Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Meet the reformer: David Keating, leader for the right on money in politics

David Keating, Institute for Free Speech

David Keating is the president of the Institute for Free Speech.

Institute for Free Speech

Closing in on nine years as president of the Institute for Free Speech, David Keating long ago cemented his status as one of the foremost conservative forces in the money-in-politics debate. The nonprofit's aim is to safeguard First Amendment rights, particularly unfettered political speech, and views deregulation of campaign finance as central to that goal. Keating took charge after a similar group he started, SpeechNow.org, won a federal lawsuit to end donation and spending limits on independent political groups — thus creating super PACs. He had top posts at two prominent fiscal conservative organizations, the Club for Growth and the National Taxpayers Union, earlier in a D.C. advocacy career dating to the 1980s. His answers have been edited for length and clarity.

What's democracy's biggest challenge, in 10 words or less?

Stopping government from discouraging dissent.


Describe your very first civic engagement.

In high school, I learned about machine politics. My friends who wanted to become summer lifeguards had to be Republicans. I thought that was ridiculous, so I decided to register as an independent. Still am.

What was your biggest professional triumph?

Being appointed in 1996 to the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, a bipartisan group of tax experts. We surprised many when we reached a broad consensus. Unlike most such reports that gather dust, ours was turned into a bill that became law. It included my recommendations to strengthen taxpayers' rights when interacting with the IRS and to protect innocent people from being forced to pay taxes owed by any tax-cheating former spouses.

Many of my most rewarding experiences have come in volunteer work. Ten years ago my SpeechNow won the case allowing independent groups to fundraise freely. This year I became a director of Masks4All and saw 85 percent of the nation adopt mask requirements to fight Covid-19.

And your most disappointing setback?

Failure to advance through Congress a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. Two times in the 1990s we came up just one vote short in the Senate. Still, our campaign helped spur the first annual budget surplus in nearly four decades, starting in 1998 and lasting until the Sept. 11 attacks.

How does your identity influence the way you go about your work?

I identify as an independent person. I'm a registered independent in part because I don't trust either party on key issues. Too many people focus too much on "what's best for my team," either red or blue, which affects their ability to think clearly.

To promote and defend independent thought, much of my professional work has been protecting the freedoms to speak, publish, join groups and petition government for redress of grievances. Without these freedoms, we can't obtain the information we need to understand the world or act effectively to make it a better place.

What's the best advice you've ever been given?

Be a lifelong learner.

Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.

Freedom of Peach.

What is your favorite TV show or movie about politics?

"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," the 1975 Oscar winner for best picture, about rebellion in a mental institution.

What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?

Turn on the bedside clock app.

What is your deepest, darkest secret?

I think Dave Chappelle and Anthony Jeselnik are hilarious. But don't tell my wife.


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