Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How to rename D.C.'s football team and help fix democracy, too

Opinion

Greenbacks logo
Tristiaña Hinton/The Fulcrum
Golden is a communications consultant, the author of "Unlock Congress" (Why Not Books) and a senior fellow at the Adlai Stevenson Center on Democracy. He is a member of The Fulcrum's editorial advisory board.

"Hang a lantern on your problem" was favorite advice from Robert F. Kennedy. In other words, confront a challenge head-on. Illuminate it. Then take steps to tackle it.

Dan Snyder, who announced this week that he will soon rename the NFL franchise he owns, has an opportunity to do one better than RFK's mantra.

By changing Washington's football team name to the Greenbacks, Snyder would not only move a controversial spotlight off of himself, he would also refract it onto an enormously important issue that is starved for more attention: the corrupting influence of big money in American government.

Don't get me wrong. It's not that Americans aren't already aware of this abomination in our politics. In fact, the overwhelming majority of us— regardless of political stripe — say we want reform.

A survey conducted by the University of Maryland found 88 percent believe it's important to reduce the influence of special-interest cash in Washington.

More dramatically, 75 percent support a constitutional amendment that would supersede the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision a decade ago and allow "Congress and the states to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others who seek to influence elections."

Our collective support for curbing corruption in Congress should come as no surprise. We know that the preferences of the wealthy influence legislative decisions far more than the rest of us. In fact, the desires of the top 10 percent matter 15 times more than the other 90 percent, according to research from Martin Gilens and Ben Page.

So if we all know that we're getting screwed by the billions of dollars washing through the Capitol, and if nearly all of us have said that we want to change this corrupt system, then why doesn't it happen?

The answer to that question is our national attention span. We don't have one. Not in a sustained enough way where most of us will take real and consistent action.

For instance, most Americans — even within that 75 percent who support a constitutional amendment — are not aware that there are proposed constitutional amendments sitting right now in both the House and the Senate.

But if we don't demand their passage, they won't pass. If we don't vote on the issue and then call our representatives once they're in office, nothing happens.

All of which brings me back to suggesting that Snyder rename his team the Washington Greenbacks. The allusion will be lost on no one. When you change the name of one of the most storied teams in NFL history to associate it with pay-for-play cash money — and that team is in the nation's capital — Americans will have no choice but to regularly contemplate why we allow a corrupt system to roll over us. Daily.

As an old political boss of mine used to say when we were collecting financial pledges: "You want them to remember it? Staple it to their foreheads."

Some might assert that it's nearly impossible to get a constitutional amendment through Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states. It's an easy argument, since we haven't done so in a while. It's also silly. We've added 17 amendments to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights. Same rules.

Jeff Clements is the president of American Promise, a nonpartisan group dedicated to passing such an amendment to wack the flow of greenbacks. He's in the fight every day. He says he needs more fighters:

"In order to eliminate out-of-control big elite money from our political system, we need this 28th Amendment to the Constitution. American Promise has achieved great progress on this goal — but to make it a reality we'll need millions more Americans to make their voices heard."

Americans need a reminder. Regularly. The Greenbacks.

Yes, I'm aware that Snyder is a massively wealthy guy who almost certainly benefits from tax laws and other public policy decisions driven by special-interest cash. But it's never too late to do the right thing.

If he changed the name of the Redskins to some simple and non-controversial moniker, Snyder would at least be catching up to the 21st century.

But if he renamed it the Greenbacks, he'd be strengthening his country — and stepping into immortality.

Go big, Dan. And if it misses the mark, you won't need to sweat it — Greenbacks are also a species of fish. Worked out fine in Miami.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less