Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Meet the reformer: David Keating, leader for the right on money in politics

David Keating, Institute for Free Speech

David Keating is the president of the Institute for Free Speech.

Institute for Free Speech

Closing in on nine years as president of the Institute for Free Speech, David Keating long ago cemented his status as one of the foremost conservative forces in the money-in-politics debate. The nonprofit's aim is to safeguard First Amendment rights, particularly unfettered political speech, and views deregulation of campaign finance as central to that goal. Keating took charge after a similar group he started, SpeechNow.org, won a federal lawsuit to end donation and spending limits on independent political groups — thus creating super PACs. He had top posts at two prominent fiscal conservative organizations, the Club for Growth and the National Taxpayers Union, earlier in a D.C. advocacy career dating to the 1980s. His answers have been edited for length and clarity.

What's democracy's biggest challenge, in 10 words or less?

Stopping government from discouraging dissent.


Describe your very first civic engagement.

In high school, I learned about machine politics. My friends who wanted to become summer lifeguards had to be Republicans. I thought that was ridiculous, so I decided to register as an independent. Still am.

What was your biggest professional triumph?

Being appointed in 1996 to the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS, a bipartisan group of tax experts. We surprised many when we reached a broad consensus. Unlike most such reports that gather dust, ours was turned into a bill that became law. It included my recommendations to strengthen taxpayers' rights when interacting with the IRS and to protect innocent people from being forced to pay taxes owed by any tax-cheating former spouses.

Many of my most rewarding experiences have come in volunteer work. Ten years ago my SpeechNow won the case allowing independent groups to fundraise freely. This year I became a director of Masks4All and saw 85 percent of the nation adopt mask requirements to fight Covid-19.

And your most disappointing setback?

Failure to advance through Congress a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. Two times in the 1990s we came up just one vote short in the Senate. Still, our campaign helped spur the first annual budget surplus in nearly four decades, starting in 1998 and lasting until the Sept. 11 attacks.

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

I identify as an independent person. I'm a registered independent in part because I don't trust either party on key issues. Too many people focus too much on "what's best for my team," either red or blue, which affects their ability to think clearly.

To promote and defend independent thought, much of my professional work has been protecting the freedoms to speak, publish, join groups and petition government for redress of grievances. Without these freedoms, we can't obtain the information we need to understand the world or act effectively to make it a better place.

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

Be a lifelong learner.

Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.

Freedom of Peach.

What is your favorite TV show or movie about politics?

"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," the 1975 Oscar winner for best picture, about rebellion in a mental institution.

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

Turn on the bedside clock app.

What is your deepest, darkest secret?

I think Dave Chappelle and Anthony Jeselnik are hilarious. But don't tell my wife.


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