FMC, the Association of Former Members of Congress is a bipartisan, nonprofit, voluntary alliance of former United States Senators and Representatives, standing for America's Constitutional system. FMC works to strengthen the Congress in the conduct of its Constitutional responsibility through promoting a collaborative approach to policy making. FMC seeks to deepen the understanding of our democratic system, domestically and internationally, and to engage the citizenry through civic education about Congress and public service. The United States Association of Former Members of Congress (FMC) utilizes the unique skill sets of its 600 members to provide pro bono public service programs and initiatives both at home and abroad. Today, FMC is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, educational, research and social organization with approximately 600 members who represented American citizens in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.
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
Latest news
Read More
Research shows each voter conversation adds real turnout. An organizer's case for door-knocking, phone banking, and grassroots effort before the midterms.
Halfpoint/Getty Images
The Margin of Effort: How Election Volunteering Can Help Save Democracy
Oct 07, 2026
Sometimes it’s the humble actions that matter, which is a lesson for our dangerous time. For years, I’ve volunteered to get out the vote for my preferred candidates. In one election, knocking on doors in a Seattle neighborhood, I spoke with three people who supported my candidate for governor but wouldn’t have voted had I not contacted them: One forgot it was Election Day. Another didn’t know how to submit an absentee ballot. The third needed a ride to the polls. My impact had nothing to do with eloquence or skill and everything to do with simply showing up. After three recounts, my candidate won by 133 votes in a state of 6.2 million. I’d personally gotten one-fiftieth of the margin. If just a handful of the volunteers on my side had stayed home, or there had been a few more on the other side, Washington State would have had a different governor.
Another time, in a US Senate race, I walked Election Day precincts until my feet hurt, and then continued until the polls closed. The margin this time was 2,229 votes, and I had no idea it would be that close. I also once invited my neighbors to a house party for my friend Lisa, who was running for Seattle City Council. Fifteen people RSVP’d, but only five showed, plus Lisa and her campaign manager. I apologized for wasting the campaign’s time, but my friend Shep, who’d just retired, was one of the five. He bombarded her with questions, but then, profoundly impressed by her answers, made volunteering for her campaign his full-time job over the next five weeks. Lisa won by 39 votes. Had we not held the house party, she most likely would have lost.
Many of us spend hours a day inhaling the bad news of our dark reality, or we follow the polls like we do our favorite sports teams, elated when our candidates rise, deflated when they fall. Knowing what’s going on is important, but if we put at least some of that energy into electing candidates we believe in, we can change the results, including America’s critical upcoming midterms.
The research confirms our potential impact. A 2024 analysis by political scientists Christopher B. Mann and Katherine Haenschen found that in high-visibility elections like midterms, each potential voter you talk with adds three percentage points to the likelihood that they’ll vote. So if you reach 100 people from a list predisposed toward your candidate, you’ll likely generate three additional votes from people who’d probably otherwise stay home. Volunteer phone calls produce a shade less: 2.3 points per person reached. Neither sounds like much, but if 10,000 volunteers each spend two days and reach 100 voters, that will yield roughly 30,000 votes. That’s larger than the margin for a half dozen of the 2022 Senate and governor races.
If you still feel too bleak to volunteer, or the candidates don’t meet your perfect standard, remember that people have far more room to act before would-be dictators consolidate power. Recently, I met a young Russian woman who joined the protests around Putin’s jailing of dissident Alexei Navalny. “But then they got smaller, and the risks got greater,” she said. So she stopped. As Navalny, who died in a Siberian prison, wrote in his memoir, “While we were immersed in our petty squabbles to decide whom to label as belonging to which faction, and whether it was appropriate for us to be photographed in their company, we suddenly found ourselves living in a country where people were being thrown in prison for no reason or even murdered.”
Courageous and impactful action is possible even under dictatorships, as when Argentina’s Mothers of the Disappeared demanded the military tell them the fate of their children and helped bring down that murderous regime. But it’s far easier when dictatorial power is still contested and doesn’t control every major institution. So if we fear Trump’s attempts to destroy democracy, this election is a maximum point of leverage, which means doing all we can now to impact it by knocking on doors, making phone calls, sending letters and postcards, supporting grassroots efforts in key states and districts.
Pollsters talk about “the margin of error,” which means their projections aren’t cast in stone. Organizers talk about the “margin of effort,” which is what happens when enough ordinary people join a campaign and reach out to others. The more each of us can become part of that margin, the better our chances of saving our democracy.
Adapted from Paul Loeb’s The Impossible Will Take a Little While: Perseverance and Hope in Troubled Times (Basic Books, Oct. 13, 2026). theimpossible.org. Paul spent 12 years running nonpartisan voting projects. His books have 350,000 copies in print.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While, with 300,000 copies in print between them. See paulloeb.org
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.
luza studios/Getty Images
Trans Females Are Not Biological Males - Let Them Play on Female Teams
Oct 07, 2026
Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.
This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.
Into this history comes the relatively new fact of trans athletes, in particular, male athletes who transition to women. They want to continue playing, just now on women's teams.
I think the problem arises in part (the other part is transphobia) because most people don't really understand what it means to be a trans female. These are not just men who are cross-dressing, who are living their lives as females, or who are even taking shots to develop breasts. Trans women are mostly men who are changing their biological status from male to female through what's known as feminizing hormone therapy,
Since the late 70s, trans females have had access to medical therapies that alter their hormonal profile from male to female. What is the impact of such therapy? Among many physical and emotional changes, it results in a decrease in muscle mass and strength.
All studies show that, after one to three years, males receiving such therapy do not have the strength of cisgender males. However, whether their upper and lower body strength is comparable to cisgender females or somewhat higher is not clear. I found two reports that are based on multiple studies of the issue. In the one published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, based on 52 studies, they find that trans and cisgender female body strength is comparable. In the other, based on 24 studies, they find that trans females have a slight advantage in most sports, with a significant advantage only in baseball pitching and field hockey drag flick. I found no data on the percentage of trans females who undergo hormone therapy, but a large number do.
Given the impact of feminizing hormonal therapy, I would argue that if a trans female has had the type of hormone therapy that reduces muscle mass and strength, that they should be allowed to play on female sports teams, whether in school, college, or professional. There is no "biological" basis for excluding them.
However, if they have not had such therapy, then I—as a liberal Democrat, as evidenced by my articles on Fulcrum, my blog: Preserving American Values, and my book: "We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto"—would argue that they not be allowed to participate. The reason is based on the fact that biological males are stronger than females. To allow trans females who have not undergone hormone therapy to be on female teams would create an unfair advantage for such teams. This is not an issue of gender identity but one of biological sex.
Given the politically heightened public feeling against trans female athletes playing on female teams, especially in schools, it is critically important that the government, educational institutions, and other groups undertake the public education necessary to make the public aware that trans females are not just cross-dressers living their lives as women, but are people who have chosen to change their biological identity from male to female, resulting in many physical and emotional changes, among them a loss of muscle mass and strength.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Keep ReadingShow less
Close-up of "Vote Here" directional sign at polling place
Getty Images
Retired Generals Urge Americans to Protect Trusted Elections in 2026
Oct 06, 2026
Four years ago, a group of senior retired military leaders delivered an unusual message to the American people: trusted elections are not a partisan aspiration—they are a national security imperative. Today, as the country approaches the 2026 elections, these leaders have returned with a fresh warning and a revived hope. Their message is simple, urgent, and profoundly American: free and fair elections constitute the backbone of our constitutional republic, and every citizen has a role in protecting them.
Their new video featuring Gen. Michael V. Hayden, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, Lt. Gen. James Clapper, Maj. Gen. Marilyn Quagliotti, and Maj. Gen. Charles Bolden do not traffic in political rhetoric. Instead, they draw on decades of service, sacrifice, and direct experience in places where trust in institutions has collapsed. These leaders have seen what happens when citizens lose faith in the shared rules that hold a nation together—from the aftermath of elections in Iraq, where uncertainty led to widespread unrest, to the recent instability in Venezuela, where doubts about electoral legitimacy fueled chaos and division. Their message is not about party. It is about country.
To fully grasp the urgency of their message, the generals urge Americans to watch their new video. You can view it here:
- YouTube youtu.be
The Five Principles for Trusted Elections
The principles center on five core principles advanced by Team Democracy, the Ford Presidential Foundation, and the Carter Center. The principles are pillars that define what makes elections trustworthy and what keeps a democratic republic strong:
- Honest Process — Elections must be conducted with impartiality, transparency, and adherence to the rule of law.
- Nonviolent Campaign — Voters and candidates must be free from threats, intimidation, and violence.
- Secure Voting — Every eligible vote should be counted, and every effort to secure the process must preserve access.
- Responsible Oversight — Poll workers, observers, and administrators must understand and respect their roles.
- Trusted Outcomes — Once results are certified and lawful challenges resolved, their legitimacy must be upheld.
These principles are not abstractions. They are the practical standards that allow 330 million people to govern themselves peacefully. They are the guardrails that prevent chaos, manipulation, and mistrust. And they are the expectations that all Americans, regardless of ideology, should demand.
Why Their Voices Are Significant Now
In their message, the generals remind us that protecting elections is not politicians' job alone. It is the responsibility of citizens who value evidence over rumor, law over impulse, and country over faction. This means, for example, taking time to verify information through trustworthy sources before sharing it with others, and fact-checking claims that circulate online or in your community. By actively seeking out the truth rather than passing along unverified reports, every citizen helps guard the integrity of our democratic process.
Their warning is grounded in years of experience. Around the world, they have watched nations fracture when leaders undermine electoral legitimacy or when citizens abandon patience, verification, and peaceful acceptance of lawful results. They have seen how quickly misinformation corrodes trust, how rapidly intimidation erodes participation, and how easily force can replace democratic norms.
Their call is not alarmist. It is preventative.
Citizenship Requires Action
Supporting trusted elections is more than signing a pledge. It requires engagement:
- Learn how elections actually work.
- Share trustworthy information with your community.
- Serve as a poll worker. This involves ensuring the voting process runs smoothly and fairly, from setting up polling stations to checking in voters and assisting people as they cast their ballots. Poll workers play a critical role in safeguarding election integrity and making the experience accessible to all.
- Visit an election center. By touring an election center, you can observe firsthand how ballots are processed, meet the officials who oversee the process, and ask questions about safeguards in place. This helps dispel myths and fosters greater transparency.
- Encourage friends and family to rely on evidence, not speculation.
These minor acts have big consequences. They strengthen the civic muscles that keep democracy resilient.
A Moment to Rise Above Partisanship
The retired generals’ message reminds us that trust in elections is not a Democratic value or a Republican value; it is an American value. Some readers may wonder if any group of leaders, even senior military officials, can truly rise above the political divisions of our time. Yet these generals have served administrations of both parties and have long been respected by Americans across the political spectrum. Their voices carry weight not because of their rank, but because of their experience defending the Constitution in moments when its survival wasn't guaranteed. Their commitment to nonpartisan service and to upholding the rule of law has earned them trust beyond partisan lines.
At a time when political messaging moves faster than verification, and outrage often outruns evidence, their call for restraint, patience, and integrity is not just welcome—it is essential.
The Path Forward
As the 2026 elections approach, Americans face a choice:
Will we allow distrust to deepen, or will we recommit to the shared principles that make self-government possible?
The retired generals have made their position clear. They are asking us to join them at www.PrinciplesForTrustedElections.org, not in partisanship, but in patriotism.
Trusted elections are how a free people keep their republic. And keeping the republic is up to all of us.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.
(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Flock Cameras Are Coming Down – but We Need More To Dismantle the Surveillance State
Oct 06, 2026
Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.
But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.
Using all of these tactics, the government can obtain outrageous amounts of information about you. The new prescription you picked up last week? The government might know about it because they purchased your search history data. Your trip to the gun range, or a protest, or grandma’s house? With approximately 120,000 ALPRs stationed across the country, a simple warrantless search could reveal that, too. To make matters worse, AI is supercharging all of this. Data brokers, for instance, already sell sensitive information to the government. Now, using AI, federal agencies and law enforcement can build dossiers on individuals in a matter of seconds. No oversight. No accountability. No warrant. The use of AI in ALPRs Flock or any other license plate readers means your movements can be flagged and reported to law enforcement.
The danger isn’t abstract. Just this month, Anthropic reported how several nations attempted to use Claude to “build, run, and otherwise facilitate surveillance operations.” This, not too long after a stunning letter earlier this year, sounded the alarm on the profound risk of domestic mass surveillance using AI.
The government’s willingness to use these technologies with little to no regulation is the very definition of dangerous. The Fourth Amendment exists to protect us from dragnet government surveillance because surveillance can be used to silence and punish anyone who speaks out against the government.
The right to privacy is one of our nation’s most powerful and closely held values and yet, it is under attack.
The outrage against Flock points to a much broader discontent with the state of surveillance in our country. Flock is just the straw that broke the camel’s back because it reveals just how in-your-face surveillance has become. But if the backlash to Flock is a symbol of how angry people are that their privacy rights are being eroded, the response from public officials—asleep at the wheel while surveillance has expanded, or worse, cheerleading the expansion itself—is a sign that speaking out against the surveillance state can wake them up. Florida and Texas both pulled back from Flock this week. Nearly 150 cities and growing have canceled Flock contracts, rejected new deployments, and taken down existing cameras. Imagine what’s possible if we build on this momentum and demand the government stop buying our private data, sifting through our e-mail, and follow the Constitution?
In America, government answers to the people. It has a responsibility to act. States, municipalities, and even Darth Vader are stepping up, but Congress needs to defend the privacy rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. That means going beyond Flock and passing laws that keep up with technology. It means ending warrantless surveillance in all its forms.
We are in a critical moment where public outrage over Flock and unrestrained AI are high, but more is required of us to dismantle this system of mass surveillance. Government being able to crush our privacy rights and peer into our personal lives—for any reason, at any time, using increasingly powerful AI to know us better than we know ourselves, would all but obliterate our civil liberties. Congress must step up and pass legislation that stops dragnet surveillance in all of its forms, not just Flock cameras.
Don Bell is senior policy counsel at The Constitution Project at POGO. In this role, Don manages the organization’s policy and legal advocacy portfolio to protect constitutional rights, particularly when threatened by our government’s domestic law enforcement surveillance practices.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More