Type: Blog

Back to Ideas
Blog
Featured

Why Funders Must Support Local News Before, During and After the Election

Josh Stearns
/
October 30, 2024

We are just one week away from Election Day in the U.S., and in this week, good information matters more than ever — from coverage of candidates, to information about how and where to vote, to endorsements. This is particularly true in local communities where voters are deciding on everything from president, to school boards, to affordable housing.

Yet, we live in a time when falsehoods about the election, the issues, and the candidates themselves are spreading rapidly. And that’s not likely to change after the election — regardless of who wins. As Americans go to the polls, as they watch the results roll in, and as they move forward after Election Day, they need help sorting fact from fiction. To safeguard our democracy, funders cannot wait until the next election cycle to fund local news. We must act now.

As someone who has spent the better part of my career working with local news outlets, I have seen firsthand how local journalists can serve as the first line of defense against falsehoods that undermine public trust in our democracy. Local journalists are uniquely positioned to understand the nuances of their communities, to reflect residents’ diverse voices and viewpoints, and to build bridges and find solutions. This makes them a powerful defense against anti-democratic tactics that seek to divide us and diminish us.

However, even in this critical moment for democracy, local newsrooms remain largely underfunded and overlooked. A coalition of foundations that have mobilized around the Press Forward campaign just gave $20 million to more than 200 local newsrooms — an unprecedented set of grants. But it only just scratched the surface of what is needed — more than 900 newsrooms applied for funding.

There is an incredible movement of civic media entrepreneurs rebuilding local news from the ground up, reimagining how reporting can spark civic engagement, and reinvesting in people and places that have long been marginalized in our communities and our democracy. If funders step up now, we can ensure this emerging ecosystem of hundreds of new local newsrooms are ready to report on what happens after the election.

Recent natural disasters underscore the urgency for investing in local news. After Hurricane Helene, false claims spread in North Carolina that FEMA and state officials were using storm recovery efforts to impose stricter controls on local residents. These rumors, fueled by fear, quickly generated confusion, mistrust, and even threats of violence, but local journalists stepped in to clarify the situation with accurate reporting.

We saw similar tactics during the 2020 election, during which Latino voters in Florida were inundated with false claims about voter fraud and mail-in ballots. This disinformation specifically targeted those with histories of living under authoritarian regimes to erode their trust in democratic processes. The same tactics continue to be used in this election cycle in other communities. Publishers of color reporting online, in print and over the air are helping set the record straight but need resources to dispel these false narratives.

Consider The Haitian Times and DocumentedNY, which played a critical role in debunking disinformation targeting immigrant communities in Springfield, Ohio, following the presidential debate. Rumors spread fear and sought to divide residents, but these journalists worked to give voice to the people behind the talking points. This came at a cost: outlets faced harassment, and a newsroom’s community event was canceled due to safety concerns amidst the more than 30 bomb threats to government buildings and schools in Springfield.

The power of local news as a check and balance on disinformation, hate and division is one of the reasons why anti-democracy forces target independent media. If we want local journalists to have our back, we need to have theirs.

Backing local journalism is not just about halting disinformation — it’s about creating a media ecosystem that can handle future challenges. Outlier Media in Detroit provides residents with vital information via text messages, empowering them to make informed decisions. Similarly, El Tímpano investigates health issues like lead in soil, and hosts community events for local residents to come test the soil in their backyards, and learn about steps they can take to protect their families.

By centering community voices, and helping people put information to use in their lives, a new generation of newsrooms are rebuilding trust in journalism at the local level and equipping residents to resist false narratives. Journalism like this strengthens civic engagement, weaves our social fabric, and helps build resilience against disinformation.

For funders, the message is clear: supporting local journalism is a powerful way to strengthen democracy. Initiatives like NewsMatch, the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund, and The Pivot Fund have created easy on-ramps for funders to ensure their dollars will support powerful, trustworthy community journalism. They are working to create more diverse, inclusive newsrooms that prioritize community engagement and equity. But we need more funders to step up — quickly and boldly.

The election is just one week away, but the work of covering the impact of this election is just beginning. Here at Democracy Fund, our new campaign, Election Day to Every Day, emphasizes that funder support must extend beyond the electoral cycle, ensuring local journalism can support resilient communities long after the votes are cast.

Our democracy depends on a well-informed public. Local journalism — especially new and emerging models — stand as one of the most critical tools to defend democratic values, build trust, and empower communities. For funders committed to advancing equity and the common good, the question is not whether to support local journalism, but how swiftly we can act.

Back to Ideas
Blog
Featured

A Letter of Gratitude to Democracy Champions

Lara Flint, Sanjiv Rao & Lauren Strayer
/
October 29, 2024

We are seven days away from the 2024 election. You can feel the combination of excitement, anxiety, and fatigue in the air. In any given moment, many of us are experiencing some version of those feelings simultaneously. We want to take this moment to express our enormous gratitude for the work of every organization and individual that is working to build the inclusive, multi-racial democracy that our country needs.

This work is made harder and more necessary by the challenges our democracy is facing at this moment. Political violence is worsening, efforts to disenfranchise communities of color continue, and major newspaper owners are censoring their editorial boards. While our country has made great progress over the past 250 years — anchored by demands for change by systematically oppressed communities — progress is often met with resistance. Simply put, pro-democracy work is hard, complicated, and can feel like an endless cycle of two steps forward, one step back. We appreciate the work our grantees and partners are doing every day, even outside the spotlight of an election year, and acknowledge that philanthropy needs to do a better job of offering consistent, meaningful support.

This year’s election is rightly on our minds as we see and hear candidates up and down ballots across the country make their cases for how they will represent their constituents’ interests. Our commitment is to building a multiracial democracy where people are treated fairly, feel they belong, and have long-term power — and where our political system is open, just, resilient, and trustworthy.

We remain committed to helping sustain the fields and grantees doing this work every day and every year, and we commit to stepping up in the days, months and years ahead to ensure the pro-democracy field has the resources it needs to continue this important work year round.

No matter what happens over the next few weeks, we are humbled by the tireless work of pro-democracy civil society organizations and leaders to ensure our elections are free, fair, and representative. Many organizations have tightened their budgets and made it work to continue to build power in the marginalized communities that have been historically targeted and scapegoated during election cycles time and again. They are safeguarding the progress the pro-democracy field has made over the years, and continue to lay the foundation to respond to the  opportunities and challenges to come.

We know the work toward creating an inclusive, multi-racial democracy continues beyond Election Day, and Democracy Fund remains committed to that work in responsive partnership with others in philanthropy and with our grantees — on Election Day, and every day.

In deep and sincere gratitude,

Lara Flint – Managing Director, Elections and Institutions

Sanjiv Rao – Managing Director, Movements and Media

Lauren Strayer – Managing Director, Communications and Network

Back to Ideas
Blog
Featured

Building Resilience to Political Violence

Tom Glaisyer, Democracy Fund; Michelle Barsa, Omidyar Network; Melanie Greenberg, Humanity United
/
October 24, 2024

The 2024 election cycle, marked by disinformation and the spread of authoritarian rhetoric, has exposed the deep polarization in American society. While the divisions in our country are not new, the strain on society is increasingly clear. We see this with public officials, civil servants, and everyday Americans who are feeling the impacts of threats, harassment, and rising political violence.

Though it may not be realistic to eliminate the threat of political violence immediately, we can build up our country’s resilience to it and slow its spread. We are not the first country to experience and overcome this challenge, which means there are best practices we can emulate and learn from.

Humanity United Senior Fellow, Dr. John Paul Lederach, Emeritus Professor of International Peacebuilding at Notre Dame, writes in his new book, “The Pocket Guide for Facing Down a Civil War”:

“While our legacy of American exceptionalism mostly scoffs at international comparisons, this does not exempt us from the patterns and dynamics that unleash what none of us wants for our children – the curse of widespread violence.”

Dr. Lederach further points out that building resilience to political violence requires an interconnected network of pro-democracy, peacebuilding, and social justice organizations, along with responsive donors open to supporting systems and networks. As a result of this strong web of allies, organizations on the ground can quickly and efficiently access the resources they need to prevent and mitigate political violence.

​​​In an attempt to consolidate and translate this learning, our three foundations – Democracy Fund, Humanity United, and Omidyar Network – ​have collaborated to​ more powerfully address the risks of hate-fueled political violence.

Risk Factors For Political Violence

​​​The guiding star for our joint project has been a healthier society marked by an inclusive, multi-racial democracy that is open, just, resilient, and trustworthy — one that addresses the risks of political violence.

Two organizations with their pulse on this issue, Over Zero and New America — both grantees of our foundations — shared an important analysis in 2019 for how to build resilience to political violence in the U.S., ​identifying four primary risk factors: elite factionalization, societal polarization, a rise in hate speech and rhetoric, and weakening institutions. ​​W​e continue to draw on their work, as well as the work of the Trusted Elections Fund and others highlighted in this piece on political violence by Democracy Fund’s President Joe Goldman.

Dr. Lederach’s recently published book also provides important wisdom and guidance. He observes that societies at risk of widespread violence tend to display an increase in:

  • the dehumanization of others;
  • exertions of fear and control over local populations via performative violence;
  • the intentional diminishment of trust in and capacity of political and other institutions to solve problems; and
  • the stoking of grievances that drive wedges between populations, patterns that are too often only recognized in retrospect after they have become entrenched in society.

After undertaking additional research and reviewing the research of our partners, we have prioritized three risks of political violence ​​​​​​​that we are using to guide our work. They are:

  • distrust of democratic institutions;
  • ​​​​increasing authoritarian sentiment and mobilization​​​; and
  • ​​​toxic polarization and targeted ​dehumanization campaigns.

Here’s what we found when we looked at each of these risk factors closely:

  1. Distrust of Democratic Institutions. There is growing concern among Americans about whether our democratic institutions are truly free and fair.​ When communities do not trust public institutions to equitably and effectively protect the populace, there is an increased likelihood of support for the arming of non-state actors.​​​ ​​​​​​​​​Fear-inducing rhetoric ​advanced by a factionalized elite has left many in the public uncertain that our democratic processes can be relied upon, and heightens the likelihood of violence. Failure of those institutions in the face of violence would be extremely damaging.
  2. ​Increasing Authoritarian Sentiment and Mobilization. ​​​​F​ar-right actors are increasingly organizing across their racial, religious, economic, and political resentments. They organize together to promote the ideas of white/Christian nationalism, anti-immigration, sovereign citizenship, and ​armed defense​​​. This organizing coincides with high rates of gun ownership, increasing ​normalization​​​ of political violence, organized militia activity, and ​​​white supremacist influence among military and law enforcement​. ​Under ​these conditions, it is possible that the just and peaceful transition of power could be contested in a violent manner.
  3. ​​Toxic Polarization and Targeted Dehumanization Campaigns. Troubling trends of dehumanization and ​identity-based ​polarization continue to rise as social trust declines. There is a widespread sentiment of non-belonging in American life, and ​​increasingly vitriolic public dehumanization ​campaigns​​​ ​target​​​ immigrant and LGBTQ+ communities​,​ in particular. Both narratives are amplified by increasingly politicized media outlets​ and social media algorithms​, which stoke moral outrage and inflate beliefs about intergroup hostility​.

In our international research, this level of dehumanization is often a driving force behind the justification and encouragement of violence.

Focusing on these three factors has allowed us to prioritize where we have made commitments. We will continue to deepen our understanding of the root causes of political violence through our discussions with grantees and others.

Building Resilience

In ​​​a​ strong, interconnected network of allies addressing the threats of political violence, we must include bridge builders and conflict mediators, alongside social and racial justice movements. We must also include LGBTQIA+ activists, democracy advocates, and supporters of pluralism in adjacent fields. ​Our foundations are​​​​​​​​​ already providing support for a number of organizations in th​ese​​​ space​s​; in particular, the Trusted Elections Fund is already playing a crucial role in the elections space. In addition, in 2024,​ ​we have increased our ​​​​support in four areas:

1. Strengthening relational infrastructure through building networks of key stakeholders across fields and at the local, state, and national levels. Crucially, these investments will help build the network of individuals who can deploy their resources and skills together to de-escalate crises when and where they occur. Over the longer term, these networks can address the root causes of political violence, while also strengthening democracy and encouraging belonging. The network is strongest when it weaves together partners with diverse skills, including​ but not limited to​:

  • monitoring and analysis specialists;
  • pro-democracy law enforcement and public safety officials;
  • cultural ​influencers and religious actors​​​;
  • election officials;
  • mediation experts;
  • peacebuilding organizations; ​and
  • ​​​pro-democracy activists.

2. Informing action so that ​predictions​​ and ​responses to violence are quicker, smarter, and more strategic. Through our investments, we aim to increase capacity for threat monitoring and de-escalation. Accurate information is essential for enabling an informed and effective response. Th​ese efforts might include​​​ ​​engaging community members to support with violence prevention and response​ and/or​​​ ​​​​​​​​strategically engaging law enforcement, via trusted partners.​ ​

3. Tending to the health and safety of those who are in harm’s way in order to support resilient movements in the face of threats and persistent harassment. Philanthropy will need to grapple with the attacks both in the immediate and in the aftermath. We must protect and support grantees, as well as their partners. This level of support will ​enable​​​ grantees and their partners to take care of their teams’ wellbeing while dealing with extreme stress.

4. Protecting the LGBTQIA+ community and, in particular, providing support to the transgender community against the current onslaught of ​targeted ​othering, dehumanization, and violence. We stand against all efforts that are intended to scapegoat the community, which only serve to consolidate and focus authoritarian and authoritarian-leaning tendencies. Here we have made commitments to joint funds and organizations that support organizations led by and serving or in allyship with the LGBTQIA+ community. As funders,we seek to bring together the philanthropic communities that support the gender non-conforming community as well as ​​democracy ​strengthening efforts​​​.

Over the past 18 months, we have consulted extensively with the field and have made commitments of approximately $2M in 2024 towards the priorities identified above. We intend to continue to adapt this approach as we learn from our partners on the ground, researchers, our partners in philanthropy, and others focusing on political violence.

​​​​​Working Together

As we seek to strengthen our interconnected network even further, we encourage foundations, pro-​​democracy organizations, and wider civil society to join us in this work. The election season is placing significant stress on our societal bonds​​ and​, while it will take time to address drivers of political violence, there is still much we can do now to prevent the contagion of political violence.

​​​This will require extensive efforts across philanthropy and the wider infrastructure of peacebuilding, social justice and democracy. We have learned from our grantees and partners within the U.S. and abroad that it is only through these concerted and broad-reaching coalitions that we can address the root causes of political violence, reduce toxic polarization, and build resilience in the face of complex threats.

To learn more about our approach to funding efforts to prevent and respond to political violence, please reach out to us.

Back to Ideas
Blog
Featured

New Research Explores Connection Between Democracy and Local News

Teresa Gorman
/
October 15, 2024

Studies have long demonstrated that strong local journalism can encourage higher voter turnout, counter polarizing narratives, expose corruption, and lead to people feeling a strong sense of community.

We’ve seen much of this show up anecdotally in the local news ecosystems that Democracy Fund supports. We define a news ecosystem as the network of institutions, collaborations, and people that local communities rely on for news, information, and engagement. This approach puts people and places squarely at the center of our goals and vision.

When we launched our new Equitable Journalism strategy in 2023, we wanted to learn even more about how journalism is strengthening democracy. We recently partnered with Impact Architects (IA) to revisit the Healthy News & Information Ecosystem framework. This framework was initially built in 2020 in partnership with Impact Architects, Knight Foundation, and Google News Initiative to share models for understanding the health and evolution of local news ecosystems with other funders who were considering funding local news. The graphic below illustrates the four layers of data that our updated model uses to understand local news ecosystems:

A visual description of the Healthy News & Information Ecosystem "cycle" with Community Information Needs & Trust in Media leading to Community Indicators, leading to Information Providers, leading to Democracy Indicators, which lead back to Community Information Needs & Trust in Media.
This new “Democracy Indicators” layer provides a deeper understanding of how Democracy Fund’s vision of an inclusive multiracial democracy is coming to life, community by community. Some examples of data we’re taking into consideration include:

  • the availability of legal resources for local journalists;
  • the relative difficulty of voting for residents in different states;
  • and the percentage of residents who have recently contacted a public official, attended a political demonstration, and/or donated to a political candidate or organization.

Through these indicators we want to understand how expanding access to local news and information can result in deeper engagement with our democracy. We can then pair this layer of research with even deeper dives in ecosystems that include more community listening and collaboration.

How Democracy Fund Thinks About Local News Ecosystems

At Democracy Fund, we’ve invested over $15.75 million in local news ecosystems across the US since 2016. If our work is successful, then communities will have access to news and information that advances justice, confronts racism and inequality, and equips people to make change and thrive, wherever they live.

Over the years, we’ve seen exciting signs of progress:

  • In New Jersey, the state has allocated millions of dollars to bolster community media, building on years of community-informed organizing.
  • In North Carolina, media makers from the western mountains to the eastern coast are receiving recognition and resources for their work.
  • In New Mexico, more people have more opportunities to get involved in news gathering and reporting, including a fellowship program to help recent grads stay in-state.
  • The local news ecosystem funding model is also growing. Press Forward, a national coalition investing more than $500 million to strengthen local journalism, launched the Press Forward Local network modeled on this news ecosystem approach, which quickly grew to 25 chapters of local funder coalitions in its first year.

Findings from the Latest Research

While we purposefully didn’t rank the ten ecosystems that Democracy Fund explored overall because of their variety and diversity, the latest research shows there are still many promising themes that can be found across them, especially when we consider the ecosystems in different stages of their development.

Strong ecosystems (Chicago, Michigan, and New Jersey)

Strong ecosystems generally have higher than average indicators across most if not all of the four categories in the graphic above. There is evidence of a relationship among information providers, community, and civic engagement and democracy. These strong ecosystems demonstrate more consistency across the entire ecosystem. For example, this could be more equal access to information across various racial, ethnic, and/or linguistic groups.

Emergent ecosystems (Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, and North Carolina)

Emergent ecosystems generally score higher than average across many of the indicators and/or groups of indicators and show evidence of gathering momentum. However, they still have gaps in information providers and/or access for significant segments of the population. Impact Architects also found less evidence of connection among information providers, community, and civic engagement in these ecosystems.

Ecosystems ripe with opportunity (Arizona, Oklahoma, and Washington, D.C.)

These ecosystems score lower than average across many indicators or categories of indicators. They demonstrate significant need and opportunity with respect to information providers and support for community and civic engagement. In each ecosystem, there are examples of bright spots across an uneven landscape. For example, this could be one strong region within a larger ecosystem or one prominent organization that is helping local news thrive.

Under-resourced ecosystems

Under-resourced ecosystems score lower than average across some indicators and/or categories of indicators and demonstrate significant need across information providers. These ecosystems have information gaps in communities and uneven and/or low levels of civic engagement. Impact Architects did not identify any under-resourced ecosystems in this assessment. However, these local news ecosystems are large and complex and there are likely under-resourced areas within many of the identified ecosystems.

How We’re Using What We’ve Learned

We believe that this framework can support conversations, including our own at Democracy Fund, about how we can take a more nuanced approach to learning about communities’ news and information ecosystem health. We have invested in this space for nearly a decade, and there is a lot we can learn from the changes over time. One of the most powerful things equitable local news can do is build powerful relationships between people that help them make change in their lives — and that is hard to track. We hope to revisit this data in the coming years to understand more of the changes taking place.

There are many organizations and projects taking on this challenge that we are grateful to continue learning with on this journey. We hope this framework serves as a resource for the field and this cohort of organizations, and welcome further ideas, collaboration, and feedback on the themes and ideas within it.

This work would not have been possible without the many folks who contributed time to share thoughts and feedback on their ecosystems. Thank you for all you do in Arizona, Chicago, Colorado, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, D.C., and beyond.

Please reach out to learn more about Democracy Fund’s work with local news ecosystems.

Back to Ideas
Blog
Featured

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

October 10, 2024

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

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

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

How is Project 2025 a threat to democracy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is the accountability field responding?

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

1. Research on Project 2025 policies and their impact.

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

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

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

3. Preparing for the legal and regulatory battles ahead. 

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

4. Strengthening guardrails to prevent abuses

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

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

What funders can do now

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

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

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

 

Back to Ideas
Blog
Featured

Our Work is Not Done After Election Day

Joe Goldman
/
October 9, 2024
A drawing of two individuals placing the final piece in a stone bridge. Above and to the left of the bridge is the “Election Day to Every Day” logo consisting of dark blue text (“Every Day to”) above light blue text (“Every Day”), divided by a thin orange line.

Our grantees are on the frontlines of the 2024 election, doing everything they can to ensure free, fair, and representative elections for our country. We know their work will not be done on Election Day — yet many of these nonpartisan organizations typically experience a sudden dropoff in funding after November.

This withdrawal of support threatens their ability to resist the authoritarian playbook, fuel a pro-democracy governing agenda, and build durable power to support an inclusive, multi-racial democracy. Anti-democracy forces don’t defund their infrastructure after every election cycle, forcing groups to downsize and lose momentum — and we shouldn’t either.

That’s why we’re launching a new campaign called Election Day to Every Day. Following on the success of this year’s All by April campaign, we’re inviting the philanthropic community to join us in ensuring the pro-democracy movement can be sustainable and resilient not just leading into Election Day, but every day that follows.

The boom and bust cycle of election-year giving is toxic. Unless we change our behavior as donors, our grantees will not be able to make progress toward the inclusive multiracial democracy that is so vital for everything we care about.

“People’s Action Institute is working together with networks and organizers across the country to scale up the movement for social justice. We can’t maintain the momentum we need to defeat authoritarianism when funding across the field drops off after every election. But with consistent support, we can strengthen our communities to create a vibrant, multiracial democracy that works for all of us.” – Sulma Arias, Executive Director, People’s Action Institute

With the Election Day to Every Day campaign, we are trying to do things differently. Together, philanthropy will continue our support for building an inclusive multiracial democracy. As a community, we commit to:

  1. Start Planning Our 2025 Giving Now: We lose vital time when we fail to plan ahead and consider alternative scenarios for the future. Donors need to consider how our changing context could impact our strategy and priorities, so that we and our grantees can respond quickly to new needs on the ground. Anti-democracy forces are well-resourced and ready for multiple governing scenarios. We need to prepare for the same. Now is the time to start planning – not next year.
  2. Provide a Bridge into Next Year: Many grantees come out of a hard fought election exhausted and with real gaps in funding. It’s not uncommon for leadership transitions to take place – further complicating the situation. Moving up grant decisions to the first quarter of 2025 or providing bridge funding allows grantees to avoid having to lay off staff and eases the pressure as they pivot to respond to new challenges.
  3. Commit to Multi-Year Support: The single most important thing that donors can do for the health of our grantees is to provide multi-year support. Doing so allows them to plan, build infrastructure, and deploy longer-range strategies. This longer-term view makes our grantees more resilient to a changing environment.
  4. Support Safety and Security: Grantees are facing evolving safety and security threats leading up to and following Election Day. Many are encountering cyber attacks and threats of physical violence. All of them have staff who are experiencing burn-out and trauma. If we want our grantees to sustain themselves past Election Day, we need to provide for their safety and well-being.

Individual donors, foundations, donor advisors, and other philanthropic organizations are all invited to join this critical campaign to change the culture of philanthropy. You can join by becoming an “Election Day to Every Day” signatory and by spreading the word within your networks.

Together, we can ensure the pro-democracy field is ready for the future. We came together powerfully earlier this year under the All by April banner, which mobilized at least $155 million to ensure our grantees had the resources they needed early in an important election year. Now we must keep our foot on the gas and make sure our democracy field partners know that we have their backs not just on Election Day, but Every Day.

Please feel free to reach out to us with any questions.

Back to Ideas
Blog
Featured

What We Learned from All by April

Heather Creek
/
October 4, 2024

Earlier this year, Democracy Fund joined with funders from across the philanthropic community to commit to making their election-related grants by the end of April. The All by April campaign attracted 174 signers — including foundations, donor networks, advisors, and individual donors — who committed to move funds earlier in the year, simplify grant processes, and encourage their peers to do the same.

By providing early financial support, All by April aimed to empower nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations to plan and execute their election strategies more effectively, build out programs at lower costs, and engage voters earlier in the election cycle. We are proud to share the results from this campaign and outline how funders can carry forward the lessons into their ongoing election-related grantmaking.

The Success of All by April

To understand the impact of the All by April campaign, Democracy Fund collaborated with Grassroots Solutions on an evaluation. Our topline findings include:

1. The campaign mobilized at least $155 million.

Of the 174 signers of the campaign, 60 percent were direct grant makers and 40 percent were groups that work with funders like donor advisors, intermediaries, and funder affinity groups. Forty-seven of the funders and individual donors provided data on their giving between January and April of 2024. They reported making $79 million in new 501(c)(3) grants for election-related work and moving up $61 million in scheduled grant payments so that grantees would have access to funds earlier in the year. The campaign’s message also reached groups that were not able to sign onto the campaign (often due to their organization’s policy on signing public commitments). Entities that didn’t sign the campaign but reported that it still influenced their giving reported $13.7 million in new grants and $3.25 million in payments moved up to the first four months of 2024. In total, the campaign mobilized at least $155 million in election-related support.

“AbA inspired us to make additional gifts — in addition to the 2024 and multi-year funding we had already provided — and to do so before the end of April.”
— All by April Participant (Grantmaker)

Bar graph titled "Respondents, their networks, or clients gave a significant portion of their election-related funds before the end of April." The chart shows that 57.1% of direct grantmakers, and 46.9% of all repsondents, gave between 76% - 100% of their election-related grants before the end of April.

2. The majority of All by April signers reported that they changed their plans for giving in 2024 because of the campaign.

The campaign’s deadlines and structure created the motivation that moved signers to action – especially among those who were newer to election-related giving. Among direct grantmakers in the survey, 57 percent gave between 76-100 percent of their funding for elections work by April. Those who did not change their giving based on All by April reported that they had already planned to move their funds early or faced internal barriers that prevented them from doing so.

“Once we had our list of grantees, we might have spent more time obsessing over allocation amounts. Having taken the pledge helped inspire us to stop worrying and get the money moving.”
— All by April Participant (Grantmaker)

3. The campaign changed expectations about how philanthropy can support election-related work.

Nearly all of the campaign signers (98%) reported that they were already aware of the benefits of early money for election-related work before the campaign began, but they lacked the motivation and urgency to respond to the field’s need. Signers who were not direct grantmakers, but who advise donors or convene donor networks, reported that the campaign created a “movement wide” framing that gave them the language to encourage earlier giving among their clients and members.

Two side-by-side bar graphs displaying the survey responses to two questions. The first question on the left says "How aware were you of the benefits of early money to 501(c)(3) election activities before the All by April campaign? with 77.6% "Very Aware," 20.7% "Somewhat Aware" and 1.7% "Not Aware." The second question asks "Do you agree or disagree with this statement: 'In the past, many donors have provided funding later in the election cycle than grantees would prefer?' with 78.7% "Strongly Agree" and 16.4% "Somewhat Agree."

“It allowed me to have conversations with peer funders about the importance of moving early. It created a very helpful (even if somewhat artificial) deadline.”
 — All by April Participant (Donor Advisor)

“We used the All by April frame to push our entire donor community for larger, earlier giving, and to make the case for c4 money also. it was helpful to have “movement wide” framing, coordination and momentum to support the work we would have done.”
— All by April participant (Philanthropic Network)

A circle bar graph titled "Almost three-quarters of respondents believed All by April was successful at changing the expectations within philanthropy about making earlier election-related grants." Below is a graph showing 32.8% believed it was "Very Successful" and 41.0% believed it was "Somewhat Successful."

We are grateful to all of the campaign signers who committed to meet the urgent needs of the field when the funds would be most useful. We are especially grateful to the signers who participated in the evaluation and shared their funding data. This transparency allows us all to learn together and continue to improve the way we support free, fair, and representative elections.

Exploring Practices to Move Money Faster

The All by April campaign evaluation revealed that some funders need to make intentional changes to their practices to meet the needs of the field. Funders reported needing to move their timeline for considering new grants or shift other internal processes — like grant amendment requirements — in order to move up payments.

At Democracy Fund and amongst survey respondents, we noted several practices that helped funders move funds quickly:

  • Streamlining the grant amendment process. Funders cut internal red tape and asked that grantees only submit an updated budget to process an amendment.
  • Adopting a shorter renewal application. A shorter application helped to avoid asking grantees to send information their current funders already had.
  • Starting in 2025, planning to default to making payments for election-related grants in Q1 of each year.

Funders may also consider other established time-saving practices like accepting applications that grantees have prepared for other funders or funding intermediaries who may have existing grantee relationships and can regrant money into state and local groups.

Looking Ahead: Funders Need to Sustain the Field Between Elections

Our grantees are on the frontlines of the 2024 election, doing everything they can to ensure it is free, fair, and representative. But we know their work is not over on Election Day. Anti-democracy forces don’t defund their infrastructure after every election cycle, forcing groups to downsize and lose momentum — and we shouldn’t either.

Yet many grantees see a financial cliff after November. This sudden dropoff in funding threatens their ability to resist the authoritarian playbook, fuel a governing agenda, and build durable power in service of creating a more inclusive, multi-racial democracy.

To ensure we are meeting these needs, we will be announcing a new campaign next week, called “Election Day to Every Day” to ensure our pro-democracy field is ready for any and all scenarios that lie ahead in the post-election period. We must keep our foot on the gas and make sure our field partners know that we have their backs not only on Election Day, but Every Day that follows.

Back to Ideas
Blog
Featured

How (and Why) Democracy Fund is Experimenting with Grantee Reporting Models

Jenn Roche
/
October 3, 2024

In 2020, our Digital Democracy portfolio (DDP) wanted to find a way to learn more about our grantees’ challenges while also being mindful of their limited time during a turbulent year. We decided to hold learning conversations with our grantees instead of commissioning formal evaluations, so that we could quickly extend support. Our learning and evaluation partner, ORS Impact, led these conversations by hosting 90-minute small group discussions with grantees, focusing on their work ensuring tech, telecom and media serves communities of color, trends they were seeing across the digital rights movement, and challenges they faced. After a couple of iterations of these yearly learning conversations, we adapted them to count as narrative grant reports, providing the option to replace the traditional, often time-consuming annual narrative reports written by each DDP grantee.

ORS Impact currently conducts these sessions on an annual basis and prepares a final report, which we submit internally to meet the grant reporting requirement. This method of reporting and evaluation is an efficient way to get all the information we need to explore how grantees’ actions lead to outcomes in the aggregate. It also helps us adjust our strategies and activities to best support grantees and the field. Note: Initially, Democracy Fund staff attended the small group sessions. We no longer participate in the sessions because we know our presence creates power imbalances and may alter results.

This new method is just one way that Democracy Fund is experimenting with different forms of reporting that are inclusive, add value to the field, and embrace complexity (tenets of our Strategy, Impact and Learning values).

While the learning cohorts are a unique practice of DDP, Democracy Fund has been using other forms of reporting, like one-on-one verbal reporting, in addition to traditional narrative reports. Most Democracy Fund grantees have the choice between verbal reports or narrative reports, which so far, caters to each grantee’s preferences and reduces the burden on their time and energy.

What we’ve learned from this new model

Over the past four years of experimenting with this method of reporting, DDP grantees have had in-depth discussions on topics ranging from field infrastructure, coordination and networks, and strategies connecting research and advocacy. We have been able to learn a lot from our grantees on these topics, with a richness of findings that is only possible through group conversations.

The small group dynamic has many advantages:

  • Facilitating real-time learning for us and our grantees. This allows us to spot more connections and patterns across our portfolio, which a traditional one-off narrative report doesn’t do.
  • Ensuring our grantees have access to the same learnings we do. We share the final report back to grantees and share it with other partners, making our learnings known to the field.
  • Building relationships and more coordination between grantees.
  • Reducing grantees’ time spent on reporting.

Most importantly, this approach de-centers the funder and ensures that learning isn’t happening in a vacuum.

There two disadvantages worth noting:

  1. Unlike with written grant reports, the findings from group discussions are aggregated and anonymous so there is less specificity and consistency year over year.
  2. This method, along with verbal reporting, caters to verbal processors, and not everyone prefers learning this way.

Because of our learning philosophy to embrace complexity and conduct learning activities that are inclusive and add value to the field, these disadvantages do not outweigh the benefits of this reporting method. We value our grantees’ time and expertise, and strive to help build more opportunities for coordination.

What we learned from DDP grantees in 2024

This year’s findings have produced valuable insights for the DDP team and our grantees. We asked our grantees about field coordination, philanthropy’s impact on the field, infrastructure support, and how to support local organizing work. These topics, among others, were best discussed without Democracy Fund in the room, to promote candor and provide a safe space. The grantees raised that funder-driven shifts create disruption, loss of strategic agency, and competition and instability. When shifts happen, funders should provide transparency and transition support, and connections to other funders.

Another finding worth noting from this year’s conversations was about supporting local organizing. Our grantees who do local organizing around tech justice talked about the importance of trusted relationships between organizations, community visioning processes, and national policy organizations taking direction from community organizing. The grantees were able to riff on each other’s ideas, and find commonalities across locales. This discussion was less likely to have been as rich or honest if it had happened in a one-on-one conversation.

More findings from the 2024 learning cohorts, such as what grantees surfaced as infrastructure needs and inhibitors to local organizing can be found in our 2024 summary report.

Funders need to consider the impact of their reporting models

As trust-based philanthropy takes hold across the field, more and more funders are looking for methods to learn alongside their grantees and track changes within the field without creating an overwhelming burden on grantees. As a result of Democracy Fund’s recent Grantee Perception Survey, we are committed to finding more ways to share what we are learning. We encourage other funders to do the same, and avoid reporting requirements that put funders’ needs above those of grantees.

Here are some resources, organizations, and individuals that informed shifts in our internal reporting requirements:

Please reach out to learn more about Democracy Fund’s learning processes.

Back to Ideas
Blog
Featured

Worried about misinformation this election year? Here’s what funders can do.

Angelica Das
/
August 15, 2024

Misinformation is hardly a new problem, but it often spikes around breaking news events. Racist narratives and conspiracy theories have rapidly escalated after the launch of Vice President Kamala Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign. Misinformation from across the political spectrum about the motivations behind the attempted assassination of former President Trump has also intensified.

The spread of misinformation is being acutely accelerated by political violence and the amplification of false AI-generated media. Newsrooms and journalists face staggering challenges to deliver reliable information to communities in a presidential election year — especially when these tensions are high.

The good news is we know more about the solutions today than ever before. The missing piece is the scale of resources needed to adequately respond to today’s challenges.

Philanthropy can address these challenges by combating misinformation and amplifying trustworthy information. Both actions are essential this election year and beyond to ensure communities have the necessary information to make decisions that impact their daily lives. It’s not too late to invest in this strategy.

Here are four ways that pro-democracy and journalism funders can act now:

1. Fund the organizers and experts who are mobilizing against misinformation. They are working right now to disrupt bad actors, hold Big Tech accountable, and intervene against harmful and false information campaigns targeting voters, particularly communities of color. Here are some examples of Democracy Fund grantees doing the work:

  • A coalition of media and tech advocates including Free Press and MediaJustice are running the Change the Terms campaign to hold companies accountable when their technology is used to discriminate and suppress the vote.
  • Check My Ads is following the money from ads that show up next to authoritarian messaging that seeks to undermine the election.
  • Nonpartisan researchers at Protect Democracy and Over Zero are publishing essential resources that support journalists in explaining the various threats to democracy and de-escalating hate speech and dangerous rhetoric.
  • Democracy SOS and the Center for Cooperative Media are providing crucial support for journalists to stay prepared and quickly respond to emergent issues. This includes curating resources for journalists, providing direct support to newsrooms, and boosting reporting on democratic backsliding, political violence, and misinformation in real time.

2. Fund newsrooms who are sharing trustworthy information. Newsrooms have the ideas, strategies, and motivation to meet this moment and are ready to move with more resources. In particular, newsrooms led by people of color have unparalleled reach and trust with the communities they serve — positioning them to counter misinformation and drive civic engagement. Here are some ways to find and support newsrooms:

  • Use the Center for Community Media’s Maps & Directories to find and fund diverse community media outlets.
  • Visit the INN Network Directory to find national and local independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan, and public service news organizations.
  • Learn about 12 powerful projects already underway in need of resources. The Lenfest/AP Forum on Democracy & Journalism recently highlighted these efforts to strengthen this year’s election coverage and voting integrity efforts.
  • Give to a joint effort to support newsrooms on a larger scale. The Racial Equity in Journalism Fund, NewsMatch, and Press Forward Pooled Fund all drive general operating funds to newsrooms.

3. Protect the messengers who are vulnerable to physical, digital, and legal threats. Small independent newsrooms and freelancers are especially exposed, particularly those serving communities with high levels of political polarization and voter suppression. We are already seeing authoritarian leaders attacking the media, and we anticipate this strategy will continue. To prepare for these risks, funders can proactively engage their grantees in scenario planning and be ready to quickly deploy resources if grantees are threatened.

4. Ensure newsrooms have the flexibility to adapt within an unpredictable political environment. News operations need the flexibility to plan, respond to challenges, and maintain operations. Restricted funding can lead to short-term solutions at the expense of long-term organizational health. Our funding practices can evolve to better meet their needs by offering multi-year, general operating support whenever possible, extending the timeline of grants, or reducing cohort and reporting requirements.

The need for trusted information doesn’t end on Election Day. Ultimately, elections and democracy reporting needs sustained support from philanthropy to be successful. Fully-funded democracy reporting would cover the decisions made about our voting system year-round by legislatures, courts, and local officials and track voter suppression efforts. It would allow the space to build stronger relationships with the community and the expertise to explain how national patterns impact local events. This coverage requires funders to think of democracy and elections coverage not as a seasonal activity, but as an ongoing process.


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

Back to Ideas
Blog
Featured

Strengthening Democracy: The Crucial Role of Election Administrators

July 18, 2024

As we head into the presidential election, the pro-democracy movement must meet the moment to strengthen our democracy and ensure equitable participation, voice, and power in communities of color. This work happens on both sides of the ballot box – by increasing voter participation and by supporting election administrators who serve our diverse electorate.

On June 26, Democracy Fund hosted a webinar that focused on the trends and needs in the election administration field, featuring Amanda Litman, Executive Director and Co-Founder of Run for Something Civics and Virginia Kase Solomón, Executive Director of Common Cause Education Fund. The conversation, facilitated by Ebony West, Senior Associate at Democracy Fund, focused on the critical issues surrounding election administration in the United States, including the challenges and opportunities administrators are facing today and strategies to strengthen and diversify election administration leadership.

Since 2020, we have experienced a high level of attrition among election administrators as a result of low compensation, inadequate funding, and a hostile work environment due to growing threats against election administrators. And, despite our country becoming increasingly diverse, many election administration positions are still largely filled by older, white Americans who may be unaware of the challenges faced by marginalized communities in gaining equitable representation and access to the vote. Finally, many states have enacted restrictive voting laws, making the voting process more difficult for people of color, young people, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities. However, thanks to the efforts of our panelists, their organizations, and others like them, we’re seeing inspiring progress to confront many of the challenges facing the election administration field.

One example of Run for Something Civics’ approach is exemplified in the Arizona Pima County recorder Gabriela Casarez Kelly, a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation. Kelly successfully advocated for the reinstatement of early voting sites on the Pasquay Yankee reservation, significantly increasing accessibility and voter turnout. Her journey exemplifies the real-world impact of diversity in election administration.

We also heard about the work Common Cause Education Fund is doing to increase state-level funding for election offices so they have more resources for voter education and operations. In North Carolina, Common Cause North Carolina and Democracy North Carolina successfully advocated for increased funding to the Chatham County Board of Elections so they could hire an IT Specialist. These partnerships between election administrators and advocates are key to bolstering funding for elections so that they are accessible, secure, and responsive to voters.

The field of civil society organizations supporting election officials is small, but mighty. Organizations like Center for Tech and Civic Life, Center for Civic Design, and Public Rights Project are some of the few organizations who provide training and legal support to a field that continues to face an increasing amount of challenges including our ability to carry out a safe and fair election.

While these efforts show hope of a better, more representative democracy, this important work is at risk. The chronic challenge of underfunding in election administration has now been met with new operational challenges posed by escalating security threats. Election administrators are the last line of defense against abuse of power in our government, and their work needs our support.

Our ask is simple. Philanthropy must urgently prioritize long-term investments in the backbone of how our elections are run, election administration. Our support should support the strengthening of the workforce and the systems that make the voting process equitable. Civil society and election administrators must continue to deepen the relationship with each other to ensure we work together to solve the most urgent problems for the long-term health of our 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
© 2024 Democracy Fund — Founded by The Omidyar Group