Featured Post from Cedarville University

It’s on…and if you need an expert to help you with the race (marathon) to 2020 – Cedarville’s experts are available!

Jul 3, 2019

2 min

Tuesday November 03, 2020 – it’s 17 months away. For most of us – that is two World Series and at least a one new iPhone released before the date even hits the calendar.

But if you are a political junkie or a journalist – that date is the finish line for what is an expected election of historic proportions that is already underway.

On the left, there are at least two dozen candidates vying to lead the Democrats. Some are brand name Washington players; some are rising stars and some are long shots – but each is trying to separate themselves from the peloton of politicians hoping to make that big splash in Iowa during the first week of February in 2020. And if Iowa doesn’t provide results – there’s always New Hampshire and then the Carolinas.

On the other side, President Donald Trump has already declared his candidacy. He’ll rely on the economy and odds are...hoping his teflon that ensure nothing ever seems to sticks sustains through the next year and a half.

Through it all there will be controversy, scandals, rhetoric, policies and promises. And if you are a journalist, you’ll need an expert to help you navigate through it all.

That’s where we can help.

Mark Caleb Smith is the Director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University. Mark is available to speak with media regarding the long journey to lead the DNC in 2020 and the election. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.

Connect with:

Mark Caleb Smith, Ph.D.

Professor of Political Science

Dr. Smith is an expert in American politics, campaigns & elections, and constitutional law.

Constitutional LawPresidential PoliticsPresidential Campaigns

Find Experts

Sep 25, 2026

2 min

Indiana’s Player-Prop Decision Raises Stakes for College Athletics

The rapid expansion of legal sports betting has created a particularly complicated issue for college athletics: wagers based on the performance of individual student-athletes. Indiana became the latest state to confront that issue Thursday when regulators rejected an NCAA request to ban pregame college-player proposition bets. These wagers allow bettors to predict individual outcomes—such as how many points a basketball player will score or how many passing yards a quarterback will record. The NCAA has increasingly targeted these bets, citing concerns about athlete harassment, access to inside information and the potential manipulation of individual performances. Indiana regulators ultimately chose to preserve the state’s current rules, which permit certain pregame college-player props while prohibiting them once a game is underway. Sports-betting operators maintain that legal sportsbooks can monitor unusual betting patterns and alert regulators to suspicious activity, an oversight mechanism that does not exist in illegal or offshore markets. The NCAA takes a different view, arguing that attaching money directly to an individual college athlete’s statistics creates risks that are difficult to eliminate through monitoring alone. Several states have already restricted or prohibited these wagers, leaving the country with an increasingly uneven regulatory landscape. Indiana’s decision puts a larger question about the future of legalized sports betting into focus. College athletes now compete in an environment where thousands of people may have money riding on their individual performance, even when the athletes themselves receive none of the wager. Are existing safeguards enough to protect athletes and the integrity of competition? Should college sports be treated differently from professional leagues when regulators decide what people can bet on? And if states adopt different answers, how effective can any single state’s restrictions ultimately be?

Sep 18, 2026

2 min

From the Pump to the Bond Market: Why Rising Oil Prices Matter for Borrowing Costs

From the Pump to the Bond Market: Why Rising Oil Prices Matter for Borrowing Costs Rising oil prices are often felt first at the gas pump, but their effects can quickly extend to the broader economy. As higher costs for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel work their way through transportation, manufacturing and food production, investors are increasingly concerned that inflation could remain elevated longer than expected. That concern is helping push Treasury yields higher. When investors expect inflation to erode the future value of fixed-income returns, they typically demand higher yields on government bonds. The result can be a ripple effect across the economy: mortgage rates, auto loans, credit-card rates and business borrowing costs may all remain high or move higher. This is an important second stage of the oil-price story. The first concern is the direct impact on consumers and businesses as energy costs rise. The next concern is whether those higher costs become embedded in the economy, causing inflation expectations to increase and making it more difficult for the Federal Reserve to ease interest rates. For policymakers, the dilemma is clear. Raising or maintaining higher interest rates can help slow inflation, but it also makes borrowing more expensive for families, businesses and the federal government. If high energy prices persist, the Federal Reserve may face added pressure to prioritize inflation control even as consumers and employers feel the effects of tighter financial conditions. The issue is also global. Oil markets respond quickly to geopolitical instability and supply disruptions, while Treasury yields influence borrowing and investment decisions far beyond the United States. Together, high energy prices and rising yields can become a powerful test of economic resilience—affecting household budgets today and financial decisions for months to come.

Sep 21, 2026

1 min

White House Pushes Back on Calls for Broader AI Safety Guardrails

As calls grow from technology leaders, researchers and lawmakers for stronger artificial intelligence safety rules, the White House is signaling a different priority: keeping the United States at the forefront of AI innovation. The administration has pushed back on proposals that could slow development or create sweeping federal approval requirements for new models, arguing that excessive regulation could weaken America’s competitive position—especially against China. That does not mean the administration is ignoring AI-related risks. Its approach emphasizes national security, cybersecurity and enforcement against criminal misuse of AI. Recent White House action has encouraged voluntary collaboration between government and AI developers to assess the cyber capabilities of advanced models, protect critical infrastructure and strengthen defenses against malicious actors. But the framework specifically avoids mandatory licensing or government preclearance before companies develop or release new AI systems. The debate raises important questions for business leaders, policymakers and the public: How can innovation move quickly without sacrificing security, privacy and public trust? And where should responsibility rest—within individual companies, through voluntary government-industry partnerships or through enforceable federal safeguards?