Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Top-seeded campaign finance reforms squaring off in Democracy Madness

tournament
enjoynz/Getty Images

It's down to the top two in the Money in Politics "region" of our reader-driven Democracy Madness tournament. Repealing the Supreme Court's 2013 Citizen United decision (No. 1) is taking on "dark money" disclosures (No. 2) for the championship in this quarter of our bracket.

Similar to an earlier bracket, ideas for bettering voting, the second seed has coasted its way into the finals, blowing out every opponent it came across. The top seed faced a couple of matchups that were a little tighter — but also didn't face any real challenges along the way.


Will the Money in Politics quarter of the draw deliver an upset in the championship round, which is what happened when ranked-choice voting and the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact got past higher-seeded ideas to earn the first births in our Democracy Madness Final Four? You decide.

Cast your vote by Thursday for the campaign finance reform you view as the single most important. Click the Vote Now button and take your pick.

We'll unveil our 16 "best of the rest" democracy reform proposals and start whittling them down next week.


Read More

A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could reshape presidential elections as Midwest states debate Electoral College reform, political polarization, and the future of winner-take-all voting in America.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

700+ Proposed Amendments Failed, Midwest Voters Can Succeed

The Midwest served as the vanguard and ideological heartland of the Progressive Era, acting as a crucial laboratory for political, social, and economic reforms that later adopted national significance. Midwestern states (the cradle of the movement) pioneered anti-monopoly efforts, democratic, and social improvements.

After 770+ failed proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendments (the most on record for one issue) to remedy the factionalism (21st century polarization) feared by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

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

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less