What Do Today's Democratic Party Think About The Size Of Our Government?

"I recollect the turn down of democracy is a mortal threat to the legitimacy and health of commercialism."

—Rebecca Henderson, Harvard Business School^ane

The rule of police and republic are crucial to capital markets. A gratuitous market balanced by a democratically elected, transparent and capable regime, and a strong ceremonious society ("an inclusive regime") yield stable growth rates and greater social welfare.² Conversely, threats to democracy are threats to the private sector, which is why concern leaders and institutional investors cannot beget to remain on the sidelines when such threats emerge.

This paper explores the country of American democracy and whether it constitutes a systemic gamble that impacts fiduciary duties. The newspaper gain in three parts. In the showtime, nosotros appraise the question of whether American democracy is recidivism towards failure, and fence that it is. In the 2d, nosotros will examine whether democratic failure represents a systemic risk, and conclude that it does. In the tertiary office, we offer some preliminary thoughts about what steps major private sector actors may undertake every bit role of their fiduciary responsibilities given the threats to U.South. democracy and markets.

Section i: Is Commonwealth Failing?

Nosotros 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 democracy as the best form of authorities remains overwhelming and mostly stable across party lines.ⁱⁱⁱ However, near 1 in 5 Americans have views that brand them at least open up to, if non outright supportive of, authoritarianism.^four

Only there'due south an important qualification: Americans distinguish sharply between democracy in principle and in practice. There is nigh-universal agreement that our organization is not working well—in particular, that it is not delivering the results people want. This is troubling because near people value democracy for its fruits, not only its roots.⁵

Given that situation, it is not surprising that public support is very high for fundamental change in our political system to brand the organization work improve. There is no party of the status quo in contemporary America: both sides desire changes, merely they disagree about the direction of modify. Unfortunately, well-nigh 6 in 10 Americans exercise not recall that the organization tin change.⁶ And because it has non changed despite growing dysfunction, polarization has led to legislative gridlock, which has generated ascension support for unfettered executive action to acquit out the people's will.

Democracy means the rule of the people, only Americans do not fully hold most 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 born in the Us.⁷ In a menstruum of increasing immigration and religious pluralism, these divisions can become unsafe.

Disagreements about who is truly American are part of a broader cleavage in American culture. 70% of Republicans believe that America's culture and way of life accept changed for the worse since the 1950s, while 63% of Democrats believe that they have inverse for the ameliorate.⁸ Potent majorities of Republicans agree that "Things have inverse so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own canton," that "Today, America is in danger of losing its culture and identity," and that "the American way of life needs to be protected for foreign influences." Majorities of Democrats pass up 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 will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions." In November, 30% of Republicans, 17% of Independents, and 11% of Democrats agreed that they might have to resort to violence in order to save our state."⁹

While public support for many of the reforms in federal compromise legislation is strong, at that place is a divide in the electorate on what they view every bit the largest problem in our electric current arrangement.¹⁰ In September, merely 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 foreclose illegal votes from being cast" equally the largest problem.

The decision nosotros describe from this quick review of public opinion is that if democracy fails in America, it will not be because a majority of Americans is enervating 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 shell—while the majority isn't well organized, or doesn't intendance enough, to resist. As we show in a afterwards department, the possibility that this will occur is far from remote.

American Institutions

A second fashion of considering whether democracy is failing is to wait at the institutions of regime. Successful democratic systems are not designed for governments equanimous of ethical men and women who are only interested in the public good. If leaders were always virtuous there would be no 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 lie, crook and steal, and (paradoxically) to protect the majority confronting minorities who are determined to subvert the constitutional gild.

During the Trump presidency, the formal institutional "guardrails" of democracy—Congress, the federalist system, the Courts, the hierarchy, and the press—held business firm against enormous pressure. At the aforementioned time, at that place is bear witness that the breezy norms of conduct that shape the operation of these institutions accept weakened significantly, making them more than vulnerable to future efforts to subvert them.¹¹ There is no guarantee that our constitutional democracy will survive another sustained—and likely better-organized—assault in the years to come.

We begin with the expert news about our institutions.

Onetime President Trump did not succeed in materially weakening the powers of the Congress.¹² He did not endeavor 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 confronting him not once but twice. Although speculation was rampant, in the end and then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did not block either trial. While former Leader McConnell and allies have been called onetime President Trump'due south lapdogs, on almost all domestic policy issues they have acted similar most any Republican majority would act, and on foreign policy old 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 arrangement. The Constitution distributes power between the federal government and the state government, codified in the x^th Subpoena to the Constitution. States have repeatedly and successfully exercised their power against former President Trump, especially in two areas, COVID-xix and voting.¹⁴

Despite Mr. Trump's attempts to pressure level the nation's governors and other state officials into doing what he wanted, he did not inflict lasting damage on the federalist organization, and the states are no weaker—perhaps even stronger—than they were before his presidency. Citizens now understand that in a crisis, states are the ones who control things that are of import to them like shutdown orders and vaccine distribution.

In the spring of 2020 and so-President Trump, anxious to get past COVID in time for his re-ballot campaign, was pushing hard for states to open up up early. Simply a few complied, while many—including some Republican governors—ignored him. Seeing that the governors were not scared of him, Mr. Trump and then threatened to withhold medical equipment based on states' decisions near opening up. He came up against the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 10^th Subpoena, which prevents the president from conditioning federal aid on the ground of governors' acquiescing to a president's demands.¹⁵

The guardrails between the federal government and united states of america also held when it came to Mr. Trump'south campaign to reverse the 2020 election results. In Georgia, the Republican Secretary of Land 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 House Speaker Lee Chatfield did non give in to Trump's attempts to get them to diverge from the process of choosing electors.

One of the hallmarks of declining democracies is a weak judicial organization nether heavy political command. Simply under set on from then-President Trump, the judiciary remained independent despite his repeated attempts to win in the courts what he could non win at the election box. President Trump-appointed judges often made decisions that thwarted Mr. Trump's attempts to overturn the results. In fact, after the election Mr. Trump's squad and allies brought 62 lawsuits and won exactly one.^xvi (The others he either dropped or lost.) Many of those decisions were handed downwards past Republican judges.¹⁷ Perhaps former President Trump'south biggest disappointment was the Supreme Court'south decision not to hear election challenges concerning states he claimed he had won.¹⁸

A free press is an essential element of a salubrious commonwealth. Erstwhile President Trump spent iv 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 like as "failing." He revoked the press credentials of reporters he did not 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 accept gone broke. Few are afraid to criticize former President Trump or his supporters.

The free press is yet fundamentally complimentary (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 problems, most of which are owing to the challenges of internet age, predated Mr. Trump. Some fence that sometime President Trump increased distrust in the media but, as polling indicates, the lack of trust in media declined to less than fifty percentage in the first decade of the 21^st century and has stayed in the depression forties in contempo years.¹⁹

One terminal point: democracies oftentimes fail when their military sides with anti-democratic insurgents. But in the United States, the tradition of civil control over the military machine remains potent—especially within the military. After the anarchy in Lafayette Park last June, when Marker Milley, the Chairman of the Articulation Chiefs of Staff, appeared with and then-President Trump in military fatigues, Mr. Milley and other top military leaders went out of their way to reaffirm this tradition, which is drilled into all officers throughout their careers. A military coup is the to the lowest degree probable way for commonwealth in America to end.²⁰

So why are nosotros worried?

Although scholars and pundits have 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 take nosotros had a candidate, not to mention a president, who disparaged the integrity of the electoral system and who hinted repeatedly during his election that he would non have the results of the ballot if he lost. This behavior began during the Republican primaries and continued in advance of the 2016 election, which he won, and the 2020 election, which he lost.²¹ Information technology built 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 law enforcement officers, vandalized offices, and breached the Senate gallery where the electoral college vote was supposed to be taking place.

The non-stop attacks on American elections were role of a broader attack on the truth. Whatever story Mr. Trump and his supporters disliked became "simulated news," creating, slowly but surely, an alternate universe that encompassed everything from the integrity of the election to public health guidelines for the COVID pandemic. The very being of a sizeable number of citizens who cannot agree on facts is an enormous threat to commonwealth. As the Yale historian Timothy Snyder points out in his 2018 book, The Route to Unfreedom, authoritarians like Vladimir Putin have no apply for truth or for the facts, considering they use and disseminate only what will help them attain and maintain power.²² As our colleague Jonathan Rauch argues in The Constitution of Knowledge, disinformation and the war on reality accept 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 election. Most three-quarters of rank-and-file Republicans believe that there was massive fraud in 2020 and Joe Biden was non legitimately elected president. "A 'Political leader'/Morning Consult survey found that more one-third 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 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 one of one-time President Trump's lawyers used information technology as the basis of a memorandum arguing that quondam Vice President Pence, whom the Constitution designates as the chair of the coming together at which the Electoral College ballots are counted, had the correct to ignore certified slates of electors the states had sent to Washington. If Mr. Pence had yielded to so-President Trump's pressure to act in this manner, the ballot would have been thrown into chaos and the Constitution placed in jeopardy.²⁵

Recently, former President Trump'south 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 globe of election machinery. Republican majorities in land legislatures are passing laws making information technology harder to vote and weakening the ability of ballot officials to exercise their jobs. In many states, especially closely contested ones such every bit Arizona and Georgia, Mr. Trump's supporters are trying to defeat incumbents who upheld the integrity of the election and replace them with the former President's supporters.²⁶

At the local level, death threats are being made against Autonomous and Republican election administrators, with upward to 30% of ballot officials surveyed saying they are concerned for their safety.²⁷ As seasoned election administrators retire or only 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 county level. Republicans who voted against former President Trump's efforts to alter the vote count are being replaced. And nearly unsafe of all, some states are because laws that would bypass the long-established institutions for certifying the vote-count and give partisan legislatures the potency to determine which slate of electors volition represent them in the Electoral College.

American republic is thus nether attack from the footing up. The nigh recent systematic set on on land and local election machinery is much more dangerous than the chaotic statements of a disorganized one-time president. A motility that relied on Mr. Trump's organizational skills would pose no threat to constitutional institutions. A motility inspired past him with a clear objective and a detailed plan to achieve it would be another matter altogether.

The chances that this threat volition materialize over the next few years are loftier and rising. The evidence suggests that Mr. Trump is preparing once again to seek the Republican presidential nomination—and that he will win the nomination if he tries for it. Even if he decides non to do so, the political party'south base will insist on a nominee who shares the quondam president's outlook and is willing to participate in a programme to win the presidency past subverting the results of state elections if necessary. The consequences could include an extended menstruum of political and social instability, and an outbreak of mass violence.

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

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

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

American concern needs American democracy. Free markets cannot survive without the support of the kind of capable, answerable government that can set the rules of the game that continue markets genuinely gratuitous and off-white. Andonlyrepublic can ensure that governments are held answerable, that they are viewed as legitimate, and that they don't devolve into the rule of the many by the few and the kind of crony capitalism that we see emerging in so many parts of the world.²⁸

Henderson farther argues that, just as democracy sets the rules of the game for the private sector, the private sector tin assistance to continue in identify republic's "soft guardrails," such as the "unwritten norms of common toleration and abstinence" upon which democracy relies.²⁹ "CEOs are widely trusted by the American public, "and so the attitudes of the private sector towards government and commonwealth are consequential.³⁰ Because the costless market and republic are interdependent, a systemic risk to 1 is, past definition, a systemic take chances to the other.

Transnational evidence from the Earth Bank and Freedom House bolsters Henderson's merits,³¹ as does the pioneering piece of work by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson on the relationship betwixt economical prosperity and political accountability.³² Sarah Repucci, Vice President of Research & Analysis at Freedom Firm, writes, "The political crackdowns and security crises associated with authoritarian rule often drive out business and place employees, supply bondage, and investments at take a chance, in improver to raising reputational and legal concerns for foreign companies that stay involved."³³ This underscores that it is in the investment customs's own interest to actively push button back on efforts to weaken or dismantle these democratic systems. The very nature of checks and balances provides for the stability of a free market place, ensuring that a gratuitous and engaged citizenry will provide the most stabilizing market forces. "A more than democratic world would be a more stable, inviting place for established democracies to trade and invest."³⁴

The elementary fact is that it is difficult to programme and invest for the future in volatile, unstable circumstances. The Us is non exempt from the calculus of political adventure assay, even if we are non accustomed to applying information technology to our own country. Investors have a fiduciary duty that is dependent on their understanding and attempting to bargain with systemic risk. Co-ordinate to a recent report, "Decisions made by fiduciaries cascade downward the investment chain affecting controlling processes, ownership practices and ultimately, the way in which companies are managed."³⁵

Moreover, as overseas firms and countries begin to worry about the stability of our laws and institutions, they will call up twice virtually investing in the United States, and mutually beneficial international partnerships will be harder to negotiate. Economists agree that "the free 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 attack. According to the Gallup organization, which has explored public confidence in major institutions for near one-half a century, the share of Americans expressing very petty or no confidence in big business has never been higher, not even in the depth of the Slap-up Recession. Amidst the 17 institutions Gallup assessed, confidence in large business concern ranked fifteen^th, ahead of just 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 issues in ways that both reflect and reinforce blue/cherry polarization.

For much of the past century, Republicans were the champions, and Democrats the critics, of corporate America. Only now the lack of support for large business is pervasive across the political spectrum. In mid-2019, 54% of Republicans had a positive cess of large concern's impact on the grade of our national life. Two years afterward, this figure had fallen to thirty%, about the same as for Democrats. Republican support for banks and financial institutions likewise equally applied science companies underwent a similar decline.³⁷ If an elected demagogue citing national security or a hot-button social issue sought to restrict the independence of the private sector, public opposition to this endeavour would likely exist muted at all-time.

At the elite level, the traditional bonds between the Republican Party and big business are likewise breaking down. For instance, a recent 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 short, while more than work remains to be washed, we believe that the fate of commonwealth constitutes a systemic risk to markets. The fate of commonwealth and that of the private sector are inextricably linked, and private sector leaders take reasons of self-interest as well equally principle to practice what they can to strengthen democracy.

Section three: What can the private sector do to strengthen commonwealth?

The private sector has a long and venerable rails record in the public sphere. Perhaps the best- known campaign began on higher campuses in the 1980s to encourage universities to end 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.Due south. companies had cut investment ties with South Africa. By 1994, Nelson Mandela, the leader of the anti-apartheid motility who was freed later on nearly three decades in prison house, had been elected president of mail service-apartheid Southward Africa.³⁹

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

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

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

Until recently, democracy has non been a focus of corporate campaigns in the public sphere. Withal, in response to the 2020 presidential election and erstwhile President Trump's attempts to overturn the results, some corporations entered the fray. In late Oct of 2020, a group of cardinal business leaders, led past the Business Roundtable, the National Clan of Manufacturers and the U.Southward Sleeping accommodation of Commerce, issued a statement defending the integrity of the electoral procedure. When information technology became clear that Biden had won the election, members of this grouping made statements in support of honoring the outcomes, and they declared that the transition process for the peaceful transfer of power should begin 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 not end with Joe Biden's inauguration in January of 2021. Every bit state afterward state moved to enact laws restricting the right to vote, corporations again took activeness. In May of 2021, hundreds of corporations and executives including Amazon, BlackRock, Google, and Warren Buffett issued a argument opposing "any 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 accept spoken up on unlike issues. It'south admittedly the responsibleness of companies to speak upwards, peculiarly on something as key as the right to vote."⁴⁶ State and local officials, both past and current officeholders, applauded this argument and urged its signatories to do even more than to protect democracy.⁴⁷

The continuing interest of the private sector in the defence of democracy is essential for commonwealth, and for business organisation itself. As a Chatham House report stated recently, "Business concern should recognize its own stake in the shared space of the rule of law, answerable governance, and civic freedoms…. Business has a responsibility – in its own interest and that of society – to back up the pillars of profitable and sustainable operating environments."⁴⁸

Discharging this responsibleness requires a articulate-eyed assessment of the dangers we face up. Equally we have argued, the greatest threat to democracy in America is not that a majority of Americans will plow confronting democracy. It is that strategically placed state and local majorities will collude with an organized and purposeful national minority to seize control of fundamental 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 face of ongoing threats to commonwealth, to do everything in their power to urge corporate leaders to remain involved in the fight for commonwealth, and to advantage them when they do. This responsibility can be discharged most finer when investment institutions establish the framework for ongoing consideration of this issue—and when they act collectively in defense of the democratic institutions without which prosperity as well as liberty is at adventure.

Section 4: For Further Word

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

Should threats to U.S. ramble order as discussed in this newspaper exist classified as a systemic take chances to markets? And if so, is there a fiduciary duty on the part of investors to identify and pursue mitigating steps?
Should corporate boards and master executives of portfolio companies back up efforts to protect the right of all Americans to vote in U.S. elections and condemn measures that unfairly restrict those rights?
Should investors build into stewardship platforms a policy of mitigating take a chance to U.South. Constitutional integrity?
Should portfolio companies follow responsible business organisation practices by urging organizations to which they belong to finish whatsoever financial or other support for measures that consequence in voter suppression in the U.Southward., and to withdraw from such organizations if such efforts fail?
Should portfolio companies end any political contributions associated with elected officials or candidates for elected office who decline to have the legitimate event of US elections or who support seditious acts?
Should investors regularly monitor financial agents they may employ to ensure that they are aligned both in discussion and human activity with our efforts to address the systemic risks to U.S. ramble integrity?

Almost the authors

William A. Galston holds the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institution'south Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a Senior Swain. Prior to Jan 2006 he was the Saul Stern Professor and Interim Dean at the Schoolhouse of Public Policy, Academy of Maryland, director of the Constitute for Philosophy and Public Policy, founding director of the Eye for Information and Inquiry on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), and executive director of the National Commission on Civic Renewal. A participant in half dozen presidential campaigns, he served from 1993 to 1995 as Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Domestic Policy. Galston is the writer of 10 books and more than 100 manufactures in the fields of political theory, public policy, and American politics. His nigh recent books areAnti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Commonwealth(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 Boyfriend in the Governance Studies program as well as the Director of the Center for Effective Public Direction at the Brookings Institution. She is an expert on American electoral politics and regime innovation and reform in the The states, OECD nations, and developing countries. Kamarck is the writer of "Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know most How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates" and "Why Presidents Fail And How They Tin Succeed Again." Kamarck is also a Lecturer in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Authorities. She served in the White House 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 research on the American presidency, American politics, the presidential nominating procedure and authorities reform and innovation.

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

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