Our mission is to investigate and expose crony capitalism, misuse of taxpayer monies, and other governmental corruption or malfeasance.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could reshape presidential elections as Midwest states debate Electoral College reform, political polarization, and the future of winner-take-all voting in America.
Getty Images, SDI Productions
700+ Proposed Amendments Failed, Midwest Voters Can Succeed
May 21, 2026
The Midwest served as the vanguard and ideological heartland of the Progressive Era, acting as a crucial laboratory for political, social, and economic reforms that later adopted national significance. Midwestern states (the cradle of the movement) pioneered anti-monopoly efforts, democratic, and social improvements.
After 770+ failed proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendments (the most on record for one issue) to remedy the factionalism (21st century polarization) feared by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), a creative legal workaround, without requiring a U.S. Constitutional amendment, will be deliberated in (2027-2028) in many Midwest legislatures, with great emphasis on Michigan and Wisconsin, with fifteen and ten electoral votes, respectively. As the compact needs 48 more electoral votes to hit the 270-vote threshold, these purple or contested states are key battlegrounds where legislative control could determine whether they join the 19 jurisdictions already signed on.
The winner-take-all (WTA) electoral system, now utilized by 48 states and the District of Columbia, is the catalyst for the extreme political polarization (or "factionalism") that characterizes 21st-century American politics, a dynamic the Framers of the Constitution specifically sought to prevent.
The framers of the U.S. Constitution, particularly James Madison and George Washington, feared that political factions—groups united by common interests contrary to the rights of others would tear the new nation apart, leading to corruption, instability, and the erosion of liberty. They believed factions would prioritize narrow, partisan goals over the common good. 21st-century case in point: Project 2025! Prior to the formation of the author of Project 2025, many proposed Electoral College amendments had bipartisan support, with some failing to invoke closure in the Senate due to the filibuster.
NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.
With Virginia’s adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, which collectively hold 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.
In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a small group of 12 battleground states functioned as "magnets," attracting virtually all campaign resources, with candidates concentrated 99% of their advertising and 94% of physical visits on these "up for grabs" territories. Electoral college wins have ranged from 100% (George Washington) to barely more than 50%. Elections in the 21st century have been closer, on average, than most prior elections.
Efforts to reform or abolish the Electoral College (an institution of “minority rule” in and of itself) have historically failed due to institutional features that empower political minorities, a phenomenon frequently described as the "triple tyranny of the minority" within the U.S. constitutional system. These are: the U.S. Senate (Malapportionment), the Senate grants two seats to every state regardless of population, the Senate Filibuster, and the Constitutional Amendment Process. These institutions allow a small fraction of the population to block changes favored by the majority.
Historical Failed Amendments
• On September 18, 1969, the House passed a direct election amendment with a strong bipartisan vote (338-70). While heavily bipartisan, the effort died in the Senate in 1970 due to a filibuster led by Southern senators. Despite roughly 80% public support and a 338-70 House vote in favor, the proposal died when the 91st Congress ended.
• 1979: A proposal to abolish the Electoral College failed in the Senate with a 51-48 vote, falling short of the required two-thirds majority.
• Post-2000/2016: Despite the winner of the popular vote losing the presidency, subsequent attempts to pass constitutional amendments have failed to gain traction, due to the partisan perception that the system favors Republicans.
Institutional "Tyranny" and Reform
Experts argue that the combination of these elements creates a system where popular majorities cannot easily alter the foundational mechanisms of government. Because a formal amendment is so difficult, reformers have shifted to initiatives like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which attempts to change the system without amending the Constitution.
Hugh J. Campbell, Jr., CPA, is a Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) professional and a student of W. Edwards Deming, the American statistician often credited as the catalyst for the Japanese economic miracle after WWII.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash
Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
May 21, 2026
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Key Takeaways
- The state gas tax is a key source of funding for transportation maintenance and other projects.
- Uniquely high gas prices in California have fueled disagreements over the state’s environmental regulations and recent refinery closures.
- With the growing popularity of electric and fuel-efficient vehicles, gas tax revenues have decreased, raising questions about the future of California’s transportation funding.
- Some have proposed replacing the gas tax with a road usage tax based on miles driven.
What is the Gas Tax?
Transit funding in California comes from a variety of sources, including the gas tax. In fact, most state funding comes from the state tax on gasoline. The revenue is distributed to support the maintenance of city streets, bridges, state highways, and more.
In 2017, former Governor Jerry Brown signed the Road Repair and Accountability Act (Senate Bill 1) into law. This legislation marked a significant investment in California’s transportation infrastructure, and was the first time the state’s gas tax was increased since 1994.
Overview of the Gas Tax Debate
Although the state charges the tax to gasoline suppliers, this cost tends to get passed on to drivers through higher gas prices. Additionally, since the passage of Senate Bill 1, the state gas tax is set to increase annually with inflation. California’s tax on gasoline is the highest in the country — one of several factors contributing to the high prices California drivers typically pay at the pump.
(Image Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration)
Gasoline prices in California consistently exceed the national average. Along with the gas tax, compliance with the state’s environmental regulations adds costs for fuel suppliers, often leading to higher prices.
Despite the high prices, the amount of funding collected from the state gas tax has been substantially decreasing. Some research projections indicate that with increased electric vehicle use, the state may soon face a significant decline in gas tax revenue if the current revenue structure is not revised or replaced.
Pros and Cons of California’s Environmental Regulations
Many have urged policy changes to bring gas prices down. In 2025, the California Republican congressional delegation called for Governor Gavin Newsom to hold off on implementing new updates from the California Air Resources Board. These amendments would tighten some existing requirements under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with “aims to accelerate the adoption of zero-emission infrastructure.” Many republicans opposed these changes out of concern that they would further strain suppliers and thus increase retail fuel prices.
Critics of California’s environmental policies also argue that these strict gas tax rules have led to refinery closures, creating a worsening gasoline supply crisis. Some economists have estimated that in 2026, the closures of two major refineries “will result in an additional $1.21 increase in gasoline prices, which could result in California gasoline prices being over $2.50 higher than in the rest of the country.”
However, proponents of the state’s regulations argue that the long-term benefits are significant, both environmentally and financially. For example, the LCFS has been described as an evidence-based effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air pollutants, improving air quality. Governor Newsom’s office has also stated that “in the long term, LCFS is estimated to reduce fuel costs for Californians per mile by 42% – translating to savings of over $20 billion in gasoline costs every year by 2045.”
A Mileage-Based Alternative?
With the rise in electric vehicle usage and the closures of several in-state refineries, recent conversations have turned to alternative methods of raising funds for transportation services instead of the gas tax. One of these proposals is a road usage fee, based on miles driven. The state has considered potential models of road charge systems for some time. In 2017, the Road Charge Pilot Program explored considerations like the complexity, feasibility, and functionality of road usage models. The study “confirmed the viability of many aspects of a user-based transportation revenue mechanism,” and the California State Transportation Agency has encouraged continued research.
Supporters argue that charging based on miles driven would increase fairness, as drivers of both gas and electric vehicles would contribute. Analysis has shown that a flat-rate road usage charge would help to reduce some inequities in the burden of transportation fees. For example, such a model would “generally shift the fuel tax burden from lower-income to higher-income households” according to researchers with the Mineta Transportation Institute.
Others have raised concerns about unintended side effects of a usage-based model. Currently, electric vehicle drivers in California pay additional registration fees to help make up for lost gas tax revenues. If a road usage charge was added, these drivers might face excessive costs, which could potentially disincentivize electric vehicle usage and its intended environmental benefits. Similarly, if usage fees were to be implemented in addition to the gas tax instead of replacing it, gas vehicle drivers would experience higher costs as well. Concerns have also been raised about the administrative burden of switching to a new program, and the potential for government overreach with the monitoring of drivers’ road usage.
Looking Forward
Ultimately, much of the discussion around a road usage charge can be considered preliminary. California lawmakers have not passed a mileage tax, despite some claims online. In March 2025, the Assembly and State Senate Transportation Committees held an informational hearing regarding declining gas tax revenues and potential paths forward. More recently, the State Assembly approved a measure for the California Transportation Commission to continue a long-term study of possible mileage-based models.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the gas tax pay for?
- The gas tax is one of several sources of funding for transportation maintenance throughout the state, including upkeep of highways and bridges, transportation research, and more.
How does the gas tax affect gas prices?
- Federal and state taxes, environmental regulations, refining costs, and crude oil prices all play a role in retail gas prices. California’s state gas tax is uniquely high, making it one of several factors that contribute to higher prices at the pump.
How would a road usage charge work?
- Broadly, a road usage charge is a model in which drivers are charged a tax per mile driven, instead of per gallon of gas purchased. Researchers have explored several different technologies that could be used to implement a road usage charge in California.
Is California switching to a road charge model?
- At the time of writing, California has continued to support research on the road charge as a future alternative, but legislators have not passed a mileage tax into law.
Paola Simi is an ACE fellow.
Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding was first published by ACE and republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.
Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again
May 20, 2026
Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”
Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.
This is understandable. While designed to be a public space spurring connection, many of these platforms now do the opposite: They are driving young people apart and making us more isolated.
The solution, however, should not be quiet quitting: Instead, young people need our legislators to hold Big Tech accountable for making these platforms usable and sustainable, instead of yet another tool to exploit our vulnerabilities. We need legislation that makes social media social again.
Ironically, although up to 95% of teens use social media daily, young people feel more isolated than ever. Over 60% have reported feeling no real sense of identity. And those who reported higher use of these “social” platforms were substantially more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and other negative mental health impacts.
This is not a coincidence. It is by design. While many platforms originated out of a desire to connect people, their business models have largely shifted to prioritize profit over their consumers. Their product design reflects this.
For example, in 2016, Instagram, Meta, and Twitter removed chronological feeds, which listed posts from people you follow in the order they were posted. Instead, they introduced algorithmic feeds, collecting user data in order to push trending or “relevant” content. Research has found that these algorithmic feeds rely heavily on sensationalist content that garners intense emotion to keep users engaged for longer. This longer engagement prompts the algorithm to show similar types of content, starting a negative feedback loop. For example, a study from the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that YouTube users who express interest in fitness or dieting are often then pushed content that worsens body image.
Similarly, the introduction of short-form video platforms like TikTok and Instagram brought with it the infinite scroll. Long gone are the days when you could scroll to the bottom of the page and be told that “you’re all caught up.” Instead, these platforms offer a never-ending feed of content. When paired with predatory algorithmic feeds, this infinite feed creates an addictive dopamine loop, which can disrupt sleep patterns and trigger anxiousness around “missing out.” Research has found that infinite scrolls are particularly dangerous to young people, who have not yet fully developed impulse control.
Frustrated parents and teachers often argue that young people should just put down their phones or delete their social media. Some young people can do this. But for others, social media is the only landscape they know. It’s their primary means to connect with their friends and family.
Moreover, some young people literally cannot put down the phone: Internal documents from Meta and YouTube showed these platforms knew the features they implemented were addictive, yet still released them. In March, these companies lost a landmark social media case, finding them liable for creating addictive platforms.
As the name would imply, social media platforms were meant to be social–not money grabs. My generation, and those behind us, need that to be true again. As the recent Meta case showed, we cannot depend on tech companies to voluntarily change their predatory practices. Instead, we need regulations to call them to account.
We are starting to see efforts across the country to do so. On April 29th, Michigan’s state senate passed SB 757, as part of the “Kids Over Clicks” legislative package, which would prohibit minors from addictive, data-driven algorithms. Also in April, Massachusetts’ governor called for the disabling of infinite scroll and autoplay for users who are determined to be under 18. These policy efforts are a great first step, but they are not enough. We must continue this momentum across the state and federal levels.
Young people across the country have been calling for design-based regulation, like allowing the disabling of infinite scroll and algorithmic feeds, as well as better labeling of sensitive content. If legislators heed the call by making social media companies accountable, they can once again become a place where young people can talk, exchange ideas, and build a long-term culture that gives us a real sense of purpose. Putting the social back in social media is necessary to uphold the social fabric of my generation.
Sparkle Rainey is a youth activist and communications director at Young People’s Alliance. She is a Public Voices Fellow on Youth Well-Being and Power with The OpEd Project and Hopelab.
Keep ReadingShow less
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime
Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
May 20, 2026
The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.
I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.
The Court has said that the question is, how much partisan dominance is too much. The answer should be: if the new district is a "safe" district for the dominant party rather than a contested one, it is too much because it intentionally undermines the equal value of everyone's votes.
The whole purpose of gerrymandered redistricting is usually to create districts where the dominant party cannot lose because of its voting advantage, making it impossible for those of the other party and independents to band together to elect the representatives they want. The purpose is to create a "safe" district, not a contested one. The argument against this practice is not that the not-dominant party has a right to elect representatives of its choice—the Court having said there is no such guarantee—but that their vote is no longer of equal weight.
The suggested standard is: When the dominant party redistricts to create safe districts for itself rather than contested ones, it has gone too far. When a party has a clear majority in a district by the luck of the draw, the natural cluster of voters, that's random and not justiciable. But when the party intentionally creates such a district, it violates the 14th Amendment's one-person, one-vote rule: the voters of the dominant party who are in the clear majority in the new district have greater value than those of the other party. That is partisan dominance going too far.
And where the district that is being broken up is a Black-majority district, then you have the added fact that Blacks—after redistricting—have "less opportunity than other members of the electorate" to elect representatives of their choice. Whereas before the redistricting, as in Memphis, they resided in an area where they were "sufficiently numerous and compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district" (this is a very different set of facts than the ones in Callais), after redistricting, that was no longer the case. Blacks then had less opportunity than their White peers of the dominant party to constitute a majority and elect representatives of their choice—that's the purpose of breaking up the Black-majority district—and that is a racial gerrymander in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Nor can it be said, as the Court has said in the past, that this dilution of the Black vote is no different from partisan gerrymandering, which they have ruled is not justiciable. The Court has also said that when both purposes are present, the one less problematic [as to its constitutionality] is deemed the operating force.
The court has assumed, barring specific data-driven proof otherwise, that the Black vote is the same as the Democratic vote because Blacks as a bloc consistently vote Democratic. Thus, the Court has stated that diluting the Black vote and diluting the Democratic vote is one and the same thing.
While that voting fact is true, it is not true that Blacks vote as Democrats. They vote Democratic primarily because it is the only party that has consistently supported Black interests. If Republicans took up the Black cause, they would vote Republican. Thus, they are voting specifically as Blacks, not as Democrats. And so when their vote is diluted, it is their vote as Blacks, not as Democrats, that is being diluted.
Finally, even assuming that diluting the Black vote was the same as diluting the Democratic vote, where both purposes—partisan and racial—are present, to deem the less problematic purpose the operating force is an affront to the Constitution. If both an unconstitutional and a constitutional purpose are present, the unconstitutional purpose should always take precedence for the Court because it is the Court's mandate to see that the Constitution is not violated, to secure the benefits of the Constitution's protections for those who fall under it.
In the hypothetical cases described, whether viewed as a partisan or racial gerrymander, they are both violations of the law. In the first instance, it violates the 14th Amendment because it violates the one-person, one-vote rule. In the second instance, it violates the Voting Rights Act because the redistricting offers Blacks less opportunity than other members of the electorate to elect representatives of their choosing; should the Court continue to find that Black votes and Democratic votes are indistinguishable, then it would be a partisan gerrymander that would be in violation of the 14th Amendment because it violates the one person, one vote rule.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t