Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Senate blocks election security bills pushed with Trump in mind

Sen. Marsha Blackburn

"You would think after spending weeks in this chamber litigating the finer points of their disagreements with the president's foreign policy, our friends in the minority would be wary of picking another partisan fight but here we go again," Sen. Marsha Blackburn said on the Senate floor.

C-SPAN2

Senate Republicans are continuing their total blockade of proposals for combatting foreign interference in American campaigns, signaling they won't be moved by a new Democratic effort to use President Trump's impeachment to shame them into action.

Democrats on Tuesday afternoon called up three of their top-priority election security bills they view as the least controversial, asking the Senate to pass them immediately on voice votes. Each time they were blocked by a single Republican, who under the rules could prevent further action.

The choreographed standoff underscores how the politically divided Congress is on course to do nothing more before Election Day to address perhaps the single the most pressing challenge to democracy: foreign adversaries armed with disinformation campaigns and hacking skills wresting control of a presidential contest away from the voters.


The Senate minority has moved three times in this Congress to call up collections of election security measures and force the GOP leadership to stand before the TV cameras and put a stop to consideration of each bill, many of which have already been endorsed in some form by the Democratic-majority House.

But those previous instances were all last fall, before impeachment. So this time the strategy was somewhat different: to publicly embarrass the GOP majority by declaring the bills had been made only more necessary by Trumps' acquittal last week — on charges he should be removed from office for abusing his power by withholding military aid and otherwise pressuring Ukraine to investigate one of his main Democratic re-election rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

"Because Senate Republicans chose to look the other way, the need for election security legislation is greater now than ever before," Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. "We cannot trust this president to stand up for the integrity of our elections so Congress must stand up in his stead."

Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's designated agent for repelling efforts like this, revisited the GOP's policy rationale for opposing all election security policy bills: They start the federal government down a slippery slope toward federalizing elections that are conducted almost entirely by local and state governments.

The only exception McConnell has made was his agreement last year to support another wave of federal grants to the states for spending on election security ahead of the 2020 vote.

On Tuesday, Blackburn asserted the Democrats were renewing their campaign for additional legislation only to boost their campaign fundraising, and she said if her partisan opponents as truly interested in assuring the sanctity of elections they would be focused instead on opening a congressional inquiry into last week's chaotic Iowa caucuses.

"You would think after spending weeks in this chamber litigating the finer points of their disagreements with the president's foreign policy, our friends in the minority would be wary of picking another partisan fight but here we go again," Blackburn said in response to Schumer's discussion of the Senate trial.

These are the three Democratic measures that got blocked:

  • Legislation by Mark Warner of Virginia — the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, which has conducted an exhaustive and bipartisan investigation of Russia's 2016 interference — that would require all future presidential campaigns to call the FBI if they are approached by a foreign power offering assistance.
  • A companion measure by Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut that would compel presidential or congressional candidates to tell the FBI and the Federal Election Commission about any efforts by a foreigner to make any sort of campaign contribution.
  • A bill by Ron Wyden of Oregon, dubbed the Safe Act, authorizing more federal money for modernizing voting systems and improving election security, while banning voting machines from being connected to the internet or being manufactured in foreign countries.

Read More

People voting
LPETTET/Getty Images

Attention must be paid to working and retired Americans

There is no question that the Democratic Party has lost touch with the working class. Candidates actually rarely use the phrase "working class," while they never stop saying "middle class." Working class, to most Democrats, feels like a pejorative term. Everyone, after all, wants to rise up to the middle class, which makes up 50 percent of the country.

The 35 percent of the public who fit into the working class, in Rodney Dangerfield's terms, don't get no respect.

Keep ReadingShow less
USA China trade war and American tariffs as opposing cargo freight containers in conflict as an economic and diplomatic dispute over import and exports concept as a 3D illustration.
wildpixel/Getty Images

Are Trump's tariffs good for the economy or will they increase prices?

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, there is much talk about tariffs as the foundation for his economic policy. Trump himself says he’s “a Tariff Man,” and in fact implemented tariffs on a number of countries in his first term. But what are tariffs exactly, and how do they work? What are the pros and cons?

There’s a lot at stake, and like many things “economic,” it’s kind of complicated. So let’s break it down.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man stepping on ripped poster

A man treads on a picture of Syria's ousted president, Bashar al-Assad, as people enter his residence in Damascus on Dec. 8.

Omar Haj Kadour/AFP via Getty Images

With Assad out, this is what we must do to help save Syria

This was a long day coming, and frankly one I never thought I’d see.

Thirteen years ago, Syria’s Bashar Assad unleashed a reign of unmitigated terror on his own people, in response to protests of his inhumane Ba’athist government.

Keep ReadingShow less
Men and a boy walking through a hallway

Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk, with his son X, depart the Capitol on Dec. 5.

Craig Hudson for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Will DOGE promote efficiency for its own sake?

This is the first entry in a series on the Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory board created by President-elect Donald Trump to recommend cuts in government spending and regulations. DOGE, which is spearheaded by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has generated quite a bit of discussion in recent weeks.

The goal of making government efficient is certainly an enviable one indeed. However, the potential for personal biases or political agendas to interfere with the process must be monitored.

As DOGE suggests cuts to wasteful spending and ways to streamline government operations, potentially saving billions of dollars, The Fulcrum will focus on the pros and cons.

We will not shy away from DOGE’s most controversial proposals and will call attention to dangerous thinking that threatens our democracy when we see it. However, in doing so, we are committing to not employing accusations, innuendos or misinformation. We will advocate for intellectual honesty to inform and persuade effectively.

The new Department of Government Efficiency, an advisory board to be headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, is designed to cut resources and avoid waste — indeed to save money. Few can argue this isn't a laudable goal as most Americans have experienced the inefficiencies and waste of various government agencies.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less