Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

House opens HR 1 debate, fine print still emerging

As the House kicks off debate this afternoon on the Democrats' signature "good government" package, party-line passage on Friday continues to look close to guaranteed.

And that seems true no matter which, if any, of the dozens of potential amendments to HR 1 get adopted to alter the new majority's sprawling wish list for tightening campaign finance regulation, expanding voter registration and access to the polls, overhauling government ethics rules, and depoliticizing the drawing of congressional districts.


The 622-page legislation is so expansive, in fact, that almost no attention has been focused on some of provisions that would have sweeping impact should the bill become law – which has minimal chance of happening because the Republican majority in the Senate has no interest in even considering it.

The measure, for example, would make it illegal for inaugural committees to solicit, accept or receive donations from "a person that is not an individual," effectively banning the sort of corporate giving that has put the organizers of President Donald Trump's festivities two years ago under heightened scrutiny. Roll Call has a detailed roster of 10 of these important but under-the-radar provisions.

The ground rules for debate set by the Democratic leadership permit debate on 72 potential amendments, of which only 10 have been proposed by Republicans. Those ground rules also automatically deleted language making Election Day a federal holiday, a provision in the bill that had been subject to particularly intense GOP ridicule.


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
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

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

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

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

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

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.

Keep ReadingShow less