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
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Read More
Analysis of concentrated power in the U.S. political economy, examining inequality, institutional trust, executive authority, and the need for equal access and competitive markets.
Chalermpon Poungpeth/EyeEm/Getty Images
America: What We Want, What We Have, What We Need
Mar 06, 2026
Equal Access in an Age of Concentrated Power
The American constitutional system was designed to restrain power, not to pursue a single national mission. Authority was divided across branches, diffused among states, and slowed by deliberate friction. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, ambition was meant to counteract ambition. The design assumed competing interests would prevent domination.
For more than two centuries, that architecture has endured. The United States remains the world’s largest economy by nominal GDP, according to the World Bank’s World Development Indicators, with deep capital markets and a formidable innovation system.
But constitutional survival is not the same as national alignment. A system can remain intact while drifting from the conditions that once sustained it. The central question is whether the incentives now operating in the American political economy still support equal access to opportunity, political voice, and competitive markets, or whether those avenues of entry are being constricted by concentrated power.
That distinction is the hinge of the moment.
The America We Want
Despite deep partisan division, Americans continue to express shared expectations about opportunity, fair process, and institutional stability.
They want upward mobility that feels real.
They want elections that are credible and orderly.
They want markets where new entrants can compete.
They want rules that bind both public officials and concentrated wealth.
They want stability without stagnation.
The American promise has never been equality of outcome. It has been access. Over time, constitutional amendments, civil rights reforms, and market guardrails expanded participation and recalibrated concentration. One premise endured: the system must remain open enough for effort and innovation to translate into advancement.
Equal access is not just rhetoric. It is the operating condition of a durable republic. It is civic because it protects equal standing before the law. It is economic because it preserves entry and contestability. It is strategic because systems that deny access generate instability.
The America We Have
The United States remains productive and powerful. Yet concentration has intensified in ways that alter incentives.
Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research documents rising wealth inequality over recent decades. Separate NBER empirical work finds sustained increases in aggregate markups and firm-level pricing power across the U.S. economy. Long-term data from the Pew Research Center record declining public trust in federal institutions.
These patterns do not signal collapse. They signal structural drift.
The deeper issue is political capture: concentrated economic power converting into durable influence over regulatory design, tax structure, education, public information, enforcement priorities, and legislative agendas.
The pattern is self-reinforcing. Concentration increases bargaining power. Bargaining power shapes rulemaking and tax provisions. Complexity advantages incumbents over new entrants. Barriers rise in housing, healthcare, finance, and digital platforms. Mobility narrows. Perceived fairness declines. Polarization then weakens oversight, allowing capture to deepen.
The Constitution remains. Operating incentives increasingly favor incumbency.
A System Under Visible Stress
A year into a second presidential term marked by assertive executive action, institutional strain is visible.
Expanded use of executive authority in areas traditionally shaped through legislative negotiation, coupled with limited legislative push-back and periods of judicial acquiescence, has shifted the balance of constitutional power in practice toward the executive. Oversight disputes reveal how much depends on informal norms. Public controversies over conflict-of-interest boundaries sharpen concern about guardrails separating private interest and public office.
These vulnerabilities accumulated over time. When polarization erodes congressional cohesion, executive discretion expands. When economic concentration intersects with executive consolidation, capture becomes more durable.
Governance instability has measurable economic effects. Regulatory unpredictability delays investment. Political volatility raises risk premiums. Allies hedge. Domestic actors price uncertainty into capital allocation. Under these conditions, the structure of governance becomes a live determinant of economic stability and national resilience.
Open Systems and Closed Systems
The central divide is structural.
Open systems protect entry and competition. Closed systems protect incumbency and convert leverage into insulation from accountability. Equal access is the practical test. When entry narrows and influence concentrates beyond accountability, the system begins to close.
As access to political voice, housing, infrastructure participation, and capital narrows, economic and geographic mobility decline. Legitimacy erodes. Volatility rises. That cross-sector volatility can drive new coalitions among actors who would not otherwise align.
Historical Precedent for Realignment
This is not unprecedented.
Industrial consolidation and railroad rate manipulation in the late nineteenth century triggered investigations that culminated in the Sherman Antitrust Act. Visible bank runs during the Great Depression precipitated financial restructuring. The GI Bill broadened asset ownership and education access, anchoring postwar growth in wider participation.
Realignment occurred when instability threatened durability.
Why Alliances Begin to Form
Alliances form when instability crosses sector boundaries.
Younger households face blocked entry into asset ownership. Small and mid-sized firms confront rising entry costs. State and local leaders face stagnation tied to constrained housing supply. National security planners confront concentrated supply chains. Institutional investors and retirement savers tied to long-term market performance price governance volatility as systemic risk. Rule-of-law advocates respond to the erosion of accountability.
These pressures arise from multiple forces. Technology, globalization, regulatory design, political incentives, and federal tax structures that disproportionately reward capital accumulation at the top all play roles. Tax provisions favoring capital gains and inherited wealth accelerate concentration and dampen broad-based asset formation. Concentrated power amplifies these dynamics by shaping rules and insulating incumbents.
When foundational systems become less contestable and less predictable, cross-bloc alliances become rational. Convergence does not require identical policy agendas. It requires agreement that access to ownership, markets, representation, and accountability must remain open enough to sustain mobility and legitimacy.
The America We Need
The country does not need ideological purity tests. It needs structural openness.
Reform in closed systems rarely begins with those who benefit from closure. It emerges when the economic and political costs of entrenchment become too visible to ignore.
Recommitment to competitive markets and transparent guardrails reduces rent extraction and capture. Tax structures that tilt toward capital concentration warrant recalibration to strengthen broad-based asset formation and widen ownership. A durable framework requires institutionalized review of major tax expenditures and regulatory privileges, with automatic sunset unless demonstrated to support broad-based mobility and competition. Such review could rely on independent budget authorities and require affirmative congressional reauthorization tied to transparent metrics.
Expanded housing supply improves mobility. Credible election administration stabilizes governance. Energy systems designed for participation widen opportunity.
These steps do not eliminate disagreement. They restore access.
What we want is an open system where effort translates into mobility and voice retains meaning.
What we have is a powerful but increasingly closed system that concentrates influence and narrows entry.
What we need is renewed structural openness before closure becomes entrenched.
The question is whether the system remains open enough for disagreement to occur within durable and legitimate institutions.
Edward Saltzberg is the Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum and writes The Stability Brief.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
blue labeled plastic bottles
Photo by tanvi sharma on Unsplash
Modernizing Plastic Recycling: The Key to Unleashing American Manufacturing
Mar 06, 2026
Strengthening American manufacturing is a goal that Americans support across political persuasions and demographic groups, from the public to policymakers.
But, as with other topics, partisan and other interests propagate a stale, limited understanding of what is possible. “Either/or” thinking clouds the ability to weigh policy options that impact industries and derail debates. Witness what many present as a clash between a critical industry, such as plastic production, and the worthy goal of environmental protection.
Contrary to some perceptions, American manufacturing’s role in the economy has been an ongoing strength, at least in terms of output. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) notes that manufacturing alone employs more than 13 million Americans and generates more than $3 trillion annually for the domestic economy.
The innovations and resilience of modern manufacturers have enabled our country’s dominance on the global stage. Unfortunately, President Trump’s tariff regime has caused some setbacks—including the loss of American jobs every month since the proclaimed ‘liberation day’ announcements
The elimination of overly burdensome regulatory restrictions has been one benefit for American businesses overall, including manufacturers.
Yet to fully reap the benefits, America needs more of one critical manufacturing input: plastic. This may surprise many, given that plastic is typically perceived as a manufacturing byproduct, and because of increasing grievances from some circles aimed at plastic’s very existence. Categorically demonizing plastic has undoubtedly been on the rise.
Thanks to its versatility, affordability, durability, and lightweight nature, plastic has established itself as the anchor of domestic manufacturing. According to industry estimates, more than a quarter of American manufacturing output comes from sectors in which plastic accounts for more than 5 percent of material inputs.
And plastic is integral not just to manufacturing as an industry itself but to all the industries that utilize products made with it: healthcare, biotechnology, aerospace engineering, food storage, and transportation are but a few. Downstream industries support almost five million onshore jobs, paying out nearly $400 billion in wages annually. With plastic so interwoven across sectors, demand will continue to rise.
Of course, there are challenges and important questions about the proper and responsible use of plastics. Americans largely want to be responsible environmental stewards. A constructive, forward-thinking approach would be for Congress to make policy changes that meet the growing demand in a sustainable way.
Thankfully, there are a couple of common-sense reforms that policymakers can take to increase domestic plastic production and fully unleash American manufacturing innovation.
First, lawmakers should modernize outdated recycling regulations. They should acknowledge new and innovative forms of recycling that past rules could not anticipate, provide greater regulatory certainty, and yield better results. This is one of the stated goals of the recently introduced Recycling Technology Innovation Act.
Advanced recycling is a modern technology that chemically breaks down hard-to-recycle plastics at the molecular level, enabling them to be continually reused. The process transforms used plastics into high-quality food- and pharmaceutical-grade plastics, rather than generating waste—a process that is much closer to manufacturing regulations than to waste disposal.
This process would sound like science fiction not long ago. Harnessing the technology at a commercial scale stands to yield tremendous benefits: more material being reused and recycled, which is better for the environment, and moving us toward a more circular economy.
Second, Congress should pass prudent federal legislation that would establish national standards for plastic recycling. For far too long, American recyclers have worked under a patchwork of often contradictory sets of state rules that have created confusion and made it difficult for manufacturers to properly source recycled plastic for reuse.
Having national standards would clarify definitions of what constitutes recycling and recycled content, and expand recycling infrastructure in American communities.
A recent analysis from the American Chemistry Council and America’s Plastics Makers found that if just 50% of plastics in the municipal solid waste stream were redirected from landfills to recycling facilities, the U.S. could gain an estimated 173,200 jobs, $12.8 billion in annual payroll, and $48.7 billion in additional annual economic output.
The role of plastic in domestic manufacturing and the economy is nearly impossible to unravel. But if policymakers tackle the challenges in a considered way, streamlining and modernizing the regulations surrounding plastic recycling, there is tremendous upside.
A framework that allows American manufacturing and recycling to thrive together and can help continue American manufacturing strength while also advancing a more circular and sustainable economy.
Mario H. Lopez is the President of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity, and prosperity for all.
Keep ReadingShow less
Sen. Chuck Schumer criticized the Iran War on Tuesday. Republicans and Democrats are mostly split along party lines in support and criticism of the war.
(Marissa Fernandez/MNS)
Senators Express Support, Criticism of Future Military Action in Iran
Mar 06, 2026
WASHINGTON — Senators seemed split along party lines over future military action in the Middle East after a classified intelligence briefing on Tuesday afternoon. Democrats called for increased clarity on the objectives and justifications for attacks, while Republicans supported the Trump administration’s current plan.
The conflicting reactions came as both the House and the Senate are scheduled to vote on a war powers resolution on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. If passed, the resolution would limit further military actions in Iran without congressional approval.
Most Republicans criticized the measure and said that Congress should not take authority away from the president.
“We don’t need 535 commanders-in-chief,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday. “The commander in chief is the president of the United States, and he has a duty in Article Two to be able to protect American interests, and he is initiating that and doing that with great authority and great effect.”
Democrats criticized the president for striking without congressional approval.
The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war, but dictates that the president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
“Nobody gets to hide and give the President an easy pass or an end run around the Constitution,” Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said regarding the war powers resolution. “Everybody's got to declare whether they're for this war or against it.”
President Donald Trump launched strikes on Iran early Saturday morning. As of Wednesday morning, over 1000 people, including six U.S. service members, have been killed in the conflict, reported CBS News. Trump and members of his administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, offered conflicting justifications for the war and different estimates of how long it might last.
Democrats expressed worry over the lack of clarity from the Trump administration.
“They have shifting goals, different goals all the time, different answers every day,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters Tuesday. “And I'm truly worried about the mission. There's no set plan being here day after day. ‘We're going to do this, this, this and this,’ and these are the reasons why you end up with an endless war.”
Schumer added that the answers given during Tuesday’s intelligence briefing were "unsatisfying."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., echoed Schumer’s concerns about the unclear objectives.
“I am more fearful than ever after that briefing that we may be putting boots on the ground and that troops in the United States may be necessary to accomplish objectives that the administration seems to have,” said Blumenthal. “But I also am no more clear on what priorities are going to be of the administration going forward, whether it is destroying the nuclear capacity of the missiles or regime change or stopping terrorist activities.”
Blumenthal added that the “administration owes it” to the American people to release information about the Iran war.
Republicans came out of Tuesday’s briefing praising the administration and its objectives.
“They want to make sure that the ability for them to strike us anywhere at any time is gone,” said Mullin. “No way they'll be able to make a nuclear weapon or enrich uranium again. To take out their navy so they can't disrupt commerce in the shipping lanes, and to take out their ability to restock and rebuild their missiles and drones. That's the objective here.”
Mullin added that the U.S is “going to eliminate the threat that’s been threatening us for 47 years,” which “no other president was willing to stand up against Iran and eliminate it like President Trump.”
Others, like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., expressed similar confidence in the U.S. military's power.
“Who’s going to win a war between the Iranian regime and the United States? We are. We’re going to win this conflict,” Graham said.
Marissa Fernandez covers politics for Medill on the Hill.
Keep ReadingShow less
Analysis of President Donald Trump’s tariffs after a record $901.5B U.S. trade deficit in 2025. Explore the economic realities behind trade imbalances, the United States Supreme Court ruling on tariff authority, and the growing debate over executive power and trade policy.
Getty Images, Phanphen Kaewwannarat
What’s Next After the Court’s Tariffs Decision?
Mar 05, 2026
A Stubborn Imbalance
After a year of President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, sold as a reset of global trade, the promise was simple: the U.S. trade deficit would shrink. It did not. The Commerce Department instead reported a $70.3 billion deficit in December and a staggering $901.5 billion for all of 2025, one of the largest totals on record. The gap between imports and exports barely narrowed at all.
These figures matter because they undermine the central premise of the strategy: make imports more expensive, reduce foreign purchases, and bring production back to the United States. But that approach overlooks a key reality. Trade balances are not driven by tariffs alone. They reflect deeper forces such as consumer demand, domestic savings rates, the strength of the dollar, and global capital flows. Those forces do not yield easily to executive action.
Countries that consume more than they save must import the difference. The United States runs persistent fiscal deficits, attracts enormous foreign investment, and issues the world’s reserve currency. Those capital inflows strengthen the dollar, which makes imports cheaper and exports more expensive. As long as Americans continue to spend heavily and global investors keep pouring money into U.S. assets, the imbalance tends to reappear. In that sense, the trade gap is remarkably durable, tariffs or no tariffs.
Tariffs as Revenue
Yet the tariffs confirmed one thing: they are taxes by another name, ultimately borne by American consumers and import-dependent industries. Before the Supreme Court struck them down, the Congressional Budget Office projected they would raise roughly $3 trillion over the next nine years. That is not trivial for a federal government operating with chronic deficits.
The Court invalidated tariffs responsible for roughly half that projected revenue, about $1.5 trillion, according to the Yale Budget Lab. The result is new uncertainty for the White House: how to replace a substantial funding stream that had quietly helped offset its large tax cuts.
The president’s response was immediate. Rather than accepting defeat, he doubled down, announcing a new set of levies through alternative legal authorities, including a proposed 10 percent across-the-board tariff. He framed the move bluntly: “The end result is going to get us more money.” The message was unmistakable. If one pathway to tariffs is blocked, another will be found. The administration appears determined not only to preserve its trade posture but also to restore the revenue stream the Court disrupted.
Executive Power and Constitutional Limits
This confrontation is about more than trade. It is fundamentally a test of how far a president can stretch executive authority when Congress has already delegated broad discretion.
In recent decades, tariff power has steadily migrated to the White House under national security and emergency statutes. Under the current Trump administration, that migration has accelerated and expanded, with tariffs deployed more aggressively and across a broader range of goods than under previous presidents. That shift allowed rapid action, but it also concentrated significant economic leverage in the executive branch and raised serious constitutional questions about the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court’s ruling reasserts that boundary, a clear reminder that even delegated authority has limits. Trump’s decision to double down raises a more consequential question: are we witnessing routine policy maneuvering, or the beginning of a deeper separation-of-powers clash?
The Economic Costs
The Court’s ruling matters not only because it draws a legal boundary, but because it highlights the economic costs already tied to this strategy. Studies by Federal Reserve economists and academic researchers of earlier rounds of Trump-era tariffs estimated tens of billions of dollars annually in higher consumer prices and measurable reductions in real household income.
Some analyses placed the drag on U.S. GDP at several tenths of a percentage point. That may sound modest, but in a $27 trillion economy it translates into billions in lost output. At the same time, as noted earlier, tariff revenues had become embedded in the administration’s broader fiscal assumptions. What began as an effort to shrink the trade deficit has imposed real economic costs while binding trade policy to budgetary necessity.
Institutional Consequences
Taken together, this episode reveals a deeper pattern in American governance. When structural problems such as persistent trade imbalances rooted in savings behavior, currency dominance, and capital flows are met primarily with executive muscle, institutions stop translating conflict into durable policy and begin reacting to one another.
Courts narrow executive action, presidents search for new legal avenues to reach the same end, and Congress drifts to the margins. The system continues to function, but with less coherence and less shared authority. The trade deficit may endure, but the constitutional balance that governs it may prove far more fragile.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Will Trump’s moves ever awaken conservatives?