Safe to Say gives you research-backed talking points for policymakers, press, and public — what works, what backfires, and why — before your next Hill meeting or press call.
Latest Issue
Two competing AI super PACs spent $175 million on 2026 primaries without running a single ad about AI — exposing how the industry buys political influence while keeping voters in the dark. This issue breaks down what to say, what to avoid, and what’s safe to say for policymakers, press, and public audiences.
Read the full issueEvery issue is free. No paywall, no login.
Why
In a 60,000-person study, switching one word — “ban” to “standards” — shifted support by 9–20 points. Most advocacy messaging is never stress-tested against the people who need to hear it. Safe to Say changes that.
See the evidenceHow
Every recommendation is stress-tested against modeled audience panels — simulating how Hill staffers, beat reporters, and voters would actually respond. What survives is what ships.
See the methodologyWhat you get
AVOID / USE / SAY for policymakers, press, and public — published when a story breaks.
See it in action
See how one message transforms — every change backed by research, not opinion.
“Big Tech is buying our elections” becomes:
“Every industry in America meets safety standards. The AI industry spent $175 million on super PACs instead. The question isn’t whether AI needs standards — 84% of Republicans already agree. The question is whether voters or lobbyists write the rules.”
Safe to Say covers the field. Custom analysis adapts it to your specific positioning, audiences, and channels.
Get custom analysis