Archives: Ideas

Back to Ideas
Blog

A Special Project to Defend America’s Fourth Estate

Josh Stearns
/
April 24, 2018

Journalism plays many roles in our democracy. At its best, it informs people about critical issues in ways that builds agency; it reflects the diverse lives of our nation back to us in ways that strengthen communities; it provides a public square where ideas can be debated; and it interrogates systems and institutions in ways that hold power to account.

Since Democracy Fund was founded, we have been investing in people and organizations who are working to strengthen journalism and local news to ensure a brighter future for our democracy. We are helping rebuild local news business models, fostering bold new collaborations, and reimagining the social contract between newsrooms and communities.

That long-haul work continues, but one year ago Democracy Fund announced a new effort focused specifically on bolstering and defending journalism’s ability to serve as a robust fourth estate. Alarmed by the escalating political attacks against journalists and concerned about what those threats meant for the public’s access to information, we made the largest grants in our organization’s history.

Defending America’s Fourth Estate

In March 2017, along with our colleagues at First Look Media, we committed $10 million over two-years to the Center for Investigative Reporting, Center for Public Integrity, the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, and ProPublica. Recognizing the essential role of local and state investigative journalism we also contributed $1 million to NewsMatch, which helped 109 nonprofit newsrooms raise nearly $5 million in the last few months of 2017 (read more about the results of NewsMatch here). Together these grants make up our special project on investigative reporting, which seeks to ensure nonprofit newsrooms are prepared to face new and mounting challenges.

The last year has been a profound reminder of the critical role of a bold, trustworthy, and free press. Our grantees have produced hard hitting public interest reporting on the financial conflicts of interest in the current administration, social media’s impact on democracy, the rise of hate crimes, as well as on the upheavals and changes shaping education, environmental issues, and immigration.

  • Every single one of our grantees had at least one story that revealed conflicts of interest or wrongdoing that resulted in meaningful policy change, divestments and resignations.
  • ProPublica’s reporting on social media platforms and algorithms sparked Facebook to change its advertising policy and spurred NYC to pass the country’s first bill to address algorithmic discrimination in city government.
  • The Center for Investigative Reporting and Center for Public Integrity launched a “Citizen Sleuths” program to engage thousands of people in digging into the financial disclosure records for more than 400 appointees.
  • The Center for Public Integrity compiled state disclosure reports into a searchable library, revealing how state lawmakers use their position to enrich themselves.

These are just a few of the headlines from the past year. Our grantees also produced life-saving reporting on maternal health, revelations about housing discrimination, and an Oscar nominated film on the opioid crisis that was picked up by Netflix.

Accountability Reporting and Being Accountable Ourselves

All of these investments were general operating grants, which means there were no strings attached to how the grants had to be used. Grantees had total freedom to use the funds as they saw fit for the unique needs of their organizations, communities, and beats. In addition, Democracy Fund has an editorial policy written into our grant agreements that mandates we cannot speak to our grantees about content decisions. We believe this kind of independence is critical, especially with grants of this size.

In the end, the freedom these grants provided didn’t just produce more journalism, but also created opportunities to rethink and reimagine how that journalism was done. In an era of dwindling trust for journalism, integrity has to be at the heart of newsrooms and foundations. Each of these newsrooms have opened up their process to their readers, engaging people in the reporting process, and bringing profound transparency to their process.

The Center for Investigative Reporting held community forums and opened up a text message line to answer questions from communities across the country about their investigation into modern day redlining. ProPublica built a crowdsourcing app called the Facebook Political Ad Collector which collects ads on Facebook to enable ProPublica to better monitor political ads on social platforms. The Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University paired journalism students with NPR and Frontline journalists to investigate the housing crisis.

These are not just clever innovations, but critical interventions that put the public at the heart of investigative journalism. The ability of the press to serve as a check and balance on power is rooted in the legitimacy and trust bestowed upon it by the public. As such, to hold our leaders accountable, we need to hold our communities close and be accountable ourselves.

We look forward to continuing to share, and to be accountable, as this special project continues.

Grantees of the Investigative Journalism Project include the following:

Back to Ideas
Blog

Ensuring Language Access for Minority Voters Relies on a Fair and Accurate Census

Terry Ao Minnis
/
April 17, 2018

​We are a mere two years out from “Census Day” 2020 — April 1, 2020 — and we need all hands on deck to ensure a fair and accurate census. The census is paramount for a multitude of reasons — the data are used to make critical decisions in distributing over $600 billion annually in federal spending, developing legislation, making business decisions, and for federal, state, and local planning. On a more foundational level, the census is a pillar of our democracy. Census data are used to appropriate seats for the U.S. House and in turn, the Presidential electoral college, and in redistricting to redraw lines. The Census has major implications for our federal elections and voter confidence as it is integral to demonstrating the system is fair and representative. It is also vital to language minority voters and their active and meaningful civic engagement.

​While the census strives to get a fair and accurate count of everyone in the country, the reality is that some are missed in census after census. Now, if different communities are missed equally, then the resulting census would still be fair, if not as accurate. Unfortunately, decade after decade we have seen a persistent, disproportionate undercount of certain population groups, including people of color, young children, and renters. Thus, when there is a differential undercount in communities of color, voters of color are further marginalized. Rights are unrecognized and unrealized when people are undercounted in these communities.

​Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) are used to make Section 203 determinations under the Voting Rights Act every five years. It dictates which jurisdictions are required to provide language assistance during the voting process. The ACS – an ongoing survey that provides vital socio-economic characteristics on a yearly basis about our nation and its people – allows us to know more about topics including: jobs and occupations, educational attainment, veterans, language ability, and whether people own or rent their homes. While the ACS is conducted separately from the decennial census, an unfair and inaccurate census will negatively skew the ACS. Because the ACS is sent to a sampling of households, the data collected uses a weighting methodology that forces consistency of ACS estimates with official population estimates by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. The population estimates are based on the most recent decennial population results (currently, the 2010 census) updated with annual changes in births, deaths, domestic and international migration.

​Since there is a higher risk of an undercount in immigrant and limited English proficient communities, as indicated in the Census Bureau’s own research, language minority communities are more likely to refuse to participate. This lower participation by language minorities could mean missed jurisdictions for Section 203 coverage that should be covered throughout the decade. During the most recent determinations in 2016, a total of 263 political subdivisions nationwide are now covered by Section 203, with a total of 214 political subdivisions in 26 states providing assistance in Spanish, 15 political subdivisions of Alaska providing assistance in an Alaska Native language, 35 political subdivisions in nine states providing assistance in an American Indian language, and 27 political subdivisions in 12 states providing assistance in an Asian language. Inaccurate census data would result in less language assistance across the nation.

​Census data are also important for jurisdictions working to comply with their Section 203 obligations. For example, Census data are often one factor taken into consideration in making the determination of the language for written assistance, as well as the languages for oral assistance at the polls. Additionally, jurisdictions can target their language assistance. For example, translated materials and bilingual poll workers can be placed in those polling locations that serve covered language minority voters as opposed to all polling locations. Jurisdictions can look to census data to inform their planning to determine which polling locations should offer language assistance.

​Census data are also important for jurisdictions looking to provide voluntary language assistance to their constituents. For example, Fairfax County, VA decided to voluntarily provide language assistance in Korean in addition to their Section 203 obligations under Spanish and Vietnamese. Recognizing that the county has a growing Korean population, the county looked to Census data which indicated that approximately 35,000 of the million or so county residents spoke Korean at home, with about 55 percent of them not speaking English very well, for confirmation that this was a community that had a significant need for language assistance.

​The Census Bureau continues to face several challenges this decade that have put a fair and accurate census at risk, including funding shortfalls for virtually the entire decade. These funding shortfalls have led the Census Bureau to make tough decisions, like cancelling all on-site field tests in 2017 and curtailing its End-to-End Test in 2018. While the decades-long reduced funding has had consequences, both Congress and the Administration — recognizing the deficiencies in funding to date and the challenges facing the Census — have taken steps to move the Census Bureau in the right direction. Congress recently boosted Census Bureau funding in the recent Fiscal Year 2018 omnibus spending bill, nearly doubling the 2017 funding level and providing $1.13 billion more than the administration’s adjusted request for 2018. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross stated that “an efficient 2020 Census that provides a full, fair and accurate count has been one of [his] highest priorities since being confirmed,” in asking for an increase in funding for the 2020 Census. It is imperative that the 2020 Census gets back on track as an inaccurate count weakens our democracy with just two years to finalize and implement the decennial census. For all these reasons, a fair and accurate census is important for language minority voters and for those who work to protect their voting rights. We can all pitch in and take steps to ensure everyone gets counted when Census Day 2020 arrives!

​Terry Ao Minnis is a Senior Fellow and Consultant at the Democracy Fund where she advises staff on emerging needs and opportunities to improve voting for all—specifically for those who face unique challenges under our current system. Terry currently serves as the Director of the Census and Voting programs for Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), and co-chairs the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights’ Census Task Force. She received her Juris Doctor, cum laude, from American University Washington College of Law and her Bachelor’s degree in economics at the University of Chicago.

​Follow Terry on Twitter @Tao_Minnis.

Back to Ideas
Blog

Strengthening Democracy by Supporting a Just and Inclusive Society

April 16, 2018

​At Democracy Fund, we believe in the dignity of every individual and in the equal protection of their rights under the law. All people have intrinsic value and dignity, and bigotry in any form undermines our democracy. When these values are threatened, we will stand up to protect and preserve fundamental individual rights as enshrouded in the United States Constitution.

Though bigotry and prejudice are not new phenomena, the 2016 presidential campaign marked a turning point in the tone and tenor of modern political conversation — including a sharp increase in charged rhetoric across cultural, ideological, and partisan divides. Subsequently, findings from Democracy Fund’s Voter Survey Group, have revealed that existing political divides were super-charged by a seemingly renewed cultural anxiety related to Americanism, race, immigration, and Islam/Muslims.

Like many who care about the health of our political system, we at Democracy Fund have been increasingly alarmed by what has followed the election — from the implementation of policies targeting immigrant and minority communities to the rise in hate-crimes against communities of color and Muslim, Arab, and South Asian (MASA) communities.

In response to these disconcerting developments, Democracy Fund has followed the lead of extraordinary Americans throughout the country who are working to ensure the resilience and safety of targeted communities by launching our Special Project on Fostering a Just and Inclusive Society. Through this initiative, we aim to help protect those whose civil rights and safety are endangered in this volatile political landscape—particularly Muslim, Arab, and South Asian (MASA) and immigrant communities. This project centers around a few main objectives:

  • Funding honest and positive communications efforts that support MASA and immigrant communities and promote civil discourse.
  • Creating bipartisan community networks to help and defend MASA communities in the face of threats.
  • Challenging infringements on civil rights through litigation, legal services, and legal education.

Since we began supporting these projects in June of 2017, our grantees have made significant progress building relationships across the field and providing legal support. For example:

There is a tension inherent in this work. Every day we see headlines that remind us of the profound urgency of supporting organizations working on the front lines of our communities and our courts ensure the safety of targeted communities and to defend the dignity our democracy demands. And yet, we recognize that the work of building resilience and combating hatred is long haul work and that the daily struggles of our grantees are steps in a long road toward a more perfect union. We are grateful for their work and pleased to be able to support it.

Grantees under the Just Inclusive Societies Project include the following:

  • Asian Americans Advancing Justice — Asian Law Caucus
  • Business Forward Foundation
  • Civic Nation
  • Faith in Public Life
  • Georgetown University: Institute for Constitutional Accountability & Protection
  • Hopewell Fund: Over Zero
  • Human Rights — Vets for American Ideals
  • Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law
  • Movement Law Lab
  • NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
  • National Immigration Law Center
  • Proteus Fund — Security and Rights Collaborative
  • ReThink media
  • The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
  • USCRI — Freedom to Believe
Cover Photo: Protestors assemble to push for racial justice. Photo by Forrest Walker.
Back to Ideas
Blog

Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network Support Independent Analysis of Facebook’s Role in Elections

Tom Glaisyer
/
April 9, 2018

Today Facebook announced a new initiative which will provide independent researchers access to Facebook data to study the impact the social network has on our elections and our democracy. Democracy Fund, along with the Omidyar Network, Hewlett Foundation and several other leading foundations have come together to support the research efforts that will be enabled through this program. We believe that independent funding of this research is critical, and hope that the program will help the public and policymakers better understand how Facebook is shaping our elections, social fabric, and democratic life.

This announcement comes amidst a firestorm of attention focused on the social media giant’s role in allowing vast amounts of personal data to be released, data which was then used to target shady and divisive political ads at Americans. Last week Facebook revealed that tens of thousands more people were affected by that breach than was first reported. As a foundation fundamentally concerned with the health of our democracy, we have been following this story closely.

In fact, Democracy Fund and the Omidyar Network have been raising the alarm about these issues for sometime. Late last year, the organizations published an in-depth paper asking, “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?” and identifying six ways in which digital platforms pose direct challenges to our democratic ideals. We have signed on to support this research initiative, but are realistic about the complexities and risks of supporting this effort and are approaching it as one part of a multipronged strategy to create a safer, stronger and more meaningful digital public square.

We are deeply committed to working on meaningful solutions that help rebuild trustworthy spaces for communities to connect, share information and participate in our democracy. We currently fund a range of efforts focused on combating hyper-partisanship, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and fostering a robust fourth estate locally and nationally.

Grantees like Prof. Zeynep Tufekci and ProPublica are doing powerful work on algorithmic accountability. Prof. Young Mie Kim tracked political ads on Facebook in 2016 and Politifact is helping sort truth from fiction on the platform. The German Marshall Fund is tracking Russian misinformation and Free Press is organization diverse communities around the rights to connect and communicate. The Center for Democracy and Technology is helping strengthen election cybersecurity, and spreading best practices for data privacy in voter registration databases and campaign data. Launched in 2017, the Social Science Research Center’s Media & Democracy program encourages academic research, practitioner reflection, and public debate on all aspects of the close relationship between media and democracy, including how changes in the political landscape, such as increasing polarization, have affected the media.

However, in our work with activists, organizations, and scholars in the field we have consistently heard that we can’t address what we don’t know. Through this new research effort Facebook says it will give researchers unpresented access to its data in ways it never has before. The research will be driven by a diverse coalition of scholars. Research projects will have to go through relevant university Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviews, will be rigorously peer reviewed, and may be vetted to ensure Facebook lives up to its legal and ethical commitments to users. Crucially, the research results themselves will not be subject to approval by Facebook

The emphasis of this first announcement is on Facebook’s role in elections, but the committee is also expected to address how Facebook’s systems influence viral deceptions, polarization, and civic engagement. Democracy Fund believes the American people must have effective ways to understand and be a part of the democratic process. As the internet transforms political life, it opens exciting new pathways for public engagement but has also created a fertile ground for abuse, harassment and manipulation that hurt our communities and our society. As this research is planned Democracy Fund will pay special attention to ensuring that the voices and the priorities of those disproportionately harmed by social media are included.

The flood of news about bad actors gaming the system have revealed a troubling disregard for the critical responsibility social media companies have had over our personal privacy and public debate. Facebook, and other platforms, need to acknowledge the oversized role they play in our society and truly prioritize privacy, embrace transparency, and accept accountability. We are realistic about the complexities here, but see this research partnership as a key step towards that goal. Through this program, and in separate endeavors, we are deeply committed to working on meaningful solutions that help rebuild trustworthy spaces for communities to connect, share information and participate in our democracy.

Back to Ideas
Press Release

Democracy Fund, Omidyar Network Support Independent, Diverse, and Transparent Analysis of Facebook

Democracy Fund
/
April 9, 2018

Research Aimed at Identifying Actions and Policies that Affect Elections and Democratic Norms

Washington, D.C. and Redwood City, CA (April 9, 2018) – Earlier today, Facebook announced the launch of a new research initiative that will enable independent researchers to perform an assessment of the role the social platform plays in elections. Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network have joined an effort led by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to support this potentially important step toward addressing how Facebook’s algorithms and vast storehouses of data are shaping elections, the social fabric, and democratic life.

The two organizations’ support is a continuation of the collective work Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network have done to address the unintended consequences of technology and its impacts on democracy. Democracy is under attack from many directions, and the influence social media has on elections is a critical front. While the full extent and impact of the role of malicious domestic actors on the 2016 election remains unknown, it has been verified that social media platforms were misused and that networks including but not limited to Facebook – violated the public’s trust. It’s now incumbent on these platforms to regain trust by urgently implementing technology solutions and supporting policy solutions where appropriate.

Key to finding these solutions will be Facebook’s support of independent, peer-reviewed analyses performed by a diverse committee of academic researchers, including voices who have been disproportionately harmed by social media. In particular, the committee must have diversity across ideology, race and ethnicity, geography, gender, expertise, and life experience. Today’s announcement is a first step in that direction. Notably, the research committee will independently solicit and prioritize research. They will have access to secure, privacy-protected data, which will be critically important in understanding the dynamics and effects of social media on the public square and arriving at informed recommendations about potential solutions. Ultimately, the academics will publish their findings without prior review or approval from Facebook.

The committee is expected to address misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda; polarizing content; promoting freedom of expression and association; protecting domestic elections from foreign interference; and civic engagement. It will answer two critical questions: Does Facebook have the right systems in place to fight misinformation and foreign interference? And how can Facebook help make social media a net positive for democracy?

“Each new story of nefarious actors abusing the platforms – often to foster divisiveness and intolerance – proves just how critical it is that social media companies take responsibility for securing our personal privacy and protecting public debate,” said Tom Glaisyer, managing director of the Public Square Program at Democracy Fund. “If the social media platforms are going to regain the public’s trust and live up to the outsized role they play in our democracy, the platforms must truly prioritize privacy, embrace transparency, and accept accountability. To protect and uphold meaningful rights we need richer, better informed research into the digital public square.”

“At Omidyar Network, we believe that technology can be a massive force for good, but that technologists must take broader responsibility for the implications of their products on society,” noted Paula Goldman, vice president and head of Omidyar Network’s Tech and Society Solutions Lab. “It is urgent that we find solutions that are based on sound analysis, which we cannot do without access to data. We’re hopeful this is first in a series of efforts by platforms to open up their data in a responsible way to help find robust solutions to the problems at hand.”

Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network, both part of The Omidyar Group, are deeply committed to determining how to leverage the potential of technology while addressing its unintended consequences. Late last year, the organizations joined forces to ask “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?” identifying six ways in which digital platforms pose direct challenges to democratic ideals. To help address these and other issues, Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network are pursuing multi-pronged strategies to help ensure the public square is vibrant, trusted, and informative in the digital age.

Omidyar Network’s Tech and Society Solutions Lab is designed to test, build, and scale solutions that address the unintended consequences of technology – and, more importantly, help maximize the tech industry’s contributions to a healthy society. For example, the Lab has invested in Tristan Harris, a former Design Ethicist at Google, who co-founded the Center for Humane Technology in part to develop new models for how technology could contribute to individual and public health. The Lab is also partnering with tech, media, and civil society leaders to support a grassroots campaign to create a code of ethics for the data science community to adopt principles of responsible data use and sharing.

Democracy Fund believes the American people must have effective ways to understand and be a part of the democratic process. As the internet transforms political life, it opens exciting new pathways for public engagement while challenging models that used to work. Democracy Fund is deeply committed to solutions that combat hyper-partisanship and ensure that elections have integrity. Some examples of this work include Professor Zeynep Tufekci’s research on algorithmic accountability and the “Eye on Elections” project led by Professor Young Mie Kim. Democracy Fund has also supported a number of specific efforts to address misinformation in news including Politifact, Hoaxy Bot-O-Meter, the Social Science Research Council’s Media & Democracy program, the Documenters Project by City Bureau and more.

All of these projects have the shared goal of increasing the accountability and responsibility of the technology industry and social media platforms. Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network are realistic about the complexities and risks of supporting this effort, but believe it has the potential to be a new avenue through which the public, platforms themselves, and policymakers will be able to better understand the implications of social media for the future of democracy.

***
ABOUT DEMOCRACY FUND

Democracy Fund, part of The Omidyar Group, is a bipartisan foundation created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar to help ensure that our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. Since 2011, Democracy Fund has invested more than $70 million in support of a healthy democracy, including modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square. To learn more, visit www.democracyfund.org or follow @democracyfund.

ABOUT OMIDYAR NETWORK

Omidyar Network, part of The Omidyar Group, is a philanthropic investment firm dedicated to harnessing the power of markets to create opportunity for people to improve their lives. Established in 2004 by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam, the organization invests in and helps scale innovative organizations to catalyze economic and social change. Omidyar Network has committed more than $1.2 billion to for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations that foster economic advancement and encourage individual participation across multiple initiatives, including Education, Emerging Tech, Financial Inclusion, Governance & Citizen Engagement, and Property Rights. To learn more, visit www.omidyar.com, and follow on Twitter @omidyarnetwork #PositiveReturns

CONTACTS:

Jessica Harris
202-448-4503
media@democracyfund.org

Libby Smiley
415-990-314
lsmiley@omidyar.com

 

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
Back to Ideas
Blog

Our special projects to defend democracy

Lauren Strayer
/
March 27, 2018

Democracy Fund is committed to supporting a resilient, diverse, democratic society that respects the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of each individual, and empowers us all to pursue and achieve the common good. We envision a country in which Americans actively participate in our democracy and have the information needed to hold our leaders accountable. And in which Americans are confident that their voices are heard and that democratic institutions are faithfully and effectively serving the nation’s best interests.

Since our creation in 2011, we have pursued this vision by investing in people and organizations across the political spectrum who are working to ensure we have modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square. We remain deeply committed to these long-term efforts as essential parts of a healthy, responsive democracy.

However, like many who care about the health of our political system, we at Democracy Fund have been increasingly alarmed as the divisive tone and tenor of the 2016 election cycle has continued to fester—suffocating civil dialogue, endangering the rights and lives of minority communities, and threatening some of the most fundamental principles and institutions of our democracy. The new President’s track record of questioning and dismissing our essential norms and institutions has put tremendous stress on our political system—especially on our freedoms of the press and the checks and balances that prevent abuses of powers.

These challenges pose a threat to our vision of a resilient, diverse, democracy — and we believe that when forces threaten the health of American democracy, we must stand up.

In response, we have launched four special projects over the last two years — committing $24 million in grantmaking for 2017-2018 — to defend and strengthen democracy. Following Democracy Fund’s established grantmaking criteria, these four new special projects focus on supporting people and institutions under attack, and helping our civic and political leaders to better understand the long-standing trends in public opinion that have produced today’s politics.

The Special Project on Investigative Journalism supports and defends the role of a robust, free press in our public square. Launched last March with an initial set of grants made in partnership with our colleagues at First Look Media, these grantees have produced hard-hitting public interest reporting on issues related to technology, education, the environment, immigration changes, and more. In the face of mounting attacks on the press, they have aggressively stood up against threats to the fourth estate, reporting on the issues that matter deeply to our nation right now. Examples of their fearless journalism include:

  • ProPublica’s ongoing reporting on dark ads and Facebook targeting (see “Facebook Moves to Prevent Advertisers From Targeting Haters”) revealed that advertisers could use Facebook to reach self-identified anti-Semites as well as enabling discriminatory job ads. The company removed those ads, as well as ads of other categories that could be used to target hate.
  • Reporting on how our government works is critical and the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Investigative Reporting are partnering to create a searchable, sortable database of Trump administration financial disclosures, and engaging readers as “citizen sleuths” to help follow the money.
  • ProPublica has also set up a project, Documenting Hate, to document hate crimes and bias incidents for which there has previously been limited data available to journalists, researchers, and advocates.
  • The Center for Investigative Reporting’s Heroin(e), which was picked up by Netflix and nominated for an Oscar, documents the effects of the opioid epidemic in West Virginia.

The Special Project on Fostering a Just and Inclusive Society seeks to protect those whose civil rights and safety appear to be endangered in this emerging landscape. It supports work that serves multiple communities vulnerable to threats in our volatile political environment, and — based on public opinion including that of the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group — this project has a particular focus on the risks to Muslim, Arab, and South Asian (MASA) communities. These grants have centered around four main objectives:

  • Supporting honest and positive communications efforts that support the American Muslim community.
  • Supporting Muslim, Arab and South Asian Community Organizations
  • Creating bipartisan community networks that can support MASA communities if threatened.
  • Challenging curbs on civil rights through litigation, legal services, and legal education

Since we began supporting these fields, our grantees have made significant progress, building relationships across the field and providing legal support. For example:

The Special Project on Government Accountability, Transparency, and Oversight strengthens the checks and balances that help Americans hold their leaders and government accountable. This project bolsters the existing structural safeguards in our system by, for example, rebuilding congressional capacity to conduct oversight, protecting potential whistleblowers, and fighting for more transparency around government actions. Our grantees also prepare for anticipated threats to the rule of law that could put our democracy at risk.

To date, Democracy Fund has provided support to a number of organizations strengthening government accountability, shining a light on government actions, and safeguarding our institutions. Some examples of our partners’ work include:

  • The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) has pushed to enforce government ethics rules, improve whistleblower protection policies, and strengthen bipartisan congressional oversight efforts.
  • A FOIA lawsuit filed by Lawfare and Protect Democracy Project helped secure the release of more than 100 FBI emails that contradicted the White House narrative that Director James Comey had lost Bureau support before his firing.
  • The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has worked to defend the Congressional Budget Office from attacks on its credibility.

The Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, our fourth special project, is a research collaboration of more than two dozen analysts and scholars from across the political spectrum examining and delivering insights on the evolving views of American voters. As the 2016 presidential campaign unfolded, it became increasingly clear that the underlying values and beliefs driving voter decisions need to be better understood. To that end, Henry Olsen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, John Sides of The George Washington University, and Joe Goldman of Democracy Fund convened a politically diverse group of conservative, progressive, and independent public opinion experts to study the electorate together. The group seeks not to achieve consensus, but to engage in discussion about how the views of the electorate are evolving and what the implications of those changes may be.

The Voter Study Group’s unique longitudinal surveys are translating into a richer understanding of the public’s views and concerns. For example:

  • Emily Ekins’ Five Types of Trump Voters illustrates the breadth of the President’s supporters’ views on a variety of issues including immigration, race, American identity, moral traditionalism, trade, and economics.
  • Robert Griffin’s Party Hoppers shows how a majority of the key Obama-to-Trump voters now identify as Republicans.
  • Most recently, Follow the Leader, by Lee Drutman, Larry Diamond, and Joe Goldman, reveals that while a majority of Americans still support democracy, more than one in four express some support for authoritarian politics.

In the coming weeks, Democracy Fund will publish blogs describing the progress of these projects. We are inspired and encouraged by the hard work and commitment of the bipartisan coalition of leaders and allies with whom we stand to ensure our political system is healthy and responsive to the needs of the American people. We look forward to continuing to work with these voices and leaders in defense of our common democratic ideals.

Back to Ideas
Op-Ed

New York Times Op-Ed: Is Trump Giving Authoritarianism a Bad Name?

Joe Goldman
/
March 20, 2018

​This op-ed was written by Lee Drutman, senior fellow at New America, and Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Joe Goldman, president of Democracy Fund, about their recent report, Follow the Leader: Exploring American Support for Democracy and Authoritarianism. You can read the full op-ed here.

In the past two years, a wave of distressing commentary has stressed the fragility of American democracy and the potential, inspired by President Trump, for emerging authoritarianism.

But a year into the Trump administration, Americans are rejecting authoritarian alternatives to democracy. In a new survey by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, we found that the percentage of Americans who expressed support for a “strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with elections or Congress” fell to levels not seen since the mid-1990s. In particular, young people overwhelmingly reject authoritarian rule, despite concerns about a rising generation retreating from democracy (raised most prominently by Roberto Foa and Yascha Mounk).

Mr. Trump is almost certainly giving authoritarianism a bad name. Support for authoritarian rule declined most among Democrats and young people, while significantly increasing among Republicans.

Read the rest of the op-ed in The New York Times here.

Back to Ideas
Press Release

While Most Americans Prefer Democracy, More Than One in Four Express Sympathy for Authoritarianism

Democracy Fund
/
March 13, 2018

​Voter Study Group report questions conventional wisdom that democracy is in decline, but finds concerning trends as authoritarian support consolidates among Trump supporters

Washington, DC — Americans’ support for an authoritarian leader declined for the first time in two decades, according to a new report from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group. “Follow the Leader: Exploring American Support for Democracy and Authoritarianism,” nevertheless finds worrying developments among the 29% of Americans who say that an authoritarian alternative to democracy would be favorable.

The new report by Lee Drutman (New America), Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution), and Joe Goldman (Democracy Fund) is part of a unique, multi-year study from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, a research collaboration of leading analysts and scholars from across the political spectrum examining the evolving views of American voters.

“The good news is that the sky is not falling — Americans are not abandoning democracy,” said Democracy Fund President Joe Goldman. “But in the midst of historic levels of polarization and new pressures on our constitutional checks and balances, the reality that more than a quarter of the American public seems open to turning away from democracy should worry anyone who cares about a healthy, responsive political system.”

Key findings from the report include:

  • The overwhelming majority of Americans support democracy and most of those who express negative views about it are opposed to authoritarian alternatives. In fact, the report finds no relationship between dissatisfaction with democracy and support for an authoritarian system in which a strong leader doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections.
  • Nearly a quarter of Americans say that a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections would be “fairly” or “very good,” and 18 percent say that army rule would be “fairly” or “very good.”
  • Support for a strong leader declined to 1995 levels after a two-decade increase. During these two decades, Democrats expressed greater support for a strong leader, but this reversed in 2017 as Republicans became far more likely to say that having a “strong leader” is a good system.
  • Thirty-two percent of Trump primary voters support a “strong leader” who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections. Support for this option is especially high (45 percent) among those who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and then voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
  • The highest levels of support for authoritarian leadership come from those who are disaffected, disengaged from politics, deeply distrustful of experts, culturally conservative, and have negative views towards racial minorities.

“While the overwhelming majority of Americans support democracy, there is a reason to be concerned, as support for democracy in the U.S. and rejection of authoritarian options is weaker than in many of our peer democracies around the world,” said Larry Diamond, senior fellow, Hoover Institution. “We need to renew our understanding of and commitment to democracy and the values that undergird it-pluralism, mutual respect and tolerance, flexibility, a willingness to compromise, and critical thinking. We cannot take democracy for granted.”

“This report highlights a problem with our current two-party system,” said Lee Drutman, senior fellow at New America. “If some Americans feel a political party does not represent them, they are left with only one other option. If that party becomes a party of racial resentment and authoritarian leadership, many individuals will update their beliefs to fit with their partisan identity. Otherwise, they can drop out of the political system altogether, which will presumably lead to more doubts about democracy.”

The full “Follow the Leader” report can be found at www.voterstudygroup.org, along with other research from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group.

###

About the Voter Study Group
In the coming months, the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group will be releasing a number of in-depth reports and data sets exploring public opinion on trade, immigration, democracy, and millennials, among other topics. Most recently, the group of experts commissioned the July 2017 VOTER Survey (Views of the Electorate Research Survey) of 5,000 adults who had participated in similar surveys in 2016, 2011, and 2012. The Voter Study Group will put a third survey into the field in March 2018.

Please sign up for email alerts here. The 2016 and 2017 VOTER Surveys and reports were made possible by a grant from Democracy Fund to the Ethics and Public Policy Center to conduct new research about changing trends among the American electorate.

VOTER Survey Methodology Summary
In partnership with the survey firm YouGov, the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group commissioned the 2017 VOTER Survey (Views of the Electorate Research Survey) of 5,000 adults who had participated in similar surveys in 2011, 2012 and 2016. A complete 2017 survey methodology is available here.

About Democracy Fund
Democracy Fund is a bipartisan foundation created by eBay founder and philanthropist Pierre Omidyar to help ensure that our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. Since 2011, Democracy Fund has invested more than $70 million in support of a healthy democracy, including modern elections, effective governance, and a vibrant public square.

Back to Ideas
Blog

How do you know that learning has happened?

Srik Gopal
/
March 7, 2018

​Learning is having its moment in philanthropy. Recent publications from the Center for Effective Philanthropy, FSG, and GEO all highlighted the increasing importance of learning in foundations.

The interest in learning has manifested in different ways — from “learning officer” type positions, to innovative structures and processes, and different ways of thinking about reporting results. However, these are still largely “inputs” that support learning, rather than “outputs” that show that learning has happened.

So how does one know that learning has, in fact, happened?

Learning is Action

At a wedding I attended several years ago, the pastor delivered a speech titled “love is action.” She made the point to the newlyweds that no matter how much they might say they loved their partner, it would ring hollow without action that showed the same. The pastor asked, “What are you willing to change about yourself? What behaviors are you willing to engage in that go beyond your comfort zone, but would be responsive to your partner’s needs?”

Taking a cue from the pastor, I would contend that the only way to truly know if learning has happened is if something has changed. For example, learning could result in:

  1. a tweak in strategy or approach;
  2. bringing new grantees or partners into the mix; or a
  3. change in programmatic focus, including entry into new areas and exit from old areas.

This raises the question whether every new learning requires an action. The answer is no, as there is still need for strong judgment to determine whether and when action is warranted. In the context of board-approved, long-term strategies, we don’t want to be “lurching” from one path to another. However, informed inaction is very different from blindly sticking to the status quo. There is still a clear choice that is being made not to act.

How Learning Happens at Democracy Fund

At Democracy Fund, we recognize the value of learning to our organization. Given the nature of the complex, intractable problems we are trying to solve, ongoing learning and adaptation remain our surest bets for creating the impact we care about. To this end, we are putting together a “learning architecture,” that includes different structures, processes, and systems to make learning actionable at multiple levels:

  1. Internal: Through ongoing program evaluations, learning labs, and portfolio reviews, we will engage our staff not just in “What” we are learning, but the “So What” and “Now What” steps coming out of it for our strategy.
  2. Board: Through an annual learning and progress report to our board, as well as a deeper board learning conversation that happens for each initiative every 18–24 months, each team will provide a snapshot of lessons learned that either confirm or contradict initial hypotheses and the implications of these lessons going forward.
  3. External: This remains the least developed part of our learning architecture at the moment, but our goal is to have a robust set of products that share our lessons and implications with grantees, partners, and the broader field. We also hope to build a community of fellow learners along the way.

We fully expect this to be a work in progress over the next one to two years, but our goal is to make actionable learning an integral part of the way we do business, in service to what we ultimate care about — a strong and resilient American democracy.

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
© 2025 Democracy Fund — Founded by The Omidyar Group