This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. For information on how you can disable the use of cookies, visit our privacy policy.
To win over and mobilize the public, social justice advocates must articulate what we’re for, not just what we’re against. The American people deserve better than what’s currently on offer from team Trump, but for many, the status quo also falls short. If progressives are to fulfill one of our core principles—the use of public policy to improve the lives of those left out or underserved by the market economy—we need a simple, plausible plan that excites people. Two key components of that plan are Medicare for All and a guaranteed jobs program. [...]
Donald Trump and his billionaire Cabinet are proposing even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy when what we need is a fairer system that allows our nation to meet the needs of its people.
On Sunday night, after umpteen interviews about rounding up 41 votes to filibuster Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called into the weekly “Ready to Resist” call organized by MoveOn and other progressive groups. He waited his turn. MoveOn’s Anna Galland reported that Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) just joined the filibuster. Heather McGhee, the president of Demos, praised Schumer for listening to activists.
It's one of the biggest financial decisions you'll ever make: choosing what to do with your 401(k) at retirement. That account may be the largest asset you will rely on for income in later life. You could leave it where it is or roll the money to investments inside an IRA. The right decision could give you hundreds of thousands of added dollars over a 30-year retirement. [...]
It’s hard to imagine honest, revelatory, even enjoyable conversation between people on distant points of American life right now. But in this public conversation at the Citizen University annual conference, Matt Kibbe and Heather McGhee show us how. He’s a libertarian who helped activate the Tea Party. She’s a millennial progressive leader. They are bridge people for this moment — holding passion and conviction together with an enthusiasm for engaging difference, and carrying questions as vigorously as they carry answers.
New York’s plan is a step forward in returning to the days when students could work their way through public college without taking on debt. But the impact on reducing the need to borrow may be minimal, especially for first-generation, low-wealth students.
New York approved a state budget Sunday that included the Excelsior Scholarship, which will allow students whose families earn less than $125,000 a year to attend state public colleges and universities tuition-free.
We should be done by now with the idea that a corporation is a single thing. Corporations contain a multitude of conflicting interests and are much more like miniature governments with their own governance structures and election systems than is commonly recognized. While these structures are far more hierarchical and undemocratic than we require of our public institutions, Americans should not be resigned that this is the best or the only way the private sector can be structured.
When people talk about corporations spending money in politics, it’s commonly assumed that the corporation is a single thing with a clear position on any given issue. This masks the fact that corporations are complex, state-created entities with their own governance structures and a multitude of conflicting interests.
Occupy Wall Street has, in the words of John Paul Rollert, “come to embody a common sense that something is wrong with American capitalism.” The problem Rollert points to is not with capitalism itself, but with a particular American version that has ceased to work for broad cross-sections of its population. Given America’s Depression-level income inequality and near-record levels of public and private indebtedness, it is extremely tempting to focus on bad outcomes as the problem.
The constitutional challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) draws much of its rhetorical force not from the Commerce Clause, but from the perception that the insurance mandate infringes on individuals’ private liberties.
Last summer, on her final day as the Chairman of the FDIC, Shelia Bair decried the short-termism that has overtaken both Wall Street and Washington, where “[o]ur financial markets remain too focused on quick profits, and our political process is driven by a two-year election cycle and its relentless demands for fundraising.” This short-termism has taken hold of the reins of our larger political system and increasingly characterizes policy initiatives at every level of government.
The Boston Review recently hosted a forum titled, How Markets Crowd Out Morals, in which Michael Sandel wrote the lead essay, arguing that we as a society should be questioning which institutions we allow to be defined by market norms.
In Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that corporations were free to use money from the corporation’s treasury on political activity.1 Setting aside for a moment the many criticisms of the decision, Citizens United left open a number of questions about who at a corporation should get to decide when a corporation spends money on politics. It has fallen to our system of corporate law to provide an answer.
A corporation is a legal structure that enables individuals to contribute and pool resources, capital, and labor in order to generate a profit. Corporations are created by state law in the state in which they are incorporated.
The corporate legal structure receives a number of advantages and obligations from the state. These laws enable the corporation to overcome the limitations of any one individual—like a human lifespan or limited productive capacity—and to accumulate and distribute profits among the various stakeholders.
