Blog

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

/
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.

 

Statement

Democracy Fund Statement on Twitter’s Decision on Political Ads

/
October 31, 2019

WASHINGTONDemocracy Fund president, Joe Goldman, and managing director, Tom Glaisyer, issued the following statement in response to Twitter’s announcement that it will no longer run political or advocacy ads:

“Twitter’s decision yesterday is a positive development, but it doesn’t go far enough —our political discourse remains broken on social media platforms. Companies like Twitter must adopt and enforce a code of conduct against hate speech and disinformation, and we must continue to hold them accountable until they do.

The time for half-measures and minor reforms has passed. Simply ending a portion of an advertising policy without providing transparency, addressing misinformation, and ending racially biased algorithms only deals with one part of a larger issue. In the lead up to the 2020 election, we need bold leadership from all platforms to strengthen our digital public square and preserve a healthy democracy.”

Two years ago, Democracy Fund and the Omidyar Network published a report, asking “Is Social Media a Threat to Democracy?” The report chronicled the role of social media platforms in spreading misinformation and divisive propaganda during the 2016 election. Democracy Fund continues to invest in programs, people and organizations that are working to create a robust public square that serves our democracy.

Blog

Improving Motor Voter Registration: A Colorado Case Study

Lisa Danetz
/
January 9, 2020

Over the past few years, I’ve traveled across the United States working to understand and improve state motor voter registration services, as yet another step towards ensuring all eligible individuals have the opportunity to register to vote in the United States. My goal has been to learn from each state’s experience, share its findings with others, and encourage strong connections between the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) officials – who, through the motor voter process, are now the source of 45% of the nation’s voter registration activity – and the election officials who administer the elections.

Colorado, in particular, has stood out as a state that has implemented one of the more modern, collaborative, and user-friendly motor voter registration systems in the country.

In five years, Colorado implemented motor voter registration upgrades including updated policies and technology, and successfully transformed an inefficient multi-step paper-based system into a modern streamlined electronic automatic voter registration system that complies with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). These changes led to a decrease in DMV transaction time by 20 to 30 seconds, contributed (along with a larger DMV IT system modernization) to a four-minute reduction in the DMV’s initial wait time, and increased access and usage of motor voter registration opportunities.

HOW COLORADO MADE THIS HAPPEN

While each state has its own set of obstacles to navigate – like differing agency priorities, resource shortages, bureaucratic resistance, and technology challenges – Colorado’s story of success can serve as a guide to overcoming these obstacles to serve a state’s citizens and ultimately improve the strength of our democracy. Most notably:

1. Relationship Development

In Colorado, relationship development was key. Both Elections Director Judd Choate and DMV Senior Director Mike Dixon recognized and prioritized relationship-building and communication between their offices to address and upgrade the state’s motor voter registration processes. Over several years, the development of a strong and trusted relationship between their teams allowed process upgrades to come to fruition. The initiation of the state’s NVRA Working Group was especially significant, bringing all stakeholders together to provide input and buy-in, and to recognize the potential of the DMV IT system modernization project.

2. Internal Advocacy

Differing missions and priorities between agencies do not need to be a roadblock. In particular, while voter registration is one of the core concerns of elections agencies like the Colorado Department of State (CDOS), it is simply one of many responsibilities handled by the DMV—and one for which they often do not receive direct funding. That can make it difficult for an entity like a DMV to prioritize process changes when what’s in place seems to work. The legal memos and explanatory presentations that CDOS prepared for CDOR helped move along the understanding of the need to make process fixes—and the resulting benefits.

3. Investment of Resources

More frequently than not, process changes involve the investment of significant resources – both time and money – and these process changes were no different. Fortunately, the Colorado DMV was already planning an IT modernization of its driver’s license system. Including motor-voter registration modifications was a cost-effective method to improve that system as well. The costs for the motor voter changes were easily absorbed into the project. In addition, for those upgrades that were not part of the original DMV system modernization, CDOS paid for the DMV motor voter registration technology upgrades and worked with the Colorado Department of Revenue (which houses the DMV) to write the requirements.

LOOKING AHEAD TO 2020

Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from Colorado’s experience is that our systems must constantly adapt and evolve to fit the changing needs of our citizens and voters. In fact, the Colorado legislature recently passed a bill in May 2019 that requires the state to adopt and implement “Oregon style” automatic voter registration by July 2020. As the state prepares to implement this latest set of changes, it is the perfect time to examine the breadth of the already-implemented process upgrades and the robust data available about their impacts to date. While what works for one state is not a guarantee that it will work in another, Colorado’s efforts provide important lessons for policymakers to consider in devising their own motor voter registration upgrade plans.

To receive a copy of the Colorado case study, and to learn more about Democracy Fund’s work on motor voter registration and NVRA compliance, please contact elections@democracyfund.org.

Lisa Danetz conducts this work on behalf of Democracy Fund, and has worked in the voting rights, money in politics, and democracy field as a policy expert, advocate, and lawyer for 20 years. She has developed a particular expertise on voter registration through government agencies and, most recently, has been doing work within the AAMVA (DMV) community to provide information and support related to their voter registration and election responsibilities. In addition to her work with Democracy Fund, she has worked with Demos and the National Voting Rights Institute, among others. She received her B.S. from Yale University and her J.D. cum laude from New York University School of Law.

Press Release

Journalism Funders Call on Newsrooms to Respond to ASNE Diversity Survey

Democracy Fund
/
September 20, 2018

Last week the American Society of News Editors announced that it is extending the deadline for its 2018 Newsroom Employment Diversity Survey because only 234 out of nearly 1,700 newspapers and digital media outlets have submitted data to this year’s survey. In response, Farai Chideya, Program Officer, Creativity and Free Expression, Ford Foundation; Molly de Aguiar, Managing Director, News Integrity Initiative; Jim Friedlich, Executive Director & CEO of the Lenfest Institute for Journalism; Tom Glaisyer, Managing Director of the Public Square Program at Democracy Fund; Jonathan Logan, President & CEO Jonathan Logan Family Foundation; Jennifer Preston, Vice President of Journalism at the John S and James L Knight Foundation; and Andres Torres, Program Officer at the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, released the following joint statement:

As foundations committed to furthering diversity, equity, and inclusion in journalism, we stand together today to call on newsroom leaders to take seriously the work of building newsrooms that truly represent the diversity of our nation.

The ASNE diversity survey has been collecting newsroom employment data since 1978 and was relaunched this year with a focus on making it a more actionable tool for the nation’s newsrooms. We frequently read about outlets’ commitment to diversify their coverage and newsrooms; and from newsroom staff on the need for change. To deliver on that promise of change, there needs to be more transparency and accountability. That starts with fully participating in the leading survey of newsroom diversity in the nation. The response to this year’s survey is deeply disappointing.

Newsrooms today have invested enormous amounts of time and money in tracking data about our journalism. Editors and publishers understand the necessity of using good data to drive decisions. Diversity is no different. That is why journalism funders recently released five years of data about funding for equity, diversity, and inclusion. As funders, we know the philanthropic community needs to prioritize this work as well, and tools like the ASNE survey inform our work. That is why we will require annual completion of the ASNE survey for our journalism grantees in our grant agreements going forward.

A healthy, diverse democracy requires a robust, free, and diverse fourth estate. The work of diversity is the work of journalism today. We believe the ASNE survey is a critical tool in creating a more responsive and representative public square, and we call on the industry to respond with the urgency this moment demands. If you haven’t already, we strongly encourage that you respond to the survey by Oct. 12.

Newsrooms with questions about how to respond should contact lead researcher Dr. Meredith Clark, mdc6j@virginia.edu, or ASNE Executive Director Teri Hayt at thayt@asne.org.

Blog

BPC Launches Commission on Political Reform

/
March 5, 2013

The Bipartisan Policy Center, a Democracy Fund grantee, will launch its Commission on Political Reform on Wednesday, which will seek to understand the causes and consequences of America’s partisan political divide and recommend reforms to help Americans achieve shared national goals. Watch the webcast of the launch here (March 6 at 1 pm eastern). The commission will be co-chaired by former Senate Majority Leaders Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS), former Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), former Senator, Governor and Secretary Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID), and former Representative and Secretary Dan Glickman (D-KS). The co-chairs will be joined by 25 other Americans, including volunteer and religious leaders, veterans, business executives, academics, state and local elected officials and journalists. “Democrats and Republicans are not just more divided ideologically, but less collaborative in practice than at any time in our careers. Even more troublingly, we suspect that the divide is not limited to Washington; that much of America is now riven along party lines, goaded to partisanship by increasingly shrill voices in politics, the media, and well-funded interests on both sides,” wrote Snowe and Glickman in an op-ed for USA TODAY. The commission will hold a series of “National Conversations on American Unity” starting on March 6, 2013 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library in California. Throughout the next year the commission will also host forums in other cities across the country, including: Philadelphia; Columbus, Ohio; and Boston. In 2014, the commission will present recommendations to the American people in three areas: electoral system reform, congressional procedural improvements, and promoting public service. The public can join the conversation by visiting www.bipartisanpolicy.org/CPR or following the commission on Twitter: @BPC_Bipartisan #EngageUSA. Check the website daily for new blogs and videos featuring the commissioners, information about upcoming Twitter Q&A sessions, and facts about bipartisanship. Questions and comments from the public will be incorporated into the “National Conversations on American Unity” in real time starting on March 6. Commission on Political Reform Co-Chairs: Tom Daschle, Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader (D-SD); Co-founder, BPC
 Dan Glickman, Former U.S. Representative (D-KS) and Secretary of Agriculture; Senior Fellow, BPC

Dirk Kempthorne, Former U.S. Senator (R-ID), Governor and Secretary of the Interior; President and CEO, American Council of Life Insurers

Trent Lott, Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader (R-MS); Senior Fellow, BPC


 

 

Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator (R-ME); Senior Fellow, BPC Commission on Political Reform Members:

Hope Andrade, Former Texas Secretary of State (R)


Molly Barker, Founder, Girls on the Run

Henry Bonilla, Former U.S. Representative (R-TX); Partner, the Normandy Group

John Bridgeland, Former Director, White House Domestic Policy Council; Former Director, USA Freedom Corps; President and CEO, Civic Enterprises

 

John Donahoe, President and CEO, eBay Inc. Susan Eisenhower, Chairman of Leadership and Public Policy Programs, Eisenhower Institute; President, Eisenhower Group, Inc. Floyd H. Flake, Former U.S. Representative (D-NY); Pastor, Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral Mark D. Gearan, Former Director, Peace Corps; President, Hobart and William Smith Colleges Heather Gerken, J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law, Yale Law School
 Michael Gerson, Former Speechwriter for President George W. Bush; Columnist, The Washington Post

Charles Gonzalez, Former U.S. Representative (D-TX)

Jennifer M. Granholm, Former Governor of Michigan (D)
 Antonia Hernandez, President and CEO, California Community Foundation
 Karen Hughes, Former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs; Worldwide Vice Chair, Burson-Marsteller

Victoria Kennedy, Co-founder, Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate

Chris Marvin, Managing Director, “Got Your 6” David McIntosh, Former U.S. Representative (R-IN); Partner, Mayer Brown LLP Eric L. Motley, Ph.D.Former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush; Vice President, the Aspen Institute Deborah Pryce, Former U.S. Representative (R-OH); Principal, Ice Miller Whiteboard

Reihan Salam, Lead Writer, National Review Online’s “The Agenda”

Kurt L. Schmoke, Former Mayor of Baltimore (D); Vice President and General Counsel, Howard University Margaret Spellings, Former U.S. Secretary of Education (R); President and CEO, Margaret Spellings and Company

Diane Tomb, President and CEO, National Association of Women Business Owners

Ronald A. Williams, Former Chairman and CEO, Aetna Inc; Founder, RW-2 Enterprises, LLC

Elaine Wynn, Director, Wynn Resorts

Blog

A $100 Million Commitment to Healthy Democracy​

/
June 26, 2018

This Fourth of July, Democracy Fund will celebrate its fourth anniversary as an independent foundation. Little did I know in the summer of 2014 just how profound the threats facing our country would turn out to be or the degree to which the health of our nation’s political system would become a near-universally recognized problem. Lately, I find myself thinking that this organization was created for this moment — though I did not realize it was coming.

Fittingly, July Fourth will also mark an important milestone in our growth as an institution — $100 million in grants made to organizations strengthening U.S. democracy. It has been our privilege to make these resources available to a remarkable group of leaders working to ensure that our democratic institutions deliver on their promise to the American people.

While Democracy Fund’s core mission has not changed from its founding, this organization looks very different from four years ago when we had a staff of three and a dozen or so grantees. The events of the past two years demanded that we clarify our core convictions and to dramatically expand our commitment to strengthen American democracy and defend the United States Constitution.

The purpose of this open letter is to share how we have changed, to demonstrate an ongoing commitment to our core programs, and to explain why we think it is so important that philanthropy stand up patriotically in this moment.

With today’s publication of our vision for a healthy democracy, I acknowledge that our commitment to bipartisanship cannot come at the expense of our core values. Indeed, we believe that being bipartisan cannot mean being neutral when actions are taken that threaten our republic.

At Democracy Fund, we believe a healthy democracy requires at least two competitive political parties — and that democratic institutions work best when they have broad support from across the political spectrum. We deeply value our ability to work with Republicans, Democrats, and independents to find ways to ensure that our democracy works for all Americans.

But we also believe in the dignity of every individual and in the equal protection of their rights under law. We believe that checks and balances, as well as respect for the rule of law, are critical to protect against abuses of power. We believe that political leaders bear an uncommon burden to act with integrity. And we believe that threats to the health of our democracy — as well as solutions to these — can come from all sides of the political spectrum.

Over the past two years, I have seen alarming and sometimes unprecedented violations of our country’s democratic norms. For an organization committed to strengthening democracy on behalf of the American people, this isn’t just disturbing — it’s humbling.

Over the past two years, I have seen alarming and sometimes unprecedented violations of our country’s democratic norms. For an organization committed to strengthening democracy on behalf of the American people, this isn’t just disturbing — it’s humbling.

With this in mind, Democracy Fund convened its National Advisory Committee and board of directors in the early months of 2017 to consider how we would stand up to urgent, new threats facing our Constitution.

Our first priority was to articulate the beliefs that underlie our work, and clearly assert those core democratic principles for which we stand. Working with our advisors and a diverse group of scholars, we created a healthy democracy framework to help explicate the values that motivate our efforts. The framework will serve as a compass, inform decision-making, and provide clarity about the principled positions underlying our actions for ourselves and others.

Having articulated these beliefs, we knew that staying the course in the face of new and widening gaps between our vision for a healthy democracy and the realities of America today was not an option. We rebooted some of Democracy Fund’s core programs and added new, bipartisan initiatives to stop abuses of government power, secure our elections, defend press freedom, and combat misinformation. We increased our staff by more than 40 percent and tripled the size of our grantmaking budget. We also created three new special projects that include two-year commitments of:

In addition, we launched the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group to help policymakers keep in touch with the beliefs and attitudes of ordinary Americans.

Even as we continue our ongoing work to strengthen American democracy, we’re taking a stand against real and direct threats to our Constitution.

Combatting the Abuse of Power

Core to our understanding of a healthy democracy is the notion that constitutional checks and balances protect against abuses of power and preserve the rule of law. Over the past year, Democracy Fund has worked to reinvigorate government accountability in a challenging environment in which government leaders have openly flouted ethics rules and challenged the independence of everything from the courts to the Justice Department.

Democracy Fund’s grantees are fighting back aggressively. Collectively, they have participated in more than 35 lawsuits targeting government corruption, secrecy, and ethics violations. In addition to exposing abuses, these legal actions are helping to protect institutions that have come under attack. For example, a FOIA lawsuit filed by Lawfare helped secure the release of 100 F.B.I. emails that contradicted the White House’s false narrative that former F.B.I. Director James Comey had lost Bureau support before his firing.

Other grantees, like the National Security Archive, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), and the Government Accountability Project, have filed more than 2,300 FOIA requests to expose government corruption, misconduct, waste, and conflicts of interest. Work by POGO and Open the Government has led the Department of Homeland Security to release an Inspector General report criticizing initial implementation of the Muslim travel ban.

POGO, the Lugar Center, and the Levin Center are also continuing to encourage bipartisan congressional oversight by training nearly 300 Hill staffers on how to hold the executive branch accountable. In addition, POGO and the Government Accountability Project have distributed whistleblower education materials to more than 2,100 federal employees, NGO employees, journalists, and engaged citizens.

Another grantee engaged in especially urgent work is the Protect Democracy Project, which was established in February 2017. In its first month of operation, the Project successfully helped force the Trump administration to release a policy restricting communications between the White House and the Department of Justice. Then, it helped expose instances in which the White House had violated those restrictions. In just a year, the Protect Democracy Project has forced important public disclosures on issues ranging from potential executive overreach into a major healthcare merger, to alleged intimidation of federal workers, to the legal rationale behind military strikes in Syria.

Three grantees of our affiliated 501(c)4, Democracy Fund Voice — R Street Institute, Stand Up Republic, and the Niskanen Center — are working to build bipartisan networks to push back against threats to our democracy. These networks are working to stand up for democratic norms while building consensus on a vision for American democracy over the long term.

To stop the abuse of political power, our grantees are cutting deep into the weeds of government. But we are confronted by threats that go deeper still, undermining the most basic feature of our democracy: free and fair elections.

Securing Our Elections

We believe that voting is the cornerstone of our democracy; but when it comes to elections, Democracy Fund worries less about who wins than about whether people have faith in the outcome. False claims that millions of fraudulent votes were cast in 2016 have the potential to undermine faith in our elections — while creating a spurious justification for erecting barriers that make it more difficult for Americans to vote.

M.I.T.’s Election Data and Science Lab and the Center for Election Innovation & Research played a leading role in pushing back against these false claims that the Pence-Kobach Voter Fraud Commission sought to justify. These efforts to correct the record — alongside legal actions by Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, the Campaign Legal Center, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense Fund, and others — contributed to the eventual dissolution of the Commission.

We believe that voting is the cornerstone of our democracy, but when it comes to elections, Democracy Fund worries less about who wins than about whether people have faith in the outcome.

At the same time, we know malicious foreign actors made a concerted effort to undermine the 2016 presidential election and that the security of our next election cannot be taken for granted. For more than 12 months, Democracy Fund Voice worked with its partners to persuade Congress to provide state and local election officials with the resources and training necessary to maintain the highest possible security. This work paid off last month, when Congress included $380 million in grants to the states to improve cybersecurity, replace paperless voting machines, and perform post-election audits (among other measures). Lawmakers also approved $10 million in funding for the Election Assistance Commission — a 10 percent increase — and provided the F.B.I. with an additional $300 million to bolster election cybersecurity.

Democracy Fund grantees have also found innovative ways to get ahead of the next attack on our election infrastructure. The bipartisan duo of Robby Mook and Matt Rhoads (former campaign managers for Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, respectively) launched a new program at Harvard to help campaigns and election officials protect sensitive data against intrusion. The effort is organizing “tabletop exercises” that simulate attacks on election systems — and allow election officials and security experts to practice their response.

Additional grantees with a focus on money in politics have also played important roles. The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) developed a symposium and report about whether current laws are sufficient to prevent or deter future intrusion. Campaign finance complaints filed by CLC and Common Cause forced other actors, including President Donald Trump’s lawyer, to disclose more information about alleged foreign interference than otherwise known. Additionally, CLC and others have done important work to promote greater disclosure on social media platforms.

Defending the Fourth Estate

At a moment when journalists face profound economic and political threats, Democracy Fund is helping to ensure our fourth estate remains free and resilient. In the healthy democracy framework, we assert that journalists provide a critical check on power, holding our leaders accountable and revealing corruption, wrongdoing, and conflicts of interest. They provide Americans with the information they need to uphold the promise of a democracy of, by, and for the people. That’s why Democracy Fund has made a two-year commitment of $11 million to strengthen investigative reporting. It’s also why we’re supporting press freedom watchdogs, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reporters Without Borders, and the Student Press Law Center.

Grants to the nation’s premier investigative watchdogs have enabled these nonprofit newsrooms to pursue a wide range of stories that have held administration officials accountable for wrongdoing, forced divestitures, and changed laws.

ProPublica has taken on biased algorithms, forced changes in Facebook’s advertising rules, and prompted New York City lawmakers to pass the country’s first bill to address discrimination produced by social media algorithms. And Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross divested from his global shipping company after an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity showed significant conflicts of interest.

Too often, journalists become targets for threats and abuse as a result of their work to advance the public interest. Trump administration officials have gone so far as to call out Democracy Fund grantees by name. One grantee, the Pulitzer Prize-winning newsroom ProPublica, faced a cyberattack that took down its entire email system — an attempt to silence ProPublica journalists in retribution for hard-hitting reporting on hate crimes and extremists groups. In the face of these attacks, Democracy Fund’s support provided these grantees with the resources and independence they needed to stand firm, fix their systems, and continue their indispensable work.

Local newsrooms are, in many ways, the building blocks of our democracy, covering stories that matter to residents and holding local leaders accountable in a way that no other organizations can.

Local newsrooms are, in many ways, the building blocks of our democracy, covering stories that matter to residents and holding local leaders accountable in a way that no other organizations can. Yet, across the country, we’ve seen an increase in “trickle-down” attacks on the press, where those in power use their positions to undermine — or even encourage violence against — local journalists. These attacks have come at a time of severe economic turmoil for many local newsrooms, when their business models are failing — and their continued viability is in serious question.

That’s why Democracy Fund has worked hand-in-glove with peer funders to launch NewsMatch — an unprecedented campaign to strengthen nonprofit journalism and make 2017 a record-breaking year for giving to local investigative news. With the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and a partnership of five additional funders, we matched donations to nonprofit newsrooms for the last three months of 2017, helping journalists raise more than $4.8 million. Among the more than 100 nonprofit newsrooms that participated, nearly all raised more dollars from more donors than ever before.

 

Even as we work to ensure that all Americans have access to quality local news and investigative reporting, Democracy Fund’s grantees are also striving to combat the misinformation that pollutes our public square. For instance, long before Cambridge Analytica captured national headlines, we published a report examining the ways in which social media platforms exacerbate information disorders, spread hate, and threaten our democracy.

But declining trust in media is not only a product of this political moment. It also stems from the ways journalism has at times stood apart from communities and failed to deliver stories that matter to them. Grantees in our Engaged Journalism portfolio continue to experiment with tools that foster a deeper connection between newsrooms and the public. In the context of that work, we’ve made significant commitments to making newsrooms more diverse and representative of their readership.

Through all of our efforts in this space, Democracy Fund is working toward a future where we can trust the headlines we see — and the democracy we shape together.

Protecting the Dignity and Rights of Each Individual

First among our core beliefs is a fundamental dedication to the dignity of every individual in our democracy, and the protection of their rights under the law. Without a recognition of our common humanity and a common American identity, our democracy cannot function. All too often, however, divisive rhetoric targeting Muslims and immigrants — rhetoric that has been embraced, over the past year, by policymakers, government officials, and media figures — encourages bigotry among the public while creating political momentum for policies that demean individuals and threaten to violate basic civil rights.

Nationally, as well as in individual communities throughout the country, Democracy Fund grantees are fighting for greater inclusion — and pushing back against policies that undermine what it means to be an American. While some leaders in government and the media blamed the hate-motivated violence we saw in Charlottesville on “both sides,” Democracy Fund grantees like Faith & Public Life were training clergy in nonviolent strategies to protect peaceful demonstrators from gun-wielding white supremacists. In the aftermath of that conflict, Georgetown University’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) acted to prevent it from happening again. ICAP lawyers discovered provisions of Virginia law — dating back to 1776 — that prohibit “paramilitary activity.” This discovery became the basis of a 79-page lawsuit ICAP filed in Charlottesville last October.

As activist groups, members of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian (MASA) communities, and allied organizations came together, over the past year, to challenge the Trump administration’s Muslim and refugee ban, the Proteus Fund’s Security & Rights Collaborative (SRC) played a critical coordination role. Through the #NoMuslimBanEver campaign, SRC helped facilitate mobilization efforts across the country — and also provided direct monetary and strategic support to MASA organizations. Their and their grantees’ work continued this spring, when ICAP’s Neal Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued against the ban before the Supreme Court.

 

In our effort to maintain a just and inclusive society, Democracy Fund has also partnered with Freedom to Believe, an organization that brings people of all faiths and backgrounds to mosques to learn more about Islam and forge connections with Muslim communities. Similarly, our grantee Veterans for American Ideals is using proven strategic communications tactics to promote tolerance. Their #WhatIFoughtFor campaign showcases moving collaborations between refugees and military service members that are helping to make America, in every sense, a more perfect union.

In recent months, Democracy Fund staff have also worked closely with Civic Nation and NBCUniversal to support the re-launch of their “Erase the Hate” campaign to combat prejudice, hate crimes, and the spread of hate speech online.

Understanding the American Public

The concept of robust representation is embedded throughout our healthy democracy framework and is fundamental to the proper function of our democratic republic. In this unique and consequential moment, it is as important as ever before that America’s leaders — in public office and at every level of civil society — hold a nuanced understanding of the American public, their experience and preferences, and how their changing attitudes are reshaping our politics. To this end, Democracy Fund created the Voter Study Group to dig deep into public opinion data — and then to analyze and share those results with policymakers, government officials, and the media.

There are two key attributes that distinguish the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group from other polling efforts. First, the group itself is made up of a diverse group of scholars from across the political spectrum, ranging from the Center for American Progress and the Brookings Institution on the left to Heritage Action and the American Enterprise Institute on the right. This remarkable diversity of opinion not only increases the quality of our analysis; it also means we have been able to gain attention and interest from media and policymakers in important and unusual ways. Second, the use of a longitudinal dataset — which surveys the same group of people who have been questioned since 2011 — has yielded deep insights into how the American electorate is changing in ways that are quite unique. We believe that the collaborative nature of this project lends itself especially well to the vigorous, informed dialogue across ideological difference that is necessary to sustainable policy and sustainable politics.

 

Since its launch, the Voter Study Group has released ten reports. Initial analyses focused on understanding the 2016 electorate, examining the composition of President Trump’s political base, and considering how party coalitions are changing. More recently, the group published “Follow the Leader,” a report that sought to assess the health of American democracy by better understanding authoritarian attitudes among the public.

What we found was alarming. Nearly one in four Americans say it would be good to have a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections. Nearly one in five say the same of military rule. In aggregate, 29 percent of respondents showed at least some support for an authoritarian alternative to democracy.

And yet, the cause for hope was clear: when offered a direct choice, the overwhelming majority of Americans chose democracy. Moreover, we didn’t see a correlation between dissatisfaction with democracy and support for authoritarian options.

Frustration and anger at the state of our democracy are well founded; openness to autocracy is not. The big question for us — as an organization and a leader in the philanthropic space — is what more we can do to strengthen our democracy, both for the next election and for the next generation.

Our Commitment to a Healthy Democracy

We live at a time when the principles articulated in our healthy democracy framework are threatened by uniquely dangerous circumstances. At Democracy Fund, we firmly believe these threats demand a full-throated response.

Admittedly, the approach I have outlined above is far more aggressive — necessarily so — than the one we took during our first few years of operation. In the face of unprecedented threats, philanthropists — including Democracy Fund — can’t just do what we’ve been doing. This moment demands something more than business as usual. That’s why Democracy Fund is calling on our peer organizations to take action — and why, moving forward, we will be proud to serve as a partner and resource to any funder willing to stand up and speak out for our Constitution.

Even as we respond to the current crises, we know the conditions that gave rise to this moment will still be with us for the foreseeable future. So we all need to commit to the long-term health of our democracy. Beyond the work outlined in this letter, Democracy Fund continues its work to reduce polarization, modernize elections, diversify newsrooms, and perform other essential tasks to strengthen our political system. Our hope is that peer funders will also join us on these longer-term projects.

At a time when our political institutions are under tremendous strain, Democracy Fund and its partners have been inspired by ordinary Americans who are standing up in extraordinary ways to help protect our republic. Their examples are proof that the vision outlined in our healthy democracy framework is not too much to hope for. That is why we’re rallying experts, activists, political leaders, and patriotic philanthropists to renew their personal responsibility for the greater good of our democracy.

Blog

Guest Post: The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

John Gastil
/
February 26, 2013

Local and statewide initiatives and referenda give citizens the opportunity to vote directly on legislation, but voters often lack the information they need to make informed choices. The State of Oregon has created a potential remedy for this situation, called the Citizens Initiative Review (CIR), which convenes a group of average citizens together to evaluate ballot measures and share their recommendations with the voting public. Healthy Democracy, the innovative organization behind the CIR, is a grantee of the Democracy Fund. My colleagues and I recently completed an evaluation of the 2012 CIR process in order to understand its quality and impact. Last fall, the CIR Commission, which was established by the Governor in 2011, convened panels of 24 randomly-selected, demographically representative Oregon citizens to spend a full week examining two different ballot measures. One initiative proposed reforming the corporate tax system and the other would have authorized the construction of private casinos in Oregon. At the end of their deliberations, each panel produced a one page CIR Citizens’ Statement that went into the official Voter’s Pamphlet that the state mailed to every registered Oregon voter. The panels’ judgments ultimately matched the election outcomes, with voters ending a corporate tax refund and declining to authorize private casinos. Among other things, our research team found that:

  • A majority of Oregon voters were aware of the CIR.
  • Roughly two-thirds of those who read the CIR Statements found them helpful when deciding how to vote.
  • Those who read a CIR Statement learned more about the ballot measures than those who read other portions of the official Voter’s Guide.

For me, the most interesting finding is the impact of the CIR on voter knowledge. As the CIR Commission’s webpage explains, the Oregon process “is an innovative way of publicly evaluating ballot measures so voters have clear, useful, and trustworthy information at election time.” So, we wanted to find out whether the CIR actually does increase voter knowledge and voters’ confidence in the facts that they learn.

To answer that question, we chose to conduct an online survey. When contacted in the final weeks before the election, some survey respondents were shown a CIR Statement and others were shown nothing. We then asked respondents to assess whether 10 factual statements pertinent to the ballot measure were true or false. Respondents frequently expressed uncertainty and chose the “don’t know” response, but many did claim to know whether each statement “definitely” or “probably” was true or false. Those who read the CIR Statement outperformed the control group on nine of the ten knowledge items. Those who had read the CIR recommendations answered, on average, twice as many knowledge items correctly—again, with “don’t know” responses being more common that inaccurate ones. Real Oregon voters who had not yet read the Voters’ Pamphlet gained more knowledge from reading the CIR Statement than from either equivalent doses of paid pro/con arguments or the official Explanatory and Fiscal statements.

Figure 1. Average number of correct answers on a ten-item knowledge battery regarding Measure 85 for each of four experimental conditions in the online survey
Figure 1. Average number of correct answers on a ten-item knowledge battery regarding Measure 85 for each of four experimental conditions in the online survey

You can download the full report to learn more about our evaluation findings. Though the Oregon CIR is not a panacea for all of the weaknesses of the initiative and referendum system, our findings—along with those from our 2010 evaluation report—do support the view that everyday citizens can produce high-quality deliberation on complex policies and give their peers accurate and useful information to consider before voting. Moreover, it’s clear that by distributing those results through the official Voter’s Guide, the Oregon CIR reaches and influences large numbers of voters in Oregon. Yale democratic theorist Robert Dahl wrote in On Democracy (1998),

One of the imperative needs of democratic countries is to improve citizens’ capacities to engage intelligently in political life . . . In the years to come . . . older institutions will need to be enhanced by new means for civic education, political participation, information, and deliberation that draw creatively on the array of techniques and technologies available in the twenty-first century.

The Oregon CIR appears to be one such institution, ingeniously using citizens themselves to inform the judgments of their peers. The one hitch is that the CIR does not receive any state funds, so it remains unclear whether it will continue to thrive—or spread to other states—in future years. John Gastil (jgastil@psu.edu) is Professor and Head of the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at Pennsylvania State University and the Director of the Penn State Democracy Institute. His most recent books include the co-edited volume Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement and The Jury and Democracy, both by Oxford University Press.

Blog

What We’re Reading

Justin Anderson
/
March 7, 2013

At the Democracy Fund, we’re constantly reading the latest research, reports, and analyses to learn about the challenges facing our democracy and what we can do about them. Over the coming months, I’ll use this space to share links to some of these publications. (If you are interested in news and updates from our grantees, please visit the News Page.)

  • Participatory Budgeting in Year Two: Reinvigorating Local Democracy in NYC (Huffington Post) Melissa Mark-Viverito, NYC Council Member, 8th District, discusses the second year of Participatory Budgeting in New York City while highlighting the process and successes from Year One. Related stories: Vallejo Participatory Budgeting Video (Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership) – CA Forward has produced a short video on the participatory budgeting process currently underway in Vallejo, CA. The City of Vallejo is the first US city to undertake a city-wide participatory budgeting process. The Spread of Participatory Budgeting Across the Globe: Adoption, Adaptation, and Impacts (Journal of Public Deliberation, Vol. 8, Issue 2) This special issue of the Journal of Public Deliberation brings together leading scholars and practitioners of PB in order to expand our understanding about why PB programs are being adopted, how governments are adapting the rules and principles to meet different policy and political goals, and the impact of PB on civil society, state reform, and social well-being.
  • 2012 American Values Survey (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press) The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has released a new report examining partisan polarization surges from 1987-2012. Overall, there has been much more stability than change across the 48 political values measures that the Pew Research Center has tracked since 1987. But the average partisan gap has nearly doubled over this 25-year period – from 10 percentage points in 1987 to 18 percentage points in the new study.
  • Most Believe at Least One Political Conspiracy Theory (Political Wire) A new study from Fairleigh Dickinson University finds that 63% of registered voters buy into at least one political conspiracy theory, with 36% who think that President Obama is hiding information about his background and early life, 25% who think that the government knew about 9/11 in advance, and 19% who think the 2012 Presidential election was stolen.
  • Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans (PLoS ONE) A recent study of young adults suggests that liberals and conservatives have significantly different brain structure. As shown in the study, although the risk-taking behavior of Democrats (liberals) and Republicans (conservatives) did not differ, their brain activity did. Democrats showed significantly greater activity in the left insula, while Republicans showed significantly greater activity in the right amygdala. In fact, a two parameter model of partisanship based on amygdala and insula activations yields a better fitting model of partisanship than a well-established model based on parental socialization of party identification long thought to be one of the core findings of political science.
  • The Exaggeration of Political Polarization in America (The Monkey Cage) Andrew Gelman of the Monkey Cage responds to a new paper from Jacob Westfall, et. al. addressing the Americans’ perceptions of polarization between Democrats and Republicans. The study uses data collected in the American National Election Studies between 1970 and 2004 to examine Americans’ perceptions of polarization between Democrats and Republicans. Respondents reported their own attitudes on partisan issues, such as whether the government should increase spending and provide more services, and they estimated the attitudes of Democrats and Republicans.
  • This Isn’t the Petition Response You’re Looking For (WhiteHouse.gov) Citing cost (an estimated $850,000,000,000,000,000), lack of interest blowing up planets, and a largely ignored security flaw in design, the White House has chosen not to pursue a proposal to construct a Death Star for the United States. Instead, we should focus on increasing careers in math and science, and support of exploratory programs for NASA.
  • Is civics in crisis? Or just changing its shape? (Ethan Zuckerman – My Heart’s in Accra) Ethan Zuckerman responds to criticism of a spoof of “Jaywalking,” where students at Olympia High School in Olympia, Washington made a video called “Lunch Scholars,” in Jan, 2012. The video has been largely citied as an example how unprepared American youth are to compete in the global economy as well as underscoring the lack of civic knowledge in US schools.
  • Journalism for Democracy (Nieman Journalism Lab) Herb Gans, on journalism, 86 years old and losing none of his insight “Because the popular news media limit themselves to covering top-down politics, they often pay little if any attention to the political processes that swirl under and around the bulwark. Only rarely do they report directly on the problems of and dangers to American democracy.”
Blog

Key to Trusted Elections: Understanding the Voter Experience

/
October 18, 2018

Democracy Fund’s healthy democracy framework identifies voting as the cornerstone of our democracy. The elections process ought to be free, fair, accessible and secure; give voters the information that they need to make informed choices; and must “provide voters with confidence in the integrity of election outcomes and assurance that they have a voice in our democracy.”

We know that the public’s trust and confidence in elections provides the basis for a healthy election system and a healthy democracy. However, prior to heightened concerns around elections cybersecurity, we were surprised to find that there are not many people studying this dimension of public opinion. In the spirit of learning and dialogue, we decided to examine data collected from 2008-2016 via the Cooperative Congressional Election Study to better understand the public’s views on our elections process.

In collaboration with Paul Gronke of Reed College, I am excited to share our findings in a new Democracy Fund report, “Understanding the Voter Experience: The Public’s View of Election Administration and Reform.” This report offers insight into the individual-level decision to vote or not, the public’s’ knowledge and application of voter registration requirements, the over all voter experience, and the public’s trust and confidence in U.S. elections.

The Good News

In Understanding the Voter Experience, we find that the public generally perceives that elections are run with integrity, understands most of what is required of them in order to vote, and have a good experience when voting. When compared to other institutions of in trust, election administration ranks well.

Other encouraging findings include that many people realize that they are responsible for registering and updating their registration; most respondents provide good or excellent job performance ratings for their poll workers and their state and local election officials; and majorities of the folks we surveyed are confident that their own votes and votes across the country are counted as intended.

Areas for Improvement

Our report also shows that the public can benefit from ongoing educational efforts—especially in states that have recently implemented modernization reforms or that have recently changed identification requirements. Significant numbers of our respondents were confused or unfamiliar with their state voter identification requirements pre-election, and our data indicate that they learn about these requirements post-election.

We also found a significant number of people did not know whether online voter registration is available in their state. In fact, nearly 50 percent of the respondents did not know whether their respective states offered online voter registration, and over 17 percent answered incorrectly as to whether their state offered it.

Our report also examines the public’s heavily reliance on the internet for basic election information, which is important because we find that a lack of information may keep people from voting, especially down-ballot races. The data shows that approximately 30-40 percent of respondents consistently felt they did not have enough information to vote on key races like state attorney general, secretary of state, and state senator races.

We hope that “Understanding the Voter Experience” will help election officials, lawmakers, advocates, and others better understand attitudes of the American people toward one of their most-cherished rights, and will encourage more probing of public attitudes about our election system. As you read the report, we welcome your questions and feedback. Please do not hesitate to email me at nadona@democracyfund.org.

Blog

Democracy Fund Announces 2018 National Advisory Committee

/
June 7, 2018

We are excited to announce the new cohort of the Democracy Fund National Advisory Committee. This group of leaders from across the political spectrum brings expertise in politics, academia, media, culture, and philanthropy, and are committed to helping us find achievable solutions to our nation’s biggest problems.

Three years ago, shortly after Democracy Fund became an independent foundation, we established our first National Advisory Committee to help us think big, identify gaps in our work, and dig into the tough questions facing our political system. We are deeply grateful to our first cohort for their advice, candid feedback, and partnership. We look forward to elevating the expertise and ideas of our new committee, which includes new and returning voices, in our work to support a healthy democracy.

The Democracy Fund’s 2018 National Advisory Committee includes:

Hon. Robin Carnahan, National Advisory Committee Co-Chair
The Honorable Robin Carnahan leads the State and Local Government Practice at 18F, the team of digital technology consultants housed within the General Services Administration. Carnahan was twice elected Secretary of State of Missouri and served as senior director at the global strategy firm Albright Stonebridge Group.

Brett Loper, National Advisory Committee Co-Chair
Brett Loper is Senior Vice President, Global Government Affairs, for American Express. In that role, he coordinates the Company’s engagement strategy with policy makers in the United States and countries around the globe. Before joining American Express, he held the position of Deputy Chief of Staff to U. S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).

Kristen Soltis Anderson, Member
Kristen Soltis Anderson is a researcher, pollster, and political analyst and co-founder of Echelon Insights, an innovative research and analysis data analysis firms. She is a leading expert on the millennial generation and is author of The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials are Leading America (And How Republicans Can Keep Up).

Francis Fukuyama, Member
Francis Fukuyama is Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and the Mosbacher Director of FSI’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford University. He is professor (by courtesy) of political science.

Lanhee Chen, Member
Lanhee J. Chen, Ph.D. is the David and Diane Steffy Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution; Director of Domestic Policy Studies and Lecturer in the Public Policy Program at Stanford University; and Lecturer in Law at Stanford Law School. Chen served as the Policy Director of the Romney-Ryan 2012 presidential campaign.

Cherie Harder, Member
Cherie Harder serves as President of The Trinity Forum. Prior to joining the Trinity Forum in 2008, and previously served in the White House as Special Assistant to the President and Director of Policy and Projects for First Lady Laura Bush.

Lisa Leingang, Member
Lisa Leingang has worked in the media and entertainment business for over 25 years and is currently Senior Vice President of Scripted Programming at First Look Media. With senior executive roles ranging from production to development executive, she has held posts at various media companies including HBO, NBC, CBS and Viacom, discovering, nurturing and developing creative talent from all over the world.

Kierna Mayo, Member
Kierna Mayo is the Senior Vice President of Lifestyle Content + Brands at iOne Digital, Inc. A veteran culture writer/editor and brand architect, Mayo has been recognized by Folio, The Root, and the NAACP among others as a modern media trailblazer.

Hon. Mellissa Mark-Vivierito, Member
Melissa Mark-Viverito is Senior Advisory to the Latino Victory Fund (LVF) and former Speaker of the New York City Council. In her current capacity, Mark-Viverito works with LVF to identify and recruit progressive Latino candidates, expand the Political Action Committee’s fundraising and state infrastructure, and help launch state chapters in Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada. Her work will focus heavily on the 2018 midterm elections.

Raju Narisetti, Member
Raju Narisetti is the new director of the Knight-Bagehot Fellowship in Economic and Business Journalism and professor of professional practice at the Columbia Journalism School. He was most recently the CEO of Gizmodo Media Group, a portfolio of digital journalism sites that included some of the web’s most beloved and authentic brands, including Gizmodo, Jezebel, Deadspin, Lifehacker, The Root. A media executive with a track record in creating, rethinking and managing major media organizations in North America, Europe and Asia, Raju was also previously Senior Vice-President of Strategy at News Corp.

Chip Sullivan, Member
Chip Sullivan serves as Executive Vice President, Communications, at NBC Entertainment where he is responsible for strategy, development and execution of public and media relations for the network and Universal Television.

Sonal Shah, Member
Sonal Shah is an economist and entrepreneur. She is the Executive Director of the Beeck Center of Social impact and Innovation at Georgetown University. She led policy innovation at the White House for President Obama and the Treasury Department for President Clinton.

Anthea Watson Strong, Member
Anthea Watson Strong designs and builds technology that supports our shared civic infrastructure as a Project Manager for News at Facebook. She leads a new program that establishes stronger ties between Facebook and the news industry. She previously lead the Civics team at Google and launched products in over 30 countries, reaching hundreds of millions of users.

Charlie Sykes, Member
Charles J. Sykes is a an author/commentator. He is a contributing editor of the Weekly Standard and a contributor to NBC/MSNBC. A former conservative talk show host, Sykes has been published in the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Review of Books, Politico, Newsweek, and other national publications. He is the author of nine books. His most recent book, How the Right Lost Its Mind, was published in 2017; an updated paperback edition will be published in October.

Geneva Overholser, Member
Geneva Overholser, an independent journalist in New York City, is a senior fellow at USC Annenberg’s Center for Communication Leadership and Policy. She was until 2013 director of the USC Annenberg School of Journalism. She serves on the boards of the Rita Allen Foundation, the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, the Women’s Media Center, and the Academy of American Poets.

Rev. Starsky Wilson, Member
The Reverend Starsky D. Wilson is a pastor, philanthropist and activist pursuing God’s vision of community marked by justice, peace, and love. He is pastor of Saint John’s Church (The Beloved Community), president & CEO of Deaconess Foundation and chair of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

 

Democracy Fund National Advisory Committee members serve for three-year terms and meet twice yearly to advise Democracy Fund on matters of organizational strategy. They play a critical role in helping the Democracy Fund develop effective strategies that ensure the American people come first in our democracy.

***
 

Democracy Fund
1200 17th Street NW Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20036