Focus Area: Accountability and Oversight

Back to Ideas
Blog
Featured

Project 2025 is a threat to our democracy. Here’s how funding accountability work can help.

October 10, 2024

Readers of this blog have undoubtedly heard of Project 2025 by now. The 900-page document has been widely criticized for its ambitious and extreme plans to undermine and politicize career civil servants in the federal government, eliminate important safeguards against weaponization of government law enforcement, limit freedoms like access to reproductive healthcare, and much more. It aims to give the president unchecked power over the executive branch as a means to achieving policy goals that will negatively impact life for millions of Americans. The consequences will be far-reaching and difficult to reverse.

Thankfully, the government accountability field has prepared for years to preserve our system of checks and balances and ensure there are consequences for those who abuse their positions of power. Through coordination, litigation preparation, and public education, these organizations — including many Democracy Fund grantees — are preparing to halt and hinder these dangerous proposals.

In this piece, we’ll get deeper into how Project 2025 is a threat to democracy, how the accountability field is responding, and why funders must do more to provide sustained support to the field.

How is Project 2025 a threat to democracy?

Project 2025 is a threat decades in the making. The project is spearheaded by The Heritage Foundation and a coterie of influential groups, including America First Legal, Alliance Defending Freedom, Moms For Liberty and others that have espoused an authoritarian vision for governing. Its authors have advocated for ending marriage equality and LGBTQ+ protections, restricting abortion rights, mass deportations of immigrants, conservative takeovers of school boards, curtailing voting rights, and much more.

The proposals in Project 2025 touch on every aspect of federal policy-making, from education, to climate, to national security. At its foundation is a desire to weaken nonpartisan expertise throughout the government, increase the power of partisan officials, limit checks on the president, and roll back rights and freedoms to align with an authoritarian worldview. If put into place, these actions would not only reduce the effectiveness of the federal government, they would significantly enable abuses of power. Here’s what it would look like:

1. Weakening nonpartisan expertise would politicize and hamper essential government functions.

Project 2025 calls for the president to re-issue an executive order that allows for the replacement of a large swath of career officials, including scientists, researchers, and economists, with politically appointed cronies (known as “Schedule F”). These new officials would be selected based on loyalty tests and the extent to which they agree with the policies laid out in Project 2025, rather than qualifications and expertise. This opens the door to mismanagement of critical government functions, from air traffic controllers to food inspectors. A sobering example of this dynamic was illustrated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) response to the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, with unqualified political appointees being cited as one reason for the government’s failures.  More recently, public health researchers cited the appointment of a Coronavirus Response Coordinator with vague authorities as one of the key factors contributing to haphazard inter-agency coordination during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Removing checks on the president would lead to the weaponization of law enforcement. 

Project 2025 aims to politicize and weaponize the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies. There is a long-held practice of insulating the Department of Justice from the partisan goals of the president. This firewall protects the rule of law against real or perceived bias or influence. It prevents a president from ordering law enforcement agencies to selectively enforce the law for the benefit of his allies or detriment of his opponents. Project 2025 seeks to turn this norm on its head, by overturning policies that limit the president’s direct communication with the Attorney General and making explicit that all litigation strategies must be aligned with the president’s agenda. Project 2025 also proposes a vast expansion of the number of political appointees within the FBI, further opening the door for partisan motivations guiding investigatory decisions, rather than unbiased assessments of the law.

The impact of these changes could be the targeting, harassment, and eventual prosecution of perceived political foes of the president, selective enforcement of the law to benefit industries aligned with the president’s party, and legal actions against district attorneys who do not strictly follow the president’s agenda. Put simply, the rule of law — the foundation of our legal system – is at risk.

3. Rolling back federal policies that protect women, LGBTQ+ people, and communities of color would open the door to discrimination.

Project 2025 relies on a core element of the playbook used by authoritarians around the world — idolizing white, heterosexual men and the nuclear family while denigrating those who fall outside of this definition of a “real” American. To this end, Project 2025 seeks to roll back access to reproductive healthcare, target LGBTQ+ youth and families, and unravel federal policies to advance diversity and inclusion. It proposes eliminating guaranteed free access to emergency contraception while criminalizing the mailing of abortion medication — which could result in a de facto nationwide abortion ban. It orders the National Institute of Health to study the purported “negative effects” of gender affirming care for children while enabling adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples. And it broadly prohibits federal agencies from working to ensure their programs, hiring processes, and staff training utilize diversity, equity, and inclusion principles. Taken together, these policies would make the government more hostile and less responsive to women, LGBTQ+ people, and communities of color — potentially turning back decades of progress.

These are just three examples. The plan is extensive, and its architects hold many ideas that are dangerous to our democratic system of checks and balances. For example, a key author of Project 2025, Russell Vought, argues the president should use an illegal practice called “impoundment” — the withholding of congressionally appropriated funds – to effectively defund any federal program or agency he wishes. The threat to American values and civil liberties is clear.

How is the accountability field responding?

The pro-democracy response to the authoritarian ideology underpinning a platform as dangerous and sweeping as Project 2025 must be bold and comprehensive. It requires a broad coalition of groups with expertise on issues from healthcare to tax policy that are ready to fight in court and the court of public opinion. Thankfully, strategies for slowing or stopping the worst aspects of Project 2025 are in motion, and the field is coordinating to respond on Day One. Activities groups are pursuing include:

1. Research on Project 2025 policies and their impact.

The fact we know as much as we do about the proposals in Project 2025, and how dangerous they are, is due in large part to the indefatigable efforts of groups like Accountable.US, which shed light on the vast network of groups, supporters, and funders of the project — many of whom are influential political operatives. Documented helped uncover secret training videos provided to the supporters of Project 2025, providing additional context for how it could be implemented and even advice from its authors on how to avoid the scrutiny of the pro-democracy field. And the Center for American Progress reviewed all 900+ pages to highlight its most pressing threats. Without these efforts, the democracy field would be less informed — and likely less prepared to respond. Accountability-focused organizations have proven their worth, confirming the need to consistently support their efforts.

2. Raising awareness around Project 2025 policies and their impact.

The research underway is not only essential for groups that are planning legal and other responses, it is key to raising the public’s awareness. Polling now shows that a majority of Americans have heard of Project 2025 (a significant increase from just a few months ago) and more importantly, it shows that Americans view the policies negatively. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that Project 2025 would receive almost-daily front page coverage in national news outlets and extensive coverage in popular shows like Last Week Tonight or The Daily Show without the tireless efforts of these organizations.

3. Preparing for the legal and regulatory battles ahead. 

Many of the policies in Project 2025 depend on regulatory and executive actions. To prevent or delay them, Democracy Forward is coordinating a broad range of issue-advocacy groups to prepare legal and other responses. They have also been a leading voice in congressional testimony regarding the harms of Project 2025. The Partnership for Public Service is working with media outlets to tell stories about real-life civil servants to help the public better understand the critical role of federal workers. It is also helping ensure federal employees understand their rights, building off of successful work coordinated by the Partnership, Protect Democracy, the Project On Government Oversight, Democracy Forward, and others, to advance a new federal rule that will make it harder to implement Schedule F.

4. Strengthening guardrails to prevent abuses

Many dangerous elements of Project 2025 are possible only because of weak or nonexistent checks on presidential power. An over-reliance on norms and policies that the president may discard at will paves the way for abuses. Combined with inaction and even assent from Congress and the courts, this is a problem decades in the making and one that will persist without further action. The accountability field is working to bolster guardrails to prevent abuse by:

  • Identifying weaknesses in the law and proposing model reforms. This includes research by Protect Democracy to better understand the weaknesses an authoritarian can exploit and a blueprint for model guardrail legislation from CREW.
  • Supporting key oversight functions in government. This includes work by the Project on Government Oversight to strengthen internal watchdogs, including Inspectors General, and work by the Government Accountability Project and Whistleblower Aid to support disclosures by government employees and contractors.
  • Demanding the courts and Congress hold the executive branch accountable. This includes legal advocacy and court filings from the Constitutional Accountability Center and work by Public Citizen to pressure Congress to investigate government wrongdoing.

What funders can do now

The work described above is just a snapshot of the ongoing efforts to understand and fight back against Project 2025. These efforts must be sustained through, and beyond, 2025. The threat encapsulated by the extreme policy proposals within Project 2025 existed before its publication and will continue to loom over our democracy even if not implemented next year. While the project is notable for its audacious scope, its policies have been years in the making and include the core tenets of the authoritarian movement.

We must sustain funding for research, communications, legal, and advocacy efforts about Project 2025, its authors and supporters: it guts checks and balances, threatens the rule of law, and is a brazen attempt to turn our democracy toward authoritarianism.

Please reach out to learn more about specific funding gaps, needs, and opportunities that Democracy Fund has gathered from our grantees and network.

 

Back to Ideas
Blog

As We Wait for Attorney General Barr to Release the Mueller Report, What Foundations Should Do

Joe Goldman
/
April 12, 2019

Attorney General William Barr’s summary of the Mueller report — and anticipation for the report itself — have captivated the interest of the American people and a divided Congress, with jubilation from the president’s supporters and disappointment from his critics.

But the success of the special counsel’s investigation should not be measured by those whose political interests are best served. Rather, its completion should go down in history as a victory for the rule of law — that is, as long as the full report and supporting documents are released to the public.

Congress and the American people must have the opportunity to understand the truth of what happened to be in a better position both to protect future elections and to restore faith in our democratic norms.

Foundations are in a unique position to pave the way forward by investing in causes that further both of these goals.

Integrity of the Ballot Box

There are two core priorities philanthropy can support to protect the tenets of our democracy.

First, we must protect the integrity of our elections. The health of our democracy requires public trust in our electoral systems. The Mueller investigation — both through its current indictments and what will presumably be laid out in the report — should help us get to the bottom of how a foreign power interfered with the 2016 election.

Thanks to the investigators’ efforts, we will have the product of more than 2,800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, more than 230 orders for communication records, 13 requests of foreign governments, and approximately 500 interviews with witnesses to learn from.

The American public must demand to see the report so we can identify opportunities to bolster our election system. This would allow foundations to invest in work that promotes election modernization, development of data-driven policies, and advancements in new technologies that help reduce barriers to voting. In addition, we need to work with nonprofits seeking to strategically provide secretaries of state and local election boards with the resources to maintain the system’s integrity. Without the partisan distraction of alleged collusion, leaders from both parties can get serious about protecting our democracy from manipulation.

An Independent Justice System

Second, we must protect the rule of law and the independence of our justice system. It is easy to forget that months ago, it was unclear whether the special counsel would be allowed to complete his investigation. We should all be grateful for efforts made over the past two years to protect the independence of the investigation, despite unrelenting pressure from the president and his allies.

Once the report is provided to Congress, it will have its own constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight, thoroughly investigate the underlying evidence, and consider appropriate policies for the future. The attorney general’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the president committed a crime by obstructing justice is not the end of the matter. Only by digging into the facts can the public be sure justice has been served.

New York State’s Inquiry

Foundation leaders also must defend continuing investigations by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere to ensure they are able to complete their work without interference. These investigations, equally representative of the rule of law at work, are looking into deeply important questions related to the integrity of our government — including potential conflicts of interest. They must be allowed to continue unimpeded.

For philanthropy, investing in nonprofit work that protects this oversight is a crucial way to protect our democracy. Remember that Robert Mueller’s 22-month investigation convicted five associates of the president’s and indicted 34 people on nearly 200 criminal charges. The special counsel’s job was not to attack or convict Donald Trump. It was to uncover the truth and ensure justice is done. The special counsel has been able to complete his investigation, and by working together to support and galvanize programs and organizations that uphold our constitutional norms, we can still achieve our goal of a strengthened, vibrant democracy.

 

Back to Ideas
Op-Ed

Op-Ed: Trump’s Emergency Declaration Threatens Philanthropy’s Core Values

Joe Goldman
/
February 20, 2019

In November, I joined with 40 other foundation leaders to call on our colleagues across philanthropy to respond to unprecedented threats facing our democracy—threats to the independence of the special counsel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and to the rule of law generally.

Less than three months later, our country is facing a new constitutional crisis that demands our leadership and resolve. We must not accept President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to secure funding to build a wall on our Southern border. He is blatantly taking a page straight out of the authoritarian playbook and his action must not stand.

The President’s declaration demonstrates his disregard for our Constitution and his willingness to circumvent our system of checks and balances. Declaring an emergency when none exists sets a dangerous precedent for the rule of law. It is the quintessential example of the executive branch appropriating power to itself. Just as we cannot allow any president to weaken the independence of our system of justice, we must also not allow this president to unilaterally achieve his policy goals at the expense of the Constitution’s promise of parity between the co-equal branches of our government.

Read more from Joe Goldman at The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Back to Ideas
Statement

Statement on the Planned Declaration of a National Emergency at the Southern Border

Democracy Fund
/
February 14, 2019

Democracy Fund President Joe Goldman issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s planned declaration of a national emergency at the southern border:

President Trump’s plan to declare a national emergency to secure funding for a wall at our southern border — which he has justified using racist and xenophobic language — demonstrates his willingness to use authoritarian methods to circumvent our system of checks and balances.

President Trump’s actions are the real emergency. The temptation for a president to aggrandize power is precisely why the framers of the Constitution created three co-equal branches of government — each to check the others. That the president would declare a manufactured national emergency when he cannot get what he wants from Congress is the essence of undemocratic behavior. Congress and the courts must step in and constrain this abuse of executive power.

Back to Ideas
Blog

Constructive Oversight in the Newly Elected Congress

Lara Flint
/
November 27, 2018

Earlier this month, the Project On Government Oversight sponsored the first-ever Oversight Summit, convening experts from nonprofits, think tanks, Congress, and the executive branch to share best practices and strategies for improving oversight of and by the federal government. The Summit featured organizations across the political spectrum working to support meaningful oversight, transparency, and accountability efforts—including Democracy Fund grantees like the R Street Institute, the Levin Center, the Partnership for Public Service, and many others.


At Democracy Fund, we ground our work in a framework of principles we developed to describe the attributes of a healthy democracy. Under that framework, constitutional checks and balances and respect for the rule of law are critical to protecting Americans against abuses of power by their government. Co-equal branches of government and our federal system both serve as checks, and civil society plays a critical role in holding those in power accountable to the Constitution, the law, and the people they represent.As expected, a topic that arose repeatedly was the incoming 116th Congress and its oversight powers and priorities. As is often the case under one-party rule, Congress has not leaned into its role as a check on the executive branch over the past two years. Despite a range of issues crying out for meaningful oversight, Congress largely did not engage, instead giving in to the hyper-partisanship that pervades our political system (though with some exceptions). Congress’ lack of institutional resources has further hamstrung its ability to fulfill its constitutional role to conduct oversight. With a president whose rhetoric and actions fundamentally threaten democratic norms, however, the stakes are high, and the need for effective oversight can no longer be ignored. While the 116th Congress has a full agenda, the incoming House leadership has promised oversight of the executive branch will be a top priority.

Our framework also emphasizes that political leaders bear an uncommon burden to act with integrity. Their words and actions should reflect democratic values, the Constitution, and the dignity of every individual.

As Democracy Fund’s Betsy Wright Hawkings outlined at the beginning of the 115th Congress, “For those who care about values-based leadership, rules matter—starting with the rule of law. And that is what oversight is—enforcement of the rules.” These principles apply regardless of who holds power.

So how should the new Congress exercise its oversight responsibilities? Some have debated whether the House should aggressively pursue investigations. I think that is the wrong question.

There is no shortage of oversight to be done—the hurricane recovery effort in Puerto Rico; separating children from their parents at the border; government officials using their positions to enrich themselves rather than serve the public good; or foreign attempts to influence our elections. All of this oversight is sorely needed.

Instead, the question is whether the House will ground that oversight in a methodical effort to make our government work better for the American people, or whether Democrats will approach its investigations as an opportunity for partisan retribution. Will the new House majority reach across the aisle—even if they expect to be rebuffed? Or will they go it alone from the beginning? Will they reflexively issue subpoenas, or deploy them as a last resort?

Strong oversight efforts can be aggressive and constructive. As former congressional oversight staffer Kris Kolesnik said during the Oversight Summit, “all oversight begins and ends by putting politics at the door.” The administration should absolutely be asked tough questions by members of Congress—but those members must also remember why they are asking these questions in the first place: to uncover and fix wrongdoing and make our government better, not to score political points.

This will take hard work, and unfortunately we know that Congress is under-resourced to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities under Article I—another theme raised frequently during the Summit. That is why Democracy Fund has invested in organizations that provide bipartisan oversight training to congressional staff; help ensure that government actions are transparent to the American people; and conduct their own investigations of government wrongdoing.The importance of this was underscored by Senator Carl Levin, a keynote speaker at the Summit and veteran of countless bipartisan oversight investigations during his decades in Congress. At the Summit Senator Levin awarded the first ever Carl Levin Award for Effective Oversight to South Carolina State Rep. Weston Newton, the Republican chairman of the Legislative Oversight Committee, who has worked across the aisle to make government work better in South Carolina. Rep. Newton explained how oversight should transcend party affiliation: “Whether an agency is doing its job properly or not should not be something that either party has the franchise on asking the questions [about]…nor should the party in power be afraid to ask the questions and expose the shortcomings of those agencies.”

Even with these challenges, by all reports the incoming House majority is poised to breathe new life into Congress’ role as a check on the executive branch. Done right, this is a critical component of our democratic system, it will protect against abuse of power, and it will make our government work better.

Back to Ideas
Blog

Op-Ed: How Philanthropy Can Do More to Stand Up for America’s Democracy

Joe Goldman
/
November 25, 2018

When the chief justice of the Supreme Court finds it necessary to reprimand the president of the United States for undermining the independence of the federal judiciary, it can be difficult to objectively know if that signifies a constitutional crisis.

Compared with Watergate, we are living through a slow-motion Saturday Night Massacre as the president and his allies test the limits of our democracy every week and sometimes every day. Instead of igniting from one clearly crossed red line, a constitutional crisis is creeping up on us.

As philanthropic leaders, we find it especially challenging to know what our role should be at a time like this. We represent nonpartisan institutions concerned about issues as disparate as civic engagement, civil rights, the environment, the arts, and more. That work can only truly thrive when our democracy is healthy, and so while we remain committed to our individual missions, we must also stand up and support people and organizations working to protect constitutional norms…

Read more from Joe Goldman at The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Back to Ideas
Statement

Philanthropic Leaders Call for Protecting the Independence of Special Counsel Investigation

Democracy Fund
/
November 18, 2018

As leaders of nonpartisan American philanthropic institutions, we care deeply about the long-term health of our republic, our two-party system, and our democratic institutions. Together, we want to express our deep concern about the resignation of the Attorney General, which came at the request of the president, and the appointment of an Acting Attorney General who has openly criticized the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election — an investigation he reportedly will now supervise. Led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this independent investigation is integral to understanding not just what happened in 2016, but also who was responsible and how to prevent further interference in our political system in the future. ​

We believe it is essential that the independence of the special counsel investigation be preserved. We ask that other civic, business, and government leaders join us in standing up for the rule of law — a cornerstone of American democracy. John Adams is often quoted as describing a republic as “a government of laws, not of men.” Adherence to the rule of law preserves our democratic values and the rights of individuals; it maintains order, and it protects against arbitrary government action. It also ensures the independence and integrity of our governmental institutions, including our law enforcement agencies. Those in power cannot and should not use or manipulate law enforcement for their own personal protection or for political gain. Rather, these agencies must apply the law impartially in the pursuit of justice. In the United States of America, the rule of law is paramount.​

Any action taken by a president that could interfere with the supervision of a legitimate law enforcement investigation into the activities of his campaign, his business interests, or those who serve in his administration, threatens these bedrock norms. This is especially true when such an investigation includes the specter of foreign interference in American elections. No one is above the law, including the president, his family, and others who serve in his administration. The special counsel’s investigation must be allowed to continue unimpeded. ​

We stand together in our commitment to the protection of our democracy and its freedoms, for which generations of Americans have fought and given their lives. ​

Signed,

Greg Segal
Board Member, AL Mailman Family Foundation
White Plains, NY

Eileen Coogan
President and Chief Executive Officer, Allegany Franciscan Ministries
Palm Harbor, FL

David Goodman
President, Andrew Goodman Foundation
New York, NY

Adam Simon
Executive Director, Aviv Foundation
Bethesda, MD

Gary D. Bass
Executive Director, Bauman Foundation
Washington, DC

Sara Kay
Chief Executive Officer, The Bernard and Anne Spitzer Charitable Trust
New York, NY

Martha A. Toll
Executive Director, Butler Family Fund
Washington, DC

Kathleen D. Edwards, Ph.D.
President, Cedarmere Foundation
Seattle, WA

Elaine Nonneman
Trustee, Channel Foundation
Seattle, WA

Stacy Schusterman
Chair, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation
Tulsa, OK

Andrea Panaritis
Executive Director, The Christopher Reynolds Foundation
Boston, MA

Ellen Friedman
Executive Director, Compton Foundation
San Francisco, CA

Joe Goldman
President, Democracy Fund
Washington, DC

Melissa Beck
Executive Director, The Educational Foundation of America
Fairfield, CT

Darren Walker
President, Ford Foundation
New York, NY

Gabrielle Mertz
Director, Foundation for Arts and Humanities
New York, NY

Geoffrey Gund
President, The George Gund Foundation
Cleveland, OH

Deanna Gomby
President & Chief Executive Officer, Heising-Simons Foundation
Los Altos, CA

Bill Hopwood
Co-Trustee, J.M.Hopwood Charitable Trust
Elkins, NH

Terry Fulmer
President, The John A Hartford Foundation
New York, NY

Kim Philbrick McCabe
Executive Director, The Klarman Family Foundation
Boston, MA

Dr. Keith Leaphart
Chairman, The Lenfest Foundation
Philadelphia, PA

Marcella Kanfer Rolnick, Chair and Aaron Dorfman, President
Lippman Kanfer Foundation for Living Torah
Akron, OH

Wendy Lewis
Executive Director, McCune Charitable Foundation
Santa Fe, NM

Jenny Russell
Executive Director, Merck Family Fund
Milton Village, MA

Jay Beckner
President, Mertz Gilmore Foundation
New York, NY

Aaron Dorfman
President & Chief Executive Officer, National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy
Washington, DC

Sharon Alpert
President, Nathan Cummings Foundation
New York, NY

Michele Lord
President, NEO Philanthropy
New York, NY

Maria Mottola
Executive Director, New York Foundation
New York, NY

Pamela Shifman
Executive Director, NoVo Foundation
Brooklyn, NY

Patrick Gaspard
President, Open Society Foundations
New York, NY

Rachel Pritzker
President & Founder, Pritzker Innovation Fund
San Francisco, CA

Kathryn Murdoch
Co-Founder & President, Quadrivium Foundation
New York, NY

Stephen B Heintz
President, Rockefeller Brothers Fund
New York, NY

Ruth Salzman
Chief Executive Officer, The Russell Berrie Foundation
Teaneck, NJ

Mike Pratt
President, Scherman Foundation
New York, NY

Tom Bennigson
President, Tikva Grassroots Empowerment Fund

Ellen Dorsey
Executive Director, Wallace Global Fund
Washington, DC

JoAnn Intili & Ed Kissam
Senior Advisers, Werner Kohnstamm Family Fund
Oakland, CA

John Esterle
Co-Executive Director, The Whitman Institute
San Francisco, CA

Alan S. Davis
Director, The WhyNot Initiative
San Francisco, CA

Diane Cornman-Levy
Executive Director, Women’s Way
Philadelphia, PA

Daniel Solomon
President, Woodbury Fund
Bethesda, MD

Merryl Snow Zegar
Trustee & Executive Director, Zegar Family Foundation
New York, NY

Add your name

If you represent a philanthropic institution interested in signing onto this statement, please email Nathaniel Turner, program associate on our Governance program here.

Back to Ideas
Statement

Statement on the Resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Democracy Fund
/
November 8, 2018

Democracy Fund President Joe Goldman issued the following statement in response to the forced resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions:

In America, no one is above the law — not even the president. The forced resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions sets us on a path toward a genuine crisis for our nation. The appointment of an Acting Attorney General whose prior statements reflect hostility toward the special counsel investigation opens the door to political interference into the investigation. Our system of government relies on an impartial adherence to the rule of law. Everyone who cares about a responsive, healthy democracy must make our voices heard: The special counsel investigation must continue unimpeded.

Back to Ideas
Blog

Defending Democracy and the Rule of Law through Accountability and Oversight

Lara Flint
/
April 2, 2018

Checks and balances. Separation of powers. Rule of law. Accountability.

These are terms that are thrown around a lot in D.C. But what does upholding these fundamental tenets of our system of government look like in practice? Last year, Democracy Fund embarked on an effort to tackle this difficult question, investing $6 million over the course of two years.

Through our special project on Government Accountability, Transparency, and Oversight we aim to defend and strengthen the democratic norms that underpin our system of government. Our democracy is strongest when each branch of government serves as a check on the other to ensure there is a balance of power that allows no single branch to dominate the others.

Governmental watchdogs and other institutions of civic life play a critical role in monitoring our government and holding it accountable to the Constitution, the law, and the people. They are engaged in education, advocacy, litigation, research, and other actions that reveal abuses and improve Congress’ ability to conduct oversight. Ultimately their work should lead to increased public demand for action, and more effective checks and balances across the three branches of government.

This special project is an expansion of the critical work we are already doing to improve our institutions. The Governance Program at Democracy Fund has worked for years to strengthen Congress’ capacity to conduct constructive oversight of the executive branch—the type of oversight that helps government better serve the American people. But the current political environment poses new threats to the rule of law and to the system of checks and balances. The question is: Can we protect the rule of law through a constructive approach that brings people together to support the foundation of our system of government? In this partisan moment, can we find bipartisan approaches to protecting democratic norms and holding the government accountable to the American people?

We believe the answer to these questions is “yes.”

We must do all we can to ensure that the structural safeguards of checks and balances established by our Constitution—and the mechanisms that influence and support those safeguards—will work as intended. This holds true regardless of the party that controls the White House, or the two chambers of Congress.

With that in mind, Democracy Fund is investing in a few different areas through this special project. We are working to strengthen the capacity of Congress to engage in effective oversight through watchdogs like the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). Executive branch oversight is a core function of Congress, but congressional capacity to conduct effective oversight has suffered from the same institutional weaknesses—hyper-partisanship, lack of capacity—that have imperiled Congress’ ability to legislate effectively. POGO, along with the Levin Center and the Lugar Center, train congressional staff on both sides of the aisle about how to do effective, bipartisan oversight. That could include working with federal whistleblowers, who are a critical source of information about government wrongdoing. Federal employees who witness waste, fraud, abuse, or who are ordered to engage in actions they believe to be unlawful—and refuse to go along—are a key backstop to ensure accountability. They deserve strong legal protections and representation, which is why we have invested in organizations like the Government Accountability Project (GAP).

Other key elements of accountable government are transparency, and strong ethics rules. We are working to enhance the transparency of government actions and decision-making through our investments in groups like Open the Government and the National Security Archive, and to provide independent fact-checking of government statements on complicated issues through groups like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. We are likewise supporting organizations like Issue One, who identify and enforce ethics violations, conflicts of interest, and other forms of corruption to ensure government decisions are made for the benefit of the American people—not to enrich a few.

The current climate has shown that we cannot take for granted the rule of law. To strengthen our constitutional system of checks and balances, we are supporting organizations who are working to strengthen our democratic system and prepare for and respond to potential crises, such as the R Street Institute and the Protect Democracy Project.

The fundamental goal of our special project is to ensure that checks and balances, separation of powers, rule of law, and accountability aren’t just Washington buzzwords, but rather, that they remain the principles that form the foundation of our democracy. And if nothing else, we should all be able to agree on that.

Grantees under the Special Project on Government Accountability, Transparency, and Oversight Include the Following:

  • Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System — Project DATA
  • Brookings Institution — Lawfare
  • Center for Responsive Politics
  • Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
  • German Marshal Fund — Alliance for Securing Democracy
  • Government Accountability Project
  • Issue One
  • National Security Archive Fund
  • Open the Government
  • Partnership for Public Service
  • Protect Democracy Project
  • R Street Institute
  • The Constitution Project at POGO
  • The Lugar Center
  • The Project on Government Oversight
  • Wayne State University — Levin Center
  • William J. Brennan Center for Justice

Democracy Fund champions the leaders who defend democracy and who challenge our political system to be more open, just, resilient, and trustworthy.

Democracy Fund
1200 17th Street NW Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20036
© 2024 Democracy Fund — Founded by The Omidyar Group