Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Pairing the business case with the civics case for a USPS rescue

Protest supporting Postal Service

The Postal Service is not a for-profit business. It's purpose is to connect Americans in every corner of the country, according to Bonk and Kase.

Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images

Bonk is founder and CEO of Business for America, a nonprofit that seeks to mobilize corporate advocacy for democracy reform. Kase is CEO of the League of Women Voters and a board member of the Democracy Initiative, a coalition of 75 progressive groups advocating for democracy reform.


It's become a familiar set piece since 2018. One chamber of Congress passes a bill — and it stalls in the chamber on the other side of the Capitol.

A recent and painful example is what House Democrats dubbed their Delivering for America Act, which would provide a much-needed infusion of $25 billion for the Postal Service and reverse unwise policy changes that have slowed down mail delivery. But this legislation is a bit different from the usual victims of hyperpartisanship in Congress.

The House passed the bill last month with a degree of bipartisan support that's really unusual these days: 26 Republicans, one out of every seven, joined the Democrats. But there is no prospect for a vote in the Republican Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has dismissed the bill as a "partisan stunt."

Private-sector leaders need to make it clear that this kind of business-as-usual gridlock is unacceptable for the health of American businesses and the American economy.

We bring a unique twin perspective to this conversation. One of us is a former executive at an iconic American firm, Apple Inc., and the other helms America's most respected nonpartisan civic education organization, the League of Women Voters. Sometimes, for-profit and not-for-profit actors have different perspectives on public issues. Not this time. Prompt, reliable delivery of our nation's mail during the coronavirus pandemic — and throughout an election season where absentee voting has already started — is in everyone's best interest.

As a leader with a private-sector background, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has the experience to recognize when he's made a mistake — and make it right. So he should put back the dismantled mail sorting machines, authorize overtime when necessary and stop sending empty mail trucks on interstate journeys in the name of "efficiency."

Any enterprise, public or private, must innovate with the times and seek efficient operations. But efficiency for its own sake is not a proper metric for an essential public service. As recognized in federal law, the USPS is "not a business enterprise conducted for profit." Instead, it is driven by its mission to connect Americans in every corner of the country.

Safeguarding our priceless democracy by enabling citizens to vote is an essential component of that mission. So is paving the way for businesses to connect with their customers.

You can't email groceries, pet food, household supplies or the thousands of other things customers are now buying online. No private shipper has the reach and resources for the essential last mile of delivery to every address in the United States.

Universal mail service is also a crucial way for startup entrepreneurs to reach new markets — giving the next pair of Steves or Sheryls or Shrinis, with a new gadget ready to ship from their garage, at least a fighting chance against bigger and more established firms.

In response to the coronavirus, voters are expressing a clear choice for safe, accessible options. In primary after primary this year, record numbers of voters chose to vote by mail. In the last presidential election, some 33 million ballots were cast that way. This time, the number is likely to more than double, to over 80 million.

Data indicates voting by mail does not benefit either political party — but it does benefit all voters. Those who vote from home, or go to a polling place to vote early, reduce their own health risks — and make polling places less crowded and less risky for election workers, volunteers and those who choose to vote in person on Election Day.

Just as businesses must react to consumer demand, every elected official — local, state and federal; Republican, Democrat and independent – must respond to the clear demand from voters for safe ways to participate in our democracy.

No voter should have to choose between their health and safety and exercising their constitutional right to vote. And no business should experience the uncertainty — and loss of sales, revenue and equity — that occurs when a collapse of trust in the electoral process drives political instability and then economic instability.

Public officials need to hear from all of us about what we expect to create a safe and fair election. And we all have a role to play, by making a plan to vote: by mail, at early voting centers, or in-person on Nov 3, just seven weeks away.

We're on track for a historic election, with high levels of participation across race, income, ideology and geography. Together, we'll be facing a stress test for our democracy. Can we protect our civic health and our public health at the same time? We believe the answer is yes, because American voters — unlike their elected representatives in Washington — understand that our politics can and should focus on the public interest, not on partisan infighting.

Read More

elementary school classroom
Urgent action is needed for our beloved public schools to renew civic life, writes Goodwin.
skynesher/Getty Images

Teach Leveraging in Middle and High School To Promote Democracy

It's all about leverage. You hear this from a lot of people. Thomas Friedman said it years ago in one of his Sunday New York Times columns on foreign policy. He was referring to international relations. In particular, he was talking about bargaining leverage, namely the kind of leverage that is needed to motivate an ally or an opponent to change their course of action, whether it concerns trade, military build-up, or political alignments.

People in business, especially sophisticated big business, talk about leverage all the time. Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad wrote a chapter in their famous book, Competing for the Future, that was all about leverage, although the concept of leverage they were talking about was resource leverage, not bargaining leverage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

If approved, the Democracy Voucher program would bring in $4.5 million each year through a property tax.

Road Red Runner/Adobe Stock

Seattle Votes on Democracy Vouchers Designed To Counteract Wealthy Donors

A public funding mechanism for Seattle elections is up for renewal in next week's election.

The Democracy Voucher program was passed 10 years ago. It offers voters four $25 vouchers to use each election cycle for candidates who accept certain fundraising and spending limits. Supporters said it is a model for more inclusive democracy, touting higher turnout, increased participation from more small donors and a more diverse candidate field.

Spencer Olson, spokesperson for the group People Powered Elections Seattle, which supports Proposition 1, said the program helps level the playing field.

"It's really important that people's voices are heard and that candidates can run being supported by their constituents," Olson contended. "Versus just listening to those wealthiest donors, those special interests that have historically been the loudest voices at the table and really dominated what priorities rise to the top."

The voucher is supported by a property tax. Olson and other supporters hope to bring the model statewide. Critics said the program is not big enough to make a difference in elections and has not curbed outside spending. Ballots are due by 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Olson pointed out the vouchers have succeeded in encouraging more diverse participation in local elections.

"The intention of the program was to bring a public financing program to Seattle elections to help empower more candidates -- more diverse candidates, women, renters, people of color -- to have equal access to be able to run, and run competitive elections without having to rely on wealthy donors, special interests," Olson emphasized.

Olson noted because the money comes from a dedicated tax levy, unused vouchers roll over to the next election.

"The goal isn't to create an unlimited pot of money but to be able to provide resources for candidates to run with the community's support," Olson stressed. "But it's not a blank check at the same time."

Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi
- YouTube

Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”

President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.

Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.

Keep ReadingShow less