Nervous Democrats Ask Could Election Day Disaster Strike Again

---

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

—Rebecca Henderson, Harvard Business organization School¹

The dominion of constabulary and democracy are crucial to uppercase markets. A free marketplace balanced by a democratically elected, transparent and capable government, and a strong civil gild ("an inclusive regime") yield stable growth rates and greater social welfare.^two Conversely, threats to democracy are threats to the individual sector, which is why business leaders and institutional investors cannot afford to remain on the sidelines when such threats emerge.

This newspaper explores the land of American democracy and whether information technology constitutes a systemic chance that impacts fiduciary duties. The paper proceeds in three parts. In the first, we assess the question of whether American democracy is backsliding towards failure, and argue that it is. In the second, we volition examine whether democratic failure represents a systemic hazard, and conclude that information technology does. In the third part, we offer some preliminary thoughts near what steps major individual sector actors may undertake equally part of their fiduciary responsibilities given the threats to U.S. 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 six high-quality surveys conducted in the last year and a one-half, support for democracy equally the best form of government remains overwhelming and generally stable beyond party lines.^three However, about 1 in 5 Americans have views that brand them at least open to, if not outright supportive of, absolutism.⁴

Just there's an important qualification: Americans distinguish sharply betwixt democracy in principle and in do. At that place is near-universal agreement that our organization is non working well—in detail, that it is not delivering the results people want. This is troubling considering most people value democracy for its fruits, non just its roots.^five

Given that situation, it is not surprising that public support is very high for fundamental change in our political system to make the organisation work better. In that location is no party of the status quo in gimmicky America: both sides desire changes, only they disagree nearly the direction of change. Unfortunately, about 6 in 10 Americans practice not think that the system can change.^vi And considering it has not changed despite growing dysfunction, polarization has led to legislative gridlock, which has generated rising support for unfettered executive activeness to bear out the people's volition.

Commonwealth means the dominion of the people, just Americans exercise non fully concord about who belongs to the people. Although there are areas of understanding across partisan and ideological lines, some in our nation concur that to be "truly" American, you must believe in God, place as Christian, and be built-in in the Usa.⁷ In a period of increasing immigration and religious pluralism, these divisions can become dangerous.

Disagreements about who is truly American are part of a broader cleavage in American culture. 70% of Republicans believe that America'due south culture and fashion of life accept changed for the worse since the 1950s, while 63% of Democrats believe that they have changed for the improve.⁸ Strong majorities of Republicans agree that "Things take changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my ain county," that "Today, America is in danger of losing its culture and identity," and that "the American way of life needs to exist protected for strange influences." Majorities of Democrats reject these propositions.

Support for political violence is meaning. 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 practice it themselves, fifty-fifty if information technology requires fierce deportment." In November, xxx% of Republicans, 17% of Independents, and 11% of Democrats agreed that they might have to resort to violence in lodge to save our country."^nine

While public support for many of the reforms in federal compromise legislation is strong, there is a divide in the electorate on what they view every bit the largest problem in our electric current arrangement.^ten In September, only 36% believed that "rules that get in 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 forestall illegal votes from being cast" as the largest problem.

The conclusion we draw from this quick review of public opinion is that if republic fails in America, it will not be considering a majority of Americans is demanding a not-democratic form of authorities. It volition exist because an organized, purposeful minority seizes strategic positions inside the system and subverts the substance of democracy while retaining its shell—while the majority isn't well organized, or doesn't intendance enough, to resist. As we prove in a afterward section, the possibility that this will occur is far from remote.

American Institutions

A second way of considering whether democracy is declining is to await at the institutions of regime. Successful democratic systems are not designed for governments composed of ethical men and women who are merely interested in the public skilful. If leaders were e'er virtuous there would be no need for checks and balances.

The Founding Fathers understood this. They designed a organization to protect minority points of view, to protect us from leaders inclined to prevarication, crook 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 system, the Courts, the bureaucracy, and the press—held firm against enormous pressure. At the same fourth dimension, at that place is evidence that the breezy norms of carry that shape the operation of these institutions have weakened significantly, making them more vulnerable to future efforts to subvert them.¹¹ At that place is no guarantee that our ramble democracy will survive another sustained—and likely better-organized—assault in the years to come up.

We begin with the good news about our institutions.

Former President Trump did non 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 back. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had no trouble confronting him, and Democrats brought impeachment charges against him not in one case simply twice. Although speculation was rampant, in the stop and so-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did not block either trial. While quondam Leader McConnell and allies accept been called old President Trump'south lapdogs, on near all domestic policy issues they have acted like almost any Republican majority would act, and on foreign policy former Leader McConnell neither stopped nor punished Republican senators who tried to constrain Trump when they idea he was wrong.^xiii

The American arrangement is a federalist organization. The Constitution distributes power between the federal government and the state authorities, codified in the 10^th Amendment to the Constitution. States have repeatedly and successfully exercised their ability against one-time President Trump, specially in two areas, COVID-19 and voting.¹⁴

Despite Mr. Trump'due south attempts to pressure the nation's governors and other state officials into doing what he wanted, he did not inflict lasting damage on the federalist system, and united states of america are no weaker—peradventure fifty-fifty 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 like shutdown orders and vaccine distribution.

In the leap of 2020 then-President Trump, anxious to become past COVID in time for his re-election campaign, was pushing hard for states to open up up early. Merely 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 most opening up. He came up against the Supreme Courtroom's interpretation of the 10^th Subpoena, which prevents the president from conditioning federal aid on the basis of governors' acquiescing to a president'southward demands.^fifteen

The guardrails betwixt the federal government and the states besides held when it came to Mr. Trump'southward campaign to reverse the 2020 ballot 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 Firm Speaker Lee Chatfield did not requite in to Trump's attempts to get them to diverge from the procedure of choosing electors.

Ane of the hallmarks of failing democracies is a weak judicial arrangement under heavy political control. Merely under assault from so-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 frequently made decisions that thwarted Mr. Trump's attempts to overturn the results. In fact, after the ballot Mr. Trump'due south team and allies brought 62 lawsuits and won exactly i.¹⁶ (The others he either dropped or lost.) Many of those decisions were handed down by Republican judges.¹⁷ Perhaps former President Trump's biggest disappointment was the Supreme Court'south conclusion non to hear ballot challenges concerning states he claimed he had won.¹⁸

A free press is an essential chemical element of a healthy democracy. Former President Trump spent 4 years using the groovy 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 every bit "failing." He revoked the printing credentials of reporters he did not similar. (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 have gone bankrupt. Few are afraid to criticize former President Trump or his supporters.

The costless press is notwithstanding 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 fiscal and structural bug, virtually of which are owing to the challenges of cyberspace age, predated Mr. Trump. Some fence that former President Trump increased distrust in the media but, as polling indicates, the lack of trust in media declined to less than fifty pct in the start decade of the 21^st century and has stayed in the low forties in contempo years.¹⁹

One concluding betoken: democracies often fail when their military sides with anti-democratic insurgents. But in the U.s., 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 Articulation Chiefs of Staff, appeared with and then-President Trump in war machine fatigues, Mr. Milley and other elevation military leaders went out of their mode to reaffirm this tradition, which is drilled into all officers throughout their careers. A military coup is the least likely mode for commonwealth in America to end.²⁰

So why are we worried?

Although scholars and pundits take long chronicled with regret the rise of partisan polarization and the decline of congressional effectiveness, concern about the outright failure of American democracy was rare before the rise of Donald Trump. Never earlier in American history have we had a candidate, non to mention a president, who disparaged the integrity of the electoral system and who hinted repeatedly during his ballot that he would not take the results of the election if he lost. This beliefs 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 January 6, 2021, when supporters, called to Washington for a "Stop the Steal" rally, marched to the Capitol, attacked constabulary enforcement officers, vandalized offices, and breached the Senate gallery where the electoral college vote was supposed to be taking place.

The not-stop attacks on American elections were function of a broader attack on the truth. Whatever 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 election to public health guidelines for the COVID pandemic. The very being 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 book, The Road to Unfreedom, authoritarians like Vladimir Putin take no apply for truth or for the facts, because they employ and disseminate only what will help them achieve 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

Fifty-fifty though constitutional processes prevailed and Mr. Trump is no longer president, he and his followers continue to weaken American republic past convincing many Americans to distrust the results of the ballot. About 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 than one-tertiary of American voters experience the 2020 election should exist overturned, including three out of v Republicans."²⁴

The backwash of the 2020 ballot revealed structural weaknesses in the institutions designed to safeguard the integrity of the balloter process. A focus of business concern is the Electoral Count Act 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'south lawyers used it as the basis of a memorandum arguing that former Vice President Pence, whom the Constitution designates as the chair of the meeting at which the Electoral College ballots are counted, had the right to ignore certified slates of electors united states of america had sent to Washington. If Mr. Pence had yielded to and so-President Trump'due south pressure to human action in this mode, 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 ballot has taken a new and dangerous turn. Rather than focusing on federal government, his supporters have focused on the obscure world of election machinery. Republican majorities in state legislatures are passing laws making it harder to vote and weakening the ability of ballot officials to exercise 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 election and supersede them with the sometime President's supporters.²⁶

At the local level, death threats are being fabricated against Autonomous and Republican election administrators, with upward to 30% of election officials surveyed saying they are concerned for their condom.²⁷ As seasoned election administrators retire or simply quit, Mr. Trump supporters are vying for these obscure simply pivotal positions. In Michigan, for case, the Washington Mail service reports that there is intense focus on the boards charged with certifying the vote at the county level. Republicans who voted confronting erstwhile President Trump'due south efforts to alter the vote count are being replaced. And most dangerous of all, some states are because laws that would bypass the long-established institutions for certifying the vote-count and requite partisan legislatures the authority to determine which slate of electors will represent them in the Balloter College.

American democracy is thus nether assault from the ground up. The most contempo systematic set on on state and local election machinery is much more dangerous than the chaotic statements of a disorganized sometime president. A motion that relied on Mr. Trump's organizational skills would pose no threat to constitutional institutions.  A move inspired by him with a clear objective and a detailed plan to reach information technology would exist some other affair altogether.

The chances that this threat volition materialize over the adjacent few years are high and rising. The evidence suggests that Mr. Trump is preparing 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 so, the party'south base will insist on a nominee who shares the old president's outlook and is willing to participate in a plan to win the presidency past subverting the results of country elections if necessary. The consequences could include an extended menses of political and social instability, and an outbreak of mass violence.

Section 2: Does a failing commonwealth threaten the individual sector?

For several reasons, America'south private sector has a huge stake in the result of the struggle for American republic.

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

American concern needs American republic. Costless markets cannot survive without the back up of the kind of capable, answerable government that can fix the rules of the game that continue markets genuinely costless and fair. Andjustdemocracy 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 then many parts of the world.²⁸

Henderson further argues that, merely every bit democracy sets the rules of the game for the private sector, the private sector can assistance to keep in place commonwealth's "soft guardrails," such equally the "unwritten norms of mutual toleration and abstinence" upon which democracy relies.²⁹ "CEOs are widely trusted by the American public, "and and so the attitudes of the private sector towards government and commonwealth are consequential.^xxx Because the complimentary market and democracy are interdependent, a systemic hazard to one is, by definition, a systemic risk to the other.

Transnational prove from the Globe Bank and Liberty Business firm bolsters Henderson's claim,³¹ as does the pioneering work by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson on the relationship betwixt economical prosperity and political accountability.³² Sarah Repucci, Vice President of Research & Assay at Freedom House, writes, "The political crackdowns and security crises associated with disciplinarian rule often bulldoze out concern and identify employees, supply chains, and investments at risk, in add-on to raising reputational and legal concerns for strange companies that stay involved."³³ This underscores that it is in the investment community'due south own interest to actively push dorsum on efforts to weaken or dismantle these autonomous systems. The very nature of checks and balances provides for the stability of a gratis marketplace, ensuring that a complimentary and engaged citizenry volition provide the most stabilizing market place forces. "A more democratic world would be a more stable, inviting place for established democracies to merchandise and invest."³⁴

The uncomplicated fact is that information technology is hard to program and invest for the future in volatile, unstable circumstances. The United states is not exempt from the calculus of political run a risk analysis, even if we are not accustomed to applying it to our own country. Investors take a fiduciary duty that is dependent on their agreement and attempting to deal with systemic risk. According to a recent report, "Decisions made past fiduciaries cascade downwardly the investment chain affecting conclusion-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 volition recall twice near investing in the United states of america, and mutually benign international partnerships will exist harder to negotiate. Economists agree that "the free market needs free politics and a healthy social club."³⁶

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

For much of the past 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 assessment of large business's affect on the class of our national life. Two years later, this figure had fallen to 30%, nearly the aforementioned as for Democrats. Republican back up for banks and fiscal institutions as well as engineering science companies underwent a similar decline.³⁷ If an elected demagogue citing national security or a hot-button social effect sought to restrict the independence of the private sector, public opposition to this effort would probable be muted at best.

At the elite level, the traditional bonds betwixt the Republican Political party and big business are also breaking downward. 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 dare support traditional values at all."³⁸

In curt, while more work remains to be done, nosotros believe that the fate of democracy constitutes a systemic risk to markets. The fate of republic and that of the private sector are inextricably linked, and individual sector leaders accept reasons of cocky-interest equally well as principle to do what they can to strengthen democracy.

Section 3: What tin the private sector do to strengthen republic?

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

Other examples of corporate action include the Sudan divestment motility of the early-mid 2000s prompted past the Darfur genocide, which resulted in about half the U.S. states passing divestment statutes that remain in forcefulness for many land pension funds. The U.North. Tobacco-Gratuitous Finance Pledge, signed past near 130 companies from the banking and finance sector, took identify alongside the U.S. government's tough regulatory push. More recently, in response to the Black Lives Matter movement, companies pledged nearly $50 billion to accost racial inequality.^twoscore Many companies accept fabricated pledges or commitments to fight climatic change—for example, through Climate Action 100+ "an investor-led initiative to ensure the globe'south largest corporate greenhouse gas emitters take necessary activeness on climate change."⁴¹ Marriage equality is some other instance of such touch.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, have signed onto the Un 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 (environmental, social, and governance) investing is stiff and growing. Driven by investor demand and regulatory force per unit area, more and more institutional investors are implementing ESG investing. Asset owners such as pension funds are increasingly demanding sustainable investing strategies.

Until recently, republic has non been a focus of corporate campaigns in the public sphere. However, in response to the 2020 presidential ballot and onetime President Trump's attempts to overturn the results, some corporations entered the fray. In late Oct of 2020, a group of fundamental business leaders, led by 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 articulate 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 ability should begin immediately.⁴³ Numerous companies halted their PAC donations to candidates who had voted against certifying the ballot results—and some, such as Charles Schwab, announced that it would terminate its political giving birthday "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 after state 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 information technology harder for people to vote.⁴⁵ Kenneth Chenault, a onetime primary executive of American Express, organized the unified statement, highlighting that "throughout our history, corporations have spoken upwards on unlike issues. It's absolutely the responsibility of companies to speak up, particularly on something as fundamental as the right to vote."⁴⁶ Country and local officials, both past and current officeholders, applauded this statement and urged its signatories to practice even more to protect commonwealth.⁴⁷

The standing involvement of the private sector in the defense of commonwealth is essential for democracy, and for business itself. As a Chatham House study stated recently, "Business should recognize its ain pale in the shared space of the rule of law, accountable governance, and civic freedoms…. Business organisation has a responsibleness – in its ain interest and that of guild – to support the pillars of profitable and sustainable operating environments."⁴⁸

Discharging this responsibility requires a clear-eyed cess of the dangers we face up. As we have argued, the greatest threat to democracy in America is non that a majority of Americans will plough against democracy. It is that strategically placed state and local majorities will collude with an organized and purposeful national minority to seize command of key electoral institutions and subvert the volition of the people.

In this context, the responsibility of big investment institutions is clear: to remain vigilant in the face 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 reward them when they do. This responsibility tin be discharged most effectively when investment institutions found the framework for ongoing consideration of this issue—and when they act collectively in defence force of the democratic institutions without which prosperity as well as liberty is at take chances.

Department 4: For Further Discussion

The above discussion sets the stage for an action calendar. To start the discussion, investors need to inquire themselves the post-obit questions:

1. Should threats to U.South. ramble lodge as discussed in this newspaper be classified as 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 principal executives of portfolio companies back up efforts to protect the correct of all Americans to vote in U.South. elections and condemn measures that unfairly restrict those rights?
3. Should investors build into stewardship platforms a policy of mitigating hazard to U.Due south. Constitutional integrity?
4. Should portfolio companies follow responsible business practices past urging organizations to which they belong to stop any fiscal or other back up 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 stop any political contributions associated with elected officials or candidates for elected office who reject to accept the legitimate effect of US elections or who back up seditious acts?
6. Should investors regularly monitor financial agents they may use to ensure that they are aligned both in word and human activity with our efforts to accost the systemic risks to U.S. constitutional integrity?

---

About the authors

William A. Galston holds the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Establishment's Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a Senior Fellow. Prior to January 2006 he was the Saul Stern Professor and Acting Dean at the Schoolhouse of Public Policy, University of Maryland, director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, founding director of the Middle for Information and Inquiry on Borough Learning and Engagement (Circle), and executive director of the National Committee on Civic 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 manufactures 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 Exercise of Liberal Pluralism (Cambridge, 2004). A winner of the American Political Science Association'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 programme as well as the Managing director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution. She is an practiced on American electoral politics and government innovation and reform in the U.s.a., OECD nations, and developing countries. Kamarck is the author of "Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates" and "Why Presidents Neglect And How They Tin 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'southward National Operation Review, also known as the "reinventing authorities initiative." Kamarck conducts enquiry on the American presidency, American politics, the presidential nominating procedure and government 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 inquiry, to provide innovative, practical recommendations for policymakers and the public. The conclusions and recommendations of any Brookings publication are solely those of its author(s), and do non reverberate the views of the Institution, its management, 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 by whatever donation. Brookings recognizes that the value it provides is in its absolute delivery to quality, independence, and affect. Activities supported by its donors reflect this commitment.

swainjoat1979.blogspot.com

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

Share this post