Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Bipartisan panel of elders launches $20 million election integrity effort

Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats

"Electoral legitimacy is the essential linchpin of our entire political culture," said Dan Coats, who was President Trump's first director of national intelligence.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Presidential contests may be the ultimate exhibition of polarized partisanship, but efforts are bubbling up in several places to put a bit of smoothing bipartisan spin on this election and its potentially messy aftermath. Two new ones, one bold and one narrow, were unveiled Wednesday.

A group of more than 40 formerly prominent Republicans and Democrats declared themselves the National Council on Election Integrity. The group then announced a $20 million advertising campaign to reassure the country the election will be safe and secure despite the coronavirus pandemic — and hammer at the message that all votes should be tabulated before a winner is declared.

And young members of the Wisconsin Legislature unveiled a modest campaign of their own — underscoring that Republican and Democratic politicians are unified in the view that as many people as possible should vote early in that battleground state.


The same premise is implied by both efforts: The rhythm of this year's election will be unique, with the tabulating of an unprecedented number of absentee ballots highly likely to mean a delay of perhaps days for decisive returns in the closest contests.

President Trump says he doesn't believe he should have to wait because the in-person numbers will be sufficient for him to declare victory the night of Nov. 3. He baselessly claims that subsequent shifts from red to blue in battleground states will be evidence of massive fraud. Former Vice President Joe Biden, aware of polling that shows most Democrats plan to vote by mail and most Republicans in person, is counting on the later returns to move the election his way.

The "Count Every Vote" campaign will start with a $4 million TV and digital ad buy in battleground states — with the bulk of the spending in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Laws in all three states will delay the start of processing of perhaps millions of mailed ballots until Election Day, even if they arrive earlier.

Moreover, the group of former elected officials and Cabinet members, retired military officials and civic leaders want Congress to form a special commission to referee post-election disputes — something it seems highly unlikely to do.

"The most urgent task American leaders face is to ensure that the election's results are accepted as legitimate. Electoral legitimacy is the essential linchpin of our entire political culture," said Dan Coats, who was director of national intelligence at the start of the Trump administration and before that a longtime Indiana senator.

"This election is about more than who's on the ballot," added former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. "The integrity of our democratic system is at stake."

Others in the group — including 17 Republicans and 16 Democrats who held elected or Senate-confirmed office — include former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, former Senate GOP leader Bill Frist and former House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt. (The panel was assembled by the democracy reform group Issue One, which owns but is journalistically independent of The Fulcrum.)

The Wisconsin effort was organized by the Millennial Action Project, a nonprofit that works to incubate a younger generation of pragmatic politicians committed to bipartisan collaboration.

The message of the lawmaker' video is that voting as soon as possible, either by mail or in person, can be both safe and secure — and assures results in a state with potentially crucial 10 electoral votes may be known sooner. "In conversations with leaders from across the political spectrum — young legislators, former and current attorneys general, entrepreneurs and community members — Wisconsinites agreed: conducting free and fair elections is not a partisan issue," their announcement said.

Vote Safe, Wisconsinwww.youtube.com


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