The case generating a ruling in 2010, by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, striking down on First Amendment grounds the federal contribution limits individuals could make to super PACs, politically active not-for-profits, unions and other groups that make independent expenditures.
Read more about SpeechNow.org v. FEC
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald Trump's pick to be secretary of health and human services, visited the Capitol on Dec. 19.
There are roughly 1,200 positions in the federal government that require Senate confirmation, including the senior officials who make up the president’s Cabinet. The first Cabinet official was confirmed in 1789 when the Senate unanimously approved President George Washington’s nomination of Alexander Hamilton to be treasury secretary.
The confirmation or denial process is a matter of 100 senators making judgement calls to determine whether a nominee is professionally qualified, exhibits leadership skills, is ethically fit, is morally just, doesn’t carry “baggage” and has the temperament for the job.
The adage “patience is a virtue” will most likely be tested by President-elect Donald Trump, his nominees, senators and the public in 2025, as the Center for Presidential Transition notes the confirmation process lasts around five months.
As our senators determine the fate of Trump’s nominees, the credibility of the senators is as much on the line as are the candidates and Trump himself. Here’s the question: Will the senators judge each candidate based on what is best for America’s 335 million citizens (people before party) or make the confirmation process a show of obedience to the president and/or politics (party before the people)?
Peggy Noonan, revered columnist for the conservative Wall Street Journal, wrote on Dec. 19: “Republican Senators must approach the hearings with gravity because … they are life-and-death appointments.” Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal characterized Trump’s Cabinet picks as “unconventional,” “lacking expertise” and reflecting “his idiosyncratic ideological impulses”.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Two recent polls should be an alert to our senators and cause them to think twice before voting “yes” on a Trump nominee: 1) A Dec. 5-9 AP-NORC poll found only three in 10 Americans have confidence in Trump’s Cabinet picks and 2) a Fox News poll revealed 50 percent disapprove of the president-elect’s Cabinet selections (even though 93 percent of Fox News viewers identify as Republican).
The media has been paying close attention. Chuck Todd of NBC News identified Pete Hegseth (Trump’s pick to lead the Pentagon), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (for the Department of Health and Human Services) and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (for director of national intelligence) as a “low-character crowd.”
Other high-profile nominees under scrutiny include: Jay Bhattacharya, Pam Bondi, Tom Homan, Howard Lutnick, Linda McMahon, Kristi Noem, Kash Patel, Elise Stefanik and Russell Vought.
Let’s face the facts. Nominating and confirming good Cabinet members has never been a hallmark of America’s presidents and senators. For starters, Andrew Jackson fired all of his Cabinet members except his postmaster general.
Here’s a sample of other poor picks:
Obviously, presidents and senators have not always made good decisions on Cabinet members. Turnover is costly and is an obvious sign of poor management and poor judgement. Period.
We can do better. Don’t sit idly by during the current confirmation process without expressing your thoughts to your senators.
After you’ve done your due diligence of examining the background of the 12 Cabinet picks identified above, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your two senators’ offices. A staff member for each will answer your call, whereupon you can apprise them of your pick thoughts, which will be relayed to your senators.
Witnessing how your senators vote on each nominee will tell you whether their judgement matches yours. as well as if they put the people before the party or the party before the people.
Don’t fret over Trump’s Cabinet nominations; take action now before it’s too late. As noted in the Book of Common Prayer: “speak now or forever hold your peace.”
Christmas is such a fixture of American culture, it is hard to believe that this was not always the case. When the Puritans arrived on these shores, they had no interest in celebrating a day they saw as an ostentatious invention. Jumping ahead to 1789, the first year of the republic, Congress met in session on Dec. 25 like it was any other day.
Following that early chapter in American history, Christmas slowly and steadily took hold on the national calendar, especially as waves of immigrants brought their traditions to this continent. During the Civil War, Christmas day was embraced as a brief respite from the battlefield.
Elected president in 1868, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant was as committed to peace as he was vigilant about war. Having witnessed firsthand the ravages of the Civil War, he believed that the creation of a civic calendar could become a vehicle to bring the North and South back together.
On June 28, 1870, Grant signed legislation making Christmas a federal holiday, along with New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving, Washington’s Birthday and Independence Day. Of these first five federal holidays — at first only mandated within the District of Columbia — Christmas was certainly the most religious in nature, but the legislation framed the day as a day off from work rather than a spiritual celebration. At a time when the memories and wounds of the Civil War were still fresh, Grant understood that the creation of a unified calendar would be the cornerstone of a shared civic culture. Furthermore, he hoped that even more important than the time off would be the time spent on identifying common values that could assist in healing the soul of the country.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Despite Grant’s assertion that we “keep the church and state forever separate,” his inclusion of Christmas invites questions about the place of religion in the public square and the establishment clause. With these issues having once again taken center stage in our national conversation, it is vital that educators, students and all members of American society understand the parameters of the First Amendment.
The intended impact of civic holidays has changed dramatically since the Grant administration. Perceived essentially as days off from work and school, civic holidays have been diluted as vehicles of transmitting values and building communal bonds. The Uniform Monday Holiday Act of 1968, for example, shifted several federal holidays to Mondays, thereby connecting these days with long weekends and holiday sales.
While the observance of civic holidays does not always live up to Grant’s vision, Civic Spirit, the organization for which I work, embraces these days as vital educational opportunities. In addition to producing civic holiday resources for classrooms and dining rooms around the country, our team works with schools to reimagine how they approach civic holidays. This effort is of the utmost importance as we near America’s 250th anniversary in just 18 months.
Turning the page on 2024, we look forward to working with schools nationwide to deepen student’s understanding of America’s story, put civic values into practice and create community connections. I can’t think of a better gift during this holiday season.
Savenor is a rabbi and executive director of Civic Spirit, a nonpartisan organization that provides training and resources to faith-based schools across the United States.
Sen.-elect John Curtis was influenced by transformational advocacy.
They both happened on the same day. First I read that Merriam-Webster selected “polarization” as the 2024 Word of the Year. And then I listened to remarks delivered by Sen.-elect John Curtis (R-Utah) at the Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s fall conference.
Merriam-Webster defines polarization as “division into two sharply distinct opposites; especially, a state in which the opinions, beliefs, or interests of a group or society no longer range along a continuum but become concentrated at opposing extremes.”
Curtis’ description of his work with CCL volunteers in Utah was a masterclass in resolving polarization. A former mayor of Provo who was sworn in as a member of the House of Representative the same month that Donald Trump was sworn in as president in his first term, Curtis spoke candidly about his learning curve as a new member of Congress struggling to address climate change.
Proud of the work he had done as mayor on issues like clean air, he recalled a hike with CCL members early in his first term, something that has become an annual tradition. That first hike lasted eight hours. How many of us spend eight hours with our newly elected member of Congress?
“[During the hike] somebody in the group said, … ‘What are you doing about carbon?’” Curtis remembered. “If I'm honest, it caught me off guard. I had spent very little of my time thinking about carbon, greenhouse gas emissions and climate.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Soon he was in Washington, D.C, caught up in these discussions.
“I was at a real loss on how to respond,” Curtis continued. “So I responded like a lot of Republicans typically respond, not so much pushing back but more dodging and feeling very uncomfortable when asked about climate.”
Unsatisfied with his own answers, Curtis began learning more about climate. “It made me a little bit nervous,” he said, “because Republicans, particularly seven years ago, just didn’t talk about climate, carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.”
Curtis complimented the Utah CCL volunteers for not giving up on him. He might not have been able to name it, but he was empowered by their use of transformational advocacy.
“It would have been really easy for my … CCL friends and others to criticize me for not supporting certain bills.,” Curtis remembered. “Instead [they] found things that I did that they liked, and they found bills I supported that they liked. [I know] it was very inadequate for what they would have hoped or aspired to. But that approach of embracing me and making me feel good about myself and what I was doing, actually inspired me to want to do more.”
And he did. He knew he had to get Republicans talking and launched the Conservative Climate Caucus.
“A Republican talking about climate,” Curtis said, “from a state where our state rock is coal and where I have a county called Carbon County was a little scary for my staff and for me.”
The Conservative Climate Caucus, which now has 87 members, started with several dozen. “They literally came to me and said, ‘I want to be part of your caucus. It's finally time for us to be doing this.’ And the way I've interpreted that is that Republicans were tired of getting their teeth kicked in at town hall meetings, they were tired of not having answers. They were tired of looking like they didn't want to leave the Earth better than we found it. …
“.As they grew comfortable talking about climate, they stopped worrying about the science and they started worrying about how you reduce carbon. It’s almost a magical thing.”
Curtis initiated a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), signed by 18 House Republicans, on the Inflation Reduction Act, the most far-reaching climate legislation ever enacted. Writing publicly to Johnson “tells you how committed these 18 names were on that letter. … And to his credit [ Johnson] said, ‘When it comes to the IRA we'll use [a scalpel].’ … With so many of us committed to the good parts of the IRA, I think that bodes well.”
Curtis expressed his appreciation for CCL’s approach, encouraged out-of-staters to join the hike, and concluded, “It's amazing how much you agree on when you're out in the beautiful outdoors and how the things you disagree on dissolve so quickly.”
Curtis’ remarks and CCL volunteers’ commitment to transformational advocacy are an important antidote to Merriam-Webster’s word of the year.
Daley-Harris is the author of “Reclaiming Our Democracy: Every Citizen’s Guide to Transformational Advocacy” and the founder of RESULTS and Civic Courage. This is part of a series focused on better understanding transformational advocacy: citizens awakening to their power.
There is no question that the Democratic Party has lost touch with the working class. Candidates actually rarely use the phrase "working class," while they never stop saying "middle class." Working class, to most Democrats, feels like a pejorative term. Everyone, after all, wants to rise up to the middle class, which makes up 50 percent of the country.
The 35 percent of the public who fit into the working class, in Rodney Dangerfield's terms, don't get no respect.
So, yes, President-elect Donald Trump and Republicans have turned the tables on Democrats and become the voice for the working class, especially white and Hispanic male working class citizens. Trump needed plenty of middle-class voters, too, but all of the statistics are showing that he got a historically large percentage of working-class voters.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has turned down the request to start a third party representing the working class, at least for now. And he should. A party focused on the working class will never elect a president and will not be successful in House or Senate races either.
What America wants is a party or independent candidates who give attention, respect and compassion to working America and retired America — that's most of us. We’re talking about men and women (and their children) of all races who work for a living or who are retired from decades of work and rely on Medicare and Social Security for the majority of their expenses.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Trump, who got just under 50 percent of the votes although a large share of the Electoral College votes, basically spoke better to working America than Vice President Kamala Harris did, and he managed well enough with retired America.
America needs a new agenda for both working America and retired America. Any viable platform would support and probably improve upon both Social Security and Medicare. That is a no brainer. The harder task is to meet the needs, ethics, interests, and hopes and dreams of working America, as well as the middle class. That is a tall, immensely complicated order. Getting 50 percent to 55 percent of their votes in a given election will probably be sufficient. It is not as though a candidate needs 70 percent, or even 60 percent, to win.
But candidates and elected politicians cannot afford to focus on either middle-class or working-class voters. They must focus on them both, along with retired voters.
A family policy that provided paid parental leave and a choice between child care and a tax credit for stay-at-home parents would apply to both hard-working middle-class families and hard-working working-class families. Such a policy — I ran on it during my 2016 House campaign in Maryland — would cut across class lines.
A policy setting the minimum wage at $15 an hour, on the other hand, would not cut across class lines. That is basically a working class policy. Strengthening the National Labor Relations Board would also be chiefly a working-class policy since it would benefit the 7 percent of American workers in unions. Promoting tax deductions for state and local taxes, on the other hand, is primarily a middle-class tax deduction although wealthy Americans benefit from it and some working-class Americans do, too.
Finally, note that a political party or independent candidates who gave due respect to working-class issues, middle-class issues and retiree issues would succeed in presenting an intergenerational agenda to voters. No candidate wants to speak only to young or old voters. You have to do both.
Although voters do not vote only on issues of economic class — as there are issues related to gender, sex, sexuality, national origins, health and other factors — the time is right for all candidates and elected politicians to elevate the old topic of economic class to a higher plateau.
Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
