Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Chamber of Commerce Makes Bipartisanship Part of Its Scorecard

A small push on Thursday to narrow the Capitol's partisan breech could have some lasting significance given its unlikely source: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, traditionally the most influential lobbying force for the Republican establishment.

The chamber said it will start considering bipartisanship and collaborative legislating, not just a pro-business voting record, when deciding its endorsements for Congress. The group will make each of those characteristics count for 10 percent on its annual scorecards, which have had enormous influence in steering campaign contributions toward incumbents with the top numbers.


"This new approach reflects our belief that many of Washington's troubles — including dysfunction, division, and incivility — could be helped by rebuilding the political center and restoring responsible governing," the chamber's president, Thomas Donahue, said in announcing the first change to the scorecard system in four decades. "Lawmakers should be rewarded for reaching across the aisle, not punished."

To this point, the chamber has spent overwhelmingly on Republican candidates and endorsed them almost exclusively. It has only endorsed two Democrats this decade, and both lost: Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in 2010, when she was defeated for a third term, and veteran Connecticut politician Mary Glassman in 2018, when she lost an open-seat primary to Jahana Hayes, now a freshman House member.


Read More

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stethoscope, pile of hundred dollar bills and a calculator

A deep dive into America’s healthcare cost crisis, comparing reform to a modern “moonshot.” Explores payment models, rising costs, and lessons from John F. Kennedy’s space race vision to drive systemic change.

IronHeart/Getty Images

The Moonshot America Needs to Solve Its Healthcare Crisis

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy told the nation, “We choose to go to the moon.” It’s often remembered as a moment of national ambition. In reality, the United States was locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the fear of falling behind in technological dominance made the mission unavoidable.

Today’s space race is driven by a different force. Governments and private companies are investing billions to capture economic advantages, from satellite infrastructure to advanced computing to the next frontier of resource extraction.

Keep ReadingShow less
After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts
a large white building with columns with United States Supreme Court Building in the background

After the Court's Voting Rights Decision - How to Protect Black-Majority Districts

The Supreme Court recently ruled that Louisiana violated the Constitution in creating a new Black-majority voting district. This was after a Federal court had ruled that the previous map, by packing Blacks all in one district, diluted their votes, which violated the Voting Rights Act.

The question is what impact the decision in Louisiana v Callais will have on §2 of the Voting Rights Act ... and on the current gerrymander contest to gain safe seats in the House. The conservative majority said that the decision left the Act intact. The liberal minority, in a strong dissent by Justice Kagan, said that the practical impact was to "render §2 all but a dead letter," making it likely that existing Black-majority districts will not remain for long.

Keep ReadingShow less