Chris McGrath/Getty Images

Israel

Cross-border fighting has returned to a lower intensity following Israel’s preemptive strike, but the conflict could escalate again, and a reprisal from Iran remains likely.

 

Iran

President-Elect Masoud Pezeshkian campaigned as a moderate regarding issues such as the hijab law and nuclear negotiations, but the regime is unlikely to allow any sweeping changes.
Election 2024

Election 2024

There are sharp differences between Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and Republican nominee Donald Trump on topics such as immigration and support for Ukraine.

United States

United States

Ukraine

Russia

Liana Fix, a fellow for Europe at CFR, sits down with James M. Lindsay to discuss Ukraine’s surprise incursion into Russia.

 

Ukraine

Russia’s early setbacks in its invasion of Ukraine could have foreclosed on some of President Vladimir Putin’s sweeping war objectives, but he is unlikely to relent given the conflict’s momentum.  
Economics

China

The IMF should take a mulligan on the 2024 External Sector Report. The imbalance in China’s goods trade is expanding, not receding. It is too big for the IMF to ignore.

 

International Organizations

The International Monetary Fund, both criticized and lauded for its efforts to promote financial stability, continues to find itself at the forefront of global economic crisis management.
DRC

DRC

The peacebuilding challenge in the Democratic Republic of Congo is daunting, to be sure. But the alternative is, and has been, a catastrophe.

 

 

CFR presents a wealth of resources to help understand what’s at stake for foreign policy in the U.S. presidential race.

Events

Elections and Voting

James M. Lindsay, senior vice president, director of studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg chair at CFR, discusses the party nomination and electoral process in U.S. presidential elections and the foreign policy views of the candidates and their running mates. A question-and-answer session follows his opening remarks, during which we encourage you to ask questions and share best practices. TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations State and Local Officials Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. CFR is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher focused on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on elected officials, political candidates, or matters of policy. Through our State and Local Officials Initiative, CFR serves as a resource on international issues affecting the priorities and agendas of state and local governments by providing background and analysis on a wide range of topics. So we appreciate you taking the time to join today’s discussion. We’re delighted to have more than 600 participants confirmed from all fifty U.S. states and three territories. I want to remind everyone again that this webinar is on the record and the video and transcript will be posted on our website after the fact, at CFR.org. We’re pleased to have James Lindsay with us today to speak on the party nomination and electoral process in U.S. presidential elections and the candidates’ foreign policy views. We’ve shared his bio with you, but I will give you a few highlights. Dr. Lindsay is the senior vice president, director of studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg chair at CFR, where he oversees the work of more than six dozen fellows in the David Rockefeller Studies Program, as well as CFR’s fourteen fellowship programs. He is a leading expert on American foreign policymaking process and the domestic politics of American foreign policy. He is the author of the CFR blog, The Water’s Edge, which I commend to you all. His blog discusses the politics of American foreign policy and the domestic underpinnings of American global power. And he is also the host of the weekly podcast, The President’s Inbox, which explores how the United States should respond to global challenges and opportunities that are shaping the future. So, Jim, thank you for being with us and spending this hour with us. To start off I thought I would ask you to provide a brief overview of the presidential candidate nomination and electoral processes in the United States, and what you see as unique about this year’s cycle. LINDSAY: Well, first, Irina, thank you for having me on this webinar. And let me thank everybody who is joining us for this call. As you look at elections, Irina, all elections are a mix of the old and the new, and even the unique. And just think back to 2016. That was the first U.S. presidential race that had a woman topping a major political party ticket. 2020, we had the first American presidential election held in the middle of a global pandemic. And as for 2024 it has some new twist. We’ve seen, regrettably, an assassination attempt against Donald Trump. Sadly, that does have precedent in American history. But we’ve also, for the first time in American history, seen the presumptive nominee of a political party withdraw from the race just weeks before the national party convention. That said, I would say in some ways election 2024 looks like a lot of other elections. Let me sort of make three broad points. The first would be that the current race is incredibly tight. The United States remains a 50/50 nation. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has built a supermajority, so to speak, with the American public. Indeed, if you look at the last six presidential races, four of them would have been decided by changing the outcome in just a few states, and twice—in 2002 and 2016—the winner of the Electoral College vote was actually the loser of the popular vote. The second point I would make is that, as in past elections and because of the Electoral College, the election really is going to turn on votes in a handful of states. I think most people on this call are familiar with the so-called battleground states. We have Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Those seem to be the races that are the tightest. And if you are Vice President Harris you can afford to lose Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada and still win the Electoral College, provided you win every other state that President Biden won back in 2020. What that means for both the Harris-Walz campaign and the Trump-Vance campaign is that it matters who you turn out to vote, but just as important where they turn out to vote. Finally, I’ll leave you with one unique concern about the 2020 election. And that is how well America’s election infrastructure is going to hold up when we get to Election Day. The process of counting votes in the United States once used to be very uncontroversial. People didn’t pay a lot of attention to it. Indeed, in many cases, many states didn’t invest a lot in elections or election security. That clearly has changed, particularly over the last four years. As you think about votes, particularly if you have strong, heavy turnout—as happened in 2020—there’s going to be the question of whether states, cities, towns, are going to have enough poll workers, after the controversies in a number of states back in 2020. I think a number of localities had trouble keeping people coming to the polls. And a number of states have changed voter access to the ballot box. We don’t know how that is going to play out, to what extent it will become a matter of judicial ruling. We also have the potential—we saw some of this back in 2020—of voter intimidation, trying to keep people from going to the polls. We remain with the threat of hackers, whether they’re foreign-based or domestically-based, interfering with the vote count. Now if you have a blowout win, whether it’s for the Republicans or the Democrats, all of those problems go away. But if we have something that looks like 2020, where you have basically narrow outcomes in a couple of states and how those states go can change the outcome, this could be sort of a big shock to the system. FASKIANOS: Thank you. So this is always a question in every election. How significant do you think foreign policy will be in this year’s election outcome, compared to previous years? LINDSAY: Well, Irina, there’s a general rule of American politics that elections matter a lot to American foreign policy, but American foreign policy doesn’t matter a lot in elections. And I think that’s going to be the case in 2024. If you look at things like the Gallup poll, which every month goes out and asks people to identify the most important issue facing the country, you look at it over the last several years what you discover is foreign policy is nowhere to be seen. And that’s reflected in terms of the speeches that the candidates give. They, for the most part, aren’t talking about foreign policy because, again, if you’re in the business of winning elections it’s important to talk to voters about the issues they’re concerned about. So, again, I think, you know, in terms of 2024, foreign policy, as a general rule, is not going to play a major role. Now, I have a Ph.D. in political science, so everything I say I have to provide you with a caveat. Let me give you two here. The first caveat is that when I say that foreign policy is not likely to matter significantly to the outcome of the 2024 election, I would not classify immigration policy as a foreign policy issue. It’s not generally treated as a foreign policy issue by people working in the foreign policy area. If, however, your view is that immigration policy is not a matter of control of your own borders and the domestic handling of people entering it, you want to consider immigration as a foreign policy issue, then here I would say, yes, it will be a major issue. We all know it will be a major issue. What I don’t know is which party will end up getting the better of the conversation on securing America’s borders. The Republican Party, led by President—former President Trump and Senator Vance, is making the argument that the Biden-Harris administration failed to secure the border. The Harris-Walz rebuttal is that the Biden-Harris administration worked out a deal that would have provided very strong border security, but Donald Trump persuaded Republicans on Capitol Hill to torpedo it because he saw it as in his political interest to continue having the border crisis. I have no way of knowing which of those narratives is going to be the one that’s most persuasive to voters who haven’t already chosen. The second caveat I would make, Irina, is that the fact that foreign policy doesn’t matter to most voters in terms of who they decide to vote for doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter to any voters. So if an election is going to be close enough, even if only a few people care about a foreign policy issue it could determine who wins and who loses. And here the obvious example that’s been commented upon quite often by news channels and reporters is the issue of U.S. support for Israel, and whether or not it will cost the Democratic Party votes. And obviously, the big concern for the Democratic Party is what it will do in the state of Michigan, where there is a significant community of Arab and Muslim Americans who, during the campaign, led a movement called the Uncommitted, which was to deny delegates to President Biden when he was then in the race, in the hopes that would create pressure on the Biden administration to change its policy of support for Israel. And so how that is all going to work out going forward is one of the big questions because, obviously, it was one set of challenges when it was President Biden who was going to be the standard bearer. It’s a different issue politically—or, at least has the potential to be a different political issue, with Vice President Harris leading the Democratic ticket. FASKIANOS: Right. So that brings me to elaborate on both candidates’ views on foreign policy. But that is a little bit challenging, since Kamala Harris has only—it’s only been, what, a month since she—and so there hasn’t been a lot of space. And obviously she’s walking the fine line between being part of the Biden administration. So to the extent that you can foresee or what you have heard, where do you think they come out, and where will the differences be on things like Ukraine and, you know? LINDSAY: Yeah. Well, let me make a broad observation, that it can be very difficult to predict the specific things a president is going to do based on what they say or don’t say on the campaign trail. One of my favorite examples, that will will resonate with people who are older as opposed to younger, was Bill Clinton’s campaigning in 1992. A big part of his foreign policy plank was to be very critical of China, criticizing then-President George H.W. Bush for his, what Clinton would have argued, was too soft a treatment of China given Tiananmen Square, and the consequences of that massacre. But President Clinton would go on to champion a significant piece of legislation to give a very favorable trade deal to China. So what candidates say on the campaign trail and what they do in office can change. And there are a couple of reasons for that. I mean, one, obviously, is events. And I think we all need to have some humility that the world as it looks today may look quite different on January 20. What happens in Ukraine? Do we see China up its intimidation of Taiwan? Or does a crisis break out in the South China Sea because of Chinese naval vessels intercepting Filipino naval vessels? Do we see a widening of the war in the Middle East? So there’s a lot of churn in the system that can really change what you have to deal with when you’re off the campaign trail and behind the HMS Resolute desk in the White House. Another thing to keep in mind is campaigns are about promising and governing is about choices. So when you’re on the campaign trail, you’re a candidate, don’t care what party you’re in, you can ignore the tradeoffs, the nuances, the complications. When you are in government and you need to make choices, you can’t ignore tradeoffs. You can’t ignore priorities. You can’t ignore the impact of what it is that you’re doing. Or, if you do, you do so at your own peril. I think a third thing always to keep in mind, we love to talk about presidents, and we assume that presidents are sort of the sole determinants of what their administrations do. But administrations are composed of lots and lots of people. So who the president chooses for their Cabinet, and how they staff their administration matters. In Washington, we say people are policy. And we don’t really know who Donald Trump would staff his administration with. And we don’t know who Kamala Harris would staff her administration with. We can make guesses, but we really don’t know. And, again, as I think is familiar to many people on this call, you know people who serve a principal—a governor, a senator, a mayor—have considerable discretion. They can amplify their principle’s message. They can derail it. They can modify it. And that’s just how politics works. And I think I would also say that, you know, one thing also to keep in mind, we’ve been talking about presidents. We haven’t talked about Congress. And who ends up controlling the House and the Senate will matter to what presidents can do. And the obvious point here is if you’re a president and your party controls both houses in Congress, it’s a lot easier to do stuff. In fact, it’s even easier to staff your administration than it is if the opposing party controls Congress. So those are all unknowns for us. That said, I guess my 40,000-foot message would be, that I would expect a Harris administration foreign policy to look a lot like a Joe Biden foreign policy. Won’t say it’s identical. I guess I would say a Harris foreign policy is likely to be in the same time zone, if not the same area code, as a Biden foreign policy. I would expect her to make China foreign policy priority number one, to continue support for Ukraine, to try to find some way to extricate the United States and Israel from the current crisis without jeopardizing that alliance or leading to a broader war. I expect her to continue to do work to try to combat climate change and to be hostile to new trade deals. I think when you shift to President Trump, it becomes a bit more difficult to summarize his foreign policy, both because he hasn’t said a lot about the specifics of what he has done. If he watches rallies, much of it is spent talking about what he thinks Joe Biden did wrong and how if he were president none of these problems would materialize. That doesn’t really tell you what you would do or he will do if he is back in the Oval Office. Add to the fact that when Donald Trump was president, he could be quite unpredictable. And he could span sort of the whole spectrum of policy choices. The best example might be how he went from threatening North Korea with fire and fury and then ended up writing or exchanging what he called love letters with Kim Jong-un. But I would suspect that with Trump, you would have a more blustery foreign policy, a lot more public criticism of American allies, nice things said about American adversaries. Contrary to a lot of the talk, Donald Trump has not committed to withdrawing the United States from NATO. However, his criticism of NATO allies and his talk that perhaps he wouldn’t defend them because they’re not spending enough on their own defense, may have the effect of really eroding NATO. He may end U.S. support for Ukraine, but it is not clear how fast he would do it. So that’s sort of a big question mark. I would expect him to continue, if not amplify, U.S. support for Israel. And the one thing I’m pretty sure with Donald Trump is that we will get more tariffs. We may not get a 100 percent tariff. We may not get tariffs of 10 percent across the board, because that would have some significant downside economic costs. But I expect to see a Trump administration more enthusiastically embrace tariffs than a Harris-Walz administration. FASKIANOS: And finally, before we go to the group for their questions and comments, can you talk a little bit about the election rules in the U.S.? And there’s been, you know, over the years, let’s get rid of the Electoral College and just go with the national popular vote. Just talk a little bit about that and—why we don’t do that. And, you know, just what your thought is. LINDSAY: OK. Well, the reason we don’t do that is because of a decision made at the Constitutional Convention back in the summer of 1789 that it was important, A, not to have direct election of the president, but also—and this is the critical part—that states needed to have a set. You know, when you—when you think about the Constitution, we spent a lot of time arguing about what is meant by the various specific grants of authority the Constitution gives to the president, or to Congress, or to the judiciary. But if you actually look at the timeline of the Constitutional Convention, most of those issues got settled at the end and in a rush. Much of the debate that took place was centered on the question of large states versus small states, and how they would be represented. Because the then-smaller states, the less populous states—think New Jersey, think Delaware at the time—were worried about entering into a union in which their bigger state brethren would, in essence, have all of the power. And so that gave us the Electoral College. Now the nature of those states and the size of the United States clearly has grown over more than two centuries, but that’s where it originates. Now the Electoral College, as a practical matter, amplifies the voting power of residents of small states compared to big states. So if you are a voter in Wyoming, you have a greater electoral weight than a voter in California. That’s just a function of the system. Now, as you might imagine, if you are a voter in a populous state, you may want to move to a national popular vote. But if you are a voter from a Wyoming or a Rhode Island, it doesn’t seem as appealing because you like the fact that this gives you political power. You know Wyoming—thinking of the United States Senate—is equal to California, even though California’s population I think it’s thirty-seven times larger. So you could change that. You would have to adopt a constitutional amendment. Now, keep in mind, we’ve only had twenty-seven of them in our history, and the first ten came in the first year—first year and a half. So it’s—constitutional amendments are very hard to get done. Now, there has been talk of doing things like a national voter pact where states promise that they will give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote if enough other states agree to do so. But that effort has sort of petered out and, again, because—particularly if you’re a Republican today and you look at the Electoral College, it’s your friend because there’s a bias toward the Republican Party, given that most smaller, less populous, more rural states are overrepresented in the Electoral College. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. So now we’re going to go to all of you for your questions and comments. Again, as a reminder, we are on the record. (Gives queuing instructions.) So with that, please do not be shy. And we have our first question from John Jaszewski. And please correct my pronunciation as well. You’re still muted. Q: There we go. Yeah, it’s Jaszewski. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Q: Yeah, OK. My question is the credibility problem that we have in this country, with—recently with the false—whether it’s false or not—the skepticism about the count—the counting of the votes. Is there anything that can be done? And how does that affect foreign policy? LINDSAY: Well, thank you, John. FASKIANOS: And, just a minute, Jim. John is a council member from Mason City, Iowa. So given your background— LINDSAY: All four of my children were born in the great state of Iowa, so I’m a big fan of the Hawkeye State. I mean, you asked two really good questions, John, that I’m probably not going to give fair due to. I would say, on the issue of getting people to believe that the count was fair or is fair, it is very hard to do when prominent people argue that the count wasn’t fair. And this also bleeds into this new world we live in of social media, where people can post claims that have no factual basis but can be believed by people. So that I don’t—I don’t have an answer to. I think a lot of people would like to do so. I will note that the fact that in 2020 something on the order of sixty lawsuits were brought alleging various misdeeds and miscounting, and none of them succeeded, and no evidence has been produced of that—the fact that that hasn’t put to bed the claim that somehow the race was rigged or stolen, continues. In terms of how it affects American foreign policy—let me correct myself—how it affects how others see us, it damages America’s soft power, as we call it. The appeal of the United States. One of the nice things about my job is I get to talk to a lot of people from overseas. I get to go overseas. And one of the common things you hear from people in many countries is the United States is not like the United States that I remember, or I thought. You’re not like the people I thought you were. And what you also hear is they worry about why the United States has such poisonous politics. And why it seems to be when, from their vantage point, many things are going well for the United States, Americans seem so unhappy, so divided, so partisan. So I think that does weigh on things. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I am going to take the next question from the mayor of Manvel, Texas, Mayor Dan Davis: Does a potential dropping out of RFK, Jr., and his endorsement of a candidate, change the trajectory of this election cycle? Especially if he endorses Trump, which could have a huge impact on Georgia and Arizona. LINDSAY: Dan, you asked a question a lot of political analysts are debating right now. And I don’t think anybody knows what the answer to your question is. I’ll make a broad note, which is if you track not just RFK, Jr., but look at all the third-party candidates, and you look at sort of how they track in the polls, they’ve all sort of fallen off the map over the last four or five months. I mean, at one point RFK, Jr. was polling in the low- to mid-teens, or was threatening to get to the mid-teens. But I think the fact that, you know, he’s now talking about—or, it’s being speculated that he’s going to drop out of the race, signals that his campaign really hasn’t done terribly well. I think the last poll I saw he was under five points, towards of the average of polls. And Cornel West and Jill Stein are faring even less well. What, again, we don’t know it, is for the people who might have been inclined to vote for a Robert F. Kennedy, the question is, will they vote? I mean, one option they have is, if they are what political analysts call double haters—they didn’t like—or, they don’t like the Republican candidate, they don’t like the Democratic candidate—and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was the person that they liked, if he drops out they may just respond by not voting at all. The other question, of course, is, is a voter who was going to go with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. going to go to Trump or go to Harris? And I don’t know that we know. And the additional complicating factor is if you are a voter who is going to go for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and you decided to go—since he dropped out, to go for Trump, and you vote in Texas, it doesn’t matter because Trump is going to win Texas. The real question is going to be, as you say, in states like Arizona and Georgia. But if you are the Harris campaign, you may not like it but you may be of the belief that we’re going to win in Pennsylvania, we’re going to win in Michigan, we’re going to win in Wisconsin. So even if we lose Georgia, it won’t be fatal. And, again, I’ll just say there’s a lot of time between now and Election Day in most states where people may vacillate. One quick thing I should just note, and this is—this is different from how we historically did elections—in recent years we’ve moved to a lot more early voting. And the first early voting will take place in less than a month. And Minnesota and South Dakota are going to open up and start taking votes. So—or, accepting ballots. And, again, the rules vary from state to state. And that’s always one thing to keep in mind when you think about American elections, is that we don’t have one national election. We have elections in fifty states, and a District of Columbia, and every state has its own rules governing things like how you get on the ballot, when ballots can be cast, what you have to do to do early voting or mail-in voting if it’s available. Things like that. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Joelene Thiele, who’s a legislative aide for Representative Wendy Fink in Pennsylvania: I’m curious to know how the Democratic Party was legally allowed to basically handpick a nominee as opposed to having an open convention where there were other choices. Joelene has two questions, but I’m going to limit to that because there are others, and if we have time I’ll come back. LINDSAY: Well, what I would say is that parties are free to have their own rules on how they pick nominees. And the Democratic Party had a set of rules of what it would do if it can—it dropped out before a national convention. These rules existed and are long-standing. Indeed, I can recall articles being written back in January about all the variety of scenarios and what would happen, laying out what each party does. And I should note, the Republican Party also has rules governing what happens if a candidate who has won delegates can’t or chooses not to run for office. So there’s nothing illegal about this. The parties have their rules, and the Democratic Party follows its rules, and it has a candidate. They weren’t required by the rules to have an open convention, as many people either hoped for or called for. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Mayor Gary Hall, mayor of Estes Park town in Colorado: What popular vote or electoral vote margin do you think we need to virtually eliminate arguments of the result? And will the states—will the states that pass laws to allow their state legislature to block state certification create serious delay, regardless of the result? LINDSAY: OK, I think there are really two questions there. And the first question, I don’t have a number for you because, I mean, the reality is you can have an election in which the winning candidate wins by one vote in every state, and so they would win unanimously in the Electoral College but if you’re looking at votes it would be 50/50. And I would imagine in that sort of scenario, where the votes are narrow, that what will happen is that people will be very concerned about whether or not votes were counted fairly. And here’s where it’s important to always keep in mind that the Electoral College can exaggerate a candidate’s support. So even with someone like Ronald Reagan, who won—set the Electoral College record back in 1984, there was still 44 percent of the population that didn’t vote for him. So a lot more—what matters is not sort of what the number is in the Electoral College. It’s going to be how many states you have a really close result, as in 2020 where you had a very narrow result in Georgia, and in Arizona. And that can make a difference. And, again, you know, the interesting thing about the 2020 election is that Joe Biden won by some seven million votes in the popular count—popular vote, but if you moved roughly 43,000 of those votes around in the right three states, Donald Trump would have been president. That’s actually closer than what we witnessed in 2016 with President Trump and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So that’s what really sort of matters. Your second question I think points to something that is a potential concern, because some states have passed laws, as you mentioned, which would allow challenges to dutifully elected state electors. And you could have a delay. How much of a delay would depend upon how many states contested, how big was the margin in the Electoral College. Again, if you end up with a blowout in the Electoral College, even if the popular vote’s relatively close, then having a couple of states contest probably wouldn’t matter that much. But we are, in some sense, in a different situation, it’s important to keep in mind, that in the old days there was a close election, politicians or candidates would accept the results. I think the 1960 election is often held up as an example, but even think of the 2000 election with Al Gore and George Bush, and Gore conceding after the Supreme Court ruling. But today it’s quite clear that that norm, we’ll call it a norm—not a law, but a norm—an expectation of how a losing candidate would behave, doesn’t exist. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Vice Mayor John Shribbs, who has a raised hand. Vice Mayor of Petaluma, California. Q: Oh, thank you for calling on me. OK, so I’m partly—taught environmental science. And I look at natural resources as really—those that have natural resources—that the states and foreign nations that have these are able to grow and do things. And so as we shift, especially with climate change, the access to lithium, rare earth elements, things that make our technology, make our energy grid potentially greater and useful. And right now, there’s a lot of contention. And not being talked about is the power struggle of nations going after these resources to power through technology and electricity. So how do the two parties really going to be—how do they differ, really, with their philosophies, and how they go after acquiring these elements that we need that are being now competed against worldwide? LINDSAY: I don’t think either political party has a developed policy on what you would call critical minerals, rare earth minerals. And indeed, I mean, I’ve read the Republican platform, which comes in about twenty-two pages, the Democratic platforms about ninety pages, I could be wrong, but I don’t believe critical minerals comes up as a topic of significant discussion. I think one of the challenges for the U.S. government with these issues is that there is sort of current demand for these resources, and then there is what will future demand for these resources be. And one of the interesting things that is happening sort of on the technology front is that scientists, investors look around, see the sorts of challenges you pointed out, John, and are asking themselves, OK, can we make money by beating this problem, OK? And there’s the old argument that necessity is the mother of invention. And if you look out there and you say, I’m really concerned about having access to lithium because the world’s biggest lithium deposits are in South America, particularly in Bolivia. And you’re worried that Chinese companies dominate the extraction and refining of lithium, you begin thinking about other technologies that could substitute. And there’s talk about—for example, we talk about lithium batteries today. It’s possible you could have salt-based batteries. And it turns out that the world’s biggest deposit—known deposit—of the kind of material needed to produce sodium batteries is sitting under the great state of Wyoming. So you got that technological thing there. And I think what any government needs to do is keep its eyes open to the potential for technology to really scramble what your needs can be. And if you want to do a little bit of backward casting, one of the remarkable developments on the energy front over the last two decades is fracking. The United States is now the world’s biggest producer of petroleum. And despite all of the back and forth between the two parties, the reality is that extracting oil and gas from U.S. territory continues to grow at pace. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to combine two questions that are—have the same strand, from Matthew Castilho, who’s a student at the University of Michigan and legislative intern to State Senator Sue Shink, and Jerry Lore’s, who is in the City Clerk’s Office in the city of Hoboken, New Jersey: So do you see foreign interference as a major issue in this election? And what are the measures that can be implemented, and key strategies to address cybersecurity threats to ensure the integrity for the upcoming election? Especially as we are entering—we have early voting beginning? LINDSAY: Well, first, since I think the University of Michigan was mentioned, I’m required to say, go Blue. Basically, betray my academic training. You know, as we sort of look at the issue of foreign interference, it is real. I think, as people on the call know, last week it was announced—or, confirmed by the FBI that actors associated with the Iranian government managed to hack the Trump campaign and tried to hack the Harris-Walz campaign. So that sort of interference exists. We know that the Russians continue some fairly sophisticated disinformation activities, as they did back in 2016. There has been debate about the extent to which China has followed the lead of the Russians in being active in disinformation. Clearly earlier this year there was an incident which Microsoft reported that it closed down several thousand Facebook sites based in China that were clearly being used to try to send messages into the American political system. So that gets the question of, how do you deal with it? And you can deal with it through a variety of technical means. Again, trying to stop hackers from hacking, trying to figure out what looked to be bots, and shutting them down, as Microsoft and others have done. It’s a bit like whack-a-mole, as best I can tell. I’m not a technologist by training, but it’s possible to set up all kinds of ways to try to penetrate what is a very open society. And that’s what makes the United States so distinctive in terms of its openness. We have lots of information. So in some ways you’re always going to have disinformation. But I think it’s important always to keep in mind that disinformation doesn’t just come from foreign sources. It can come internally, either because people don’t like the other party, or they want to be an opinion influencer, or it can make them money. And so there’s a lot of disinformation. And again, in the case of the United States, we have the First Amendment. It gives people great freedom in what they write and what they say. And that can make it very hard to track down obvious disinformation. And so you’re—at the end, you’re really left with the best defense, and the only one that will really be effective, is helping people understand how to determine fake evidence, how to assess the quality of what they see. And I think, as many people on this call know, one of the great concerns that a lot of people had coming into this election is how it might be influenced by AI. artificial intelligence, and the ability to use AI to create fake images, fake video, fake audio. We’ve seen a little bit of that so far. It’s not clear how much of it actually comes from overseas sources as opposed to individuals in the United States. But that also raises the flip problem, which I’m not sure how you solve, which is if there is a possibility that information is fake because of AI, then you can accuse people of creating AI fakes even if what they’re saying is real. And we saw an example of that not too long ago. And that becomes a real sort of problem for any democracy, which fundamentally rests on voter trust but also voter information. And the harder it becomes for people to know what’s real and what’s made up, I think that’s a real challenge for democracy that I don’t know if anyone has an answer for, or certainly any answer that can be summarized in thirty words or less. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to go next to Dr. Eno Mondesir, who is the executive health officer in Brockton, Mass. Q: Thank you very much for taking my question. The question is twofold. Should Donald Trump lose the election, the November election, what is the likelihood that we will relive another January 6? And how do we prepare for that eventual theater? LINDSAY: Well, I don’t know the answer to your question. I can’t put a probability on it. I do think that there is great concern, understandably, that we could have political violence either in the run up to the election or possibly in the aftermath of the election. I will say that one of the consequences of January 6 having happened is that many states, cities have taken this threat very seriously, certainly, the FBI has taken it very seriously, to try to determine the extent to which there might be any kind of coordinated violence. The challenge we really face, and the hardest thing to deal with—whether it’s election-related violence or violence of any other sort—is that sort of conducted by so-called lone wolves, people acting on their own. You know, we saw an example of that this summer with the attempted assassination of President Trump—former President Trump. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I’m going to take the next question, a written one, from Debrah Hall-McCullon, who is the city clerk in Riviera Beach, Florida: My question for other municipalities and for you, Jim, is, do you recommend special security practices on Election Day? It’s hard to get poll workers these days because of fear from those who say the votes are being tossed out, changed. What information can we provide to the public to make them feel more secure as poll workers and going to polls to vote? And I’ll just say, we—this is—this is a forum to share best practices, so if you have thoughts as well you can raise your hand. So, Jim. LINDSAY: Yeah, let me echo that, Irina, because I think there has been some learning that is taking place across the country at the grassroots level, at the at the local city, town, village level, that would be very useful if people shared. I mean, one of the great things about American democracy is that it’s a very decentralized democracy, with lots of government units and people trying to sort of deal with the issues that they face. And again, I’m sad to hear—though not surprised—about the challenges of trying to recruit poll workers, because it has been a real problem. And the concern is, I think, for people choosing to be poll workers, is not limited to what might happen on Election Day. They’re concerned about what will happen in the days after. It takes a while to count ballots. You know, or they’re worried about the lead up, that, in parlance, they’re going to be doxed, that people are going to try to get information about them and make it public. Some very famous cases from Georgia. And there’s also concern about swatting, where people call the police and allege that something untoward is being done by a poll worker, and the rest. So I think it’s a—it is a very big issue. And I think, you know, it would help to the extent that political leaders of all parties stress the importance of peaceful elections, nonviolence. I think it would, again, help if states that have had some successful plans dealing with this and assuring poll workers share that. And I think, ultimately, the direction we’re going, I think state and local municipalities are going to have to invest more in their election infrastructure to strengthen it from this. Now, and the question, again, about how do you get people to believe election results, you know, that, I think, is the hardest, because the temptation is to think that if you just give people facts that will change their mind. And I think one of the things people who do social psychology will tell you is that people often have made up their minds and then determine what they consider to be facts. And they search for things that confirm their worldview, confirmation bias. And that is a very real problem, amplified by social media over and over again. FASKIANOS: Yes. Thank you. I’m going to go next to Cindy Wolf, who is with San Juan County Council: How does the decoupling of the U.S. dollar with Saudi Arabian oil interact with the worldwide perception of U.S. political stability in terms of worldwide valuation of our currency? How do you think the results of the election might further affect this situation? LINDSAY: Could you read the second half of the question again, Irina? FASKIANOS: Sure. It’s, how do you think the results of the election might further affect the situation? LINDSAY: OK. I’m not quite sure what is meant by the decoupling, or what the questioner has in mind. But I will note a couple of things. One is that oil is traded on an international market. It will continue to be traded on an international market. Prices are set on an international market. That’s one of the reasons why it’s very hard to contain flows of oil, because it’s traded so widely. Second thing is, the United States dollar is the world reserve currency. And I anticipate it will continue to be the world’s reserve currency for quite some time, only because it’s not clear what the alternative is and people find it much more convenient to deal in dollars than any other currency. Now, yes, the Chinese are trying to champion ways to make their currency more—used more. That has a bunch of problems for other countries, but also for the Chinese. So I think the status quo is likely to last for quite some time. FASKIANOS: I’m going to go next to Ron Wilczak, who has raised a raised hand. Q: Hello, can you hear me? FASKIANOS: Hello. Yes. And your commissioner from Braidwood, Illinois? Q: Yes. FASKIANOS: Yes, great. Q: A public health and safety commissioner. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Q: First of all, I’d like to—first of all, I’d like to say thank you, Mr. Lindsay, for bringing us what is clearly a lot of knowledge and perspective on our political environment. One of the biggest things we are experiencing in today’s politics, the extreme divide with a large part caused by the opinions on if the last election was fraudulent. If the sixty legal cases showing no evidence of vote rigging exists—since it does exist, what do you think are ideas and ways that we can make it more convincing to all of legitimate vote counts? LINDSAY: Again, that’s an excellent question, Ron. Let me say thank you very much for the kind words. Several things have happened. One is that, as you know, in a number of states they have enacted what supporters call enhanced voter security, what critics call efforts at voter suppression. One of the interesting things that we will see in November is how those rules play out. Do they affect the vote? And one could imagine in states where these rules have been enacted, if they produce outcomes different from what the supporters wanted, then that may perhaps persuade people that it really was a fair election. After all, if you say we built a more secure system and it still gives you a different outcome, it would seem—would seem to weaken the argument that somehow skullduggery or some underhanded behavior changed the result. But beyond that, I don’t know what is going to cure our current lack of trust in established fact. The reality is, as we said several times on this call, despite an absence of evidence that the election was stolen, a very large number of Americans believe in their bones it was. And the issue also gets complicated by concerns about—some people have, obviously former President Trump has articulated, that even if the rules are in place, certain types of voting are, by definition, illegitimate or subject to manipulation. That’s obviously, you know, the argument against early or mail-in voting. So, again, there’s a ton of investigations have been done, and most famously that very lengthy audit in Arizona which ended up producing more votes for Joe Biden and taking votes away from Donald Trump. But that didn’t, as best I can tell, change the minds of those people in the state of Arizona who firmly believe that the election was taken unfairly from Donald Trump. FASKIANOS: Thank you. There have been several written questions about the conflict—the war in Gaza. Jim, I’m going to take from Rachel Tomas Morgan in the city council in South Bend, Indiana. Can you say more about the extent that the war in Gaza will impact the elections? Surrogates have spoken about a ceasefire. Isn’t that enough? What do you think Kamala Harris herself needs to say to win over those voters? LINDSAY: Well, in terms of Gaza’s impact on the American election, it comes down to whether Gaza as an issue leads people either to stay home or to change parties. And here we’re really talking about people who would have ordinarily voted Democrat voting for Republican. And, again, the example that’s held up time and time again is the state of Michigan, which is a heavily contested battleground state in which there was a large movement during the primary for individuals to vote for “uncommitted” in the Democratic primary, rather than for Joe Biden, as a way to signal to him that you have trouble in Michigan unless you address our concerns about what we perceive as your excessive support for Israel. To what extent those voters, or voters inclined in that direction, have to carry it over to Kamala Harris, I don’t think we know the answer to that. Obviously, for some—as you can see from the protests in Chicago around the United Center—they don’t see a distinction between the vice president and the president. But beyond that, voters like that have a challenge in which a Trump administration is very likely to be as supportive of Israel, if not more supportive, than the Biden administration. And, again, how do people make those tradeoffs? And I don’t think we have a really good handle on that. And so even in the case of, you know, Michigan, with its significant population of Arab Americans and Muslim Americans, if the Harris campaign does well with other democratic constituencies it may not matter. And that’s what we don’t know. And which is why you don’t just talk about elections, you have to count the votes. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I think we have time for one last question. Let me go to New Hampshire Alderman Chris Thiebodeau, from Nashua, New Hampshire. You are unmuted, and yet we cannot hear you. LINDSAY: I’ll just say, I’m a big fan of Nashua, having been a few times as a young man, so. FASKIANOS: OK. I’m going to go next—sorry that we’re having technical issues—I’ll go to Cheryl Pasteur in Delaware. OK. Q: Did I just—I did. FASKIANOS: Yes, did it. You’re good. Q: Thank you. No, actually, I’m not. It was really by accident. I just really wanted to say before we shut off that this has been one of the absolute best and most informative. The questions were good. Your information at the beginning was excellent. But just really good questions. It helps me, but it also will help me help my constituents. And I’m from the proud state of Maryland. LINDSAY: Thank you for the very kind word, Cheryl. Q: Thank you. LINDSAY: I’m in D.C., so we’re next door. Q: I thought she said Delaware. Delaware is a wonderful state, but I’m from Maryland. FASKIANOS: Ah, my apologies. It’s Maryland. I did get it wrong. I was juggling different things. Maryland. Q: But this has been wonderful. Thank you so much for doing this. FASKIANOS: Thank you so much. LINDSAY: Thank you. FASKIANOS: Appreciate that. Jim, any final words before we close? LINDSAY: I would just say thanks to everybody for joining us. I want to thank everybody for their service. I know how important state and local governments are to the functioning of American democracy. And here’s to hoping we have perhaps a tough political contest, but a fair and peaceful one. FASKIANOS: Thank you. And thank you all. I’m sorry that we couldn’t get to your questions. We will just have to come back—have you back, Jim, to share your expertise again. We’ll send out a link to this webinar recording and a transcript. You can follow James Lindsay on X at @JamesMLindsay. I also commend to you, again, to sign up for his blog, The Water’s Edge, as well as subscribe to his weekly podcast, The President’s Inbox. Those are both great resources for you. And, as always, we encourage you to visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for the latest analysis on international trends and how they’re affecting the United States. And as always, share suggestions for future webinars by emailing us at [email protected]. So thank you all again for being with us. I hope you enjoy the rest of August. Not much left before Labor Day, and then we begin the new school year. So thank you all. Thank you, Jim. LINDSAY: Thank you, Irina. Thank you, everyone. END.

Human Rights

Henri J. Barkey, adjunct senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Laura van Waas, cofounder and codirector of the Institute of Statelessness and Inclusion, discuss the engagement of stateless populations—specifically religious and ethnic minority groups—with international relations, the international legal dimensions of statelessness, and the policy changes necessary to expand the right to nationality and citizenship.

United States

General Cavoli discusses the Euro-Atlantic Partnership, security challenges in the region, Russia's war in Ukraine, and his takeaways from the NATO Summit in Washington.   

State and Local Governments (U.S.)

Diana Fuentes, executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors, discusses accountability journalism and reporting on state politics. The host of the webinar is Carla Anne Robbins, senior fellow at CFR and former deputy editorial page editor at the New York Times.  TRANSCRIPT FASKIANOS: Welcome to the Council on Foreign Relations Local Journalists Webinar. I’m Irina Faskianos, vice president for the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. CFR is an independent and nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher focused on U.S. foreign policy. CFR is also the publisher of Foreign Affairs magazine. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. This webinar is part of CFR’s Local Journalists Initiative, created to help you draw connections between the local issues you cover and national and international dynamics. Our programming puts you in touch with CFR resources and expertise on international issues and provides a forum for sharing best practices. We are delighted to have over ninety participants from forty-three states joining us today. And thank you for joining this discussion, which will be on the record. The video and transcript will be posted on our website after the fact, at CFR.org/localjournalists. We are pleased to have Diana Fuentes and host Carla Anne Robbins talking today about reporting on state house politics and elected officials. Diana Fuentes is the executive director of Investigative Reporters and Editors, IRE. Previously, she was a deputy metro editor at San Antonio Express-News. She has over thirty years of journalism experience, including roles as a state house bureau chief, editor, and publisher. Carla Anne Robbins is a senior fellow at CFR and cohost of CFR podcast The World Next Week. She also serves as a faculty director of the Master of International Affairs Program and clinical professor of national security studies at Baruch College’s Marxe School of Public and International Affairs. And previously she was deputy editorial page editor at the New York Times and chief diplomatic correspondent at the Wall Street Journal. So thank you very much to both of you for being with us. I’m going to turn it over to Carla to have an initial conversation with Diana. And then we will open up to all of you for your questions and comments. And hopefully you can share your best practices as well. So, Carla, over to you. ROBBINS: Irina, thank you. And, Diana, thank you so much for doing this. I know that you are traveling right now. You were at the NABJ conference. Is that where you are? FUENTES: Yes. Yes, we’re going to be doing some training here at the NABJ conference here in Chicago. ROBBINS: That’s great. So we will talk about training from IRE as well, which is great. So I wanted to start out and talk about the question of what newspapers can do. The assumption I’ve always had is that investigative work—and that really is sort of the most ambitious way of talking about holding people accountable, but really what we do as journalists is hold people accountable. But the assumption is that investigative work in particular is really expensive. You know, it takes dedicated teams. It takes a lot of time. You know, my friend Jeff Leen, Washington Post, before that, Miami Herald, and worked with my husband at the Herald, he used to say that the biggest challenge of investigations is knowing when you don’t have it, when to stop. But that takes a lot of time and a lot of, you know, judgment. You know, that brings a lot of resources and a lot of bandwidth, and that a lot of local newsrooms really don’t have these days. So could we start out, you know, talking about one of two of your recent award winners and finalists for local news organizations that did great work, even with limited resources? FUENTES: Yeah. I think, to just set the stage first, I do want to say that I worked a lot with community papers on the Texas-Mexico border. Small papers who have, you know, circulations of just a few thousand, for example. I think we can go to places like the Uvalde Leader News, where they had the terrible shooting, and all those children were killed and the teachers. And places like that that have actually been able to do good investigative work. And I think that we—I think you’re right, that a lot of people tend to think it’s very expensive, very time consuming. But the reality is that every journalist is an investigative journalist. That’s what we do. That’s what—we hold people accountable. It’s what we do. The main thing about it is really staying organized and setting aside time. It is—we, the small papers, the small newsrooms, the little nonprofits that have been popping up everywhere, we don’t have, for example, the luxury of, say, six months undivided attention on one project. But we can set aside time, if you work with your editor. And it is mostly—that is the biggest thing that I tell people. You need to say every Friday morning, for example, I know that I don’t have to cover city council. I don’t have to cover school district that day. What day are you free? What morning are you free? You set aside and you put it in your calendar. I’m going to spend these hours either making FOI requests, making phone calls, looking through records. But that is time dedicated. That’s primarily what you want to do. It’s key. That’s very important. But, yes. There are—people win awards. People do very good work at the local level. I want to say that, for example, there’s one particular paper that I wanted to share with you all. The—let’s see, right here—the Malheur Enterprise out of Oregon. They actually have an interesting way of doing things. They’re a small—let me see if I can share this with you all quick here. This newspaper, for example, the Malheur Enterprise, family owned, has been around a long time. They are, as—I like that they put this in their “about” section—it is a little paper. Look, it’s a small, small, just very hometown kind of place, 33,000 residents. And yet they have done, and they have won some awards in the past for stories that they do because they think it’s important. They cover regular stories. They’ve had wildfires in their backyard. They cover the pancake dinners. They do all that kind of stuff that we all—when you’re in a small place, that needs to be done. But they also do things where they found out police chief—they did this whole report on how the police chief had a reputation, innovation, strong policing. But then they found out he was doing a lot of stuff that he should not have been doing. It took them a while because they had to do other work during the week, but they found out that it was a staffing issue. They found out that he had to be—he started a whole bunch of things that he should not have been doing. He was taking illegal drugs from police files. He—all kinds of things. It took them time, but what they did was, again, they were organized. They set aside time to do this sort of work. And little by little, they found it. They had to go against locals who thought this guy was wonderful, because for many years he was a very good cop. But, little by little, you—it’s what we do for a living. But one of the things that they did was, for some things they had to get money. So they actually asked their people. It was a different kind of crowdsourcing. They asked for money for bills to pay for records. The Eastern Oregon University was charging them $75 an hour to review public documents. It wasn’t right, but they were small and they didn’t have a lot of money to fight it. So they asked their—they asked their readers. They asked the public to contribute to a fund so that they could get these documents. And they were able to do these stories. So there are ways to do it. There’s things that you can do to get it around. So that’s one of the people that is wanted. Here, let me show you one other one here. The WLBT 3. They’re a—this is a Jackson Mississippi, a small station—a small market station out in Jackson, Mississippi. They found that these people—they’ve got employees—a classic here—took more than 2,000 hours of vacation time, which he didn’t have. Another one was claiming that he was investigating cases while he was at a casino hotel doing stuff for himself. All of this stuff that they were able to do because they were checking overtime records. These people were claiming overtime when they were actually doing something else. This won them an IRE award in their division, first place. They won the award. Portland. Portland Press Herald. These were—this one was recently identified by Local Matters as one of the best stories in the nation. Very interesting. Right after they had a deadly mass shooting, they raised questions about police training. Basic questions that they were asking. OK, what did these people know? What did they do? Why did we have all these problems? What was the day? What did these people know? Basic questions that they were asking. It all started with FOI information. You know, public access to public records. Where did they find out? Again, basic questions that you ask while you’re doing your regular routine. That’s the basic information that you need to ask. It’s asking the basic questions. Sorry, I could keep going on. (Laughs.) More examples. I’ve got some more. ROBBINS: Yes, I love these. I think they’re great. FUENTES: This is a—Streetsblog is a nonprofit, online-only organization. They are local to New York. And they won for this award—they won an IRE award for their story on black market for temporary license plates. They are—they were working. It was this multipart series. It took them a whole year to do this one. But again, they were had—they were working on other stories at this time. They did have a couple of people that were focused on this. It was their story. They had—as you can see here, they talk about who—Jesse Coburn did most of the story. He had additional reporting help. They always give credit to all the people. And they worked with the New Jersey Monitor, which was a collaboration. I think that’s another big key. These days—you know, in the old days, you may remember, boy, competitiveness. I remember when we had two big papers in San Antonio. Even my small town of Laredo, when I was on the border, we were a town of about 100,000 but we had two daily papers. There were several weeklies. We had the three TV stations. We had three radio stations, all hotly competitive. These days, collaboration actually works very well. And you can rely on each other. You can help each other out. It’s an important way to do things. We can talk about that and the little way—one of the ways to get around something where you need—you need data, right? Data is one of the keys to investigation. But anyway, this was an award-winning story that won an IRE award. Again, it was a matter of being organized, asking the right questions, and just doing it. Don’t give up. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Keep going. Follow the money. Follow the money. That’s always the key. So that’s another one. Let’s see one, more that I was going to talk to you about. Let’s see. No, this is—these are sources that I want to—I think those are primarily the ones I wanted to point out to you today on winners. ROBBINS: That’s great. Thank you. So many cities and towns don’t have newspapers, or barely have—barely have newspapers left. FUENTES: News deserts. ROBBINS: What do you consider the most underreported local stories or targets of opportunity these days? FUENTES: School districts. I think in many places the first things that go by the wayside are the school districts, unfortunately. And those people have millions of dollars. You know, even small towns, because of federal funding, most of them have a lot of money. And consulting contracts is a big part of it. The school districts get money for everything from food contracts, to building renovations, repairs, you name it. Money is being spent on school districts. And the question is, who’s getting that money? Who are the—everything from who’s actually doing the work to who are the consultants that are suggesting who does the work? Many times, when you go and start looking into it, oftentimes—do a little cross check between who’s getting the campaign money in the school district races. In most places, those people are still elected. And who’s donating to them and who are doing the consulting is often the same people. But these days, sometimes the big election staff is down to one person, or that person ends up sharing with somebody else. Those people definitely need to be more organized than anyone else, and start looking at agendas more closely, and try to figure that out. I do think that that’s one of the big ones. ROBBINS: So, I mean, that’s great. I’m personally fascinated by the infrastructure money. FUENTES: That’s true too. That’s another big one. The MUD districts, in many places, have—the utility districts. Almost every state has those. Talk about slush funds. They create these little districts that tax—many of them put little taxes that nobody really worries about, because, you know, your property taxes include maybe fourteen cents for this and twenty cents for that. And you’re not thinking. But when you’re talking about thousands of people, it turns out to be a lot of money. And they are spending money. And those—oftentimes, those translate into bad bridges, you know, places where the work doesn’t get done but the money’s being spent, your infrastructure, you’re right, that’s a big chunk. The people that are supposed to be repairing your streets, the potholes, who has that contract? ROBBINS: So I come in and I don’t have an investigative—(background noise). Sorry, that’s my dog about to bark. Lupita, behave. (Laughs.) I come in. I don’t have an investigative team. I don’t have an investigations editor. In the old days, there were fabulous gurus who were investigations editors, like Jeff Leen of the Washington Post, Jim Savage of the Miami Herald. I mean, these are, like, incredible names over time. And one of the biggest questions I have is, you know, where do I find the information? You know, there’s lots of information out there, but, you know, everything’s online. But, you know, states and counties and local, you know, cities, they’re really good at hiding this information. Maybe they require—you know, some states have more sunshine laws. You know, they’re required to do it. Other states have less. I mean, I’m a state employee right now. I work for the—you know, I run a program at the City University of New York. They ask me, I’ve got to—I have to tell them everything about my investments and everything else. When I was at the New York Times I wrote many editorials saying this was a very good idea. Now I’m subject to the editorials that I wrote. But most people wouldn’t know how to find that information. So I don’t have a guru to tell me in the newsroom how to find this information. Who do I ask how to find all of that data that’s somehow hidden on the internet? FUENTES: You know I would—there’s several places that you can actually go these days. And one of the biggest things—and I realize it’s sort of tooting our own horn in a little bit here—but webinars. We have—IRE has a lot of free webinars, for example. And we actually have listservs. Now, some of them—you don’t have to be a member to join the listserv. Members want to help. Journalists want to help each other. You can actually just go to a listserv. One of our listservs—IRE.org. There are parts of it that are open to the public, to any journalist. And you can sign up for a listserv there. And you can ask. Honestly, just flat-out ask, where do I get this information? I see those questions posted all the time. And you will get somebody. And oftentimes, you know, somebody from a small town will get somebody from the New York Times or the Washington Post who will answer, because they want to help. And they will—and somebody—or even from their own state will answer back. I’ve seen somebody from, you know, a small town in Texas gets a question answered from somebody from the Dallas Morning News, or from the Texas—the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas will answer them, because people want to help. There’s another organization, Big Local News. You can join that one. And they are—let me—let me just point—let me—I was looking at that earlier. Let me share that real quick too, just so people can—maybe show a picture of this one. Let’s see. Am I sharing this? Let’s see. Are you—what am I sharing with you? I’m sharing you. I’m sharing me. Hold on. Let me stop the share. One quick second. Let me look. Big Local News is the one that I would like to share with you. Let’s see. ROBBINS: Yeah, you were on—we just had Big Local News up. FUENTES: OK, sorry. Then let me get back to it. Thank you. OK, yes, there. Big Local News, which is just BigLocalNews.org. They have—they’re based at Stanford University. And maybe you know them, Carla. They gather data tools and they collaborate. And they offer a free archiving service. Cheryl Phillips, who’s active in IRE, has been—has been with us, I think, since close—not an original founder, but close to it. She’s been with us for a very long time. But they offer a lot of help with this sort of thing. And for beginning people, who don’t know where to get information in their local state. They are ready to provide you information of all sorts. And you can join them. And they’re ready also. Local Matters. They have a newsletter, this one. It’s a little awkward. It’s linktr.ee. But they’re also on our site, IRE.org. If you go to our website there’s a place at the top, if you go to resources, where you can go to newsletters, and you can—and it’s free to sign up for Local Matters. Local Matters gives you—every week they produce a list of the best stories from around the nation, where they go and they look at every—all of the front pages, newspapers of the—in the fifty states. And they’ll tell you what are best stories that they’ve got. It’s really—it’s amazing thing that they do. And they’ll produce a lot of interesting stories there that does it. And then, let’s see. Let’s see. Well, anyway, if you go to IRE.org, you get lots of those kind of things. But that’s really—and webinars. Be alert to webinars. Sign up for all those kind of—Poynter. Poynter has good—I also urge people to go to Poynter.org. They also have classes. Now, they charge a little bit for some of theirs. And the—IRE also, you know, going to the conferences, networking—network, network, network. I can’t tell you enough how much networking makes key. Look for the places in your hometown. Texas Tribune in Texas, for example, they offer a lot of things on their website. Salaries. You mentioned you’re a salary—you’re a state employee. They have the salaries of every single state employee. And they update that every year. And so if you wanted to know how much somebody makes—maybe your local college is giving you grief because they don’t want to give you their salary database. Just go to the Texas Tribune’s website. They’re right there. You can get it right now if you want to. And so they might not want to give it to you, but it’s public record. And that’s—you can do that in many places. I believe the St. Louis Post-Dispatch does the same thing in Missouri. Many states, there are people who have local organizations, there are local newspapers, local nonprofit sites that offer the same thing. ProPublica does it for all of the 990s, for nonprofits. That’s something, if you’re interested in what your local nonprofit is doing. Your United Way, for example. You might have heard something going on there. You can check their 990 and see what they’re doing, how they’re collecting money. That kind of information is available through those kind of places. ROBBINS: And 990 is a form that all nonprofits are required to file for nonprofit status. And some are more—file more richly than others, but it’s a requirement— FUENTES: But at the very least, it’ll give you some basic information. It’s supposed to tell you the top five staff members. But at the very least, it’ll tell you the executive director. It’ll tell you who the president is. Not everybody files their IRS 990 like they’re supposed to, but you get some information. And then those—I mean, and, again, I urge you, whatever particular subject you’re studying, look for the webinars. Like at IRE, again, we do free webinars for members. Occasionally, we’ll do a free webinar for everybody, for all journalists. We seek support from foundations to spread it out, to provide fellowships so that we can get more people to become members. So that’s always a possibility. If you need help with memberships, we’ve got possibilities also. That’s also on our website, where you can apply for a membership to get your membership covered. So that’s always available too. But, basically, you need to ask. That’s what you need to do. You need to ask. ROBBINS: So I want to throw it open to the group. I have many more questions, but I’ve got—do have many more questions. Irina is also just giving us a question that she wants answered, but why don’t we let—if you want to raise your hand or put a question in the Q&A, I’m sure that everyone else has questions for Diana. But while you’re formulating that, you want to talk a little bit about your experience covering state house, and tips for—tips for people, like—I think that these days government seems to be much more confrontational with journalists than it used to be. I mean, maybe not necessarily body slamming everywhere, but the verbal form of body slamming. FUENTES: But it’s pretty close, Carla! (Laughter.) It’s pretty close. I think it’s true. They’re always trying to lock us out of committee hearings. And they—even the public. I mean, never mind just us. I mean, you know, we talk about that a lot, that when you look at FOI requests actually journalists make up a very small percentage of who is actually requesting records—public records. It is the public. Attorneys, that’s true, but it’s often just regular people. Parents often are asking out in school districts, they want to know things about their kids, what they’re learning and what they’re—what’s going on with the people who are running for public office, because the reporters are not out there like they used to be. And politics. That’s a very good one, too. I always encourage people to check visitor logs. I think that’s something people don’t often look. Most everybody signs the visitors logs when they go into their state senator, or their state representative. Look and see who is visiting your state rep, who’s visiting that state senator, and see who actually—you’ll get a pretty good look at who is out there. And that may turn out to be a good story. Find out who’s visiting them. That’s public record. Do the usual things, you know, where you ask for the texts, the all of the social media. Look for all of that. That is public record in every state. Things that are paid for by the taxpayer, basically, that’s what’s public record. So ask for the cellphone records of your state senator and their chief of staff. Ask for the chief of staff’s social records. That’s important. Sorry. ROBBINS: So we have a question from Anna Mitchell. But before we go to that I did want to ask you about this sort of increasingly hostile environment that exists. And I think you made a very good point, because that sort of confrontational relationship that exists also exists between the public and politicians. If you go into a school board meeting these days, or if you go into a PTA meeting, or if you go into any of these meetings, you know, this polarization that exists on a national level exists on a local level as well. How, as a reporter, do you ask questions without getting people to go into a total screaming, shrieking defensive crouch? Because you do want to—you want to ask for their records, but you also want them to answer questions, because you—you know, how do you—how do you ask for the records and expect them to ever answer another question after that? FUENTES: I hear you. You know, one of the things that I—especially if it’s your beat, and, you’re right, what you want. I encourage reporters to first make friends with the long-time staff people—the clerks. Start there first. Because you are far better off getting the information first and then asking your questions of the elected official. Many times the keeper of the records has been there a long time. And they are oftentimes very put upon, because they have to put up with bad people, I mean, you know, or people who think they’re God’s gift to the universe. And so you’re in the same boat they are. And if you think of it that way, rather than that they are on the side of the elected official, you are more likely to get help from them. So if you make friends with that person first and get to know them before you need them, go—the whole donut/coffee thing, you know, I think it’s fair to just go visit with those people. Find out who’s got the records in your particular state senator, your state representative, for example, if we’re talking politics. And it works at the local level too. Same thing. City council, county commissioners, your parish, you know, in Louisiana where they have parishes, or whoever is in that particular area. You want to—that’s what you’re looking for, right? That’s what you—that’s what you’re looking for, right? I’m sorry. I think I lost you all. Are you there? ROBBINS: No, we’re here. FUENTES: OK, good. Sorry. There we are. So anyway, if you do that first and you’ve got the basic information I also say, like, I tend to also encourage people to go with the honey approach first. Now, it is a personality thing, I know. I tend to ask a softball question first and let them know that I’ve got the facts. I try not to play gotcha. I let them know that I have the information. So if you got the basic stuff already, so you can say, you know, sir/ma’am, I just got a copy of your credit card records for the last six months. And I see that—so they already know, too late. I’ve got it. So no sense lying to me, because I have it. So if you say it up front like that—I’ve got the last six months records, and it looks like you took your wife with you, and you paid for her dinners and her hotel room the last seven times that you went. And it looks like that’s not allowable. Do you plan to reimburse that anytime soon? You know, something like—giving them an out, maybe? Or something like that. And you are more likely to have an answer than if you say, so, have you been—you know, when did you stop beating your wife, kind of thing, right? ROBBINS: Before or after you paid for her hotel room? (Laughs.) FUENTES: Yes, exactly. I do—I will say that it’s worth it to spend a little time thinking about how you’re going to phrase the questions. Because you’re right, you want them to talk to you. And sometimes, as we know, the first question you ask is just so intense that they may never answer you. They may slam the door on you. And that’s actually going to be your story, that they refuse to comment on this information, because you have it. But I think it’s key to get the information first. And sometimes the way you do that is you go to the people who have it and talk them up first, before you go to the elected officials. There are some people that are always going to be feisty, and they see the whole world as the enemy. And they see us as the enemy many times, no matter who you are. You’re a reporter, they see you as the enemy. So the trick is—you know, we’ve talked a lot about this over time. And I’m sure you’ve seen this, Carla, where people think that Congress is evil, except their congressman. And that’s why they reelect them for forty times, you know? And that’s why they’ve been in office, literally, fifty, sixty years, even though they think Congress is terrible. And if you do a poll, everybody thinks Congress has a horrible reputation, but yet they keep electing the same congresspeople over and over. So the local congresspeople seem to be OK. Maybe because they’re bringing home the pork, but same thing can go for you. You can be friendly with your congressperson, after a fashion. And that’s how you get the information. That’s how you find out the truth. You’re not going to find it by yelling at them. ROBBINS: So Anna Mitchell or Anna Mitchell, would you like to ask your question? Q: So I unmuted. OK. Yeah, I was just—I was gratified when you said it’s all about school boards, because I’m an education reporter and was worried about joining this webinar. But two things. I wanted to throw this out, just that charter schools actually have to file 990s. And we’ve gotten some great information from 990s for charter schools, because things like how much are they paying in consultation fees and management fees. So I just wanted to throw that out there. But I’m really new to this beat. And I was wondering if you had an education reporter association or group that you might recommend. FUENTES: Yes. The Education Writers of America—the Education Writers Association, EWA. You must join them. They are very good. They have a lot of good sessions. They are—they do—we work with them a lot. We actually have co-webinars sometimes. We train at their association, and they train with us. But, yes, do you—have you heard of them? Anna, are you there? Anyway, the EWA. Q: Sorry, I was on mute. Yeah, no, I’ve not heard of them. And I also, you know, there’s so many groups out there that sometimes you don’t know the right one to join. So thank you very much. FUENTES: Right, yes. Yes, no, definitely. They are the ones you want to join. They have a lot of good ideas. Their website is very good. They have some very good databases that can help you. And they know a lot about charter schools. And I’m glad you already did—looks like you already started good—did well with them. But definitely, the 990s are very helpful for charter schools. The other thing to check with them also are property records. One of the things you’ll find many times charter schools, one of the things they do is they own a lot of property. And the people that found them own a lot of property. And they also, because of the way they’re set up, they often do a lot of campaigning. I’m sorry. They donate a lot to election campaigns. So you should cross reference them with the—with your local congresspeople, your state representatives, your state senators, and with your governor, whoever’s running the charter schools. Q: Thank you. ROBBINS: That’s great. Thank you. We have a question from Griffen Smith in the Q&A. Griffen, from the Missoulian. Griffen, do you want to ask your question? Q: Can you hear me? ROBBINS: Absolutely. Q: Yeah. My question’s about, you know, private messaging boards. I am the government reporter over in Missoula, Montana. And recently we’ve been talking about a private signal group chat that some counselors use. And so my question is generally how do you kind of get into that information that, you know, people say might be private, or harder to access with the traditional public records? ROBBINS: And you had written and said the councilors say there are no quorums present with the group chats, and therefore it isn’t a public record. Q: Correct. FUENTES: That’s not true. If they are discussing public business, even if there is no quorum, that is public. The one thing that is an exception is if they’re discussing—and this—it’s a gray area, but it’s more defensible—is if they’re discussing a pending lawsuit. If it’s a matter of a law—but it can’t be a—it cannot be a possible lawsuit. It actually has to be a lawsuit that has been filed, in which case they could discuss that. Like I said, there’s a—if their attorney’s there, for sure, that’s is not public record. If their attorney is not there, they could discuss it, potentially. That might be. It’s a gray area. They could be having a private discussion to talk about negotiating, for example. And that is oftentimes considered not public. If they’re discussing negotiations for a contract, that sometimes is considered not public. But everything else, I mean, that—they’re talking about public business, even if there is no quorum and they are—that should be public. I would go to your—let’s see. I’m sorry. What state are you in? ROBBINS: Montana. Q: Yes. FUENTES: Montana? Let’s see. Let me check real quick. I was going to suggest that you go to your—who’s in the—who’s Montana? Montana has the Montana Freedom of Information hotline. Have you ever worked with them? Q: Not for this issue, but for other things, yes. FUENTES: Yeah. You might ask them. They might be able to get you help with one of their attorneys, just to double check with them on that. Because it sounds to me like they should be giving you that information. You might need help. You might need to get somebody to help you. The NFO—if you do need to go to a lawyer, the NFOIC has grants for that. And the Reporters Committee for—the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, they also have some money to help with some kinds of cases, if you need to go to the attorney for that, if you all can’t afford it. Q: Yeah. Thank you. ROBBINS: Griffen, have you—Griffen, have you written a story about this? What are they hiding? FUENTES: Yeah, yeah. That’s always a classic. Q: Yeah. We’ve written a story, yes. But, you know, not too much about what’s inside that information. ROBBINS: But people aren’t—your readers aren’t pissed off that they’re hiding in this—that they’re doing the people’s business in a secret way? Q: You know, TBD on that. I mean, I’ve definitely heard feedback on it. But it’s not the biggest story in town. FUENTES: I was going to—you know what happens is lots of times unless you can tell people what it’s about, you know, lots of times the public really doesn’t care about our problems. You have to be able to say, look, they’re talking about spending taxpayer money, you know. You have to say what it’s about. There was a good story about where, if you can tell them, for example, the judge is blocking information about the evidence on this serial killer, now you’re talking about people getting concerned. You know, this kind of thing. Or there was this really—a big case having to do with child abuse, and the judge is blocking the evidence and is not letting anybody see it, and when it’s clearly public record. Then you’re getting—you can say it. I can see where, in Griffen’s case, maybe you can’t say what it is because you don’t know what they’re talking about. But I’m glad you wrote about it. Q: Yeah. Thank you. ROBBINS: We have a question from, is it, Laura, is it Guido or Guido? Laura, do you want to ask your question? And can you tell us with whom you work? Q: Hi. Yeah, it’s Laura Guido. I’m with the Idaho Press here in Boise. And one thing that the whole press corps has—or, all the capital correspondence have is we’ve noticed that our state lawmakers search their own emails when they respond to public records requests. They kind of just forward—the records clerk will, like, forward us their forwarded message. And I just wondered if you had tips to, like, ensure we’re getting all the records that we should be getting. FUENTES: So you mean, like, they scan them before they give them to you? Q: Yeah, I mean, what—basically what we get is, like, a PDF of messages that were forwarded to the clerk. And then the clerk sends us the records. But it’s pretty clear that, you know, when we send a request, they’re asking the lawmakers to search their own emails to fulfill the request. FUENTES: Yeah. That one is stickier because I guess what they’re doing is they’re using their personal cellphone for personal business and state business, right? Q: I think it’s all on their state devices, but I’m not sure. FUENTES: The reason I’m asking is because sometimes what they’ll do is if they’re using their personal cellphone for that, and they get—like, for example, they might get a stipend rather than a state-issued phone. If they get a stipend, then they’re using—and they’re using a personal phone, they’re supposed to go through their messages, and that’s what they’re doing. They’re sending what they claim are their state messages, right? And that everything else is their personal, you know, yes, honey, I’m bringing home turkey for dinner. You know, stuff like that. And so they don’t have to send you that, because that’s personal. Now it gets sticky. It’s worth the story at that point to say—because I think that the public would be interested in—because how are the cellphones done? Who owns the cellphone, and how are they—how is it being accounted for? I think that is something that the public would care about. One of the ways that you can tell what they’re accounted—whether you’re getting everything is look at your time stamp and your days. Are there days and times—like, are there blocks missing? Like, if—is this—you said this is state officials? Q: Yeah. FUENTES: So, for example, if it’s a state legislature, right, a legislator, and the legislature is in session. And there’s—you knew that they were in session. And so they’ll give you, like, from—you know, that the session was going on from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. And they give you from 2:00 to 230. And then—(off mic)—when they were actually—something was going on. Do you ask for texts as well? Q: Yes. Mostly email, though, is mostly the responsive records that we end up getting. FUENTES: Yeah. I would—I would encourage you to ask for texts as well, right, just to push for that too. Texts and emails. But then if it’s emails, is it their government email, or is it like a Gmail or Yahoo? Q: It’s their government email. FUENTES: Well, if it’s their government email, why are they forwarding it? Everything that’s in there should be public record. Have you—I would—that’s one where I would—Idaho has a good—they have a good one. the Idahoans for Openness in Government. That’s their FOI organization there. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to work with them. Q: Yes. Yeah, I have. FUENTES: I would—I would ask them about—you know, double check the law, but I think that if it’s their government one even if they’re using—even if they’ve got personal messages, if it’s their government email they give up the right to privacy. They should be giving you every single email, even if it’s personal, because they shouldn’t be using their government for personal use. I think I would argue—you know, I would ask them for it, and press that on a legal point. And see if the Idahoans—the organization there might—you know whether maybe you working with some of the other media in Idaho would work together and, you know, send them a letter. Have a lawyer send them a letter. Not sue right away, but say that you think that everything that they have on their government email is public record. Does that help? Q: Yes, thank you. FUENTES: Yeah, I would push them on that. ROBBINS: Well, while we wait for more questions I wanted to—you had mentioned data and how essential it is. The ability to manipulate data, to crunch data, is obviously an absolutely essential skill set. You know, in the old days there was a dedicated team. There was a data wizard in every newsroom, although these days people have their own wizarding capabilities with data. We all live with data a lot more. Has the technology progressed to the point that we don’t need to have a data wizard, that we can all do it ourselves? Is there particular training that people can point to? Or do we still need to have what we used to refer it was computer—remember computer-assisted reporting? (Laughter.) FUENTES: Yeah. No, you still—I think you’re right that more people know how to do it themselves. We used to have—our data services was a lot more busy than it is now. A lot busier than it is now, because we’ve we basically trained ourselves out of business for a lot of things, because a lot of people can do it. But I will tell you that at our conferences, for example, and we do teach webinars about this too, one of our most popular classes is still basically, you know, a spreadsheets 101. People still want to know how to do Excel or Google Spreadsheet—essentially the same thing, just a different program—but how to—how to do that. How to do pivot tables. You know, how to do—how to read a budget. You know, how to—how to handle numbers. And then a little further, if you go a little more, which is working with SQL, or, you know how to scrape a website with Python coding a little more, which is more intense. But those are things that—those are popular classes for us. We actually do boot camps which we still get people to come, and we do fellowships for those. That training, you can still get it. I think it’s still worthwhile. People do want to learn that. We also—we still offer that. If people want to—if they feel like they’ve got a big project and they don’t—they don’t have the skill set in their newsrooms, we offer what we consider affordable rates to do the work ourselves. We’ve got—we’ve got students who do that kind of work. So they get the experience, and we charge less than somebody with charge. We do—for example, every year out of Illinois we have an organization that asks us to clean up the data on the employee salaries, so—for the city government. It’s an open government thing that they do. And we offer that. And we do it every year. So we can do it. You can pay someone to do that kind of work. But I think more people know how to do Excel. But with Excel, that’s pretty much all you really need. You know how to do a spreadsheet, how to manipulate. These days most organizations—occasionally, you’ll still have, you know, a bulky organization out there, an entity that wants to give it to you as a PDF. But these days, there’s, you know, tools that can turn the PDF into a manageable, searchable database. And then you can use your spreadsheet skills to manipulate the data, so that you can get it to tell you what you need, you know, to figure out whether it’s a worthwhile story. But, yes, I think it’s worthwhile taking those training courses. And you can learn it. It’s not that hard. ROBBINS: We make all of our grad students learn how to work with Excel and do basic data scraping, and to do—and these are all—these are all sort of basic skill sets not just for journalists, but basically for survival these days. And to read a budget. I’m still into— FUENTES: Yeah, how to read a budget. ROBBINS: To be able to read a budget. So Sofia Langlois. Sofia, you want to—you want to voice your question and tell us for whom you work, or with whom you work—depending on how you’re feeling that day? (Laughs.) Sofia, are you— Q: Oh, sorry. Can you hear me all right? ROBBINS: Absolutely. Can you tell us with whom you work and then tell us your question? Q: Absolutely. So I work for the University of Maine student newspaper. ROBBINS: Great. Q: And my question kind of goes back to freedom of access. What would you say is the fastest way to access public records that would contribute to a breaking news story? I found that city council will sometimes take the maximum amount of legally allotted time to share information, but timeliness can be crucial to a story. FUENTES: Yeah. You know, one of the best things you can do is actually advanced planning, before the news breaks, right? Before breaking news. We always encourage people, kind of what I had said earlier, where if it’s your beat, things that you learn about, find out who is the record custodian so you can find out ahead of time who it is that has the information and how they like to ask—how they want to know the question right? Most everybody has either a favorite form—do they want to—will they listen to you by phone? Do they want to have it by email? Do they need something in writing? Find out ahead of time how they want it. And find out who the right person is. Because that can take up time, right, when you want to find the information. If you make friends ahead of time, when the breaking news comes they’re more likely to help you. Whether that’s fair or not, you know, the reality is everybody’s human. And if they know Sofia and they don’t know Diana Fuentes, they’re more likely to give you the information and make me wait. That’s just the way it is. So that’s the first thing I would encourage you, is go out now and find out, even if it has happened to you in the past that you already had to wait for a long time. Go—it’s never too late to make friends. Go find out who the custodian of the records is for all of the different things that you might need, and—police departments, city council, the different agencies, planning and zoning, you know, the plumbing, the commissions for the different departments that you might need. And find out who actually keeps the records, who would need what you might. We always tell people ahead of time for breaking news is the best thing you can do is plan ahead. Stockpile your information ahead of time. Do get three and five years’ worth of information. Salaries. Things that you already know that you might need—salaries, budgets, what is that year’s worth of information, who is in charge of, what, what is the organizational chart? All that kind of information you can get that now and you might need it if there’s breaking news, right? Who’s in charge of—for the police department, for example. Who is in charge of emergency management? Is it the fire marshal? Is there an actual person who’s in charge of emergency management for the whole county? Is there somebody separate from the police, who’s separate from the city, who’s separate from the county? Is the state person in charge? Do they name somebody? You need to know that now before there’s a disaster in your area. That kind of information, do the planning ahead of time. It’s true that when it actually happens there really is no way to force them to give you the information, because that’s the law. You know, the law that is in your state that says that they have—in Texas, for example, they don’t have ten days to provide the information. They have ten days to decide whether they’re going to appeal to the attorney general to argue that they don’t want to give you the information. There is stuff that they are supposed to give you automatically. There’s, for example, what they call the first page of a police report. That has been said over and over and over and over that—and it’s been defended a million times in court—that they have to give you that information. They don’t have ten days. They’re supposed to provide that to you when you ask for it. They’re supposed to be able to show it to you. Some of them take ten days to give you that information. They don’t have it. However, Texas does not have teeth in the law. If they take ten days, there’s nothing—there’s no penalty. We are arguing for that here in Texas, to try to make them a penalty. But right now, if they don’t give it to you in ten days there’s no penalty. So they don’t give it to you, well, they’ll get yelled at, maybe, but that’s about it. So you need to do—go around them. And the way you do that is you make friends and get them to be able to give you the information when you need it. ROBBINS: And this stockpiling of B matter is, like, really, absolutely essential. I mean, just the context stuff is—having previous years of comparative data and all of that, just which is absolutely, when there’s breaking news, is just great. Because then all you’re missing is just the most recent data. And just because it gives you the absolutely essential context. And it also makes it easier to pry information out of people. FUENTES: Basic information that we talk about that you should always have on hand are budgets, salaries, and organizational charts. Who’s in charge? Those are the very basic—very basic things that you need to have. Check registers, credit cards. Sorry, you have somebody else, a question? ROBBINS: Charles Robinson from Maryland Public Television. Charles, you want to ask your question? Q: Sure. Many of you probably already know that we had this bridge that collapsed in Maryland. And one of the things I’m concerned about is, you know, first of all, the contracting of who’s going to build a bridge, where the money’s coming from, and, you know, who will benefit from this? Don’t get me wrong. You know, every lobbyist in the state of Maryland has, you know, got their finger on a piece of this action. And, you know, look the governor is very popular in the state. A, d of course, he has delegated it to, you know, the transportation secretary, whose track record is not very good. In fact, they had to slash the budget, and they’re continuing to slash the budget because they’re not going to get any revenue from, you know, tolls that are going back and forth. I don’t know if you can point me in some—you know, into—from the both the local level and federal level, you know, what should I be looking at? FUENTES: One of the first things I would do is, the people that they’re considering is I would, again, cross check with campaign records. Look at the—because even though the governor has transferred the authority to the transportation chief, I would still cross check all the people who you hear their names are being considered. Cross check it against the governor’s last four—his last couple of elections. Look at the campaign finance record and see if any of them have donated. And go beyond just—you know the look up those companies and see who the presidents are and who the officers are. For that kind of information, you’ll need to go to—usually the secretary of state will have business records. Sometimes you’ll need to go to the city of wherever their headquarters are. You can sometimes find it—sometimes things like building permits. If they build an office, they’ll need a building permit. And that often will give you information that you might not get at the secretary of state level. But you’ll need to find out who is connected to that company and see if any of those names pop up as giving money to the governor. I think that’s one of the things you want to look at because that’s how you’re going to find out if there’s any skullduggery going on. That’s one of the chief things that I would be looking at. Q: We get lobbying records. We get lobbying records. So, you know, I can look at, you know, who is, as I like to say, trying to grease the wheel. FUENTES: Lobbying is good too. But that’s separate from campaign finance, because oftentimes it’s not the lobbying. The lobbying is being done behind the scenes. Somebody is donating money straight directly to it. So you may not know that, you know, Charles Whitaker who owns this company has been quietly giving the governor money for the last twenty years. And he may not be paying for a lobbyist, but he didn’t have to, right? Because he’s been giving the governor, you know, thousands of dollars for his campaigns. And it might not just be for being for governor. Maybe—I don’t know what the governor did before—but if he ran for Congress, or if he ran for—if he was in the state senate, or if he was a lieutenant governor. I would look at those kind of—start with the most recent race, of course. But that’s one thing. The other thing you might look at, on a separate kind of issue, is what is the OSHA record for all of these companies? If they had any kind of injuries or deaths associated with these companies. Those have to be filed. Reveal has a really good database on OSHA records that’s easier to search than just the OSH. OSH is the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration. And all record—all work-related injuries and deaths have to go with them. So they’re required—all companies, big companies, are required to file with them. So I would check those records too, so you can find out how safe are these companies. Q: All right. Thank you. ROBBINS: That was great. Diana, we’ve run out of time. I’m sure we have many more questions. I just want to thank you for taking so much time. And I’m going to turn it back to Irina. And thank everybody for great questions. FUENTES: I did want to say one quick thing. If you all have questions, and if I can help with anything, my email is really easy. Just [email protected]. Just regular D-I-A-N-A at IRE.org. And I’m happy to help anybody. ROBBINS: That’s great. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you, Diana Fuentes and Carla Robbins, for this terrific conversation, and to all of you for joining from across the country. We will send out a link to the webinar recording and transcript soon. We’ll also include Diana’s email address so you can contact her directly. And you can follow our speakers on X at @DDFOnline and at @RobbinsCarla. And, as always, we encourage you to go to CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for the latest developments and analysis on international trends and how they are affecting the United States. We also have launched a hub for election 2024 on the CFR.org site where we are tracking issues that connect with foreign policy and local. So I commend that to you for additional information and analysis on the election as we gear up for November. And, as always, you can suggest topics for future webinars by emailing us, [email protected]. So, again, thank you all for being with us today. And we look forward to continuing the conversation. FUENTES: Thank you, Carla. Thanks, Irina. ROBBINS: Thanks, Diana. Thanks, Irinia. FASKIANOS: Thank you. FUENTES: Bye. (END)  

Explainers

Expert Spotlight

Michelle Gavin
Michelle Gavin

Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies

Botswana South Africa Zimbabwe

America's Dilemma in Kenya

Sheila A. Smith
Sheila A. Smith

John E. Merow Senior Fellow for Asia-Pacific Studies

Japan Defense and Security Asia

Japan in Focus

Rush Doshi
Rush Doshi

C.V. Starr Senior Fellow for Asia Studies and Director of the China Strategy Initiative

China Taiwan Asia

Featured Publications

Asia

Robert D. Blackwill and Richard Fontaine evaluate the limitations of the Pivot to Asia and offer a compelling vision for the future of U.S. foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific.

Middle East and North Africa

A clear-headed vision for the United States' role in the Middle East that highlights the changing nature of U.S. national interests and the challenges of grand strategizing at a time of profound change in the international order.

Colombia

Paul J. Angelo provides the first headlining case studies of Plan Colombia and the Mérida Initiative.