Fitch is president and CEO of the Congressional Management Foundation and a former congressional staffer.
There is probably no more important concept in the compact between elected officials and those who elect them than accountability. One of the founding principles of American democracy is that members of Congress are ultimately accountable to their constituents, both politically and morally. Most members of Congress get this, but how they demonstrate and implement that concept varies. The two winners of the Congressional Management Foundation’s Democracy Award for Constituent Accountability and Accessibility clearly understand and excel at this concept.
The office of Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.) seems to genuinely believe the best ideas come from those he serves and as such has embedded policies and practices throughout his office to maximize constituent engagement. The office has cultivated a culture of excellence and continuous improvement that is supported by formal procedures. The team actively seeks opportunities to translate constituent problems into legislative solutions. They also seek ways to demonstrate accountability by integrating constituent ideas and concerns into their letters to congressional colleagues and testimony at legislative hearings, as well as formal legislation.
The congressman’s voting record is displayed on his website and the rationale for each vote is explained in his weekly newsletter. He held approximately 100 in-person or tele-town hall meetings in 2023. Bilirakis hosts one tele-townhall each month during which he calls 100,000 constituents in the district, offering them an opportunity to hear from him directly.
Bilirakis has won Democracy Awards in three categories — two this year, which kind of makes him the Robert Redford of the Democracy Awards.
The Democratic winner for accountability and accessibility is Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA). She and her staff aim to practice “cooperative governing” and “keeping those closest to the pain closest to the power.” This model of governing informs every interaction that the office has with constituents. Pressley leverages every congressional tool available to communicate important updates to her constituents, including a periodical newsletter with updates on her legislative work and upcoming events, and using social media platforms and press interviews to share federal resources.
The office ensures that videos are captioned and photos include alt-text for constituents with hearing and visual impairments, and it is standard practice to use translation options for public community events. In 2023, Pressley held four in-person town halls, quarterly traditional telephone town halls, and at least 50 virtual town halls, roundtables or community meetings. Her office was also one of the first to use direct-to-camera videos and engaging social media graphics to update constituents on legislation, provide resources and solicit feedback.
In addition, all staff are trained on how to identify casework challenges or incoming letters that could be addressed through longer-term legislation, amendments or appropriations requests. Finally, the office has inculcated in the staff a mentality to look for and create access to constituents where barriers could exist. This includes language barriers, physical accessibility issues and even providing child care services at events so parents can attend.
Many members of Congress use some of these methods to demonstrate accountability and accessibility to their constituents. Yet it is the comprehensive combination of many strategies that sets the Bilirakis and Pressley offices apart from their colleagues. Each office has clearly cultivated a culture of openness that is usually met by surprise from a constituent. Americans have become so cynical about Congress that when they get a phone call returned, or are invited to a telephone town hall meeting, they’re shocked. One participant in a telephone town hall meeting said, “It actually made me feel like I had a voice in government.”
These are the types of strategies that more politicians must employ if we are going to strengthen our democratic institutions.
Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.