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.

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

Connecticut: Democracy, Innovation, and Economic Resilience

The 50: Connecticut

Credit: Hugo Balta

Connecticut: Democracy, Innovation, and Economic Resilience

The 50 is a four-year multimedia project in which the Fulcrum visits different communities across all 50 states to learn what motivated them to vote in the 2024 presidential election and see how the Donald Trump administration is meeting those concerns and hopes.

Hartford, Connecticut, stands as a living testament to American democracy, ingenuity, and resilience. As the state’s capital, it’s home to cultural landmarks like the Mark Twain House & Museum, where Twain penned The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, embodying the spirit of self-governance and creative daring that defines the region.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage
Why Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets
Getty Images

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage

Last week, the ultraconservative news outlet, NewsMax, reached a $73 million settlement with the voting machine company, Dominion, in essence, admitting that they lied in their reporting about the use of their voting machines to “rig” or distort the 2020 presidential election. Not exactly shocking news, since five years later, there is no credible evidence to suggest any malfeasance regarding the 2020 election. To viewers of conservative media, such as Fox News, this might have shaken a fully embraced conspiracy theory. Except it didn’t, because those viewers haven’t seen it.

Many people have a hard time understanding why Trump enjoys so much support, given his outrageous statements and damaging public policy pursuits. Part of the answer is due to Fox News’ apparent censoring of stories that might be deemed negative to Trump. During the past five years, I’ve tracked dozens of examples of news stories that cast Donald Trump in a negative light, including statements by Trump himself, which would make a rational person cringe. Yet, Fox News has methodically censored these stories, only conveying rosy news that draws its top ratings.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Flag / artificial intelligence / technology / congress / ai

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Liberty and the General Welfare in the Age of AI

If the means justify the ends, we’d still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Founders understood that the means—the governmental structure itself—must always serve the ends of liberty and prosperity. When the means no longer served those ends, they experimented with yet another design for their government—they did expect it to be the last.

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity. Both of those goals were top of mind for early Americans. They demanded the Bill of Rights to protect the former, and they identified the latter—namely, the general welfare—as the animating purpose for the government. Both of those goals are being challenged by constitutional doctrines that do not align with AI development or even undermine it. A full review of those doctrines could fill a book (and perhaps one day it will). For now, however, I’m just going to raise two.

Keep ReadingShow less