Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How the riot and the HR 1 debate are fueling the crusade against dark money

Charles Koch

HR 1 might also be the key to disrupting Charles Koch and the larger dark money network that has succeeded at capturing our democracy, writes Banks.

Patrick T. Fallon for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Banks is executive director of UnKoch My Campus, which advocates for the elimination of undisclosed corporate financial influence over higher education.


Amid false claims of voter fraud and very real instances of voter supression, the 2020 election showed that our democracy is in need of an overhaul to create an electoral process that is fair, free of corporate influence and protected from discrimination.

That is why we the people are pushing Congress to pass the For the People Act, a revolutionary package of proven democracy reforms. The House is on course to pass the measure, also known as HR 1, this week.

But enacting this legislation could do even more than expand voting rights and election security. It might also be the key to finally disrupting Charles Koch and the larger dark money network that has succeeded at capturing our democracy over the past few decades.

We know what happens when dark money infuses itself in institutions that purport to benefit the common good — whether it's helping to install corporate-friendly justices on the Supreme Court, or creating university think tanks that produce climate misinformation that translates to lax environmental regulation. There has been plenty of work to investigate, name and organize against these sorts of outcomes.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

And the work regularly confronts fresh areas for concern. Most recently, the whole country witnessed the incredibly violent result of the undue influence of Koch and other big corporate funders: The storming of the Capitol by Trump loyalists on Jan. 6, which for several hours disrupted the joint session of Congress for tabulating the electoral votes and certifying that Joe Biden had won the presidency.

Even after the riot ended, leaving at least five people dead, seven Republicans returned to the vandalized floor of the Senate and voted to overturn the results — in effect legitimizing the insurrectionists' cause.

The campaigns of each of those senators has been funded by the Koch network: Josh Hawley of Missouri, Ted Cruz of Texas, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Roger Marshall of Kansas, John Kennedy of Louisiana, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida.

And despite the uproar from both sides of the aisle, Koch's spokespeople wouldn't even commit to no longer funding any of these complicit politicians.

It's no secret that networks such as Koch's thrive in secrecy, allowing for more money to flow to the politicians who will work to ensure corporate-friendly policies.

And, two days after the riot, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge by the Koch network and another conservative group to California's requirement that tax-exempt charities disclose the identity of their top donors.

The political advocacy organization Americans for Prosperity, founded by Charles Koch and his late brother David, and the Thomas More Law Center argue that the state should not be able to compel such disclosures. While they claim infringement of their freedom of speech, what's really at stake is this: Without the shroud of secrecy of dark-money donations, the entire ugly underbelly of who the Koch network actually funds will be exposed.

So it's no surprise that HR 1 is truly the worst nightmare for the Koch network and others of their ilk. If passed, it would require secret organizations that spend money in elections to disclose their donors. It would also create a small, donor-focused public financing matching system so candidates for Congress would no longer be so reliant on big-money donors to fund their campaigns and set their priorities — meaning that it would be just that much harder for billionaires like Charles Koch to buy his way into the House and Senate. In addition, the For the People Act would strengthen oversight rules to ensure those who break campaign finance laws are held accountable.

Not only would fixing these financial oversights help return elections to the interests of the common good instead of the corporate elite, it could be the first step in shaking up the foundation of the Koch network's hold on our democracy.

Read More

Large Bipartisan Majorities Oppose Deep Cuts to Foreign Aid

The Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland releases a new survey, fielded February 6-7, 2025, with a representative sample of 1,160 adults nationwide.

Pexels, Tima Miroshnichenko

Large Bipartisan Majorities Oppose Deep Cuts to Foreign Aid

An overwhelming majority of 89% of Americans say the U.S. should spend at least one percent of the federal budget on foreign aid—the current amount the U.S. spends on aid. This includes 84% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats.

Fifty-eight percent oppose abolishing the U.S. Agency for International Development and folding its functions into the State Department, including 77% of Democrats and 62% of independents. But 60% of Republicans favor the move.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Super Bowl of Unity

A crowd in a football stadium.

Getty Images, Adamkaz

A Super Bowl of Unity

Philadelphia is known as the City of Brotherly Love, and perhaps it is fitting that the Philadelphia Eagles won Sunday night's Super Bowl 59, given the number of messages of unity, resilience, and coming together that aired throughout the evening.

The unity messaging started early as the pre-game kicked off with movie star Brad Pitt narrating a moving ad that champions residence and togetherness in honor of those who suffered from the Los Angeles fires and Hurricane Helen:

Keep ReadingShow less
The Paradox for Independents

A handheld American Flag.

Canva Images

The Paradox for Independents

Political independents in the United States are not chiefly moderates. In The Independent Voter, Thomas Reilly, Jacqueline Salit, and Omar Ali make it clear that independents are basically anti-establishment. They have a "mindset" that aims to dismantle the duopoly in our national politics.

I have previously written about different ways that independents can obtain power in Washington. First, they can get elected or converted in Washington and advocate with their own independent voices. Second, they can seek a revolution in which they would be the most dominant voice in Washington. And third, a middle position, they can seek a critical mass in the Senate especially, namely five to six seats, which would give them leverage to help the majority party get to 60 votes on policy bills.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Bureaucrat’s Dilemma When Dealing with a Charismatic Autocrat

A single pawn separated from a group of pawns.

Canva Images

The Bureaucrat’s Dilemma When Dealing with a Charismatic Autocrat

Excerpt from To Stop a Tyrant by Ira Chaleff

In my book To Stop a Tyrant, I identify five types of a political leader’s followers. Given the importance of access in politics, I range these from the more distant to the closest. In the middle are bureaucrats. No political leader can accomplish anything without a cadre of bureaucrats to implement their vision and policies. Custom, culture and law establish boundaries for a bureaucrat’s freedom of action. At times, these constraints must be balanced with moral considerations. The following excerpt discusses ways in which bureaucrats need to thread this needle.

Keep ReadingShow less