professional and civic capacities. Elsewhere, the same term is being applied far more aggressively — not to restrain institutions, but to silence individuals.

Keep ReadingShow less