We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that reveals the influence of money in politics, informs and empowers voters, and advances reforms that promote a more responsive democracy. We seek to achieve a government that (actually) works for the people. We believe… That everyone deserves an equal voice in our democracy; That our lawmakers should represent the public interest, not wealthy special interests; and That access to money should not determine who gets elected or how policy decisions are made.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images
A Bold Civic Renaissance for America’s 250th
Sep 13, 2025
Every September 17, Americans mark Constitution Day—the anniversary of the signing of our nation’s foundational charter in 1787. The day is often commemorated with classroom lessons and speaking events, but it is more than a ceremonial anniversary. It is an invitation to ask: What does it mean to live under a constitution that was designed as a charge for each generation to study, debate, and uphold its principles? This year, as we look toward the semiquincentennial of our nation in 2026, the question feels especially urgent.
The decade between 1776 and 1787 was defined by a period of bold and intentional nation and national identity building. In that time, the United States declared independence, crafted its first national government, won a war to make their independence a reality, threw out the first government when it failed, and forged a new federal government to lead the nation. We stand at a similar inflection point. The coming decade, from the nation’s semiquincentennial in 2026 to the Constitution’s in 2037, offers a parallel opportunity to reimagine and reinvigorate our American civic culture. Amid the challenges we face today, there’s an opportunity to study, reflect, and prepare to write the next chapters in our American story—it is as much about the past 250 years, as it is about the next 250 years. It will require the same kind of audacious commitment to building for the future that was present at the nation’s outset.
The real founding legacy is one of innovation and improvisation. The Articles of Confederation, the country’s first governance charter, went into effect in 1781. Just six years later, delegates gathered in Philadelphia for a Constitutional Convention. They threw out the Articles, drafted a new constitution, and sent it to the states for ratification. In 1789, less than twelve months after the Constitution was ratified, Congress passed the Bill of Rights, adding ten amendments to the original document. The states approved several additional amendments over the coming decades to close loopholes in the original text or clarify ambiguous language.
The framers never believed they were creating a perfect union, but a more perfect one. They expected future generations to take up the mantle of improvement. Many generations embraced the challenge. The post-Civil War amendments abolished slavery, the 19th Amendment extended suffrage to white women, and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s extended suffrage to people of color. The true founding legacy—that every generation has the obligation to make the nation more perfect for subsequent generations—is one that both expects and invites thoughtful, informed participation.
As we prepare to mark these uniquely American milestones, we must not treat them as nostalgic, ceremonial mile-markers, but as civic catalysts.
If we treat the semiquincentennial as a season of civic renewal—an American “civic renaissance”—we can make civic learning as fundamental as literacy and math. Without it, democracy withers. Just as we teach every child to read, we must teach every child to lead. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote, “[t]he most important political office is that of the private citizen.” To claim that mantle, Americans of all ages must see their role as citizen as central to their daily lives. Civics needs to feel real and alive, and relevant at all phases of a person’s life—from pre-K to grey. It is not only the essential work of our nation’s schools, but also of parents, grandparents, and caregivers to instill civic knowledge and virtue in our nation’s young people. We must also make constitutional engagement a valued public ritual, model civil discourse, invest in civic educators inside and outside the classroom, and protect and celebrate civic spaces like museums, libraries, and historical sites. Reviving constitutional culture means teaching it, practicing it, celebrating it, and modeling it—together, across divides, and for our entire lifespans.
Our organizations, the National Constitution Center and Mount Vernon, as well as other museums, historic sites, and civic education groups, through innovative digital resources, public programs, and even bolder interventions, are leading the charge to redefine for millions of Americans what it means to be a thoughtful, engaged citizen.
As we prepare to celebrate 250 years of independence, the question is not only how we will honor the past, but how we will write our next chapters together?
Lindsay Chervinsky is the presidential historian and Executive Director of the George Washington Presidential Library at Mount Vernon.
Julie Silverbrook is Vice President of Civic Education at the National Constitution Center.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
An attendee wears a U.S. flag during a candlelight vigil for Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025 in Seattle, Washington.
(Photo by David Ryder/Getty Images)
Addressing America's Cultural Divide: Healing, Hope, and a Shared Future
Sep 13, 2025
The cold-blooded murder of the young, conservative activist Charlie Kirk yesterday is a tragic reminder of the state of our nation. We must awaken ourselves to the harsh truth that confronts us: while our politics are broken, something much deeper and more profound is happening in America. We face a cultural and human dilemma.
So, let’s tell the truth. We need more truth-tellers.
Too often these days, a commitment to decency is replaced with cruelty and capricious acts. People’s inherent dignity gets lip service while so many Americans suffer and lose hope. Rhetorical prayers and condolences take the place of real action, which we so desperately need today.
There is too much hatred, bigotry, and demonization of one another in our land. Knee-jerk finger-pointing takes the place of actual leadership. Condescension and acrimony persist when we need empathy and compassion the most. Hubris and certitude dangerously crowd out humility.
Many of us are exhausted by all the noise and confusion. I know I am. We must awaken ourselves. We must not succumb to fear and feelings of powerlessness amid these challenges. Resistance alone is no substitute for an articulation of what we are for. We need to not only muster a shared will to face our challenges, but we must also find the courage to join with others and embrace the possibilities that we know in our hearts.
Indeed, we must remind ourselves of something else we already know: in all the distractions, we can lose sight of the inherent and innate goodness of people. But it exists. Routinely, I travel across the country from the most conservative to the most liberal strongholds and everywhere in between. Most of the time, I cannot tell who is a Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Instead, I see, hear, and experience Americans. Every day people. Human beings who are yearning for better lives. Who says that we can do better and be better? Those who desire to put this country on a more hopeful trajectory moving forward.
Let us remember who we are and what we seek as human beings.
This requires that we face the real challenges before us. Our broken politics are but a symptom of a larger cultural and human dilemma we face in our communities and the country. Fragmentation. Loneliness. Negativity. Despair. A lack of belief in ourselves and one another.
People experience these challenges regardless of who they voted for in the last election. Indeed, they have been brewing for decades, even as recent years have accelerated and deepened our cultural plight.
I call on us—on all Americans, no matter your political persuasion—to reject more divisive politics and choose a new civic path instead. This is how we can address our cultural and human dilemma, not simply because I believe it. But because I see people every day forging this new and more hopeful path in the local communities where I’m working. Everywhere from Florida to Ohio to North Carolina to California to Alabama to Kentucky and beyond.
Indeed, this work must begin in our local communities. That’s where we can turn outward toward one another, see and hear each other, uphold each other’s dignity, and build anew together. That’s where we can begin to restore our belief in one another and our nation.
It is possible. It is doable. It is vital.
So here’s what I ask of you. Join me and thousands of others who have already embraced this new civic path for America. Let us not give up or give in to despair, hatred, toxic political battles, or violence. We must not surrender—not now, not ever.
Let us awaken ourselves. Let’s get to work. It’s time to build a more hopeful future. We are meant to go together.
We can do this. We must do this. Our communities and our very nation depend on it. Join me.
Rich Harwood is the president and founder of The Harwood Institute.
Keep ReadingShow less
Student protestors hold signs while participating in the "Hands Off Our Schools" rally in front of the U.S. Department of Education on April 04, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Kayla Bartkowski
Gen Z in Crisis: Political Violence, Social Media Extremes, and the Fight To Save American Democracy
Sep 12, 2025
“I promise, things will get better. The country won’t always be like this.” Those are the words I spoke to my 20-year-old daughter on Wednesday, Sept. 10.
My Gen Z daughter was shaken up after watching the video of the assassination of Charlie Kirk on social media, and on the same day as another school shooting at Evergreen High School in Evergreen, Colorado, hospitalizing three students with gunshot wounds, as well as the ongoing news coverage of one of the most repulsive child sexual predators in American history’s relationship with the current president.
The grief that Kirk’s family and friends are experiencing after his tragic and senseless death is unfathomable and is not being dismissed here, but there is also a broader sense of pain being experienced by younger generations in America.
Being 20 years old in America today means coming of age in a political landscape that often feels fractured, volatile, and devoid of empathy. For many young adults, this isn't just background noise; it's the defining context of their early adulthood.
Many young adults, like my daughter, were not alive in the days following the horrific attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. They find it inconceivable that we, as a nation, came together to rally around our heroes and heal from the unfathomable grief as one.
Instead, they lived through a global pandemic, which seemed to break our country apart even further than it was before 2020.
The witnessing of evil acts of political violence, which unfortunately has become commonplace, adds a layer of genuine fear to what should be formative years of exploration and growth.
Social media only amplifies this tension. Platforms that were once spaces for sharing photos and staying connected with friends and family have become battlegrounds for political messaging. The algorithm-driven nature of social media platforms means individuals are often exposed to increasingly extreme content, making the political landscape appear even more divided than it might be.
Our hyperpolarization also creates an exhausting social dynamic. Simple conversations about current events can quickly turn into heated debates or uncomfortable silences. The pressure to have “correct” political opinions and to express them in precisely the right way can feel overwhelming. Many young people report feeling anxious about posting anything that could be interpreted politically yet also feeling guilty for staying silent on important issues.
Many 20-year-olds describe feeling like they must constantly navigate political landmines in their daily interactions, whether at school, work, or at family gatherings.
It is also affecting their dating habits. According to a recent NPR/PBS News/Marist poll, a majority of Americans under 45 say it's important to date or marry someone who shares their political views. Among Gen Z and young millennials—those 18-29—six in ten feel it's important, compared to just a third of Baby Boomers, those Americans over 60.
For a 20-year-old, this social and political environment creates a strange cognitive dissonance—trying to build a future while wondering if basic democratic institutions will remain stable or even continue to exist. Instead of thinking about voting for a more hopeful and hope-filled candidate, they worry about whether we continue to have free and fair elections.
Despite the challenges, many young adults are developing sophisticated political thinking and strong civic engagement. They're learning to fact-check information, think critically about media sources, and engage with complex policy issues.
A survey following the 2020 election showed that Gen Zers are more politically knowledgeable than older Millennials and that “Gen Z Is Anything but Politically Ill-Informed.”
As a mother and a citizen, I am proud of the resilience and innovation of this generation.
Young people are finding new ways to engage politically that bypass traditional channels. They are organizing online, creating independent media, and building communities around shared values rather than party labels.
They also seem to understand that what we are living through is not strictly because of “the left” or of “the right”, rather it is an American problem, with all its nuance.
Living through this period, as a young adult, means accepting uncertainty as a constant. But it also means being part of a generation that's learning to navigate complexity, build resilience, and potentially reshape American political culture in more constructive directions.
As someone who lived through part of the 1960s and all the 1970s, I understood my daughter’s sadness at living in this America during this time period, but I could reassure her that things will get better, and we will all, once again, live in brighter days. But it will require all of us to embrace our common humanity, reject dividers and instead look towards unifiers, and rebuild stable institutions.
This is what we owe our children.
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
Two bills have been introduced to Congress that aim to ban mid-decade redistricting on the federal level and contain provisions making an exception for mid-decade redistricting.
Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images
Congress Bill Spotlight: Anti-Rigging Act, Banning Mid-Decade Redistricting As Texas and California Are Attempting
Sep 12, 2025
Trump claims Republicans are “entitled” to five more Texas House seats.
Context: in the news
In August, the Republican-controlled Texas state legislature approved a rare “mid-decade” redistricting for U.S. House seats, with President Donald Trump’s encouragement.
Why?
Midterm elections, held two years into a presidential term, usually flip House control from the president’s party to the opposition. It happened in 2022 under Biden, in 2018 under Trump’s first term, in 2010 under Obama, and in 2006 under George W. Bush’s second term.
Facing a potentially similar result next year in 2026, Trump encouraged Texas to redraw its districts with new maps projected to net Republicans up to five additional seats. For context, Republicans currently control the U.S. House by only five seats nationally.
Texas’s move sparked an arms race to respond in kind, among both red and blue states. California, Illinois, and Maryland are now considering mid-decade redistricting on the Democratic side; Florida, Missouri, and Ohio on the Republican side.
Context: what is mid-decade redistricting?
Each U.S. House district is supposed to contain an approximately equal number of residents, currently around 761 thousand. But populations in these districts gradually change: births, deaths, people moving in, people moving out.
To keep the numbers equal over time, states usually redraw their district boundaries once per decade, after a Census. The Census occurs in years ending with 0, such as 2010 and 2020. So those new lines go into effect during years ending with 2, such as 2012 and 2022. Anything after that, such as for next year’s 2026 election, is considered “mid-decade.”
10 states actually ban mid-decade redistricting in their state constitutions, comprising red, blue, and swing states alike: Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.
But it’s not banned at the federal level. Should it be?
What the bills do
Two bills in Congress would do just that. The two main proposals this summer were introduced by Texas Democrats in opposition to that state’s Republican plan, and by a California Republican in opposition to that state’s Democratic plan.
Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX33) introduced the former, titled the Anti-Rigging Act, on July 10. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA3) introduced the latter, numbered H.R. 4358, without an official title, on August 5.
The bills’ sponsors have not coordinated their legislation.
Both bills contain provisions making an exception for mid-decade redistricting if a state does so to comply with either the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, if mandated by a federal court. For example, in 2023, the Supreme Court nixed Alabama’s map for violating the Voting Rights Act—a rare 2020s Supreme Court ruling considered good for Democrats.
What supporters say
Congress’s lead Democrat and lead Republican on this issue both argue that mid-decade redistricting changes the rules of the game for pure partisan gain, when it should only be done for neutral reasons.
“This move by Gov. Abbott does Trump’s bidding, not for any legitimate constitutional purpose as they claim, but to attempt to win an election before the first ballot has been cast,” lead Democrat Rep. Veasey said in a press release. “It is cynical, racist, and with clear political intent. This bill would ensure it could never happen again.”
“Gavin Newsom is trying to subvert the will of voters,” lead Republican Rep. Kiley said in a separate press release. “Fortunately, Congress has the ability to protect California voters using its authority under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This will also stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.”
(The Constitution’s Elections Clause allows Congress to set parameters for the “times” and “manner” of congressional elections in the states.)
What opponents say
The most prominent Republican and Democratic governors on this issue both argue that states are within their rights to maximize partisan political advantage—and that current times call for it.
The new congressional districts “better reflect the actual votes of Texans,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said in a press release upon passage of the state-level One Big Beautiful Map Act. “While Democrats shirked their duty, in futility, and ran away to other states, Republicans stayed the course, stayed at work, and stayed true to Texas.”
“California will not sit idle as Trump and his Republican lapdogs shred our country’s democracy before our very eyes,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a separate press release upon introducing the state-level Election Rigging Response Act. “This moment calls for urgency and action—that is what we are putting before voters this November, a chance to fight back against his anti-American ways.”
Odds of passage
So far, the Democratic congressional bill has attracted nine cosponsors, all Democrats from Texas. No Democrat outside of Texas has yet cosponsored it.
Two Democrats from Texas haven’t signed on, either: Reps. Joaquin Castro (D-TX20) and Henry Cuellar (D-TX28).
The Republican congressional bill has not yet attracted any cosponsors, likely because such a move would be considered too “anti-Trump” within the party. Not even any of the other eight California House Republicans have signed on.
Both bills await a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee, unlikely under Republican control.
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY17) has publicly come out against mid-decade redistricting, in opposition to his home state New York’s Democratic plan, but has neither cosponsored the existing Republican bill nor introduced his own such bill as of this writing.
Jesse Rifkin is a freelance journalist with the Fulcrum. Don’t miss his report, Congress Bill Spotlight, on the Fulcrum. Rifkin’s writings about politics and Congress have been published in the Washington Post, Politico, Roll Call, Los Angeles Times, CNN Opinion, GovTrack, and USA Today.
SUGGESTIONS:
Congress Bill Spotlight: Banning Trump Administration From Renaming Naval Ship Harvey Milk
Congress Bill Spotlight: Making Trump Assassination Attempt a July 13 National Holiday
Congress Bill Spotlight: Requiring Public Schools Start the Day With the Pledge of Allegiance
Congress Bill Spotlight: Trump Derangement Syndrome Research Act
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More