Featured

Democrats’ Big Tent is Stretched to the Breaking Point

Remember when elections were fun? Each candidate put on their game face and brought their best to the table in attempt to outwit one another on the campaign trail. Candidates promised voters the world — touting how they intend to help families, jobs, education and national security to name a few.

Those days are gone. The old dogs of the Democrat party, in particular, have become visibly cynical. President Biden sternly gazed over onlookers at a recent speech, warning that a vote for a Republican might as well be a vote for an election-denying political extremist. Donald Trump may out of office, yet the post-traumatic stress disorder rages on. Americans may have more pressing concerns — like how to afford their skyrocketing food, energy and housing costs — yet the MAGA-inspired fearmongering continues at MSNBC, CNN and in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. The social media echo chamber does its part to amplify our dire “reality” — which sets the stage for still more self-fulfilling political prophecies of the same.

America is in a funk. For the political establishment, the culprit is not inflation, crime, yet another COVID-19 variant, diesel shortages that threaten to plunge the Northeast into a deadly winter— or even the prospect of “nuclear Armageddon” in Ukraine. The real problem? Democrats refuse to share power with Republicans.

While it is not unusual for Americans to be subjected to hefty-dose of negativity in an election year, what has changed in recent years is that social-media saturated Americans endure election-year mudslinging 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It is enough to make anyone cynical, with a majority of Americans convinced, according to a recent poll, that Democracy is in trouble. What is more, when politicians and pundits take to social/media year-around to peddle an endless stream of alarmism, it leaves very little room to raise the ante in the run-up to an election without straying into the weeds of the absurd and downright hysterical.

If nothing more, the Midterm 2022 elections will answer the $64,000 question: Will voters take the bait?

Judging by the furrowed brows and weary looks on the faces of those who have carried the Democratic party the longest, the jig may soon be up. Take, for example, former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, wide-eyed and sounding a familiar alarm: Republicans, she warned, “literally have a plan to steal the 2024 election”.

Even the formerly unflappable President Obama is not immune. The Barrack Obama many of us remember in the mid 2000s carried himself with optimism, flashed a million-dollar smile and transfixed voters with his knack for oration. The Obama of 2022 hit the campaign trail on behalf of Democrats with doom and gloom on the mind. The positive attitude that carried the former president over the electoral finish line not once but twice — financial crisis notwithstanding — has been replaced with a wagging finger. Like his former vice president and secretary of state, campaigning on behalf of 2022 Midterm election candidates has been less about “bringing out the vote” as opposed to an attempt to scare up the vote.

For Democrats, fear is apparently the only tool left in the toolbox.

If the transformation of “The Big Tent” to The Big Party Poopers has left you, too, shaking your head, you are not alone.

What the heck happened?

The economy, for one. But beyond that, Democrats’ devotion to identity politics has left the party fractured and at times incoherent. The DNC has left moderate Democrats, Independents, undecided voters, anti-war voters and faith-and-family-oriented Black and Hispanic voters behind as they battle for the loyalties of a tribalized constituency. Effectively, there is no fringe element within the Big Tent that the party refuses to appease. Nothing is off the table, be it proposals to give convicted felons and non-citizens the right to vote, to ghoulish proposals that go further than any Western country to allow “birthing persons” to abort full-term infants.

In the name of protecting transgendered rights, similarly, Democrats are blazing new trails — just not on behalf of adults. Democrats have instead set their sights on youth with gender dysphoria — with some lawmakers going so far as to argue that parents who refuse to support a child’s chemical or physical alteration should be charged with child abuse. Because Democrats’ default position is an apparent belief that parents cannot be trusted to help their children navigate their way to adulthood, the civil rights frontier in 2022 consists of things like championing the right of minors to adopt a different gender identity at school, under the affirming tutelage of teachers and administrators. So fearful are Democrats that parents do not have their child’s best interests, that progressives are working to enshrine into State, if not ultimately Federal law, the right of children to receive “gender affirming care” (hormonal/surgical gender transition) even without parental knowledge or consent.

In pursuit of what was once called political correctness — known today as “woke” — the modern Democratic party would appear to be in a race to the bottom in attempt to accommodate a never-ending list of diverse — yet nonetheless competing — identity groups. Democrats’ prevailing approach to politics and policy all but demands that anything and everything conservatives oppose, liberals must absorb into the Democratic fold with little thought as to whether or not such “inclusion” is politically advantageous. Americans, to cite another example, are under mounting pressure to redefine what constitutes a sexual predator. Those whom our society once readily and without controversy identified as deviants, creeps and pedophiles, irrespective of how we (or they) may vote, are quietly being rebranded as Minor Attracted Persons (MAP) — yet another fringe identity group that is hellbent on hitching a ride into the mainstream on the Democrat party’s broad coattails.    

Trying to keep everyone in the Big Tent happy means, increasingly, keeping no one happy at all. Democrats, for instance, have begun to lose their most reliable supporters — feminists — many of whom object to biological females being knocked out of the running for scholarships, thanks to liberals’ fear of offending a “micro minority”: transgendered athletes. The very women/girls Democrats past fought to protect via Title IX of the Civil Rights Act are being elbowed out of the way, they argue, by new-and-improved transgender females who, among other things, have been given carte blanche access to women/girls’ sports — and locker rooms — even in the absence of gender transition surgery.

The woke wing of the party has backed mainline Democrats into a corner in which saying No for the sake of preserving credibility among mainstream American voters is off limits. Translating social justice objectives into action, for example, in practice means that prison populations must be emptied into the streets in the name of antiracism. Whereas criminal justice reform advocates started out by promoting sensible reforms — to reduce prison overcrowding and eliminate “three strikes” inspired penalties for nonviolent offenders, antiracism advocates, bound by an ironclad commitment to equity, have dedicated themselves to reform — if not abolition of the prison system entirely — at all costs. Tragically, proponents of such equity make little or no distinction between first-time offenders and repeat, violent felons who abuse their get-out-of-jail-free cards to kill family members and terrorize their communities — often within hours of release from police custody.

Progressive politicians and leftist district attorneys who prioritize ideology over real-world consequences have taken the Democratic party to a place that is not merely offensive to conservatives but unrecognizable to Independents and Blue Dog Democrats. How, for example, do we call it “social justice” if the marginalized communities the Democrat party claims to represent disproportionately stand to become victims of progressive soft-on-crime policies? Assuaging white guilt by vowing to end mass incarceration is no more a form of reparations than abolishing broken windows policing for petty offenses such as public intoxication has delivered on the promise to free up law enforcement to “go after the real criminals”.

However one may feel about these trends, this much is clear: Democrats risk shooting their electoral hopes in the foot by weighing in on ever-more complex, personal and private matters, thereby churning out an endless stream of social and political wedge issues. Agreed-upon aspects of the social contract — in which parents, not politicians, decide how best to raise their own children — have come under assault from the party that non-ironically insists that political extremism is the exclusive domain of the far Right. (One wonders, as an aside, if liberal politicians and pundits ever hear themselves talk? If one subscribes to “traditional values”, it generally translates to the status quo — as in refusing to abandon established customs and values — not attempting, as progressives and self-described radicals do, to re-imagine a litany of issues from law enforcement, gender identity and the nuclear family to any other number of legal and cultural fronts.)

If the far Left could be made to understand their policy failings as much as the far Right has been urged to understand theirs, a liberal epiphany might go something like this: Ideology, no matter how well intended, is not synonymous with progress. Refusing to accept observed, reproducible and irrefutable reality on its own terms — because academic theory and associated ideology are in the driver’s seat of progressive public policy — harms society to the extent it doggedly refuses to acknowledge when the effect (consequence) that follows from the cause (public policy) undermines the stated goal. If, say, the goal is to right the wrongs of systemic racism, dumbing down the public education system so that minority students “feel good” while receiving a lesser quality education in the belief that academic excellence is inherently “white” — effectively a whites-only pursuit! — amounts to an even more insidious form of institutionalized racism.

In short, Democrats have stretched the Big Tent so thin over the past three decades that it is now on the verge of a breaking point. And that begs a question:

How many elections are Democrats willing to risk before they appreciate that to embrace identity politics is to become beholden to everyone yet paradoxically answerable to none?

For liberals, the cost of enablement in the belief that “tolerance” is a political panacea has come home to roost: Not every fringe is worthy of inclusion. Not every academic theory should be mainstreamed. Not every crime should be decriminalized. Not every lifestyle is deserving of becoming the next civil rights battleground. If, for example, Americans overwhelmingly agree that child predators are pariahs, extending the diversity and inclusion umbrella to MAP proponents is hardly a hill worth dying on.

How do Democrats reclaim their party for the mainstream? It begins with reaffirming core principles. At its core, social and therefore political stability is derived from education, economic opportunity, personal integrity and intact marriage and family units. If instead of elevating society to a better place, decades of Democrat-dominated institutions and academia-inspired public policy experiments have paralleled rising levels of homelessness, crime and declining proficiency on the part of K-12 students, it is no longer reasonable, rational or responsible to project blame on political opponents.

Rather than double down in effort to save face, mainline Democrats must insist that their party return to the drawing board.

The American K-12 public education system is by no means a bit player in the downward spiral of poverty, crime, drug abuse and homelessness that has erupted from coast to coast. Accepting the status quo within failing inner-city public schools, arguably, is the single-most best example of systemic racism in 21st Century America. Absent a path out of poverty created by a fully accountable K-12 education system, taxpayers are effectively “investing” in the school-to-prison pipeline. To this end, broken homes do not arise, chiefly, as a result of mass incarceration — but the soft bigotry of low expectations in which at-risk children are thrown away by “the system” at the early stages of life, left with few resources by which to form intact families and thereby go on to enjoy the social mobility afforded by a stable, dual-income household later in life.

The institutionalized racism academic theory proposes as a root cause for mass incarceration and related social ills all but ignores the role of political cronyism and therefore fails to acknowledge the “culture of entrenched interests” as a factor not only in inequality and racism but the broader threat of national decline. “First principles” in effort to improve outcomes within marginalized communities remain unchanged, however, no matter how we assign blame: Community investment, safer streets, pro-family resources (after-school programs, churches, jobs training, etc.) and a fully accountable K-12 education system. These are commonsense objectives liberals and conservatives, alike, can and indeed must agree upon.

To reform a decades-old legacy of Wrong Outcomes, the first order of business, no matter who comes out on top November 8, must be to overhaul the K-12 public school system. Reform does not mean making new demands on teachers’ limited classroom time to promote the social justice objectives embedded in critical race theory and gender theory. It means, simply, first things first: Accountability for under-performing schools.

American political leaders, without fear or favor to status-quo defending interests, must insist that educational outcomes matter again.

The duality of patting schoolchildren on the back with one hand while simultaneously working against the interests of academic excellence to “flatten the academic curve” (racial inequalities) by discontinuing gifted programs and/or taking aim at Advanced Placement classes — if not also barring educators from suspending students who disrupt the learning environment — must be seen for what it is: A defense of mediocrity. And the new face of racism.

Rather than risk this if not future elections — while blaming Republicans for the hole in which they find themselves — Democrats must be willing to engage in serious soul searching. For starters, how is equity a noble social justice goal if the practical consequence of equity-driven public policy is to cement the disadvantages that under-served communities already contend with in the misguided belief that public safety and academic achievement are rooted in “whiteness” and therefore racism?

Liberals need to take a step back and appreciate, if nothing more, this much: Beyond the confines of ivory tower academia, diversity, inclusion, equity and antiracism-derived public policy measures have, collectively, begun to play to the broader electorate as an excuse for local, State and federal governments to work themselves out of the most basic functions of good governance: a functional criminal justice system, a functional public education system and an internationally-competitive economy.

The take-home message is not to deny that inequality and associated social ills exist, rather that woke policy solutions are often as flawed as the systemically racist practices they seek to replace. Is there anything more “systemic” about racism, after all, than the classist double standards for the prep-school offspring of the coastal elite in contrast to declining expectations for the children of the poor, Black, brown and the American middle class at large?

What happened to the Democrat party? The answer may be as far away as China — or as close as the nearest mirror. Republicans, to be sure, have their own problems with extremists among their ranks. But Democrats have some housecleaning to do of their own.

###

Reimagine Policing: Socialist Dream or Fascist Nightmare?

Black Lives Matter activists have succeeded in getting $1 billion dollars pulled from the New York City Police Department budget and have scored victories in recent years with the election of numerous criminal justice reform-minded district attorneys in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City and elsewhere.

Is it time to celebrate? Perhaps not.

Recently, it was reported that California Gov. Gavin Newsom, despite threat of recall, remains committed to achieving an “end” to mass incarceration. He announced plans to make 76,000 inmates eligible for early release including 63,000 who are violent or repeat offenders and approximately 20,000 who are serving life sentences.

Is this what Americans expect given that violent crime rates have already risen significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic?

While much of the voting public continues to believe “criminal justice reform” refers to the release of nonviolent offenders, Newsom and reformist district attorneys such as George Gascón have other ideas in mind. Citing the pandemic and, increasingly, racial equity as a cause, even repeat offenders are returning to the streets — and not just in California. Can we really say that this kind of reform qualifies as antiracist since it puts communities that are already disadvantaged by systemic racism, violence, blight and associated losses of investment and jobs at increased risk of more of the same?

When we put the above trends together with the anti-community policing actions of activists, we must ask ourselves what “reimagine” policing might look like in the not-so-distant future.

Social justice activists may begin by asking themselves a simple question: Have communities in San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Seattle and elsewhere put in place a robust layer of social services to reduce homelessness and recidivism by giving inmates, drug addicts and those with mental health problems improved access to critical services?

No.

“Reimagine” ought to begin at the grade-school level to ensure that children in disadvantaged communities do not go hungry, are not left alone to fend for themselves while parents work multiple jobs, do not drop out of school, are not recruited by gangs and are not subjected to the lifelong economic disadvantages created by under-performing public schools (arguably an expression of systemic racism).

The reimagine we are about to get already looks quite different. Politicians and progressive district attorneys have prioritized on-the-books improvements — via early release from prison and by not charging crimes in the first place! — over improved quality of life measures for minority/disadvantaged communities, be that food security, access to job training or after-school programs. Politicians, eager for pats on the back from libertarians and progressive voters alike, are moving not just in California but elsewhere in the nation to allow hardened criminals out of jail, many of whom will go on to drive higher rates of homicide — a trend that has already emerged nationally.

Perhaps the worst of it is, social justice activists may serve as unwitting pawns. When social order unravels, the powers that be — federal, state and local — won’t stand by and allow the violence to come to the doorsteps of their posh, gated communities in Malibu, Sacramento, Washington DC, the Hamptons and elsewhere. A public safety crisis — to the extent one is entirely predictable thanks to an incomplete, top-down approach to criminal justice reform — is likely to set the stage for another type of reimagining in which Big Tech partners with the federal government to launch new and “unified” policing models.

Therein lies a paradox: New policing practices may be more costly, surveillance oriented, authoritarian and potentially discriminatory than the current decentralized model of community-controlled policing.

Years ago, President Obama was accused of militarizing the police. His Department of Homeland Security worked with local law enforcement to establish “fusion centers”, while giving police departments access not only to surplus military equipment but high-tech surveillance tools. In signing the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, President Obama also expanded the “war on terror” to include the homeland — encompassing Americans on American soil. Formerly a stark line existed between the kind of crimes the federal government (FBI) would get involved in — such as interstate crimes — and the local variety which were left to community-controlled police departments. President Obama’s efforts to “improve” upon policing for the sake of battling crime and terrorism, while not widely appreciated, are nonetheless illustrative of a partnership that never completely died.

Today, we know it by another name. “Predictive policing” may very well be the match by which we burn away what remains of local checks and balances, however imperfect community policing controls are.

To launch this brave new world, there must first exist demand for a “new model” of policing. That demand will not come about if law enforcement officers are not harangued as racists and “white supremacists”. It will not come about if law enforcement officers are not demoralized by a low level of public confidence. There will be little reason to upend the status quo if the current model of local policing, in conjunction with police reform, succeeds. In order to justify billions of dollars spent on an all-inclusive American Police State, the current criminal justice system must fall apart in the name of reform — in so doing paving the way to a public reimagining of policing that activists, even, fail to foresee.

What might a future of predictive policing look like? Ask the residents of Pasco County, Florida, who by all appearances appear to be the target of a years-long policing experiment.

“First the Sheriff’s Office generates lists of people it considers likely to break the law, based on arrest histories, unspecified intelligence and arbitrary decisions by police analysts.

“Then it sends deputies to find and interrogate anyone whose name appears, often without probable cause, a search warrant or evidence of a specific crime.

“They swarm homes in the middle of the night, waking families and embarrassing people in front of their neighbors. They write tickets for missing mailbox numbers and overgrown grass, saddling residents with court dates and fines. They come again and again, making arrests for any reason they can.”

“Targeted”, Sept. 3, 2020, Tampa Bay Times

While a nationwide, high-tech rollout of predictive policing may seem too distant to wrap our minds around — and the realization that elected leaders are no longer vested in the public interest may be a tough pill to swallow — the evidence is apparent to anyone who looks: When local/State politicians allow violent demonstrations to continue for the better part of a year, as they have in Portland, Oregon — often without arresting, let alone charging, those who commit violence — it does not arise from a commitment to criminal justice reform. It would appear, rather, that the notoriety of Antifa is primarily useful for their capacity to whip up a climate of anxiety and fear. Alongside pandemic-related efforts to hasten the release of prisoners across the country, a “violence epidemic” may not be far behind.

The COVID-19 pandemic did not make the current crime wave inevitable. Should crime explode on President Biden’s watch and police recruitment continue to fall, it will force the issue of bringing community policing into the 21st Century. At that point, policing will fall under pressure to become a public-private partnership between the federal government and Big Tech — and crime-weary Americans may no longer be of a mind to object.

Obama’s efforts to sell off military surplus to police departments backfired in Ferguson and elsewhere where such visually-alarming transformations were openly challenged. As a result, authorities backed off and are now more “sensitive” about projecting the image of a militarized police. But Americans should not be fooled into complacency. If BLM keeps taking to the streets and Antifa keeps dogging their every protest, what professional social justice warriors will achieve is not merely a defunding of community policing but a vacuum into which a federal police force may step.

From the Frying Pan to the Fire

As a public relations pitch, a future federalized police “plan” may virtue-signal that they offer an anecdote to systemic racism — boosting credibility by appointing “marginalized peoples” to key roles in this dubious top-down model. Political leaders will no doubt advertise that the “new police” are more accountable. But by definition, a form of policing that is centrally controlled is a form of policing less transparent to citizens and more likely to use its near-bottomless taxpayer-funded resources — and the tools of mass surveillance — to turn the United States into a proverbial police state.

Telling Americans if and when this happens that it is about “equity” or “antiracism” should be a red flag that it is anything but!

Criminal justice reform activists and their nonprofit backers need to take particular heed of this warning. There is a reason why large strides toward core social services that lessen the role of police — and therefore blunt an otherwise inevitable public backlash — have not been made at the same rate of speed by which mass incarceration is being reduced. Continued success on the deincarceration side, absent successful efforts at the community level, threatens to unleash a nationwide public safety crisis.

The ensuing crisis will not go to waste.

Before policing, courts and prison systems unravel as we know them, smart community alternatives must be in place. If they are not — and the only thing BLM activists realize over the long term are criminals free to prey upon their own communities with impunity — ask yourself why so many local, State and federal leaders continue to go “soft on crime” even as it is already apparent that public safety will pay a proportional price? Odds are, it is not because they are in the Abolitionist fight. And it is not even because our leaders are committed antiracists and anti-fascists. It would appear we are witnessing, rather, a battle of attrition against community-based policing, which will then make the case for federal intervention. Predictive policing will offer an “equity” that will put all Americans in danger not merely of breaking local ordinances and laws but at risk of over-classification as “terrorists” and “insurrectionists”.

We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.

In 2020, the insurance industry reported a record $1 billion in damage connected to social unrest even as Americans were told again and again by our media gatekeepers that protests in the wake of George Floyd’s tragic death were “mostly peaceful”. Whatever the case, the permissive attitudes of local governments in Portland, Seattle and elsewhere send the wrong message to unnerved Americans. An Abolitionist future of no police and no prisons is not on the horizon for the same reason that there is no advanced country in world, past or present, that has successfully done away with the “necessary evils” of law and order. So why are some communities seemingly going along with the notion that we can afford to pretend otherwise?

The real work of change is not on our streets but in our day-to-day lives — building communities in which Americans of all backgrounds can thrive, in which the disabled, American veterans, racial minorities, addicts and the mentally ill are not left behind by a system that throws money at political infrastructure without regard for results. Protestors remind us that there will be no peace without justice. But when we are left with communities shattered by violence, the civil society on which justice relies moves further out of reach.

In the void of failed democratic socialist dreams, fascism rears its ugly head. Whether we appreciate it now or not, prolonged social unrest will lay the groundwork not merely for “police reform” but an unholy alliance between Big Tech and government entities brought to bear in the name of solving what is a preventable, if not wholly “manufactured”, public safety crisis. Follow the money: Political campaigns are increasingly bankrolled by dark money — money spent by hostile foreigners who wish to undermine American societal cohesion even as Silicone Valley climbs in bed with politicians and the Corporate backers of social justice philanthropy. In the years to come, Big Tech stands to profit in an unprecedented way by a Big Data, AI-driven predictive policing future.

Chaos is a business opportunity.

We can and should work toward a just world. But in 21st Century America, taking to the streets to express frustration with injustice will not deliver the change we imagine.

###

Related Reading

Targeted | Tampa Bay Times

What Current Police Reform Calls Lack: A Call to Federalize | The Hill

76,000 California Inmates Eligible for Earlier Releases | AP

It’s Set to be a Hot, Violent Summer | Axios

Violent Antifa Turn to New Tactic, Embrace Violent Insurgency | Newsweek

The U.S. Saw Significant Crime Rise Across Major Cities in 2020. And it’s Not Letting Up | CNN

Damage from Riots across the U.S. will Cost at Least $1 Billion | MSN Money

‘Alarming Rate’: Demoralized Cops Flee Police Departments in Record Numbers | The Washington Times

Louisville Police Department in ‘Dire Straights’, Struggles to Recruit New Staff | WDRB

Alert: Clock is Ticking as Federalization of City’s Police Under Biden is Set to Begin | Western Journal

Black Lives Matter Founder Calls for Abolition Following Chauvin Verdict | Daily Mail

Turning the Tide on Crime with Predictive Policing | United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Institute

Predictive Policing: The Future of Law Enforcement? | NIJ Journal (PDF)

The Rise of Big Data Policing | TechCrunch

Big Tech is Becoming Big Brother | MoneyWeek

Can Artificial Intelligence Give Us Equal Justice? | The Crime Report

Predictive Policing Algorithms are Racist. They Need to be Dismantled | MIT Technology Review

Why Predictive Policing is Fundamentally Unjust | HS Insider, Los Angeles Times

In 2020, A Reckoning for Law Enforcement and Tech Ethics | Government Technology

The State of Surveillance: Protestors, Police and Big Tech | North Carolina Public Radio

Movement for Black Lives Unveils Sweeping Police Reform Proposal | CNN Poltics

Combating Violent Crime is Risky in the Age of BLM | Powerline Blog

Black Lives Matter has been doing the Work to ‘Defund the Police’ for Years | HuffPost

LA County DA George Gascón is Center Stage in National Revolution to Reform Justice System | Los Angeles Daily News

Here’s Why George Soros and Liberal Groups are Spending Big to Help Decide Your Next DA | Los Angeles Times

ACLU Awarded $50M Dollar Grant by Open Society Foundations to End Mass Incarceration | ACLU

How the Political Ground Shifted on Criminal Justice Reform | NBC

The Decriminalization Delusion | City Journal

To End Poverty and Overcome Racism, America Needs a New Marshall Plan | Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Fusion Centers: Expensive and Dangerous to Our Liberty | Reason

Police Consolidation: The End of Local Law Enforcement? | New American

The Federalization of Local Law Enforcement | Police1

Obama Chooses Six Cities to Test Federal Police Scheme | New American

If You Thought Obama Was Giving Less Military Gear to Local Police Departments, You Were Wrong | In These Times

Seven Ways the Obama Administration has Accelerated Police Militarization | HuffPost

Furguson Police’s Show of Force Highlights Militarization of America’s Cops | ABC News

‘War on Terror’ Knocks on American Homeland’s Door | DW

Domestic Spying Turns Homeland into a Battlefield, Warns CISAC Scholar | Stanford

Goodbye, Trump. Hello, War on Domestic Terror | Reason

Big Tech Is Propping Up China’s Police State Surveillance System | PrivacyWatch

The Latest Bombshell: Dark Money from Hostile States has Entered our Elections | Forbes

Chinese State-Owned Chemical Firm Joins Dark Money Group Pouring Cash into U.S. Elections | The Intercept

Democrats Used to Rail Against Dark Money. Now They’re Better at it than the GOP | NBC News

‘Dark Money’ Topped $1 Billion in 2020, Largely Boosting Democrats | OpenSecrets

How Fascism has Converged with Capitalism to Redefine Government | CounterPunch

How Philanthropy Benefits the Super-Rich | Guardian

Rural Africa as a Big Tech Proving Ground | Mint Press