I Will Not Have to Run for President Again Because the Democratic Party Has Taken Up Our

---

"I remember the pass up of republic is a mortal threat to the legitimacy and health of capitalism."

—Rebecca Henderson, Harvard Business organization School¹

The rule of constabulary and democracy are crucial to capital markets. A free market counterbalanced by a democratically elected, transparent and capable government, and a stiff civil lodge ("an inclusive government") 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 state of American democracy and whether information technology constitutes a systemic gamble that impacts fiduciary duties. The paper proceeds in iii parts. In the first, we assess the question of whether American democracy is backsliding towards failure, and argue that information technology is. In the second, we volition examine whether autonomous failure represents a systemic risk, and conclude that it does. In the tertiary part, nosotros offer some preliminary thoughts nearly what steps major private sector actors may undertake every bit part of their fiduciary responsibilities given the threats to U.S. democracy and markets.

Section 1: Is Republic Failing?

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

The American Public

Based on six high-quality surveys conducted in the final twelvemonth and a half, back up for commonwealth as the all-time grade of authorities remains overwhelming and more often than not stable across party lines.^three Still, almost i in 5 Americans have views that make them at least open up to, if not outright supportive of, authoritarianism.^four

But there'southward an important qualification: Americans distinguish sharply betwixt republic in principle and in practice. There is about-universal agreement that our system is not working well—in detail, that information technology is non delivering the results people want. This is troubling because most people value republic for its fruits, not just its roots.⁵

Given that situation, it is not surprising that public back up is very high for fundamental change in our political arrangement to make the arrangement work better. In that location is no party of the status quo in contemporary America: both sides want changes, but they disagree near the direction of alter. Unfortunately, near 6 in 10 Americans do non recollect that the system can change.⁶ And because information technology has non inverse despite growing dysfunction, polarization has led to legislative gridlock, which has generated ascent support for unfettered executive action to conduct out the people'south will.

Commonwealth means the rule of the people, merely Americans practise not fully agree about who belongs to the people. Although at that place are areas of understanding 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 built-in in the Us.^seven In a period of increasing immigration and religious pluralism, these divisions can get dangerous.

Disagreements about who is truly American are part of a broader cleavage in American culture. 70% of Republicans believe that America's civilisation and manner of life have inverse for the worse since the 1950s, while 63% of Democrats believe that they have inverse for the meliorate.⁸ Potent majorities of Republicans agree that "Things have changed so much that I oftentimes feel like a stranger in my own county," that "Today, America is in danger of losing its culture and identity," and that "the American style of life needs to exist protected for strange influences." Majorities of Democrats reject these propositions.

Support for political violence is significant. In February 2021, 39% of Republicans, 31% of Independents, and 17% of Democrats agreed that "if elected leaders volition not protect America, the people must do it themselves, fifty-fifty if information technology requires tearing actions." In November, 30% of Republicans, 17% of Independents, and eleven% of Democrats agreed that they might have to resort to violence in order to save our country."^ix

While public support for many of the reforms in federal compromise legislation is potent, at that place is a divide in the electorate on what they view as the largest problem in our electric current organization.¹⁰ In September, only 36% believed that "rules that brand information technology too difficult for eligible citizens to vote" constituted the largest problem for our elections, compared to 45% who identified "rules that are not strict enough to foreclose illegal votes from existence cast" every bit the largest problem.

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

American Institutions

A second way of because whether democracy is failing is to look at the institutions of government. Successful democratic systems are not designed for governments composed of ethical men and women who are only interested in the public good. If leaders were always virtuous at that place would be no need for checks and balances.

The Founding Fathers understood this. They designed a system to protect minority points of view, to protect us from leaders inclined to prevarication, cheat and steal, and (paradoxically) to protect the majority against minorities who are determined to subvert the ramble order.

During the Trump presidency, the formal institutional "guardrails" of democracy—Congress, the federalist organisation, the Courts, the bureaucracy, and the press—held house against enormous pressure. At the aforementioned time, there is prove that the breezy norms of conduct that shape the operation of these institutions have weakened significantly, making them more vulnerable to future efforts to subvert them.¹¹ There is no guarantee that our ramble democracy will survive some other sustained—and likely better-organized—assault in the years to come.

Nosotros begin with the good news near our institutions.

Former President Trump did non succeed in materially weakening the powers of the Congress.¹² He did not attempt to disband Congress, and while he often fought that institution, it fought back. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had no trouble confronting him, and Democrats brought impeachment charges against him not once but twice. Although speculation was rampant, in the end then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did not block either trial. While former Leader McConnell and allies take been chosen onetime President Trump'due south lapdogs, on virtually all domestic policy issues they have acted like almost any Republican bulk would act, and on foreign policy former Leader McConnell neither stopped nor punished Republican senators who tried to constrain Trump when they thought he was wrong.¹³

The American system is a federalist system. The Constitution distributes power between the federal regime and the state government, codified in the 10^thursday Subpoena to the Constitution. States accept repeatedly and successfully exercised their power against erstwhile President Trump, specially in two areas, COVID-19 and voting.^xiv

Despite Mr. Trump's attempts to pressure level the nation's governors and other state officials into doing what he wanted, he did non inflict lasting impairment on the federalist arrangement, and the states are no weaker—peradventure even stronger—than they were before his presidency. Citizens now understand that in a crisis, states are the ones who control things that are important to them similar shutdown orders and vaccine distribution.

In the spring of 2020 so-President Trump, anxious to go past COVID in time for his re-ballot entrada, was pushing difficult for states to open up early. Only a few complied, while many—including some Republican governors—ignored him. Seeing that the governors were not scared of him, Mr. Trump then threatened to withhold medical equipment based on states' decisions near opening up. He came up against the Supreme Court'due south interpretation of the 10^th Amendment, which prevents the president from conditioning federal aid on the basis of governors' acquiescing to a president'south demands.^fifteen

The guardrails between the federal government and the states also held when it came to Mr. Trump'south campaign to opposite 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 Bulk Leader Mike Shirkey and Republican Firm Speaker Lee Chatfield did not 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 organisation under heavy political control. Merely under assault from then-President Trump, the judiciary remained contained despite his repeated attempts to win in the courts what he could not win at the ballot box. President Trump-appointed judges often fabricated decisions that thwarted Mr. Trump's attempts to overturn the results. In fact, later on the election Mr. Trump's team and allies brought 62 lawsuits and won exactly one.^xvi (The others he either dropped or lost.) Many of those decisions were handed down by Republican judges.¹⁷ Perchance former President Trump'south biggest disappointment was the Supreme Court's decision not to hear election challenges apropos states he claimed he had won.^xviii

A gratis printing is an essential element of a healthy democracy. Former President Trump spent four years using the bully pulpit of the presidency to mock the printing, calling them names and "the enemy of the people" and referring to outlets he does not similar as "failing." He revoked the press credentials of reporters he did non like. (The courts restored them.) Nevertheless, reporters were not afraid to call out his lies. With Mr. Trump out of office for months now, no major news outlets take 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, nigh of which are attributable to the challenges of internet historic period, predated Mr. Trump. Some contend that erstwhile President Trump increased distrust in the media merely, as polling indicates, the lack of trust in media declined to less than fifty percent in the first decade of the 21^st century and has stayed in the low forties in recent years.¹⁹

Ane final point: democracies oftentimes fail when their military sides with anti-democratic insurgents. Simply in the United states, the tradition of ceremonious command over the military machine remains potent—especially within the military. Later on the chaos in Lafayette Park last June, when Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared with then-President Trump in military machine fatigues, Mr. Milley and other top military leaders went out of their fashion to reaffirm this tradition, which is drilled into all officers throughout their careers. A military coup is the least likely way for democracy in America to terminate.^twenty

So why are we worried?

Although scholars and pundits have long chronicled with regret the rise of partisan polarization and the reject of congressional effectiveness, business organization nearly the outright failure of American commonwealth was rare before the ascent of Donald Trump. Never earlier in American history take we had a candidate, not to mention a president, who disparaged the integrity of the electoral system and who hinted repeatedly during his ballot that he would non accept the results of the ballot if he lost. This behavior began during the Republican primaries and connected in advance of the 2016 election, which he won, and the 2020 election, which he lost.²¹ It built to a crescendo that exploded on January vi, 2021, when supporters, chosen to Washington for a "Stop 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 role of a broader attack on the truth. Any story Mr. Trump and his supporters disliked became "fake news," creating, slowly but surely, an alternate universe that encompassed everything from the integrity of the ballot to public health guidelines for the COVID pandemic. The very existence of a sizeable number of citizens who cannot agree on facts is an enormous threat to democracy. As the Yale historian Timothy Snyder points out in his 2018 volume, The Road to Unfreedom, authoritarians like Vladimir Putin have no utilize for truth or for the facts, because they utilise and disseminate but what volition help them reach and maintain power.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 by convincing many Americans to distrust the results of the ballot. Nearly three-quarters of rank-and-file Republicans believe that there was massive fraud in 2020 and Joe Biden was not legitimately elected president. "A 'Politico'/Forenoon Consult survey found that more one-tertiary of American voters feel the 2020 ballot should be overturned, including three out of 5 Republicans."²⁴

The aftermath of the 2020 ballot revealed structural weaknesses in the institutions designed to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process. A focus of business is the Electoral Count Human activity of 1887, which was adopted in response to the contested election of 1876. This legislation is so ambiguously drafted that i of former President Trump'southward lawyers used information technology every bit the basis of a memorandum arguing that erstwhile Vice President Pence, whom the Constitution designates as the chair of the meeting at which the Electoral Higher ballots are counted, had the right to ignore certified slates of electors the states had sent to Washington. If Mr. Pence had yielded to and so-President Trump's pressure to act in this manner, the election would have been thrown into chaos and the Constitution placed in jeopardy.²⁵

Recently, former President Trump'south assail on the integrity of the 2020 election has taken a new and unsafe turn. Rather than focusing on federal government, his supporters take focused on the obscure world of ballot machinery. Republican majorities in country legislatures are passing laws making it harder to vote and weakening the power of election officials to do their jobs. In many states, specially closely contested ones such as Arizona and Georgia, Mr. Trump's supporters are trying to defeat incumbents who upheld the integrity of the election and supervene upon them with the one-time President's supporters.²⁶

At the local level, death threats are existence fabricated confronting Democratic and Republican election administrators, with up to xxx% of election officials surveyed saying they are concerned for their safety.²⁷ Equally seasoned election administrators retire or just quit, Mr. Trump supporters are vying for these obscure only pivotal positions. In Michigan, for instance, 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 one-time President Trump'south efforts to alter the vote count are being replaced. And most unsafe of all, some states are considering laws that would bypass the long-established institutions for certifying the vote-count and give partisan legislatures the authority to determine which slate of electors will represent them in the Electoral Higher.

American republic is thus under attack from the footing up. The most contempo systematic attack on land and local ballot machinery is much more dangerous than the chaotic statements of a disorganized former president. A movement that relied on Mr. Trump's organizational skills would pose no threat to constitutional institutions.  A motion inspired past him with a clear objective and a detailed plan to achieve it would exist some other matter birthday.

The chances that this threat volition materialize over the next few years are high and ascent. The evidence suggests that Mr. Trump is preparing once once more to seek the Republican presidential nomination—and that he will win the nomination if he tries for it. Fifty-fifty if he decides not to do and then, the political party's base will insist on a nominee who shares the quondam president's outlook and is willing to participate in a plan to win the presidency by subverting the results of land elections if necessary. The consequences could include an extended flow of political and social instability, and an outbreak of mass violence.

Section two: Does a declining democracy threaten the private sector?

For several reasons, America'southward individual sector has a huge stake in the outcome of the struggle for American democracy.

In a recent Harvard Business Review article headlined "Business concern Can't Have 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 ready the rules of the game that proceed markets genuinely free and off-white. Andonlydemocracy can ensure that governments are held accountable, 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 capitalism that we see emerging in and so many parts of the world.²⁸

Henderson further argues that, just every bit democracy sets the rules of the game for the private sector, the private sector can aid to keep in place democracy's "soft guardrails," such as the "unwritten norms of common toleration and forbearance" upon which democracy relies.²⁹ "CEOs are widely trusted by the American public, "then the attitudes of the private sector towards regime and democracy are consequential.³⁰ Because the costless market and democracy are interdependent, a systemic chance to one is, by definition, a systemic risk to the other.

Transnational show from the Earth Bank and Freedom House bolsters Henderson'southward merits,³¹ as does the pioneering work by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson on the relationship betwixt economic prosperity and political accountability.³² Sarah Repucci, Vice President of Research & Assay at Liberty House, writes, "The political crackdowns and security crises associated with authoritarian rule oft bulldoze out business and place employees, supply chains, and investments at risk, in addition to raising reputational and legal concerns for foreign companies that stay involved."³³ This underscores that it is in the investment customs'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 gratuitous market, ensuring that a free and engaged denizens will provide the virtually stabilizing marketplace 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 hereafter in volatile, unstable circumstances. The United States is not exempt from the calculus of political adventure analysis, fifty-fifty if we are not accustomed 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 chance. According to a recent report, "Decisions fabricated past fiduciaries cascade downward the investment chain affecting decision-making processes, buying practices and ultimately, the way in which companies are managed."³⁵

Moreover, equally overseas firms and countries begin to worry well-nigh the stability of our laws and institutions, they will retrieve twice about investing in the United States, and mutually beneficial international partnerships will exist harder to negotiate. Economists concord that "the costless market needs free politics and a healthy society."³⁶

The situation is worsened by the fact that large corporations in America are in a weakened position to withstand political assail. According to the Gallup organization, which has explored public confidence in major institutions for well-nigh half a century, the share of Americans expressing very little or no confidence in big concern has never been college, not even in the depth of the Great Recession. Amid the 17 institutions Gallup assessed, confidence in big business ranked 15^thursday, ahead of only television 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 take stands on divisive social and political bug in ways that both reflect and reinforce blue/ruddy polarization.

For much of the by century, Republicans were the champions, and Democrats the critics, of corporate America. But now the lack of support for big business is pervasive across the political spectrum. In mid-2019, 54% of Republicans had a positive cess of big business concern's impact on the class of our national life. 2 years later, this effigy had fallen to 30%, about the same equally for Democrats. Republican back up for banks and fiscal institutions as well as technology companies underwent a similar reject.³⁷ If an elected demagogue citing national security or a hot-push social event sought to restrict the independence of the private sector, public opposition to this effort would probable be muted at best.

At the aristocracy level, the traditional bonds between the Republican Party and big business concern are as well breaking downwards. For example, a contempo op-ed past Republican Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) calls out corporate America for taking sides in the culture state of war: "Today, corporate America routinely flexes its power to humiliate politicians if they cartel support traditional values at all."³⁸

In brusque, while more work remains to be done, we believe that the fate of democracy constitutes a systemic risk to markets. The fate of democracy and that of the individual sector are inextricably linked, and individual sector leaders have reasons of self-interest likewise as principle to practise what they tin to strengthen democracy.

Section iii: What tin the private sector practise to strengthen commonwealth?

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

Other examples of corporate activity include the Sudan divestment move of the early-mid 2000s prompted by the Darfur genocide, which resulted in most one-half the U.S. states passing divestment statutes that remain in force for many state alimony funds. The U.Northward. Tobacco-Free Finance Pledge, signed by well-nigh 130 companies from the cyberbanking and finance sector, took identify alongside the U.Due south. government's tough regulatory push. More recently, in response to the Blackness Lives Affair move, companies pledged nearly $50 billion to accost racial inequality.⁴⁰ Many companies take made pledges or commitments to fight climate alter—for example, through Climate Action 100+ "an investor-led initiative to ensure the world's largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change."⁴¹ Wedlock equality is another example of such impact.⁴² While progress remains uneven, investor action is making a difference.

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

Finally, the motility for ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing is strong and growing. Driven by investor demand and regulatory pressure level, more than and more institutional investors are implementing ESG investing. Asset owners such as pension funds are increasingly demanding sustainable investing strategies.

Until recently, democracy has non been a focus of corporate campaigns in the public sphere. However, in response to the 2020 presidential election and former President Trump's attempts to overturn the results, some corporations entered the fray. In late October of 2020, a group of fundamental business leaders, led by the Concern Roundtable, the National Clan of Manufacturers and the U.S Chamber of Commerce, issued a statement defending the integrity of the balloter process. When it became clear that Biden had won the election, members of this group made statements in support of honoring the outcomes, and they declared that the transition process for the peaceful transfer of power should brainstorm immediately.⁴³ Numerous companies halted their PAC donations to candidates who had voted against certifying the election results—and some, such as 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 process."⁴⁴

The role of the private sector did non end with Joe Biden's inauguration in January of 2021. As state later on country moved to enact laws restricting the correct to vote, corporations again took action. In May of 2021, hundreds of corporations and executives including Amazon, BlackRock, Google, and Warren Buffett issued a statement opposing "whatever discriminatory legislation" that would make it harder for people to vote.⁴⁵ Kenneth Chenault, a former master executive of American Express, organized the unified statement, highlighting that "throughout our history, corporations have spoken up on different bug. It's absolutely the responsibility of companies to speak up, particularly on something equally fundamental as the correct to vote."⁴⁶ State and local officials, both past and current officeholders, applauded this argument and urged its signatories to practise even more than to protect democracy.⁴⁷

The continuing involvement of the private sector in the defense of republic is essential for republic, and for business itself. As a Chatham House report stated recently, "Business should recognize its own stake in the shared space of the rule of police, accountable governance, and civic freedoms…. Business concern has a responsibility – in its ain involvement and that of club – 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 turn confronting democracy. It is that strategically placed land and local majorities will collude with an organized and purposeful national minority to seize command of key electoral institutions and subvert the will of the people.

In this context, the responsibility of large investment institutions is articulate: to remain vigilant in the confront of ongoing threats to democracy, to do everything in their power to urge corporate leaders to remain involved in the fight for democracy, and to advantage them when they practice. This responsibility tin can be discharged nearly effectively when investment institutions establish the framework for ongoing consideration of this issue—and when they act collectively in defense force of the democratic institutions without which prosperity every bit well as freedom is at gamble.

Department 4: For Further Give-and-take

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

1. Should threats to U.S. constitutional order as discussed in this paper be classified equally a systemic risk to markets? And if so, 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 support efforts to protect the right of all Americans to vote in U.Due south. elections and condemn measures that unfairly restrict those rights?
3. Should investors build into stewardship platforms a policy of mitigating gamble to U.South. Constitutional integrity?
4. Should portfolio companies follow responsible business practices by urging organizations to which they belong to terminate any financial 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 any political contributions associated with elected officials or candidates for elected office who decline to accept the legitimate outcome of US elections or who support seditious acts?
6. Should investors regularly monitor financial agents they may employ to ensure that they are aligned both in give-and-take and deed with our efforts to address the systemic risks to U.South. constitutional integrity?

---

About the authors

William A. Galston holds the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institution'southward Governance Studies Program, where he serves equally a Senior Boyfriend. Prior to Jan 2006 he was the Saul Stern Professor and Acting Dean at the School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, manager of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, founding director of the Center for Data and Research on Borough Learning and Engagement (Circle), and executive director of the National Commission on Borough Renewal. A participant in six presidential campaigns, he served from 1993 to 1995 as Deputy Assistant 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 nigh recent books areAnti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy(Yale, 2018),Public Matters (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), andThe Practice of Liberal Pluralism (Cambridge, 2004). A winner of the American Political Science Association's 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 Managing director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Establishment. She is an expert on American electoral politics and government innovation and reform in the United States, OECD nations, and developing countries. Kamarck is the writer of "Primary Politics: Everything You lot Demand to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates" and "Why Presidents Fail And How They Tin can Succeed Again." Kamarck is also a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. She served in the White Business firm from 1993 to 1997, where she created and managed the Clinton Administration's National Functioning Review, also known as the "reinventing government initiative." Kamarck conducts inquiry on the American presidency, American politics, the presidential nominating procedure and authorities reform and innovation.

---

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization devoted to independent research and policy solutions. Its mission is to conduct high-quality, independent inquiry and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its writer(southward), and do not reflect the views of the Institution, its direction, or its other scholars.

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

halljuspencesses.blogspot.com

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

Share this post