Future 500 is a non-profit consultancy that builds trust between companies, advocates, investors, and philanthropists to advance business as a force for good. We envision a future in which business and civil
society work as equal partners and responsible stewards of a clean, just, and prosperous world. By helping diverse organizations step out of their echo chambers and seek common ground in uncommon places, we aim to catalyze innovative, systemic solutions that enable both our planet and society to thrive.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Preparing for an inevitable AI emergency
Eugene Mymrin/Getty Images
Nvidia and AMD’s China Chip Deal Sets Dangerous Precedent in U.S. Industrial Policy
Aug 11, 2025
This morning’s announcement that Nvidia and AMD will resume selling AI chips to China on the condition that they surrender 15% of their revenue from those sales to the U.S. government marks a jarring inflection point in American industrial policy.
This is not just a transaction workaround for a particular situation. This is a major philosophical government policy shift.
What was once a matter of national security has now somehow become a transactional arrangement that is essentially a pay-to-export policy that blurs the line between protective regulation and economic extortion.
The deal, reportedly brokered after Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang met with President Trump, allows the companies to sell their H20 and MI308 chips in China, a market that previously accounted for billions in revenue.
There were two immediate responses from two former officials and trade experts who voiced strong concerns. Christopher Padilla, former head of the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration, called the deal “astonishing,” likening it to “a mix of bribery and blackmail” and warning it may be “possibly illegal” and Peter Harrell, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the arrangement sets a “terrible precedent,” noting that national security export controls should not be relaxed in exchange for financial concessions
The unintended consequences of a government policy are unknown, and the potential cost of access is steep, not just financially, but philosophically. This arrangement contradicts the very principles Republicans have long championed: free enterprise, limited government interference, and a clear separation between national security and commercial interest.
History provides some lessons.
Consider the Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974, which tied trade relations with the Soviet Union to human rights benchmarks, particularly the freedom of emigration for Soviet Jews. It was a moral stand, using trade as leverage to promote democratic values. But it was also transparent, legislated, and principled—even if imperfect.
Today’s chip deal with China lacks that moral clarity. It’s not about human rights or democratic norms. It’s about money. The 15% levy isn’t a tariff, a sanction, or a strategic investment. It’s effectively just a tax on corporations. And unlike Jackson-Vanik, it wasn’t debated in Congress or anchored in law. It was brokered behind closed doors, with the executive branch acting as both regulator and beneficiary.
This blurring of roles recalls the worst instincts of economic policy, where governments extracted rents from private enterprise under the guise of national interest. It also evokes the “crony capitalism” of post-Soviet Russia, where access to markets was contingent on political favor and financial tribute.
This policy sets a dangerous precedent by monetizing export permissions, effectively transforming the federal government into a tax collector on global commerce. It’s a dangerous slope. If the U.S. can demand a revenue cut for chip sales to China, what stops it from doing the same for pharmaceuticals to Europe, or software to Latin America? The logic of national security becomes a flexible pretext for economic leverage, and the private sector is left navigating a landscape where policy is shaped not by principle, but by deal-making.
This isn't an industrial strategy, but essentially it's economic policy to the highest bidder. And it sends a troubling signal to allies and adversaries alike: that American innovation is for sale, and its gatekeeper is no longer Congress or the Constitution, but the highest bidder in the West Wing.
If Congress is serious about reshoring supply chains, protecting intellectual property, and countering China’s techno-authoritarianism, then it must reject this ad hoc monetization of policy. True industrial strategy requires coherence, transparency, and a commitment to long-term national interest, not short-term revenue schemes. This should be embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike. Otherwise, we risk becoming the very system we claim to oppose: one where power is transactional, markets are politicized, and innovation is hostage to the whims of the state.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table
Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
Aug 11, 2025
Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.
In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.
It’s a tempting strategy. But gerrymanders for a good short-term cause are still unfair to voters, and this tit-for-tat constitutional hardball is just another stop on the longer road to democratic collapse.
If party leaders insist on running from competition, then it’s time for voters to run toward it. And in many states, the best tool available to do that is the citizen-led ballot initiative—a way for ordinary people to demand fair representation when legislators won’t deliver it.
Ballot initiatives allow voters to bypass gridlocked and unresponsive legislatures and change the rules of the game directly. In states that allow them, citizens have enacted reforms that legislators refused to touch: Michigan’s citizen-led independent redistricting commission cleaned up partisan gerrymandering; Maine’s switch to ranked-choice voting elevated and protected moderates like Rep. Jared Golden and Sen. Susan Collins; Arizona’s public campaign financing system increased competitiveness. These reforms didn’t come from the top down; they were bottom-up demands for a democracy that works.
Initiatives work. They help realign public policy with the public interest where the gaps are largest and make elected officials more accountable. And when they’re used to fix the deeper structural problems—like single-member district, winner-takes-all elections—they can even make themselves less necessary over time.
That’s why we need them now. So we won’t need them as much in the future.
Unfortunately, not everyone has access to statewide ballot initiatives. Only about half of the U.S. states allow citizens to place new laws on the ballot. The rest—including Texas—leave voters in a Catch-22: They need structural reform to make government responsive, but can’t get reform because government isn’t responsive.
Right now, voters in states that have a statewide initiative process but haven’t yet adopted independent redistricting commissions should start organizing for that—or, even better, for multi-member state legislative districts elected via proportional representation, which would make gerrymandering obsolete. Voters in places like Nevada, Missouri, and Florida don’t need to wait for their state legislatures, the courts, or Congress to upgrade their systems.
By contrast, Texas’s roughly 19 million registered voters currently have no pathway to change that that doesn’t begin inside the statehouse. And polling suggests Texans aren’t thrilled with the status quo. A recent survey found that 63 percent of Texas voters view the redistricting push as unnecessary. Another Texas poll from 2010 found 68 percent support for adopting a statewide initiative process. Several bills to create one in Texas have been introduced in recent years. For now, though, the people’s hands are tied.
Creating a new ballot initiative process is no easy task. It bumps into the Catch-22 as before. In every state without ballot initiatives, creating a process for them requires a constitutional amendment, which, absent a constitutional convention, must be initiated by the legislature. However, there’s a difference between political reform groups asking lawmakers to vote to create an independent commission and a large, broad-based coalition asking them to give the public a new way to propose ideas in the future. That second ask—about democratic process, not specific policy outcomes—might be harder to reject without political consequences.
We’ve been here before. Between 1898 and 1920, amid corruption, inequality, and political capture, 21 states enshrined initiative systems into their constitutions. Many lawmakers supported the change not out of principle, but because they saw the writing on the wall.
Ballot initiatives aren’t perfect. They can be expensive, distorted by special interests, or weaponized to harm vulnerable communities. But in moments of democratic backsliding, they’re one of the only tools voters have to rebalance the system and reclaim their power.
Let’s use and expand their use now—strategically and responsibly—so we can build a democracy that no longer needs them.
Maresa Strano is the deputy director of the Political Reform program at New America.
Keep ReadingShow less
California Democrats are weighing a plan to redraw the state’s congressional map. The move would undo the voter-approved system created to take politics out of redistricting.
Getty Images, KeithBinns
California Considers a Reversal of Its Independent Redistricting Model
Aug 11, 2025
California Democrats are weighing a plan to redraw the state’s congressional map. The move would undo the voter-approved system created to take politics out of redistricting. Governor Gavin Newsom has said he may call a special election this fall to ask voters for approval of a Legislature-drawn map if Texas moves forward with a midcycle redistricting plan expected to give Republicans more seats.
The proposal could flip up to five Republican-held districts and strengthen several competitive ones. Reports point to Orange County, San Diego County, and the Central Valley as primary targets. Republican representatives who could be affected include Ken Calvert, Darrell Issa, Kevin Kiley, David Valadao, and Doug LaMalfa. Any change would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the Legislature, followed by approval from voters.
The proposal would mark a major departure from the system approved through Propositions 11 and 20 in 2008 and 2010. These measures created an independent citizens commission that removed redistricting power from lawmakers. The commission has been widely praised for its transparency. After the most recent redistricting cycle in 2021, no lawsuits were filed over the maps.
The opposition is already mobilizing. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the commission, has said he will actively campaign against the proposal. Civic groups such as Common Cause and the League of Women Voters warn that reopening the maps midway through the decade could damage public trust and set a precedent that invites future political manipulation.
The legal landscape complicates the picture. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal courts cannot decide cases involving partisan gerrymandering. That leaves most redistricting challenges to state courts or to lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act that focus on racial discrimination in map design.
According to constitutional lawyer Nathaniel Maranwe, states have broad discretion when it comes to redistricting. “California can, legally speaking, redraw its congressional map for partisan reasons if it wants to,” he told The Fulcrum. “The Constitution gives states the power to set the times, places, and manner of elections. That includes partisan gerrymandering. The Supreme Court has made it clear that it’s not for the courts to decide whether it goes too far.” Still, he added, “Most people would agree—or at least say they agree—that voters should choose their politicians, not the other way around.”
Christopher Migliaccio, a lawyer and founder of Warren & Migliaccio, LLP, said the implications go well beyond California. “If the state overrides its voter-approved independent redistricting commission to redraw congressional maps, it would set a major precedent that a state can retract prior nonpartisan reforms in response to external partisan gerrymanders,” he said in an interview with The Fulcrum. “California’s system has been held up as a national model for transparency; to date, no lawsuits challenged its maps, a testament to its legitimacy. Dismantling it may alienate independents and weaken future bipartisan mapping efforts.”
Migliaccio also noted that California’s options for challenging maps in other states are limited. Since Rucho closed the door to federal courts on partisan gerrymandering claims, the most viable strategies rely on state constitutions or Voting Rights Act cases that focus on racial vote dilution rather than party advantage.
Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley said he plans to introduce legislation that would ban midcycle redistricting nationwide. His bill would invalidate maps drawn outside the regular census cycle, including proposals in Texas and California. He called Newsom’s effort a power grab that undermines the will of the voters. California Republican Party Chair Corrin Rankin echoed that concern, saying that any attempt to bypass the redistricting commission erodes public confidence and undermines reforms that were put in place for a reason.
The measure’s future depends on whether Democratic leaders can secure enough support in the Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot and whether Newsom follows through with a special election. Supporters argue that California should not allow other states to tilt the playing field unchallenged. Opponents warn the move could open the floodgates for both parties to dismantle independent processes whenever it suits them.
Several congressional districts are being watched closely. In Orange County, Democrats are eyeing changes to Young Kim’s CA 40 and looking to shore up districts held by Derek Tran in CA 45, Dave Min in CA 47, and Mike Levin in CA 49. In San Diego County, Issa’s CA 48 may be redrawn to include more Democratic voters, and Levin’s seat may also be adjusted.
Inland, Calvert’s CA 41 has grown more competitive in recent cycles. In the Central Valley, Democrats are targeting Valadao’s CA 22 and hoping to protect Adam Gray in CA 13. In northern California, Democrats may try to shrink margins in Kiley’s CA 3 and LaMalfa’s CA 1, though population density makes big changes difficult.
If California moves ahead, it would be the first large Democratic-led state to overturn a redistricting commission in response to partisan gerrymandering in other states. The outcome could reshape how redistricting reform is viewed nationwide and signal that no structure is safe from political pressure.
Alex Segura is a bilingual, multiple-platform journalist based in Southern California.
Keep ReadingShow less
Members of the Man-Nana crew dance during a game between the Savannah Bananas and The Firefighters at Fenway Park on July 05, 2025 in Boston, Massachusetts.
Getty Images, Jaiden Tripi
How the Savannah Bananas Are Battling America’s Loneliness Epidemic
Aug 11, 2025
If an apple a day keeps the doctor away, maybe bananas can cure our societal ill of loneliness.
In a time when the U.S. surgeon general has declared loneliness a public health epidemic, comparable to smoking 15 cigarettes a day, Americans are desperately searching for authentic connection, and the Savannah Bananas offer a welcome respite.
The Savannah Bananas—a barnstorming baseball team that plays by their own high-energy rules, called “Banana Ball”—might seem like mere entertainment at first glance. But dig deeper, and you'll find something profound: a blueprint for combating isolation through shared joy, communal experience, and the radical act of prioritizing fun and acting silly over competition.
Owner Jesse Cole founded the team with the mantra "Fans First. Entertain Always,” with the Bananas on a mission to “make baseball fun by creating the greatest show in sports.” When millions of fans join in that fun, loneliness can be held at bay.
The statistics surrounding America's loneliness epidemic are staggering. According to recent research, social isolation affects millions of Americans across all demographics, contributing to depression, anxiety, and even premature death. An American Psychiatric Association poll from early 2024 shows that one in three Americans feels lonely every week.
The problem has been exacerbated by our increased use of digital communication, which has commonly replaced face-to-face interaction, led to the decline of traditional community institutions, and increasingly fragmented neighborhoods where neighbors remain strangers.
Traditional sports do offer social connection but often emphasize competition over community. Fans divide into tribal camps, viewing opposing teams as enemies, furthering our hyperpolarized society, rather than being fellow participants in a shared experience.
The result, using baseball as an example, is not a connection within teams but in the literal and figurative division between them, which is hardly the antidote to widespread loneliness that our society needs. Instead, enter Banana Ball, “Where Everyone Wins.”
The Savannah Bananas have revolutionized this dynamic by creating an experience where the primary goal isn't winning or losing but collective joy. Their games feature dance-offs between innings, players performing comedic skits, walking on stilts, silly costumes, and constant fan interaction that breaks down the traditional barrier between performer and audience.
The emphasis on entertainment over competition means that the experience itself becomes a victory. And unlike traditional baseball games, where some portion of the crowd leaves disappointed, Banana Ball games send everyone home happy, regardless of the score.
Being present at a Banana Ball game is the epitome of collective effervescence, the feeling of energy and harmony when people are engaged in a shared purpose. It is in the collective that makes the Bananas particularly effective at combating loneliness with its understanding of ritual and community-building.
Perhaps most importantly, the Bananas demonstrate how individual experiences of connection can ripple outward into broader community healing. Attendees don't just connect with the team or other fans during the game; they carry that energy back into their daily lives, approaching their communities with renewed enthusiasm for connection.
The team has sold out every game since their 2016 inaugural season in Savannah, Georgia, and has since grown a ticket waitlist of more than two million fans from all over the world.
I had the pleasure of being one of the 88,000 fans who had a blast in Busch Stadium in St. Louis over the two-day period. There was a palpable, joy-filled energy that permeated out to the rest of the city.
In St. Louis alone, Bananas fans traveled from 44 states and Canada, supporting the local economy through tourism.
And while social media can hold some responsibility for the increase in our feelings of isolation, the Savannah Bananas have used it to grow their movement. They are considered TikTok's “Favorite Team,” and have more followers on that platform than any MLB club, bringing eyes to over 300 million views and more than 15 million social media followers.
The Savannah Bananas offer more than entertainment—they provide a masterclass in combating loneliness through intentional community building. Their success suggests that addressing America's isolation epidemic should prioritize joy, inclusion, and shared humanity over competition and division.
In a world that often feels fractured and polarized, maybe we all need a little more Banana Ball—where, in a ballpark or stadium, strangers become friends through the simple act of dancing, clapping, and laughing together between innings.
Lynn Schmidt is a columnist and Editorial Board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. She holds a master's of science in political science as well as a bachelor's of science in nursing.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More