Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Meet the reformer: David Thornburgh, taking the family business a new way

David Thornburgh

David Thornburgh, president of the Committee of Seventy, is the son of a former governor of Pennsylvania. "He said to me once that the GOP was at its best as the party of reform. It saddens me that the party has left people like him behind," he said.

David Thornburgh

David Thornburgh has spent his career managing civic engagement programs in Pennsylvania, no surprise given that he was raised by parents focused on public and community service. Before being named president and CEO of the Committee of Seventy, which successfully fought for campaign contribution limits and an ethics board in Philadelphia, the Haverford College grad ran the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania. He also conducted a 13-year run as executive director of the Economy League of Greater Philadelphia. His answers have been lightly edited for clarity and length.

What's the tweet-length description of your organization?

Founded by business and civic leaders in 1904, the Committee of Seventy (C70) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocate for better government in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.


Describe your very first civic engagement.

I was raised in a family that values public service. My father, Dick, served two terms as governor of Pennsylvania and was U.S. attorney general for three years ending in 1991. My mother, Ginny, is a lifelong advocate for people with disabilities. I guess my first direct involvement was as a surrogate speaker in my dad's first race for governor in 1978, when I was 19. Pretty thrilling to have a chance to speak in front of hundreds of people at such a young age!

What was your biggest professional triumph?

Most recently, I co-founded an "open source" statewide redistricting competition called Draw the Lines PA to push back on partisan gerrymandering. With our free software and data, almost 4,500 Pennsylvanians have now taken the job of drawing congressional maps into their own hands. We've proved that our citizens are ready, willing and able to reclaim redistricting from the hands of partisan operatives.

And your most disappointing setback?

I was a national finalist for a White House fellowship in the early '90s but didn't make the final cut. That was the one that got away!

How does some aspect of your identity influence the way you go about your work?

My father is my role model — a thoughtful, compassionate, disciplined public leader of the highest integrity who exemplified the best of the Republican Party of his day. He said to me once that the GOP was at its best as the party of reform. It saddens me that the party has left people like him behind.

What's the best advice you've ever been given?

Early on, several people advised me not to go to law school if I didn't want to practice law. I took their advice, instead got a masters in public policy from Harvard's Kennedy School, and things seemed to have worked out just fine.

Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.

Good Govern Mint.

What's your favorite political movie or TV show?

Until somebody makes a movie out of "The Power Broker," Robert Caro's biography of New York's legendary Robert Moses, my pick goes to "The Candidate," which still holds up after all these years. What do we do now?

What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?

I'm really trying to pick up my phone less. Social media has become such a dark, destructive, divisive force.

What is your deepest, darkest secret?

I'm the proud owner of a vintage 1991 VW Westfalia camper, which early next year we're going to wrap with C70's political reform messages — call it the Voteswagon — and barnstorm across Pennsylvania. Can't wait!


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less