Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

2020 Democrats Making Good on Their ‘No Lobbyist Money’ Promise

The presidential candidates who say they won't take money from registered lobbyists have made good on their word and returned the contributions they've received so far.

In the first three months of the year, registered lobbyists contributed $40,100 to Democratic presidential aspirants (in amounts above $200, which require detailed disclosure), the Center for Responsive Politics reports. Three quarters of the cash went to Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., who announced last month that his campaign will no longer accept such gifts and returned $30,250 to 39 registered lobbyists.


Now the CRP reports that Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has refunded all $3,800 she's received, Sen. Kamala Harris has given back all $3,000, Sen. Cory Booker has given back all $1,500, Sen. Amy Klobuchar has refunded $500 and Beto O'Rourke has returned the single $250 check he received.

Neither Sen. Bernie Sanders nor Sen. Elizabeth Warren had received contributions from federally registered lobbyists by the end of March. Neither had a trio of second-tier candidates – Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson – all of whom have vowed to forswear such giving.

Some candidates are welcoming lobbyist cash, however: Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has raised $13,900 from nine of them, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper $7,850 from six of them and former Rep. John Delaney $1,000 from two. (Julian Castro has not taken the no-lobbyist pledge but hasn't benefitted from their largesse yet.)

All the others in the field formally declared their candidacies after the end of March so haven't had to file their first campaign financial disclosure reports.

Read More

Online Federal Multilingual Resources Continue to Disappear under Trump Executive Order

LEP.gov, an online library of multilingual materials, used to be a resource for agencies and individuals alike but was suspended in July after Trump’s executive order.

Online Federal Multilingual Resources Continue to Disappear under Trump Executive Order

WASHINGTON - On March 1, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring English as the United States’ official language. Since then, some federal agencies, like the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing & Urban Development, have removed multilingual resources from their websites; others have not. The executive order does not require their removal.

Language access, or the provision of non-English translation services or materials, assists over 25 million individuals in the United States with limited English proficiency (LEP). Experts say reducing language access will hurt government efficiency.

Keep ReadingShow less

How Ranchers and Grassroots Organizers Are Shaping Democracy in Wyoming

The 50 is a four-year multimedia initiative led by The Fulcrum, traveling to communities in every state to uncover what motivated Americans to vote in the 2024 presidential election. Through in-depth storytelling, the project examines how the Donald Trump administration is responding to those hopes and concerns—and highlights civic-focused organizations that inform, educate, and empower the public to take action.

Cheyenne, Wyoming—proudly serving as the state capital—is both a geographic and symbolic gateway to the American frontier, where rugged heritage meets enduring civic pride.

Keep ReadingShow less
A landfill.

As Hurricane Melissa breaks records, scientists warn Earth’s life-support systems are failing—while U.S. leaders censor climate data and delay real action.

Getty Images, Pramote Polyamate

The Time for Comfort Is Over; Climate Change Won’t Wait Till We’re Ready

As Hurricane Melissa cements itself as the strongest storm ever recorded in the Atlantic basin—fueled by unseasonably warm ocean temperatures 2.5 °F above average—we must grapple with what this means for our future.

In a recent report, scientists found that seven of the nine planetary boundaries essential for sustaining life on Earth are in decline, with ocean acidification newly entering the list of concerns. As we all learned in elementary school, everything requires balance. Yet we are rapidly approaching tipping points that our communities and our lifestyles are ill-prepared to handle.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

Major redistricting cases in Louisiana and Texas threaten the Voting Rights Act and the representation of Black and Latino voters across the South.

Getty Images, kali9

The Voting Rights Act Is Under Attack in the South

Under court order, Louisiana redrew to create a second majority-Black district—one that finally gave true representation to the community where my family lives. But now, that district—and the entire Voting Rights Act (VRA)—are under attack. Meanwhile, here in Texas, Republican lawmakers rammed through a mid-decade redistricting plan that dramatically reduces Black and Latino voting power in Congress. As a Louisiana-born Texan, it’s disheartening to see that my rights to representation as a Black voter in Texas, and those of my family back home in Louisiana, are at serious risk.

Two major redistricting cases in these neighboring states—Louisiana v. Callais and Texas’s statewide redistricting challenge, LULAC v. Abbott—are testing the strength and future of the VRA. In Louisiana, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide not just whether Louisiana must draw a majority-Black district to comply with Section 2 of the VRA, but whether considering race as one factor to address proven racial discrimination in electoral maps can itself be treated as discriminatory. It’s an argument that contradicts the purpose of the VRA: to ensure all people, regardless of race, have an equal opportunity to elect candidates amid ongoing discrimination and suppression of Black and Latino voters—to protect Black and Brown voters from dilution.

Keep ReadingShow less