Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

To save the American promise: strategic audacity, practical idealism

Senate leaders, constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (in red) is one of the leaders of an effort to approve a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

As we turn the final pages on a tumultuous 2021, all this week The Fulcrum will share a year-end series of guest commentaries from a distinguished group of columnists on the current state of electoral reform and what we may expect in the upcoming year.

Clements is the president of American Promise, a nonprofit advocate for amending the Constitution to allow more federal and state regulation of money in politics.

Amid many lessons, 2021 reminded us — with intense national challenges and threats of democratic breakdown — that our nation faces systemic and structural crises. What will follow in 2022 and beyond?

It just might be much better— if we accept that the old ways are gone; if we go big enough to meet the moment; if we ground ourselves in shared values and face the common enemy with unity.


That’s our strategy at American Promise. We’re a movement of millions of Americans building a cross-partisan, citizen-driven anti-corruption campaign for the For Our Freedom Amendment, to end the pay-to-play big money system of politics.

In systemic crises, solutions of normal times become hopeless. And what seems “idealistic” in normal times becomes urgently necessary. In the words of Rep. Jamie Raskin, in the midst of the crises of 2020-21, the American Promise roadmap has moved from “impossible to inevitable.” How? With three strategies that work in times of structural crisis and transition:

  1. Go big. When things fall apart, big ideas find their time has come. It is riskier to play small ball in crisis than to confront the systemic, root causes head on.
  2. Go to the people. When trust has collapsed — in government, media, or each other — the way forward lies in decentralized, local and state-based networks, and community. When offered a chance to tackle the biggest problems themselves, where they live, Americans excel.
  3. Go together. Big results to build American democracy anew follow from the streams of citizen-driven reform coming together, united with shared values, to take on a common enemy of concentrated power and systemic corruption.

This is not a novel strategy. We are not the first generation to deal with whiplashing transformations in technologies, international arrangements, or social and economic assumptions that create civil unrest.

A century ago, Americans faced global war; a deadly global flu pandemic; violent division and mutual hatreds across lines of race and ethnicity; Gilded Age plutocracy, massive inequality and concentrated monopoly power; a corrupted, unelected and unresponsive Senate; and political divisions that tore the two parties apart.

What reform strategies worked? The “impossible” ones. Americans ratified four amendments to the US Constitution between 1913 and 1920. Women won the vote, we modernized the federal tax system and we forced the Senate to face the voters in elections, ending the corrupt selection process. Political innovations like citizen ballot initiatives, party primaries, campaign money rules and civil service protection broke the power of the bosses and the Gilded Age party duopoly.”

It happened again in the 1960s, with the nation fractured along lines of race, generation, gender, geography and politics, as well as the Vietnam War. Political assassination, violence and fiery riots occurred regularly. Violent, state-sponsored racism sought to deny Black Americans equal citizenship. And concentrated power, bribery, and money corruption led to the resignations of the vice president and president of the United States.

Again, Americans ratified four constitutional amendments in a decade, and drove a transformative wave of anti-corruption and campaign finance laws, environmental protection laws, civil rights laws and more.

Driving into 2022, the same strategic lessons apply.

Go big. When American Promise began five years ago, our cross-partisan amendment campaign to correct the Supreme Court’s catastrophic experiment in unlimited and unaccountable money in elections was not given much of a chance. The naysayers said, “Sure, the Democrats like campaign finance reform but you’ll never get conservatives on board.” 2021 proved them wrong.

Only weeks after the Jan. 6 insurrectionist violence in Congress, a bipartisan group of members of Congress introduced the constitutional amendment resolution in the House. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen followed in the Senate, supported by leaders from across the political spectrum in her home state of New Hampshire.

In the states, conservatives, with leadership from former state Sen. Jim Rubens of New Hampshire, joined Democrats and independents in their outrage about the billions of dollars of money, much of it from secret sources, in the 2020 races. Last month, American Promise joined ALEC in co-sponsoring a national state legislator discussion of the For Our Freedom Amendment. And Republicans are leading efforts — in collaboration with their Democratic and independent colleagues — to advance the constitutional amendment in Maine, which saw a $200 million campaign in the 2020 Senate race.

The danger of foreign money and foreign government spending to destabilize America mobilized national security leaders such as Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and Adm. Bill Owens, who have joined the American Promise National Advisory Council. American Promise Wisconsin member John Nusbaum, a Silver Star combat veteran, issued a moving call to action to his fellow veterans and to all Americans to act before it’s too late. And businesspeople across the country are saying enough is enough, and are inviting others to join the American Promise Business Network.

Go to the people. In 2021, American Promise expanded our citizen-driven, state-based campaigns to help Americans in every state ensure that every member of Congress whose vote we need by our 2024 timeline will have the support of their constituents — across the spectrum.

To date, 22 state s —six of them with citizen ballot initiatives — have called for the For Our Freedom Amendment, with Virginia coming on board in 2021. In 2022, the map is expanding and pressure is building on Congress.

Our Stand With Maine campaign helped launch the Protect Maine Elections citizen ballot initiative to prohibit foreign government money interference in elections and ensure Maine’s congressional delegation works together to pass the For Our Freedom Amendment. Building on our work with Alaskans for Better Elections we have ongoing discussions with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Rep. Don Young, Sen. Dan Sullivan, and Alaskans across the state. We launched the Stand with Pennsylvania campaign to urge a 23rd state to call for the amendment.

Grassroots efforts are expanding in communities across America. In Wisconsin, American Promise members launched their own For Our Freedom campaign with a kick-off campaign with local veterans, civic and business groups in Green Bay. Minnesota American Promise members earned support from thousands of Minnesotans at county fairs. New Jersey American Promise members worked with Rep. Andy Kim to host a town hall meeting and encouraged the congressman to speak out on the issue in the media.

Go together. As always in America, united we will get the job done; divided we will struggle for even modest gains. The best aggregate source of what the future of a successful America looks like is a recent report from the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. “ Our Common Purpose Commission included American Promise’s amendment was among 31 specific action steps to be implemented by July 4, 2026."

We joined in the Partnership for American Democracy to accelerate all of these reforms, and I am proud to serve as a co-chair of the Election Integrity, Citizen Participation & Good Governance Pillar. We help build a stronger national reform network with our work in the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers, the Bridge Alliance, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s FixUS network, Fix the System and more.

In dark times, we find purpose and perseverance by doing the big and hard work for the brighter days that will outlast any of us. Amid the worst of the violent 1960s, Robert F. Kennedy, who would himself be assassinated, said, “It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way to live.”

Perhaps there is arrogance in Americans responding to terrible times by seeking to “shape destiny.” But it may be humility. Humility to not assume we know how the story ends. Humility to learn from history, rather than think our challenges are unique or that we know more than so many Americans before us.

All best wishes for 2022. Go big. Go to the people. Go together.


Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less