What Has Been Done To Push Back Against The Laws Limiting The Power Of Money In Politics?

---

"I think the decline of democracy is a mortal threat to the legitimacy and health of commercialism."

—Rebecca Henderson, Harvard Concern Schoolⁱ

The rule of police force and democracy are crucial to majuscule markets. A free market balanced by a democratically elected, transparent and capable authorities, and a potent civil society ("an inclusive regime") yield stable growth rates and greater social welfare.² Conversely, threats to democracy are threats to the private sector, which is why business leaders and institutional investors cannot afford to remain on the sidelines when such threats emerge.

This paper explores the country of American democracy and whether it constitutes a systemic risk that impacts fiduciary duties. The newspaper gain in three parts. In the start, we assess the question of whether American republic is backsliding towards failure, and debate that it is. In the second, we will examine whether democratic failure represents a systemic risk, and conclude that it does. In the 3rd part, we offering some preliminary thoughts about what steps major private sector actors may undertake as function of their fiduciary responsibilities given the threats to U.South. democracy and markets.

Department 1: Is Democracy Failing?

We examine this question along two key dimensions: public opinion and institutional performance.

The American Public

Based on 6 high-quality surveys conducted in the last year and a one-half, support for democracy as the all-time form of authorities remains overwhelming and mostly stable across party lines.³ Notwithstanding, nigh i in five Americans accept views that make them at least open to, if non outright supportive of, authoritarianism.⁴

Just there's an important qualification: Americans distinguish sharply between commonwealth in principle and in practice. There is near-universal agreement that our organization is non working well—in particular, that it is non delivering the results people desire. This is troubling because almost people value democracy for its fruits, not just its roots.⁵

Given that situation, it is not surprising that public support is very high for key change in our political arrangement to brand the system piece of work ameliorate. There is no party of the status quo in contemporary America: both sides desire changes, simply they disagree about the direction of change. Unfortunately, virtually 6 in 10 Americans do non think that the system can change.⁶ And because it has non changed despite growing dysfunction, polarization has led to legislative gridlock, which has generated rising support for unfettered executive action to behave out the people'southward will.

Democracy ways the rule of the people, but Americans do not fully agree about who belongs to the people. Although in that location are areas of agreement across partisan and ideological lines, some in our nation hold that to be "truly" American, you must believe in God, identify as Christian, and be born in the United States.^vii In a period of increasing clearing and religious pluralism, these divisions can become dangerous.

Disagreements about who is truly American are part of a broader cleavage in American culture. seventy% of Republicans believe that America's culture and fashion of life have inverse for the worse since the 1950s, while 63% of Democrats believe that they have changed for the better.^viii Strong majorities of Republicans hold that "Things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own canton," that "Today, America is in danger of losing its civilization and identity," and that "the American style of life needs to be protected for strange influences." Majorities of Democrats reject these propositions.

Back up for political violence is significant. In February 2021, 39% of Republicans, 31% of Independents, and 17% of Democrats agreed that "if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions." In November, thirty% of Republicans, 17% of Independents, and 11% of Democrats agreed that they might take to resort to violence in gild to save our country."^nine

While public support for many of the reforms in federal compromise legislation is stiff, at that place is a divide in the electorate on what they view as the largest problem in our electric current system.^x In September, just 36% believed that "rules that arrive too difficult for eligible citizens to vote" constituted the largest problem for our elections, compared to 45% who identified "rules that are not strict plenty to forestall illegal votes from being bandage" as the largest problem.

The conclusion nosotros draw from this quick review of public opinion is that if democracy fails in America, it will not be considering a majority of Americans is demanding a non-democratic form of government. It volition be because an organized, purposeful minority seizes strategic positions within the organisation and subverts the substance of commonwealth while retaining its shell—while the majority isn't well organized, or doesn't care enough, to resist. Every bit we show in a later department, the possibility that this will occur is far from remote.

American Institutions

A second way of considering whether commonwealth is failing is to wait at the institutions of government. Successful democratic systems are non designed for governments equanimous of ethical men and women who are only interested in the public good. If leaders were always virtuous there would be no demand for checks and balances.

The Founding Fathers understood this. They designed a system to protect minority points of view, to protect united states of america from leaders inclined to lie, cheat and steal, and (paradoxically) to protect the majority confronting minorities who are determined to subvert the constitutional order.

During the Trump presidency, the formal institutional "guardrails" of democracy—Congress, the federalist organisation, the Courts, the bureaucracy, and the press—held firm confronting enormous force per unit area. At the same time, there is evidence that the informal norms of conduct that shape the operation of these institutions have weakened significantly, making them more vulnerable to future efforts to subvert them.^xi There is no guarantee that our constitutional democracy will survive another sustained—and likely better-organized—set on in the years to come.

We begin with the skilful news about our institutions.

Former President Trump did not succeed in materially weakening the powers of the Congress.¹² He did not try to disband Congress, and while he often fought that institution, information technology fought dorsum. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had no problem confronting him, and Democrats brought impeachment charges against him non one time simply twice. Although speculation was rampant, in the cease then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did not cake either trial. While onetime Leader McConnell and allies accept been called former President Trump's lapdogs, on virtually all domestic policy issues they have acted like nearly any Republican majority would human activity, and on strange policy former Leader McConnell neither stopped nor punished Republican senators who tried to constrain Trump when they idea he was wrong.¹³

The American system is a federalist system. The Constitution distributes power betwixt the federal regime and the land government, codification in the ten^th Amendment to the Constitution. States accept repeatedly and successfully exercised their power confronting former President Trump, especially in ii areas, COVID-19 and voting.^fourteen

Despite Mr. Trump's attempts to force per unit area the nation's governors and other state officials into doing what he wanted, he did not inflict lasting damage on the federalist system, and the states are no weaker—perhaps fifty-fifty stronger—than they were earlier his presidency. Citizens now understand that in a crisis, states are the ones who control things that are important to them like shutdown orders and vaccine distribution.

In the spring of 2020 so-President Trump, anxious to get past COVID in fourth dimension for his re-election campaign, was pushing hard for states to open up early. Only a few complied, while many—including some Republican governors—ignored him. Seeing that the governors were non scared of him, Mr. Trump and so threatened to withhold medical equipment based on states' decisions about opening up. He came up against the Supreme Court's interpretation of the x^th Amendment, which prevents the president from workout federal aid on the basis of governors' acquiescing to a president'south demands.¹⁵

The guardrails betwixt the federal government and the states also held when it came to Mr. Trump's entrada to reverse the 2020 election results. In Georgia, the Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a stalwart Republican and Trump supporter, certified election results in spite of personal calls and threats from the president. In Michigan, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and Republican Business firm Speaker Lee Chatfield did non give in to Trump's attempts to get them to diverge from the process of choosing electors.

One of the hallmarks of failing democracies is a weak judicial arrangement under heavy political control. But under assault from and then-President Trump, the judiciary remained independent despite his repeated attempts to win in the courts what he could not win at the ballot box. President Trump-appointed judges often made decisions that thwarted Mr. Trump'southward attempts to overturn the results. In fact, after the election Mr. Trump'south squad and allies brought 62 lawsuits and won exactly one.¹⁶ (The others he either dropped or lost.) Many of those decisions were handed downward by Republican judges.¹⁷ Perhaps onetime President Trump's biggest disappointment was the Supreme Courtroom's decision not to hear ballot challenges concerning states he claimed he had won.¹⁸

A complimentary press is an essential chemical element of a healthy democracy. Sometime President Trump spent four years using the smashing pulpit of the presidency to mock the press, calling them names and "the enemy of the people" and referring to outlets he does not like as "failing." He revoked the press credentials of reporters he did not like. (The courts restored them.) Nevertheless, reporters were non afraid to call out his lies. With Mr. Trump out of office for months at present, no major news outlets have gone broke. Few are afraid to criticize former President Trump or his supporters.

The free press is nonetheless fundamentally free (although President Trump undoubtably contributed to some decline in public trust of the media, which in turn weakens its oversight and accountability functions). Its financial and structural issues, well-nigh of which are owing to the challenges of internet age, predated Mr. Trump. Some argue that former President Trump increased distrust in the media but, equally polling indicates, the lack of trust in media declined to less than 50 percent in the first decade of the 21^st century and has stayed in the low forties in recent years.^nineteen

One terminal bespeak: democracies often fail when their military sides with anti-democratic insurgents. But in the United States, the tradition of civil control over the armed forces remains strong—especially within the military. After the chaos in Lafayette Park last June, when Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared with then-President Trump in armed forces fatigues, Mr. Milley and other top military leaders went out of their style to reaffirm this tradition, which is drilled into all officers throughout their careers. A military coup is the to the lowest degree probable way for democracy in America to stop.²⁰

So why are nosotros worried?

Although scholars and pundits have long chronicled with regret the rising of partisan polarization and the decline of congressional effectiveness, concern about the outright failure of American commonwealth was rare before the rise of Donald Trump. Never earlier in American history have we had a candidate, not to mention a president, who disparaged the integrity of the electoral arrangement and who hinted repeatedly during his ballot that he would non accept the results of the election if he lost. This behavior began during the Republican primaries and continued in advance of the 2016 election, which he won, and the 2020 ballot, which he lost.²¹ It congenital to a crescendo that exploded on Jan 6, 2021, when supporters, called to Washington for a "Finish the Steal" rally, marched to the Capitol, attacked law enforcement officers, vandalized offices, and breached the Senate gallery where the balloter college vote was supposed to exist taking place.

The non-stop attacks on American elections were part of a broader attack on the truth. Any story Mr. Trump and his supporters disliked became "simulated news," creating, slowly but surely, an alternate universe that encompassed everything from the integrity of the election to public health guidelines for the COVID pandemic. The very existence of a sizeable number of citizens who cannot hold on facts is an enormous threat to democracy. As the Yale historian Timothy Snyder points out in his 2018 book, The Road to Unfreedom, authoritarians like Vladimir Putin have no use for truth or for the facts, considering they utilize and disseminate simply what volition assist them achieve and maintain ability.²² As our colleague Jonathan Rauch argues in The Constitution of Knowledge, disinformation and the war on reality have reached "epistemic" proportions.²³

Even though constitutional processes prevailed and Mr. Trump is no longer president, he and his followers continue to weaken American democracy past disarming many Americans to distrust the results of the election. Near three-quarters of rank-and-file Republicans believe that at that place was massive fraud in 2020 and Joe Biden was non legitimately elected president. "A 'Politico'/Forenoon Consult survey found that more than than one-third of American voters feel the 2020 election should be overturned, including three out of v Republicans."²⁴

The aftermath of the 2020 ballot revealed structural weaknesses in the institutions designed to safeguard the integrity of the electoral procedure. A focus of concern is the Balloter Count Act of 1887, which was adopted in response to the contested election of 1876. This legislation is so ambiguously drafted that one of former President Trump's lawyers used it as the basis of a memorandum arguing that former Vice President Pence, whom the Constitution designates equally the chair of the meeting at which the Electoral College ballots are counted, had the correct to ignore certified slates of electors the states had sent to Washington. If Mr. Pence had yielded to and then-President Trump's pressure to deed in this fashion, the election would have been thrown into chaos and the Constitution placed in jeopardy.²⁵

Recently, former President Trump's assault on the integrity of the 2020 election has taken a new and unsafe plow. Rather than focusing on federal regime, his supporters have focused on the obscure world of ballot mechanism. Republican majorities in state legislatures are passing laws making information technology harder to vote and weakening the power of election officials to do their jobs. In many states, especially closely contested ones such equally Arizona and Georgia, Mr. Trump'southward supporters are trying to defeat incumbents who upheld the integrity of the ballot and replace them with the quondam President'due south supporters.²⁶

At the local level, decease threats are being made against Autonomous and Republican election administrators, with up to 30% of election officials surveyed saying they are concerned for their safety.²⁷ As seasoned election administrators retire or but quit, Mr. Trump supporters are vying for these obscure but pivotal positions. In Michigan, for example, the Washington Post reports that there is intense focus on the boards charged with certifying the vote at the canton level. Republicans who voted against onetime President Trump'southward efforts to alter the vote count are beingness replaced. And most dangerous of all, some states are considering laws that would bypass the long-established institutions for certifying the vote-count and give partisan legislatures the authorisation to determine which slate of electors volition represent them in the Electoral College.

American democracy is thus under assail from the ground up. The about recent systematic attack on state and local election machinery is much more unsafe than the cluttered statements of a disorganized one-time president. A movement that relied on Mr. Trump'due south organizational skills would pose no threat to constitutional institutions.  A movement inspired by him with a articulate objective and a detailed plan to achieve information technology would exist another affair altogether.

The chances that this threat will materialize over the next few years are high and rising. The evidence suggests that Mr. Trump is preparing in one case again to seek the Republican presidential nomination—and that he will win the nomination if he tries for information technology. Fifty-fifty if he decides not to do so, the party's base will insist on a nominee who shares the onetime president'southward outlook and is willing to participate in a plan to win the presidency by subverting the results of state elections if necessary. The consequences could include an extended period of political and social instability, and an outbreak of mass violence.

Section ii: Does a declining republic threaten the private sector?

For several reasons, America's private sector has a huge stake in the outcome of the struggle for American commonwealth.

In a recent Harvard Business Review article headlined "Business Can't Take Democracy for granted," Rebecca Henderson argues,

American business needs American democracy. Free markets cannot survive without the support of the kind of capable, answerable government that can gear up the rules of the game that go on markets genuinely free and fair. Andonlydemocracy can ensure that governments are held answerable, that they are viewed as legitimate, and that they don't devolve into the rule of the many by the few and the kind of crony commercialism that we see emerging in so many parts of the world.²⁸

Henderson further argues that, just equally democracy sets the rules of the game for the private sector, the private sector can help to go on in identify commonwealth's "soft guardrails," such equally the "unwritten norms of common toleration and abstinence" upon which democracy relies.²⁹ "CEOs are widely trusted by the American public, "and so the attitudes of the private sector towards government and democracy are consequential.³⁰ Because the free market and commonwealth are interdependent, a systemic risk to ane is, by definition, a systemic take chances to the other.

Transnational prove from the Globe Bank and Liberty House bolsters Henderson'southward claim,³¹ as does the pioneering work by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson on the relationship between economic prosperity and political accountability.³² Sarah Repucci, Vice President of Research & Analysis at Freedom House, writes, "The political crackdowns and security crises associated with authoritarian rule often bulldoze out business and place employees, supply bondage, and investments at hazard, in addition to raising reputational and legal concerns for foreign companies that stay involved."³³ This underscores that it is in the investment community's own involvement to actively push back on efforts to weaken or dismantle these democratic systems. The very nature of checks and balances provides for the stability of a gratis market place, ensuring that a free and engaged citizenry will provide the most stabilizing market forces. "A more democratic world would be a more than stable, inviting identify for established democracies to trade and invest."³⁴

The simple fact is that it is hard to plan and invest for the future in volatile, unstable circumstances. The Us is not exempt from the calculus of political risk analysis, even if we are not accepted to applying information technology to our own country. Investors accept a fiduciary duty that is dependent on their understanding and attempting to deal with systemic risk. According to a contempo report, "Decisions fabricated past fiduciaries pour downward the investment concatenation affecting decision-making processes, ownership practices and ultimately, the way in which companies are managed."³⁵

Moreover, as overseas firms and countries brainstorm to worry about the stability of our laws and institutions, they will think twice virtually investing in the United States, and mutually beneficial international partnerships volition be harder to negotiate. Economists agree that "the free market needs gratuitous politics and a salubrious society."³⁶

The situation is worsened past the fact that large corporations in America are in a weakened position to withstand political attack. According to the Gallup organization, which has explored public confidence in major institutions for nearly half a century, the share of Americans expressing very little or no confidence in large business has never been college, not even in the depth of the Groovy Recession. Among the 17 institutions Gallup assessed, conviction in large business ranked 15^thursday, ahead of only television set news and the U.S. Congress. Complicating its political challenge in a polarized country, corporate America is increasingly challenged by employees, activists, and indeed some shareholders to accept stands on divisive social and political bug in means that both reflect and reinforce blue/red polarization.

For much of the past century, Republicans were the champions, and Democrats the critics, of corporate America. Only now the lack of support for big business is pervasive across the political spectrum. In mid-2019, 54% of Republicans had a positive assessment of big business'south bear on on the class of our national life. Two years afterward, this figure had fallen to thirty%, almost the same equally for Democrats. Republican support for banks and fiscal institutions likewise equally technology companies underwent a similar reject.³⁷ If an elected demagogue citing national security or a hot-push button social consequence sought to restrict the independence of the individual sector, public opposition to this effort would probable be muted at best.

At the elite level, the traditional bonds between the Republican Party and big business concern are besides breaking down. For instance, a recent op-ed by Republican Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) calls out corporate America for taking sides in the civilization war: "Today, corporate America routinely flexes its ability to humiliate politicians if they dare support traditional values at all."³⁸

In curt, while more than piece of work remains to be done, we believe that the fate of democracy constitutes a systemic hazard to markets. The fate of democracy and that of the private sector are inextricably linked, and private sector leaders have reasons of self-interest as well every bit principle to do what they tin to strengthen republic.

Section 3: What can the private sector do to strengthen democracy?

The private sector has a long and venerable track record in the public sphere. Perhaps the all-time- known campaign began on higher campuses in the 1980s to encourage universities to end their investments in companies doing business organisation in apartheid South Africa. This movement spread to pension funds and to cities and states. By 1990, over 200 U.S. companies had cutting investment ties with South Africa. By 1994, Nelson Mandela, the leader of the anti-apartheid movement who was freed after nearly three decades in prison, had been elected president of mail-apartheid South Africa.³⁹

Other examples of corporate action include the Sudan divestment movement of the early-mid 2000s prompted by the Darfur genocide, which resulted in about half the U.S. states passing divestment statutes that remain in force for many state pension funds. The U.North. Tobacco-Free Finance Pledge, signed by near 130 companies from the cyberbanking and finance sector, took place aslope the U.S. government's tough regulatory push. More recently, in response to the Blackness Lives Matter motility, companies pledged nigh $50 billion to address racial inequality.⁴⁰ Many companies have made pledges or commitments to fight climate alter—for example, through Climate Activity 100+ "an investor-led initiative to ensure the world'southward largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters have necessary action on climatic change."⁴¹ Union equality is another example of such impact.⁴² While progress remains uneven, investor activity is making a difference.

In more recent years much of corporate America and Wall Street, including many big multinationals, accept signed onto the United nations Guiding Principles on Business concern and Human Rights/UNGP (June 2011) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals/SDGs (September 2015).

Finally, the movement for ESG (ecology, social, and governance) investing is potent and growing. Driven by investor demand and regulatory force per unit area, more and more institutional investors are implementing ESG investing. Nugget owners such as alimony funds are increasingly demanding sustainable investing strategies.

Until recently, democracy has not been a focus of corporate campaigns in the public sphere. Nevertheless, in response to the 2020 presidential election and former President Trump's attempts to overturn the results, some corporations entered the fray. In tardily October of 2020, a group of key business leaders, led past the Business Roundtable, the National Clan of Manufacturers and the U.S Chamber of Commerce, issued a argument defending the integrity of the electoral process. When it became clear that Biden had won the election, members of this grouping made statements in support of honoring the outcomes, and they declared that the transition process for the peaceful transfer of ability should begin immediately.⁴³ Numerous companies halted their PAC donations to candidates who had voted against certifying the election results—and some, such equally Charles Schwab, appear that it would stop its political giving altogether "in light of a divided political climate and an increase in attacks on those participating in the political procedure."⁴⁴

The role of the private sector did non end with Joe Biden's inauguration in January of 2021. As state afterward state moved to enact laws restricting the right to vote, corporations over again took activity. In May of 2021, hundreds of corporations and executives including Amazon, BlackRock, Google, and Warren Buffett issued a statement opposing "any discriminatory legislation" that would make information technology harder for people to vote.⁴⁵ Kenneth Chenault, a old principal executive of American Express, organized the unified argument, highlighting that "throughout our history, corporations have spoken up on different issues. Information technology'southward absolutely the responsibility of companies to speak upwards, particularly on something as fundamental as the right to vote."⁴⁶ State and local officials, both past and current officeholders, applauded this statement and urged its signatories to do even more to protect democracy.⁴⁷

The continuing involvement of the private sector in the defense force of republic is essential for democracy, and for business itself. As a Chatham House study stated recently, "Business organisation should recognize its ain stake in the shared space of the dominion of law, answerable governance, and civic freedoms…. Business has a responsibility – in its ain interest and that of society – to support the pillars of profitable and sustainable operating environments."⁴⁸

Discharging this responsibility requires a clear-eyed assessment of the dangers we face. As we have argued, the greatest threat to democracy in America is not that a majority of Americans will plough against democracy. It is that strategically placed state and local majorities volition collude with an organized and purposeful national minority to seize control of central electoral institutions and subvert the volition of the people.

In this context, the responsibility of large investment institutions is clear: to remain vigilant in the face of ongoing threats to democracy, to do everything in their ability to urge corporate leaders to remain involved in the fight for democracy, and to advantage them when they practice. This responsibility can be discharged nigh finer when investment institutions establish the framework for ongoing consideration of this event—and when they human activity collectively in defence force of the democratic institutions without which prosperity as well as liberty is at take chances.

Section 4: For Further Word

The above discussion sets the phase for an action agenda. To start the word, investors need to ask themselves the following questions:

1. Should threats to U.S. constitutional guild equally discussed in this newspaper exist classified every bit a systemic risk to markets? And if and then, is there a fiduciary duty on the part of investors to identify and pursue mitigating steps?
2. Should corporate boards and chief executives of portfolio companies back up efforts to protect the right of all Americans to vote in U.S. elections and condemn measures that unfairly restrict those rights?
3. Should investors build into stewardship platforms a policy of mitigating risk to U.S. Ramble integrity?
4. Should portfolio companies follow responsible business practices past urging organizations to which they belong to terminate any fiscal or other support for measures that result in voter suppression in the U.S., and to withdraw from such organizations if such efforts fail?
5. Should portfolio companies end whatsoever political contributions associated with elected officials or candidates for elected function who reject to take the legitimate outcome of United states elections or who support seditious acts?
6. Should investors regularly monitor financial agents they may employ to ensure that they are aligned both in word and deed with our efforts to address the systemic risks to U.South. constitutional integrity?

---

Nearly the authors

William A. Galston holds the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institution's Governance Studies Program, where he serves every bit a Senior Boyfriend. Prior to January 2006 he was the Saul Stern Professor and Interim Dean at the School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, founding managing director of the Middle for Information and Research on Borough Learning and Engagement (Circumvolve), and executive director of the National Commission on Borough Renewal. A participant in six presidential campaigns, he served from 1993 to 1995 as Deputy Banana to President Clinton for Domestic Policy. Galston is the author of ten books and more than 100 articles in the fields of political theory, public policy, and American politics. His well-nigh contempo books areAnti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Republic(Yale, 2018),Public Matters (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), andThe Practice of Liberal Pluralism (Cambridge, 2004). A winner of the American Political Scientific discipline Clan'due south Hubert H. Humphrey award, he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2004. He writes a weekly column for the Wall Street Journal.

Elaine C. Kamarck is a Senior Fellow in the Governance Studies program as well as the Director of the Center for Constructive Public Management at the Brookings Institution. She is an good on American electoral politics and government innovation and reform in the United States, OECD nations, and developing countries. Kamarck is the writer of "Chief Politics: Everything Yous Need to Know nigh How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates" and "Why Presidents Fail And How They Can Succeed Again." Kamarck is also a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. She served in the White House from 1993 to 1997, where she created and managed the Clinton Administration's National Performance Review, likewise known as the "reinventing regime initiative." Kamarck conducts research on the American presidency, American politics, the presidential nominating process and authorities reform and innovation.

---

The Brookings Establishment is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent inquiry and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and recommendations of whatsoever Brookings publication are solely those of its author(southward), and practise non reflect the views of the Establishment, its management, or its other scholars.

Amazon, BlackRock, and Google provide full general, unrestricted funding to the Institution. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in this report are not influenced by any donation. Brookings recognizes that the value information technology provides is in its absolute delivery to quality, independence, and bear on. Activities supported past its donors reflect this commitment.

Source: https://www.brookings.edu/research/is-democracy-failing-and-putting-our-economic-system-at-risk/

Posted by: irishdientiong.blogspot.com

Share this post