Our mission is to investigate and expose crony capitalism, misuse of taxpayer monies, and other governmental corruption or malfeasance.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Brenda Núñez, the Nueces County, Texas, voter registration supervisor, shows the homepage of the TEAM system in her office in Corpus Christi on Sept. 11, 2024. The Texas Secretary of State's Office launched a revamp of the system in July 2025, and election officials across the state have reported various problems that have prevented them from completing essential election preparation tasks.
(Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat)
Texas counties struggle to process voter registrations using state’s new TEAM system
Oct 09, 2025
Darcy Hood mailed her voter registration application to the Tarrant County elections department in July, after she turned 18.
Months later, her application still hasn’t been processed. And it’s unclear when it will be.
With the Oct. 6 deadline to register to vote in the November constitutional amendment election approaching, tens of thousands of Texans are in the same situation, waiting in suspense for their applications to go through, a process that normally takes a few days or weeks.
In interviews, private conversations, and emails, county elections officials from across the state point the finger at the state’s voter registration system, known as TEAM, which has long had functionality problems. They say that after the software was overhauled in July, the problems began proliferating: Voters’ previous addresses override their new ones, their voting precincts don’t populate correctly, and sometimes the registration information doesn’t save at all.
“One day it works and we can get stuff done, and the next day it doesn’t and nothing gets done,” said Pam Hill, the elections administrator in San Patricio County. “That’s the trend right now.”
The executive board of the Texas Association of County Election Officials met on Sept. 2 with Christina Adkins, the state’s elections division director, and Deputy Director Kristi Hart to discuss the problems. In an email sent afterward to association members and obtained by Votebeat, the board said it “unambiguously stated the level of frustration from our members” regarding the need for clear guidance and training, the absence of which “has placed unexpected burdens and stress on our members.” The board said it would begin offering some training and peer support itself.
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office said it anticipated some technical issues with this “once-in-a-decade upgrade.” Adkins told election officials this month that many of the problems stem from county officials not knowing how to use the updated system.
But several county election officials said the system didn’t work well during training sessions earlier this year, which limited opportunities for hands-on testing.
Meanwhile, the unprocessed registration applications keep piling up. Hood’s application is one of around 13,000 that Tarrant County election officials say are pending state verification. Travis County says it has more than 12,000 applications that need to be processed, and Bexar County has more than 40,000. A Texas voter whose application was received on time but not processed by the time of the election can still cast a provisional ballot, but there’s a risk those ballots won’t be counted.“
I hate that our voters are going through this, and it’s through no fault of their own,” said Clinton Ludwig, the Tarrant County elections administrator. The voters are doing what they’re supposed to do, and we’re also trying to do what we’re supposed to do.”
Heather Hood, Darcy’s mother, told Votebeat that for weeks she has called Tarrant County and state officials seeking answers about her daughter’s application. An official with the Texas Secretary of State’s Office told her last week “to be patient.”
“It’s so frustrating to be placated, and they’re telling me to be patient when they are the ones who have put this system into place and it is not working correctly,” Heather Hood told Votebeat in a phone interview.
State officials say they’re responding to concerns
State officials have pushed back on some of the counties’ complaints. “There is a difference between a county saying this doesn’t work and a county saying, I don’t know how to do this,” Adkins, the state election director, said in a Sept. 17 video call with local election officials that was recorded by the state and shared with Votebeat. “We want to really make sure that we’re drilling down on the things that are issues versus areas where you need more training.”
In statements to Votebeat, the Texas Secretary of State’s Office said that the rollout of the updated version of TEAM is a multi-stage process, and that the office has “planned accordingly.”
The task involves “migrating more than 20 million records and training more than 2,500 users,” the office said. “Technical issues are to be expected with a rollout of this size, and that is why we chose this constitutional election cycle for this transition.”
“We are working long hours to help our counties prepare for the November election and upgrade to a new version of TEAM that will ultimately result in more efficiently managed elections,” the office said.
The state and the vendor that developed the system “continue to respond to issues and concerns,” the office said.
The Secretary of State’s Office has assigned 30 employees to work directly with counties to train them and answer technical questions about the new system, the agency said, three times as many as it had in the previous TEAM update.
“As we are in the middle of a once-in-a-decade upgrade of the state’s voter registration system, our focus right now is on supporting counties in preparation for the upcoming election,” the agency added. “Any verdict on the new system is far too premature at the moment.”
Counties have long had issues with TEAM
TEAM — the Texas Election Administration Management system — has been around since the early 2000s, and earlier iterations prompted many complaints from election officials. The state improved the system over the years and launched a complete overhaul in July, but election officials say it is falling short of the promises that officials from the Texas Secretary of State’s Office made to election officials and state lawmakers.
The system was developed by Louisiana-based vendor Civix. All but 15 of the state’s 254 counties rely on TEAM to plan elections and maintain their voter rolls. Even counties that use software from one of two state-approved private vendors to manage their voter rolls are required by state law to sync their data with TEAM daily, and have to use TEAM to verify a voter’s identity and their eligibility to cast a ballot.
Election officials across the state have been complaining for months about struggles with the latest TEAM iteration, and at least 10 county election officials interviewed by Votebeat said the issues are preventing them from completing essential tasks.
“Some of (the problems) get corrected, and then a few days later, they’re not working again,” said Hill, the San Patricio County elections administrator.
She said her staff in the South Texas county, which has roughly 40,000 registered voters, hasn’t been able to process about 600 voter registration applications initially submitted through the Texas Department of Public Safety. To do so, her staff must use the system to make sure the voters are not already registered somewhere else, plus double-check street addresses to ensure the voter gets the correct ballot, among other tasks.
The Texas Association of County Election Officials surveyed its members Sept. 2 and found that county officials struggled with the system, but noted that TEAM representatives were helpful and responsive. Around 114 of the association’s 600-plus members responded to the survey.
“A substantial portion of users find the TEAM system’s core functionalities, particularly Voter Registration and related sub-features, to be difficult or not functioning,” says the survey summary, which Votebeat obtained through an open records request.
Chris McGinn, the association’s executive director, declined to comment on how the state has responded to complaints about the system. But he said the association is continuing to work with the Secretary of State’s Office and that the agency “has been very willing to listen to our concerns and address them as efficiently as they can.”
At least two dozen messages from 15 county officials regarding concerns about TEAM were sent to an email list of county election officials between July and September, according to records obtained by Votebeat, though some of those officials say their issues were subsequently fixed.
“Would it help if everyone just logged off until they fix everything? Thoughts?” Harrison County elections administrator Donald Robinette wrote earlier this month.Civix, the vendor that developed TEAM, declined to comment for this story. According to public records, its contract with the state is for $17 million. The Secretary of State’s Office said it’s paid by a mix of state funds and federal funds allocated under the 2002 Help America Vote Act, aimed at improving election administration.
Migrating to TEAM from private systems
While the state uses TEAM and counties must sync with it, the local offices can use a state-approved private vendor to maintain voter registration and conduct other vital tasks. But such contracts can be costly, creating an incentive for counties to use TEAM, which is free for them. Some counties switched to TEAM in the last year after becoming concerned about the viability of Votec, one of the two state-sanctioned vendors.
“Our team is systematically addressing any issues as they arise in support of the 254 counties who are adjusting to the new system,” the Texas Secretary of State’s Office’s statement said. “At the same time, we are attempting to onboard counties whose privately contracted vendor just went out of business, leaving them without a functioning voter registration system. This is an unprecedented situation.”
The struggles county election officials are having with TEAM have deterred others from making the switch away from outside vendors.
Nueces County used Votec for voter registration until August and considered switching to TEAM. But after hearing from his counterparts around the state, Kevin Kieschnick, the county’s tax assessor-collector and voter registrar, said the county decided instead to contract with the other state-approved vendor, VR Systems.
Kieschnick said he concluded that the county wouldn’t be able to transfer large files of voter registration applications, voters’ signatures, and geographical data of voters’ addresses. “There were enough issues that I heard about from a bunch of other counties that made me think, ‘Nope, we’re not going to do that,’” he said.
The state’s contract with Civix requires the Texas Secretary of State’s Office to address any poor performance, and by law, it must report information about the vendor’s performance to a state tracking system. The office did not respond directly to questions about whether it has reported any problems yet, but said it’s working closely with Civix to resolve them.
Hill, the elections administrator from San Patricio County in South Texas, said she believes the state will fix the problems, but she expects it’ll take time.
“Six months from now, I might tell you that TEAM is working great and we really like the new TEAM,” Hill said. “I hope we get there.”
Texas counties struggle to process voter registrations using state’s new TEAM system was first published on Votebeat Texas and was republished with permission.
Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stands at attention at the Pentagon on September 22, 2025 in Arlington, Virginia.
(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
In a room full of men, Hegseth called for a military culture shift from ‘woke’ to ‘warrior’
Oct 09, 2025
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called hundreds of generals and admirals stationed from around the world to convene in Virginia on Tuesday — with about a week’s notice. He announced 10 new directives that would shift the military’s culture away from what he called “woke garbage” and toward a “warrior ethos.”
“This administration has done a great deal since Day 1 to remove the social justice, politically-correct, toxic ideological garbage that had infected our department,” Hegseth said. “No more identity months, DEI offices or dudes in dresses. No more climate change worship. No more division, distraction of gender delusions. No more debris. As I’ve said before and will say, we are done with that shit.”
The secretary largely covered old ground during his 45-minute address to an audience that he has been reshaping. The commanders were already predominantly White men, and there were even fewer women in those ranks for today’s speech than there were when Hegseth took office.
He abruptly fired Gen. CQ Brown Jr., the second Black man to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Adm. Lisa Franchetti and Adm. Linda Fagan — two of the highest-ranking women in the Armed Forces — were also ousted. Franchetti was the first woman to lead the Navy and the first woman to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Fagan led the Coast Guard and was the first woman to lead a branch of the military.
Hegseth eliminated DEI programs on his first day on the job, later saying that “Our diversity is our strength” was the “single dumbest phrase in military history.”
Hegseth on Tuesday said that he has made it his mission to “uproot the obvious distractions that made us less capable and less lethal.”
“The new War Department golden rule is this: Do unto your unit as you would have done unto your own child’s unit,” Hegseth said, using the Trump administration’s preferred title for the department, though it has yet to be changed by Congress. “Would you want him serving with fat or unfit or undertrained troops? Or alongside people who can’t meet basic standards? Or where leaders were promoted for reasons other than merit, performance and war fighting?”
Military experts and researchers have repeatedly voiced concern with the premise of Hegseth’s argument that the military has become less successful since it embraced diversity; that standards were lowered to include women in combat roles; and that diverse leaders did not have merit.
What Hegseth said about women in combat roles and gender-neutral standards
“Today at our direction, we’re ensuring that every service, every unit, every school house and every form of professional military education conducts an immediate review of their standards — any place where tried and true physical standards were altered, especially since 2015 when combat arms were changed to ensure females could qualify,” Hegseth said. “They must be returned to their original standard.”
Hegseth announced that every service fitness test will now be gender-neutral and age-neutral, and returned to the “highest male standard only” in an effort to “restore a ruthless, dispassionate and common sense application of standards.”
“I urge you to use the 1990 test, which is simple: Ask ‘What were the military standards in 1990?” Hegseth said. “And if they have changed, tell me why. Was it a necessary change based on the evolving landscape of combat or was the change due to a softening, weakening or gender-based pursuit of other priorities?”
“I want to be very clear about this, this is not about preventing women from serving,” Hegseth said. He later added, “Physical standards must be high and gender neutral. If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is.” Every member of the joint force at every rank — from new privates to four-star generals — is required to meet the height and weight standards and pass physical training tests twice a year. He acknowledged that this change might disqualify some men, too.
“It all starts with physical fitness and appearance,” Hegseth said. “Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations or really any formation and see fat troops. Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are.”
More context:
Despite Hegseth’s remarks, it is against the law to lower standards for women when compared with men in the same role. The National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 established that every occupation in the military — from medics to Catholic priests to people in combat — there are standards that must be gender neutral.
Hegseth has long argued — without substantive evidence — that women’s participation in the military has weakened the country’s war-fighting capabilities. He published a book in 2024 called, “The War on Warriors,” in which he argued women in combat roles made the country less effective and less lethal and more complicated. Women veterans, national security organizations and military historians have pushed back and argued that the future of national security calls for more technological skillsets.
What Hegseth said about diversity quotas and promotions
“For too long we’ve promoted too many uniformed leaders for the wrong reasons — based on their race, based on gender quotas, based on so-called firsts,” Hegseth said.
Hegseth acknowledged that he fired several military leaders — including people of color and women — as part of his first actions as secretary. His decision making was “more of an art than a science,” he added but his rationale in ousting those leaders was because it’s “nearly impossible to change a culture with the same people who helped create or even benefited from that culture.”
“An entire generation of generals and admirals were told that they must parrot the insane fallacy that ‘Our diversity is our strength,’” Hegseth said. “Of course, we know our unity is our strength. They had to put out dizzying DEI and LGBTQI+ statements. They were told females and males are the same thing, or that males who think they’re females are totally normal.”
Hegseth announced that from now on, the entire promotion process is being thoroughly examined and promotions will only go to top-performing officers, regardless of race and gender.
“My job has been to determine which leaders simply did what they must to answer the prerogatives of civilian leadership and which leaders are truly invested in the ‘woke department’ and therefore are incapable of embracing the War Department and executing new, lawful orders,” Hegseth said. “More leadership changes will be made.”
More context:
There is no “gender quota, goal or ceiling” in the infantry or at the military academies, as established by law in the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994. In fact, it was the opposite for years when there was a cap on how many women could be allowed in certain roles (Women could only account for 2 percent or less among generals and admirals in the force before 1967).
What Hegseth said about woke culture and ‘toxic leadership’
“Foolish and reckless political leaders set the wrong compass heading, and we lost our way,” Hegseth said. “We became the woke department, but not anymore. … We just have to be honest. We have to say with our mouths what we see with our eyes.”
Hegseth said that Military Equal Opportunity policies will be overhauled to disempower “complainers” and make sure commanders are no longer “walking on eggshells.”
He also said the department is reviewing its definitions of “bullying” and “hazing” to make sure leaders can properly train new recruits.
“Basic training is being restored to what it should be: scary, tough and disciplined,” Hegseth said. “We’re empowering drill sergeants to instill healthy fear in new recruits, ensuring that future war fighters are forged. Yes, they can shark attack. They can toss bunks. They can swear. And yes, they can put their hands on recruits.”
In a lot of ways, Hegseth’s message to commanders was a call to get on board or get out: “If the words I’m speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing and resign. We would thank you for your service.”
More context:
The Military Equal Opportunity program and the Defense Department’s civilian equivalent allowed personnel to report discrimination and harassment. Policy changes and cultural shifts will likely impact service members, including victims of sexual assault and harassment, who already face obstacles when reporting bad actors. Nearly 1 in 4 women in the military report having experienced sexual assault and more than half report harassment — though researchers found the vast majority of incidents go unreported altogether.
In a room full of men, Hegseth called for a military culture shift from ‘woke’ to ‘warrior’ was first published on The19th and republished with permission.
Mariel Padilla is a General Assignment Reporter for The19th.
Keep ReadingShow less
Federal agents guard outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in downtown Los Angeles as demonstrations continue after a series of immigration raids began last Friday on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.
Getty Images, Spencer Platt
ICE Policy Challenged in Court for Blocking Congressional Oversight of Detention Centers
Oct 08, 2025
In a constitutional democracy, congressional oversight is not a courtesy—it is a cornerstone of the separation of powers enshrined in our founding documents.
Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) has filed an amicus brief in Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing that ICE’s policy restricting unannounced visits by members of Congress “directly violates federal law.” Twelve lawmakers brought this suit to challenge ICE’s new requirement that elected officials provide seven days’ notice before visiting detention facilities—an edict that undermines transparency and shields executive agencies from scrutiny.
At the plaintiffs’ request, LDAD’s brief focuses on two constitutional pillars: standing and appropriations law. The denial of access harms individual members of Congress by violating a statutory right unique to their office.
Moreover, the fact that the provision guaranteeing unannounced access appears in an appropriations bill does not diminish its legal force. As Mitt Regan, McDevitt Professor of Jurisprudence at Georgetown Law and principal author of the brief, stated: “Federal law explicitly protects Members of Congress’ right to unannounced oversight visits. ICE’s policy violates both the letter and spirit of that law.”
The Trump administration’s argument for restricting unannounced visits by members of Congress to ICE facilities centers on operational control and security concerns. Some of their reasoning includes:
- Operational Disruption: ICE claims that unannounced visits can interfere with facility operations, including detainee processing, legal proceedings, and staff duties.
- Security Protocols: The administration argues that prior notice allows ICE to ensure safety for both visitors and detainees, citing concerns about crowd control and potential confrontations.
- Discretionary Authority: Under the new guidelines, ICE asserts “sole and unreviewable discretion” to deny, cancel, or reschedule visits for any reason, including “operational concerns” or if deemed “appropriate” by facility managers.
- Distinction Between Facilities: DHS claims that while federal law allows unannounced visits to detention centers, it does not apply to ICE field offices—despite the fact that immigrants are often detained there before transfer.
However, critics, including Rep. Bennie Thompson, argue this policy violates federal law, which explicitly allows members of Congress to conduct oversight visits without prior notice to any DHS facility used to “detain or otherwise house aliens.” Furthermore, the policy has led to multiple incidents where Democratic lawmakers were denied entry or arrested during attempted oversight visits, fueling accusations that the administration is trying to avoid scrutiny of detention conditions.
Despite the administration's claims, the case seems clear. Congress has both the legal authority and the moral obligation to inspect detention centers, especially those housing vulnerable populations. Federal law prohibits DHS from using appropriated funds to block or delay such visits. By ignoring this mandate, ICE not only violates statutory law but also erodes the separation of powers that sustains our democracy.
LDAD’s defense of congressional oversight is part of a broader initiative led by Professor Julie Goldscheid and former Judge Rosalyn Richter, who have been sounding the alarm about the administration’s executive edicts and their alignment with Project 2025—the authoritarian blueprint advanced by the Heritage Foundation. In her recent Fulcrum column, “Project 2025 in Action: Sounding the Alarm for Democracy,” Professor Goldscheid warned:
“Since taking office in January 2025, the Trump administration has systematically taken steps to implement Project 2025… These actions touch on virtually every aspect of public and private life, leaving many Americans across the country overwhelmed, confused, exhausted, and frightened.”
She also offered a powerful call to action:
“Each of us can take steps to support—and perfect—our democracy… The value of the right to speak freely, to celebrate dissent even when uncomfortable, to have a say in our government, to live free from surveillance and the threat of unwarranted punishment, demands no less.”
LDAD was founded to galvanize lawyers in defense of the rule of law amid unprecedented threats to democratic governance. Their mission is nonpartisan and rooted in the belief that legal professionals have a unique responsibility to:
- Uphold democratic and legal principles consistent with their ethical obligations
- Demand accountability from lawyers and public officials
- Call out attacks on legal norms and advocate for redress
Keep ReadingShow less
Getty Images, SvetaZi
How Billionaires Are Rewriting History and Democracy
Oct 08, 2025
In the Gilded Age of the millionaire, wealth signified ownership. The titans of old built railroads, monopolized oil, and bought their indulgences in yachts, mansions, and eventually, sports teams. A franchise was the crown jewel: a visible, glamorous token of success. But that era is over. Today’s billionaires, those who tower, not with millions but with unimaginable billions, find sports teams and other baubles beneath them. For this new aristocracy, the true prize is authorship of History (with a capital “H”) itself.
Once you pass a certain threshold of wealth, it seems, mere possessions no longer thrill. At the billionaire’s scale, you wake up in the morning searching for something grand enough to justify your own existence, something commensurate with your supposed singularly historical importance. To buy a team or build another mansion is routine, played, trite. To reshape the very framework of society—now that is a worthy stimulus. That is the game. And increasingly, billionaires are playing it.
Look closely at the moves of men like Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Marc Andreessen, Larry Ellison, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and others. Their empires extend, not just over products and markets but over political culture, public institutions, and even national policy. They cast themselves as visionaries, masters of grand strategies invisible to ordinary eyes. They fund initiatives that fracture public life, manipulate information ecosystems, and bend governments toward serving private rather than public interests. Their reward is not merely financial return but the intoxicating sense of power that comes from steering the destiny of millions.
Hence, nothing startling or puzzling in their fascination with transhumanism, for instance, or radical life extension, or the technological pursuit of immortality. Many of the same figures who bankroll think tanks and media platforms also invest heavily in longevity biotech, cryonics, brain-computer interfaces, and artificial general intelligence (AGI) research. Their interest is not only speculative engineering; it is existential. For some, the quest for radically extended life or the ability to preserve or upload consciousness promises a literal escape hatch from mortality—a way to make their projects and preferences persist beyond a single lifespan. For others, belief in a coming “singularity” and the transformative power of AGI supplies both a metaphysical narrative and a practical tool: If intelligence can be engineered and amplified, then so too can social order. This fusion of immortalist yearning and techno-utopianism explains why investments in AI, neural interfaces, and longevity industries sit comfortably alongside their type of political interventions: Both are attempts to institutionalize control over the future, to render one’s will durable across time and bodies.
The strategies vary in method but not in essence. One path has been the evisceration of the working class through globalization. By financing the offshoring of jobs, billionaires restructured the global economy in ways that hollowed out American towns while enriching multinational corporations. The move was not simply about lowering costs. It was a restructuring of social power—weakening organized labor, disempowering the industrial base, and leaving workers in constant insecurity. A diminished working class is easier to control.
Another path has been through culture and media. Billionaires have poured money into think tanks, foundations, and media platforms, not simply to influence policy but to shape what can even be discussed in the first place. When the world’s wealthiest individuals own the megaphones, the boundaries of acceptable debate unsurprisingly shrink to what suits their interests. What we see is not merely ownership of companies but ownership of discourse; the power to decide which ideas circulate and which die in obscurity.
Still, another strategy involves direct policy warfare. For decades, billionaire-backed movements have sought to dismantle the social safety net, shrinking the welfare state until it can barely function. Ostensibly, this is done in the name of efficiency, but the effect is brutally clear: Millions forced into precarity, vulnerable populations left exposed, and minorities disproportionately harmed. Such policies don’t happen by accident; they are engineered through lobbying, campaign financing, and strategic political donations. The result is a polity where the government serves private profit more than public welfare.
At the same time, billionaires have fueled divisions that weaken democratic solidarity. The stoking of identity-based conflicts—pitting groups against one another over cultural issues—distracts from the consolidation of economic power at the top. Immigration, terrorism, and crime are hyped, not because they are unmanageable threats but because fear justifies surveillance, militarization, and new tools of control. By the time the public realizes what has happened, the state has been repurposed into a security apparatus that protects, not citizens but capital.
This is not to suggest that billionaires meet in secret to plot each of these moves together. Instead, it is to point out that they meet openly and plot and strategize and tell us exactly what they plan to do in glittering gatherings, such as the Bilderberg Meetings, the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Aspen Ideas Festival, the Milken Institute Global Conference, etc. Because, after all, History and the Future are theirs to design, and democracy is merely a clay to be molded here and there by their collective strategic genius.
The danger is not only that this distorts democracy but that it erodes the very principle of democratic agency. When a handful of individuals hold the power to rewire economies, manipulate debates, and reshape policies at will, ordinary citizens are reduced to spectators. Political life becomes a contest, not of ideas but of bankrolls. The myth that all citizens have equal say in democracy collapses under the sheer gravitational pull of billionaire ambition.
Defenders will say this is just philanthropy or “visionary leadership,” that great fortunes bring with them great “responsibility.” But responsibility without accountability is not democracy—it is monarchy by another name. When billionaires intervene in climate policy, education, or even space exploration, their priorities may align with the public good for a time, but what happens when they don’t? Who checks them? Who votes them out?
If democracy is to mean anything, it cannot allow its destiny to be the playground of a few titans seeking meaning through stimulation. The ownership of History must remain collective, not private. That requires reining in billionaire power by imagining a whole new way of doing politics and government that renders the oceans of money that billionaires control null currency in the arena of democratic decision making.
Ahmed Bouzid is the co-founder of The True Representation Movement.Keep ReadingShow less
Load More