Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Meet the reformer: Christina Harvey, progressive pushing to spend on healthier and easier voting

Christina Harvey of Stand Up America
Cheddar

The progressive Stand Up America, created after the 2016 election, became particularly visible last year pressing Congress to spend more on election security — and is reprising that role now in pushing for more federal funding to boost voting options in light of the pandemic. Christina Harvey became managing director, or No. 2 staffer, last year after her employer of 15 years, Eric Schneiderman, resigned as New York attorney general when four women accused him of physical abuse. She had joined his state Senate staff in 2003 after her first job, as a union organizer. Her answers have been edited for clarity and length.

What's the tweet-length description of your organization?

Working to strengthen our democracy by empowering our members to advocate for policies that increase voter participation and unrig a corrupt system that stands in the way of progressive change.


Describe your very first civic engagement.

I'm a coal-miner's daughter from West Virginia, raised by a single mother. I stood on my first picket line when I was 6 years old and my mom was on strike.

What was your biggest professional triumph?

Repealing New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws, passing the original millionaire's tax and ending prison-based gerrymandering in a single session of the state Senate. All three were in my legislative portfolio.

And your most disappointing setback?

Driving 330,000 calls to Congress to impeach President Trump — but then the Senate not removing him.

How does your identity influence the way you go about your work?

I was fortunate enough to be working class growing up, because my mom had a steady union job, but I was always conscious of how easy it would be to slip into poverty like many of the kids around me. One set of layoffs and a month or two of unemployment and we would have been there. I was able to stay in a Sandinista cooperative in Nicaragua in high school, study liberation theology with the Jesuits in El Salvador and volunteer in an orphanage in Guatemala while in college — and saw conditions similar or worse than in rural West Virginia.

These experiences ingrained in me a sense of just how lucky I am in every moment, and probably a fear of ever resting because you might turn around and not be one of the lucky ones anymore. Every time I turn on the faucet and clean water comes out, or I have a meal too big to finish, I think about how I am literally among the most privileged people on this planet. That perspective gives me a visceral sense of some inequalities that need righted in the world. It also makes it harder to complain or sweat the small stuff, and easier to focus on the work at hand and the big picture.

What's the best advice you've ever been given?

"Se hace camino al andar." You make the way as you go. It's one of the most famous lines by the early 20th century Spanish poet Antonio Machado.

Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.

SUA — Strawberry, Ugli-fruit, Apple.

What's your favorite political movie or TV show?

"Homeland."

What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?

Read Politico Nightly.

What is your deepest, darkest secret (something fun!)?

I only make my child take a bath twice a week since the quarantine started. Yeah, it's disgusting.


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less