Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What the Democrats' tax returns say about their support for public financing

Biden, Sanders, Harris

Tax returns show Joe Biden has donated to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund on an annual basis, while Bernie Sanders has done so occasionally and Kamala Harris has never contributed, at least during the years for which they have made their tax returns public.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images News

Public financing of federal campaigns has become a talking point for Democratic presidential candidates, most of whom have decried the corrupting influence of outside money in politics.

Tax returns released by several of the highest-profile candidates, however, reveal a disconnect between their speeches and their actions.

Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke have co-sponsored legislation in Congress to create or significantly expand public financing of congressional and presidential elections. But on the annual income tax returns they've made public, none has checked the box for participating in the only current federal public finance system — the largely moribund Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

And Bernie Sanders, the most prominent crusader for public financing, leaves the box unchecked in most years.

Those decisions have created a small but symbolic gap between words and deeds that political opponents love to pounce on. These candidates could also be exposing themselves to criticism they are being hypocritical, or at least insincere, on one of the most ambitious democracy reform ideas being deliberated in the 2020 presidential campaign.

In addition, none of the Democrats has asked to take money from the fund. To qualify for public money, presidential candidates must agree not to accept private contributions and cap their spending in each state. This puts modern-day candidates at a disadvantage in an era of skyrocketing campaign costs.


Created in its current form with the post-Watergate campaign finance reforms of 1974, the fund is filled by people willing to designate $3 each year, without adding to their tax bill.



Booker chose not to participate any year between 2009 and 2018, his fifth year as a senator from New Jersey. O'Rourke left the box unchecked on returns from 2008 to 2017, when he was the congressman for El Paso. Harris, a California senator, left the box empty on each filing for the past 15 years except in 2004, when she checked "no."

And Sanders, the Vermont senator who championed public financing when he ran for president last time, left the box unchecked six out of the past 10 years.

While only 4 percent of tax filers gave to the fund last year, according to the Federal Election Commission, the relative few who did so include other Democratic candidates who also support public campaign finance.

Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts checked the box every year since 2008 and her Senate colleague Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota participated the past 13 consecutive years. Mayor Steve Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., checked it nine times in the past decade.

Joe Biden, who accepted $2 million from the program for a presidential bid in 2008 and is currently leading Democrats in the polls, checked the box on tax returns from 1998 to 2015. (He hasn't released returns for the three years since.)

Even Donald Trump, who spent $66 million of his own money in winning the presidency and opposes a new system of federal subsidies for candidates, checked the box on one tax return that's been partly leaked, for 2005.

Thirteen other Democratic presidential candidates — none of whom are polling well — haven't released any returns.

It's unclear why Booker, Harris, O'Rourke and Sanders left the box unchecked on most or all of their publicly released returns. None of their campaigns (or the senators' press offices) responded to requests for comment.

Highlighting a broken system

Longtime advocates of public campaign finance aren't concerned some of the candidates have not contributed to the fund. A variety of factors may have led to those decisions. Topping the list: The program is irrelevant.

The last major-party presidential candidate to seek funding through the program was Republican John McCain in 2008.

"I've been advocating for public financing systems for two decades, and I don't even check the box anymore," acknowledged Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause.

Ryan said he wouldn't draw conclusions about any candidates' support for public financing based on the check-off system because the program is "completely broken."

In 2008, Barack Obama chose to forgo public funds in the general election in favor of collecting money from individuals, a strategy that helped him out-raise McCain by a 2-1 margin en route to the presidency. He also became the first president since Richard Nixon to run for president in the general election without public funding. (George W. Bush declined public funds in the 2000 Republican primary but accepted public funds in the general election.)

Ryan said the decisions by some of the 2020 candidates to leave the box blank might not have been conscious: Their tax preparers might have done it without asking.

Fred Wertheimer, founder and president of Democracy 21and advocate of public finance systems since the 1970s, said not checking off the box says little about a candidate's support for current legislation in Congress seeking to improve public financing of elections. He called the presidential election fund "inoperable."

"For us, that is not a basis for raising concerns about where candidates stand on campaign finance reform," Wertheimer said.

Unlike the presidential campaign fund, legislation cosponsored by all seven senatorsseeking the White House would allow for individual donations while providing Senate and presidential candidates with $6 for every $1 raised in small donations. The legislation is similar to the public financing provisions in the catchall political process overhaul bill known as HR 1 passed by the new House Democratic majority this spring. Republican majority leaders say neither bill is ever going to get a vote in the Senate.

"The way to judge any candidate for federal office is whether they support, or are willing to work for, a small-donor, public matching funds system for all federal candidates," Wertheimer said. "From my perspective, I would prefer people check it off, but I don't think it's a fair way to judge where they stand on the current finance system or on creating a new one."


Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less