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

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The exterior of Capitol Hill

Getty Images

Why hasn’t the Princeton Redistricting Project spoken out?

The 2026 congressional map is finally set after ten states adopted new congressional redistricting maps for the November 3 General Election. Observers note that the Princeton Gerrymandering Project (PGP) has not graded any state’s maps since it gave California’s Proposition 50 an “F” on October 30, 2025.

The PGP has officially paused grading its Redistricting Report Card because founder Dr. Sam Wang, who transitioned from the Gerrymandering Project to the Electoral Innovation Lab, has launched a campaign for Congress in New Jersey’s 12th District, requiring him to step back from his academic roles, including his leadership at PGP.

Keep ReadingShow less