JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Trump’s Damaging Syria Decisions

Policy Summary Earlier this month, in response to a phone call request from Turkish President Erdogan, President Trump announced the evacuation of US troops from northern Syria. Shortly thereafter Turkish troops invaded an area of Syria, formerly held by US forces,...

read more

Impeachment Inquiry Grows

The Corruption Blog #8 A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
New Trump Administration Attacks on LGBTQIA+ Community

New Trump Administration Attacks on LGBTQIA+ Community

Brief #45—Health

Policy Summary
Last month, Axios published an interview with Trump in which he suggested that there would be steps taken to ensure that gender identification from the federal government would be purely binary. Earlier this month, the Trump Administration advanced further attacks on LGBTQIA+ community by halting visas for same sex partners of diplomats, a severe hit on both our foreign policy agenda and on the legitimacy of the identity of LGBTQIA+. Additionally, language has been repeatedly used in the Department of Education to try to create more restrictive definitions for gender that would essentially create a binary rather than a spectrum of genders. Bathroom investigations to make them more gender inclusive has been halted under the leadership of Betsy DeVos.

Analysis
These blatant policy attacks on the LGBTQIA+ community have been secluded to the Department of Education and the State Department as of late. However, there will likely be a ripple effect of other policy changes throughout the federal departments if policy changes like this become common under the Trump Administration. Celebrity activists and other non-profits have been vocal about their opposition to these policies, but there is still momentum within the Trump Administration to continue to oppress and strip transgender individuals of their right to their identity. If these individual policy changes continue, there will most likely be momentum for more permanent and far reaching policy changes to take place through legislation.

LEARN MORE

Resistance Resources:

  • Outright International– An organization dedicated to supporting LGBTQIA+ people and providing trainings to local communities and schools to be more inclusive.
  • This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Healthcare Policy Analyst-Sophia Adams Name: Contact Sophia.lorene30@gmail.com
  • Keywords: LGBTQIA+, transgender rights, human rights, betsy devos, state department, united nations, bathroom

Photo by Peter Hershey

Betsy DeVos Proposed Title IX Changes

Betsy DeVos Proposed Title IX Changes

Brief #29—Education

Policy Summary
Department of Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, has released several new policies in regards to how US colleges and universities will treat allegations of sexual harassment and assault. DeVos claims the current system in place has “failed” and is a “shameful” method that has been unfair to the students suspected of alleged crimes. The proposed changes drastically shift attention to bolstering legal defenses for the accused. Many speculate that these changes echo feelings voiced by President Trump earlier in the year, when he tweeted, “Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation” and proposed that many men are unjustly assumed to be guilty. The new standards put in place by DeVos and the Trump administration will take the place of the Obama-era guidelines on how to apply Title IX, the law barring gender discrimination in schools that get federal funding. Title IX, approved as part of the Education Amendments of 1972, provides direct guidance and protocol for all manners of sex discrimination, including sexual assault, that would affect a student’s access to education.

Analysis

Many argue that DeVos’ planned changes not only  reduce educational institution’s legal responsibility in sexual assault cases, but also create a  large barrier between the rights of the accused students and possibly discouraging survivors from reporting any type of sexual assault and harassment.

Sexual assault continues to plague campuses across the nation. Recently polls have concluded that 25 percent of young women and 7 percent of young men say they suffered unwanted sexual incidents in college. Specifically, LGBT of students and female students of color encounter higher rates of sexual assault and harassment than the general student body. Even though a frighteningly high number of students experience some type of sexual harassment or abuse, the US government estimates that nearly 80 percent of student survivors choose not to report their assault, often out of fear of retribution or confidentiality worries. Undermining Title IX defenses may only make it harder for survivors to seek justice.

The Obama administration, defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”. Secretary DeVos plans to alter the definition of sexual harassment to now be understood as “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity.” Many psychologists and victims’ rights advocates groups suggest DeVos’ amendments may deter survivors from reporting happenings, as they wonder what actions are “severe” or “offensive” enough to qualify as sexual harassment.

DeVos’ proposed rule could also give schools permission to discount particular Title IX protections, such as religious exemptions. Presently, universities and schools  are allowed to claim religious exemptions from certain Title IX provisions, such as counseling assistances or admissions of certain students. To do so, an institution must appeal specific exemptions from the U.S. Department of Education via letter or form. DeVos has referred to this procedure as “confusing or burdensome.”  The issue for many is that religious exemptions can be used to oppress LGBT students and to refuse women’s reproductive rights on the basis of religious objections. Therefore, without the U.S. Department of Education’s monitoring of each exemption it may become easier for religious colleges to discriminate against LGBTQ students.

A major issue with the new proposed ruling is how it would permit the educational body itself to decide on the burden of proof required for sexual assault cases. Formerly the burden of proof was decided using the preponderance of evidence standard. The preponderance of evidence standard, used under the Obama administration,  meant that educational institutions were instructed to admonish the accused party if evidence indicated that misconduct was more likely to have occurred than not. This standard is considered to be more in line with previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings related to violations of Title IX. Without using the preponderance of evidence standard, victims will have to go through even more to prove their claim, if the school will decide it is relevant at all.

At the moment, victims can report their sexual assault to anyone, school faculty or advisers. In return once an institution becomes aware of the situation they are required to examine the circumstances surrounding the potential assault. However, with the newly planned changes, a potential victim would have to report their assault directly to faculty “with authority to institute corrective measures”, in order for a school to be held liable for a Title IX violation, forcing victims to report to a limited number of individuals not of their choosing or with whom they may have no prior communication.

DeVos’s proposition also suggests that assaulted students and the accused students would be cross-examined, by advisers on behalf of the other individual. Cross-examination of this fashion is incredibly challenging and riddled with complications. The prospects of being cross-examined by an accused’s representative will likely silence many young assault victims. The situation is only made worse by the prospect of affluent students paying for available legal counsel or advocates while lower income students may not have such resources available to them.

Resistance Resources

The Department of Education under Secretary DeVos is making historic moves on Title IX protections. However there are a number of options still available to help halt the damage.

  • Congress can also proceed in passing theCampus Accountability and Safety Act, a bipartisan effort that develops the requirements on reporting sexual harassment, sexual assault, and related crimes on university or college property. The Bipartisan Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA) protect students and streamlines the response to and reporting of sexual assault. To join in on the fight to protect sexually assaulted or harassed students, click here: http://endrapeoncampus.org/passcasact/
  • SurvJustice is a national not-for-profit organization that increases the prospect of justice for all survivors of sexual violence through effective legal assistance, policy advocacy, and institutional training. Furthermore, SurvJustice wants CASA (above) changed so it adds an amendment to Section 202 of the Department of Education Organization Act, which would give the education secretary to have the power to fine schools for any violation pertaining to sexual violence. Donate here: http://www.survjustice.org
  • NOW Legal Defense works to enforce girls’ equal access to education. Their work in this area focuses on how sexual harassment in schools operates as a barrier to equal education. Find out more: https://www.legalmomentum.org
  • Take action on issues impacting women and girls by joining The American Association of University Women (AAUW) Action Network. As a Two-Minute Activist, you will receive urgent email notices when your advocacy is needed most. AAUWs provide all the tools you need to call or send messages to your members of Congress, write letters to the editor for your local newspapers, contact your state legislators about pressing issues, and more. https://www.aauw.org/what-we-do/public-policy/two-minute-activist/

This Brief was posted by USRRESIST NEWS Analyst Erin Mayer: Contact: erin@usresistnews.org

Photo by NeONBRAND

A U.S. RESIST NEWS SPECIAL REPORT; Trump’s League of Tyrants: A Guide to Authoritarian Leaders Around the World

A U.S. RESIST NEWS SPECIAL REPORT; Trump’s League of Tyrants: A Guide to Authoritarian Leaders Around the World

By USRN Analysts Erin Mayer and Colin Shanley

One of the most pervasive misreadings of the 2016 election is that Trump is simply an aberration who somehow slipped through the cracks of our otherwise stable institutions, and into a position of power. This view of Trump as a corrupting peculiarity rather than a direct creation of a society undergoing a series of compounded pressures is refuted by the emergence of a number of parallel figures around the world. A neoliberal project peddled as a global consensus beginning with the rise of Reagan and Thatcher has been ultimately realized in the form of backsliding democracy, refugee crises, ecological collapse, weakened labor power, and an ever-growing chasm of inequality.

Political parties, compromised by corporate hegemony, are often unable to identify the root causes of social issues and are left with forming a political culture of scapegoating and absurdity. With no strong alternatives calling for a just and equal society, many have become convinced of a more nihilistic solution. Reckoning from the start that there are simply not enough resources to go around, these political movements support leaders willing to bypass many social norms to rigidly enforce pre-existing social hierarchies. This often takes the form of extreme nationalism, the dismissal of the press or the concept of objective truths, the nostalgic celebration of traditionalist social relations at the expense of social justice, the subjugation of the poor, and the embrace of violence. Here we look at five of these figures: Jair Bolsonaro, Viktor Orban, Recep Erdogan, Rodrigo Duterte, and Andrzej Duda, as well as their relationships with Trump.

Jair Bolsonaro

Picture1 e1543278094661Jair Bolsonaro, the most recent reactionary authoritarian to rise out of divided social conditions, was elected on October 28th to be the new President of Brazil. The country – the fifth most populated in the world – has for decades struggled with a political culture ridden with corruption and a society divided between wealthier upper classes and the poorer residents of the favelas, which have become a hotbed of crime. Founding member of the center left-wing Workers Party Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, popularly known simply as Lula, served as President from 2003 to 2010, and enacted social programs to reduce hunger and increase education. Despite leaving office with a 90% approval rating, Lula was convicted just this year on a dubious corruption charge, preventing him from running again for the Presidency. This forced the Workers Party to run Fernando Haddad, an almost unknown candidate, against Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro is an outsider candidate, willing to be more direct in his attitude towards nationalism and violence than the evaporating traditional conservative movement. He was elected largely by the white, wealthy portions of the populace, who have a greater interest in preserving what remains of the social stratification built during the country’s colonization. While this story may sound familiar to American readers, what separates him from Trump is how radically further he is both willing and able to advance this far-right agenda. Brazil’s military dictatorship only ended in 1985, which Bolsonaro has spoken fondly of. A former army captain, Bolsonaro lamented only that the regime failed to kill enough people. He has amassed a record of incendiary remarks towards every oppressed group imaginable. His solution to poverty and crime is violent suppression of the favelas, accepting in advance the deaths of innocents. The preservation of the rainforest and the indigenous communities they contain are simply obstacles to Bolsonaro’s plan for economic growth. Echoing Chile’s Pinochet regime of the 70’s and 80’s, which he has also complimented, Bolsonaro hopes to unleash neoliberal reforms on the country, privatizing vast swaths of the public sector and allowing for a corporate takeover of major institutions.

President Trump took the opportunity to congratulate Bolsonaro on his victory. His National Security Advisor John Bolton called Bolsonaro “like-minded” during a speech announcing new sanctions on what he referred to as the “troika of tyranny”: Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. This suggests that Trump sees Bolsonaro as a strategic partner in the struggle between countries trying to reverse the consequences of imperialism and those trying to maintain it. While some of the international media has cautiously decried Bolsonaro, many have downplayed the danger he poses. Most major media companies are not comfortable openly supporting a candidate who can without hyperbole be called a fascist but his neoliberal market reforms are a strong enticement. The Wall Street Journal essentially endorsed him shortly before his election, and US investors have responded positively to his success.

Viktor Orban
Picture1 1Viktor Orban, leader of Hungary’s far-right Fidesz party, first reached national recognition in 1989 after delivering a speech commemorating the martyrs of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising, during which he called for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country. He first served as Prime Minister from 1998-2002 before being elected again in 2010 due to the collapse of the social democratic MSZP party. Taking his eat with a two-thirds parliamentary majority, Orban was able to alter the constitution to reduce the rights of same-sex unions, and heavily reduce the number of his part’s Parliamentary seats, widely considered an anti-democratic power grab. Orban went on to set a 16% flat tax rate and erected a wall on the Serbian and Croatian border to prevent immigration.

Orban, an advocate of what he calls an “illiberal democracy” has heavily utilized anti-Semitic rhetoric to galvanize his base, accusing Hungarian-born Jewish billionaire George Soros of financing his political opposition and hoping to destroy the country with a flood of Muslim immigrants. According to the Intercept, “the billionaire’s Open Society Foundations provide just $3.6 million a year to Hungarian rights groups and independent media. The prime minister’s office, by contrast, spent in excess of $50 million in public money last year on advertising that attacked the philanthropist”. He has praised Miklos Horthy, the World War II leader of Hungary, who introduced antisemitic laws and collaborated with the Nazi party. Orban spoke of last April’s election as a referendum on the racial identity of the country, stating “Either we will remain a Hungarian country, a country that we know and love and in which we feel at home; or others will come here, and a country with a mixed population will come into being — with different cultures, parallel societies, and all the related consequences that we can see in Western Europe.”

This rhetoric is in direct parallel with Trump’s in the United States. Trump has called Tuesday’s Midterm elections the “caravan election” and has questioned whether George Soros was funding the caravan, despite any evidence to support such claims. For this reason Orban has found an ally in Trump, a sharp turn from his frigid relationship with Obama. Orban is an asset for Trump. His anti-Immigration policies validate Trump’s, and by supporting a European nationalist Trump undermines the European Union, whom Trump has called a “foe”.

Recep Erdogan
Picture1 2Recep Erdogan was elected to the Presidency of Turkey in 2014, following a period as Prime Minister from 2003-2014 during which he oversaw negotiations for Turkey’s membership in the EU, and a growing economy thanks to liberal economic policy. While largely popular as Prime Minister, the final years of his term were spent suppressing dissent and enacting Islamist policies, which alienated the more secular, liberal elements of the country.

In July of 2016, the Turkish government was the subject of a failed military coup. Erdogan blamed Turkish preacher Muhammad Gulen, who is currently living in exile in Pennsylvania, for the coup. This was not completely out of the ordinary for Turkey, a country which has experienced military led coups in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997, generally in the interest of maintaining secular order. However, both German and British officials have stated that they have found no evidence to support Erdogan’s version of events, and he has certainly capitalized on the on his resurgence in support. Immediately following the coup, Erdogan initiated a purge of opposition journalists, academics, politicians, and military officers. The coup was used to justify a referendum in April of 2017 which handed Erdogan complete control of the budget, military, and judiciary, as well as allowing him to dissolve the parliament and retain his seat until 2029.

President Trump and President Erdogan have little in common ideologically. Trump has attempted to ban Muslims from entering America, while Erdogan is a believer in political Islam. Trump despises the EU, whereas Erdogan has long sought to enter Turkey into the organization’s roster. While Turkey has been an ally of the United States in the Syrian war, Erdogan himself has never been popular within the US. Nevertheless, Trump has gotten along far better with Erdogan than once might expect. Just hours before Erdogan set his bodyguards on Americans protesting Turkey’s treatment of the Kurdish people, Trump announced that it was “a great honor” to welcome Erdogan to the White House, and later called him a “friend”. Relations have gotten colder this past year, with Trump enacting tariffs in response to an American pastor detained in Turkey under allegations of involvement with the 2016 coup. The few factors that Trump and Erdogan seem to share – a willingness to override traditional process to correct perceived grievances – may be what ultimates prevents a strong US-Turkish alliance in the years to come.

Andrzej Duda
Picture1 3 e1543278036808Andrzej Duda of the conservative Eurosceptic Law and Justice Party, was born in 1972. Duda often refers to his years with the Boy Scouts with great satisfaction. It is important to keep in mind, that in Poland, the term “boy scout” is connected with a sense of upstanding patriotism as many scouts fought as children and, sadly, died during the Warsaw Uprising in 1944. Although completely unknown today, around the year 2000, Duda began working for the liberal Unia Wolnosci or the “Freedom Union”.

In the early 2000’s, a shift came and he began making a name for himself in conservative politics, going on to become a member of the national conservative Law and Justice Party (PiS). By 2005, he officially became legal specialist soon after a parliamentary election victory. Later, from 2008-2010, Duda worked as Presidential Chancellery under Lech Kaczynski. Following Kaczynski’s guidance, Duda would move quickly from government position to position with rapid success. In the election of 2015, he surprised the country when he won against incumbent Bronislaw Komorowski of the centrist Civic Platform. This would become the tightest presidential election in Poland’s history. Many would credit Duda’s success to the public frustration with the Civic Platform’s inability to address issues related to employment, wages and general economic growth.

This same level of discontent also helped Duda’s Eurosceptic Law and Justice party win parliamentary elections in the fall of 2017. Once again, the future president would be involved in a historic moment for his country, as this would become the first single-party victory in Poland’s history as a democracy. Duda’s work in parliament, from 2011-2014, gained public approval for his bipartisan approach, and helped later to have him elected to the European Parliament. In 2014, the twin brother of the former President Lech Kaczynski and party chairman, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, made an unexpected statement when he announced that Duda would be running as the presidential candidate for the PiS. Duda declared that by running for president he would be Lech Kaczynski’s “spiritual heir” and won the office in 2015.

During his first two years as President, Duda has been referred to, critically, as the “notary” for the Conservative Law and Justice party (PiS), because, with one exception. In 2017 that Duda would separate himself from Kaczyński’s views by vetoing two divisive laws that would have ended the independence of the Polish judiciary.  Previous to the veto, thousands of Polish citizens had protested the laws, taking to the streets in hopes to bend the President’s ear. Countless Poles and even Duda’s own colleagues were shocked by rejection and what many would call a betrayal of party.

In February of this year , Duda signed a law that would ban citizens from condemning Poland for participating in Holocaust horrors carried out by Nazi and condemning concentration camps as being referred to as “Polish death camps“. The president’s controversial decision led to tensions with the United States and Israel. Many disagreed with this stance as it seemed to threaten freedom of speech laws, but to many it suggested that Duda would not back down to the United States.

However, all ideas of such behavior would soon be shot down, during a press conference, in September.  The Polish President would play into Trump’s ego by offering to not only open a U.S. military base in Warsaw, but by also suggesting it be called, “Fort Trump”. President Donald Trump has advocated placing a base in Warsaw as long as Poland “is willing to make a very major contribution to the United States.” Duda, hopes the base will strengthen relations to the United States and help secure his country against a gradually more antagonistic Russia.

The Trump administration has not yet confirmed the building of a military base in Poland. Many are skeptical of the possibility of such a project and how it would sit with neighboring Russia; a country with a controversial relationship with President Trump but that has also historically criticized Poland for hosting thousands of US and NATO troops. A permanent base would cause friction with Russia, as this would put American troops extremely close to Russian borders. Retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, who led the US Army in Europe until this past December, speculated that opening a U.S. base in Poland may allow Russia the chance to claim NATO to be an antagonist and to take action in order to defend Russia’s sovereignty.

Rodrigo Duterte
Picture1 4 e1543278067844Rodrigo Duterte was elected president of the Philippines on platforms that were largely built on pledged executions of drug dealers and other criminals. The president whose nicknames include “Duterte Harry” and “The Punisher,” highlight the leader’s take on extremely violent punishments. Duterte has been rebuked by numerous human rights organizations for the killings of thousands of citizens in the name of his war on drugs and crime.

In many ways Duterte is a parochial politician. The president has been considered an outcast by the traditional Manila elite from early on, due to his violent history. Duterte was mayor of Davao City for seven terms and 22 years, where he ran the city as his own fiefdom. It was here he earned the nickname “the death squad mayor” reportedly due of the bands of assassins he sent to kill alleged drug dealers and addicts. Publicly, Duterte refuted any participation in the murders, but also celebrated their actions. He even went as far as to compare himself to Adolf Hitler in the killings of millions of drug addicts. In 2015 Duterte pledged to execute 100,000 criminals and leave their corpses in Manila Bay to fatten up the local fish. Duterte’s daughter, Sara Duterte, is the current mayor of Davao City.

After a long reign as Mayor of Davao City, Duterte launched his Presidential campaign. He repeatedly made off handed comments, often joking about human rights violations, including the mockery of a rape and murder of a female missionary during the 1989 prison riot. During an interview, he is recorded as saying, “they raped her, they lined up to her. I was angry she was raped, yes that was one thing. But she was so beautiful, I thought the mayor should have been first. What a waste.”

Even so, on May 30 of 2016, Rodrigo Duterte was elected president of the Philippines.  Directly following his Presidential inauguration, on June 30th of 2016, the new leader entered Tondo, reportedly the poorest section of Manila. As he spoke, he proudly gave the crowd permission to murder any drug addicts in the vicinity. The Filipino President’s savage takes on drugs has led to the murdering of thousands of the countries’ most impoverished people, sadly including numerous children. Duterte has publically referred to the innocent juveniles killed in the clash as ‘collateral damage’. The Children’s Legal Rights and Development Center claims, in first six months of Duterte’s war on drugs, an estimated 31 children were murdered, starting at age 4.

President Duterte has made his feelings of United States’ Presidents very clear.  In just his first months in office, Duterte made a number of alarming comments toward the US, a country deemed as a longstanding ally of the Philippines. Once calling Obama the “son of a whore”, Duterte threatened to “break up” with the United States and expanded on his sentiments by telling President Barack Obama to “go to hell.”

Duterte does not seem to have the same sentiment toward the current US President, Donald Trump. During a speech, in Israel, this past September, Duterte was quoted saying the United States and Philippine affiliation had flourished under his “good friend” in the Oval Office, who “speaks my language”, he went on to say. However, Trump and Duterte are widely regarded as two of most impetuous presidents today, often making accusations without concern for factual accuracy.

Shocking many, only days after referring to President Trump as a “friend”, President Duterte turned on him when asked about the 6.4 percent inflation in August, he accused Trump’s economic policies as culprit. Duterte was quoted, “Who started it? America. When America raised its rates, everyone raised theirs as well. That is how it is. There is nothing we can do…Because America…Trump wanted it.” Later Manila’s central bank disagreed with its president, stating rapid inflation is actually thanks to the Philippines’ leaders’ new taxes.

Nonetheless, many speculate the U.S. and the Philippines are peacefully working on their mildly strained relations as they set aside past grievances in the face of a mutual perceived threat, China. As Trump’s trade war with China seems to be growing, the US is reaffirming its prior foothold in Southeast Asia and is therefore seeking to reinstate associations with allies, such as the Philippines. However, this may be short lived as soon the Philippines will have its midterm elections, and thus far, the Senate race has been led by independents like Grace Poe, while the President’s allies have been notably coming up short in the polls. If Duterte is unseated it would leave Trump’s administration in a particularly unfortunate situation.

Photo by Jørgen Håland

The Industry of Voting: How the Practice of Stealth Politics Serves to Undermine American Democracy

The Industry of Voting: How the Practice of Stealth Politics Serves to Undermine American Democracy

Summary

The recent midterm elections have cast a new light on an area of politics that has become increasingly more concerning since Donald Trump first took office in 2017–that of money in politics.

One week before the midterm elections, it was estimated that the amount spent on them would exceed $5.2 billion. Of that large sum, it has been well documented that hundreds of millions of dollars were donated by powerful families with net worths in the billions such as Sheldon and Miram Adelson and Charles and David Koch, two last names synonymous with highly conservative political ideals. The Adelsons have been hailed as “biggest political donors of 2018” with their donations to GOP Super PACs totaling roughly $87 million. Adelson, it should be noted, has made no secret of his support for Donald Trump and has made ample use of his direct line to the Oval Office. In the months leading up to November, the strong network of advocacy groups with ties to the Koch brothers pledged to donate to up to $400 million to the campaigns and policy initiatives of conservative candidates. Adding to the mix of conservative billionaire mega-donors are Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, who made donations in the millions to multiple highly conservative Super PACs this election season, totaling roughly $39 million.

The Democratic party certainly has its share of mega-donors as well. Billionaire former hedge fund magnate Tom Steyer has been dubbed “the progressive answer to the Koch Brothers” for his work in democratic activism and fundraising. Steyer founded NextGen Climate Action, a Pac that supports candidates who prioritize combating climate change. During the midterms, he was reported to have donated roughly $50.7 million with over $40 million going to to it. Another business magnate who has made a name for himself as a democratic donor is Michael Bloomberg. The former New York City Mayor and CEO of Bloomberg L.P. also has his own Super PAC. Independence USA PAC focuses on supporting candidates who prioritize gun control laws as well as environmental and education policy. Bloomberg’s personal contributions to it exceeded $7 million while his donations to the Democratic Senate Majority PAC were reached $20 million during this cycle alone. Another democratic mega-donor was hedge fund manager Donald Sussman, whose firm, Paloma Partners, was the top donor to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential campaign with $21.6 million. Like Bloomberg, he made a considerable donation to the Senate Majority PAC this midterm cycle, as well as many other Democratic Super PACs, with overall donations exceeding $22 million.

Current White House insiders received large checks from powerful corporate donors as well. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan collected more than $2.8 million in donor funds from companies in the Oil & Gasoline sector while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell received close to $700,000 from the same corporations.

The rise of billionaires buying political influence through sizable campaign contributions can be traced back to the creation of the Super PAC or Independent Expenditures Only Committee (IEOC) itself. During the historic 2010 case of ​Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court ruled that corporations could be classified as people and could therefore not be legally prevented from contributing to political causes and campaigns. The majority vote held that it was not only free speech that was protected under the first amendment, but free speech as an act. The original logic was that if politicians did not have any direct contact with the Super PACS, the system would never be corrupted.

As we have seen in the years since, such logic has proven a fallacy. The current system is set up in a way that is all too easily for special interests to take advantage of, given the lack of transparency surrounding the donations made to these organizations. Thanks to Citizens United, there is a legal basis for it. Unlike regular PACs, Super PACs cannot donate directly to candidates or political parties but they can spend unlimited amounts of money on matters that are seen as not directly linked to candidates. This does not mean, however, that the funds cannot ultimately be used to help the candidate or cause that the donor is in favor of. There is also no limit to how much money an individual can donate to a Super PAC. Given all this, it is not hard to see how such a system could easily be corrupted by those looking to advance certain political agendas.

Analysis

The trend of wealthy individuals and corporations using donor checks to buy political influence was quick to catch on and has grown rapidly with each election since 2010. It has been dubbed “stealth politics” by the mainstream media, a term that refers to the practice of rarely making public statements on political matters but instead letting your donations speak for you when they sway politicians to either implement or block policies that could affect your business interests. When we take a look at the most prominent donors this election cycle, we are faced with a collection of billionaires, many of whom are known for promoting heavily conservative ideals and many of whom backed Donald Trump in 2016 and still support him to this day. Figures such as Sheldon Adelson and Charles and David Koch are exactly the types of business leaders who stood to benefit from Trump’s tax cuts and deregulatory policies. For people like Adelsons, maintaining the current political system heavily depended on the GOP staying in control of the House and Senate so their vested interest in helping conservative candidates through significant campaign donations is hardly surprising.

This growing trend of employing stealth politics as a technique to buy influence on Capitol Hill may not be surprising, but is concerning for anyone interested in preserving the values of American democracy. In this current system, we are seeing a clear disconnect between what is most beneficial for the people of each state and district and what is most beneficial for the politicians elected to represent them. The ability to buy political influence has spread to affect every area that concerns American citizens, spanning not just oil and gas and financial regulation but also healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The larger these Super PAC donations become, the more incentive politicians will have to pass laws that benefit their wealthy donors, often at the expensive of those not in the economic 1%.

It is not hard to see how a system of wealthy individuals being able to buy influence over the politicians who govern our nation undermines American democracy. The power they hold far exceeds that of those with a net worth not in the billions. Those without the ability to buy political influence do not have voices that politicians will reach politicians in the same way–consider Sheldon Adelson’s direct phone line to Donald Trump. It is a system that can truly be described as legalized bribery where many elected leaders appear less like politicians and more like puppets that exist to pass legislation that helps grow the net worth of their most generous donors. As such, the general public’s trust of their leaders has been eroding as the political influence bubble has continued to grow. How can those who cannot buy influence trust their leaders to do the job they were elected to do and fight for what is best for everyone when these politicians have strong financial incentives to ignore them and listen to their donors? The way it looks from here, there are no clear answers.

Another problematic element to the culture of steal politics is that it has created a higher barrier of entry for politics in general. Younger people who want to build careers in public service are finding it much more difficult to raise the funds necessary to run a successful campaign on the national scale. Even if they are able to build a successful grassroots campaign, they are often faced with competitors who are backed by powerful donors. Often, the only way to gain any traction on the campaign trail is to accept money from donors who only write checks to candidates who will end up beholden to them if they win.

Overall it is clear that stealth politics is truly a vicious circle of influence and there is nothing democratic about it. It is a practice that has been undermining the democratic principles on which American was founded, completely compromising the trust that citizens should feel for their elected leaders. No system with a small circle of winners whose victory comes at the expense of everyone else can be considered democratic.

Resistance Resources

  • End Citizens United is a political action committee dedicated to combating the effects of Citizens United and reforming campaign finance.
  • The Brennan Center for Justice is a non-partisan law and public policy institute that has provides extensive research on voting rights and elections.
  • The League of Women Voters is an American civil rights organization that works to “increase understanding of major public policy issues and influences public policy through education and advocacy.”
  • The Center for Public Integrity is an investigative journalism organization that seeks to “serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism.”

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sam O’Brient:  Contact: sam@climatescorecard.org

Photo by Element5 Digital

California Wildfires Keep Roaring

California Wildfires Keep Roaring

Policy Summary
A devastating fire has been roaring through California, and the death toll has reached at least 77 people, while 1,000 are still missing. wildfires, California, Camp Fire, climate change, Trump, PG&E The fire, called, the Camp Fire, is the deadliest fire in state history, and has burned hundreds of thousands of acres of land in Northern California. Simultaneously, in Southern California, the Woolsey Fire has already burned nearly a hundred thousand acres of land, and as of last week had burned 400 structures alone. President Trump criticized the Fire Management Department, citing them to blame for the wildfires both on Twitter and on Fox News. Public officials and civilians expressed upset over this.

Analysis
PG&E is currently suspected of foul play in the role of the wildfire, and a woman living in Pulga, California, the site where the fire began, says that the utility giant only got in touch with her the day before the fires started to rage. The Camp fire has not only impacted the community to the point of being unrecognizable, with an entire town of Paradise, California burned to the ground, but has also transformed California temporarily. As of now, California’s air quality has climbed to new heights as the worst in the world, with school cancelled all over the Bay Area due to unsafe air quality, and many being asked to stay home from work. The hazards facing health are manifold, and many suspect that the worst is yet to come for California’s wildfires.

Resistance Resources

This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org

Photo by Joanne Francis

Federal Oversight of Local Police Stifled by New DOJ Policy; Federal Agency Action

Federal Oversight of Local Police Stifled by New DOJ Policy; Federal Agency Action

Brief #70—Civil Rights

Summary
On November 7, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the memorandum “Principles and Procedures for Civil Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements with State and Local Government Entities” to the Department of Justice (DOJ). He issued the memorandum moments before he resigned as Attorney General. Consent decrees are often used by the department in order to force state and local entities to comply with constitutional and federal laws. The decrees are notable for being used mostly to counter police department misconduct and abuse at the state and local level. The memorandum issued by Mr. Sessions contains numerous policy goals but also imposed three requirements for the continued use of consent decrees. The decrees must now [1] be approved by higher level DOJ political appointees rather than the lawyer managing the case, [2] require additional evidence of misconduct beyond claims of unconstitutional behavior and [3] must have a defined expiration date. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
The memorandum issued by Mr. Sessions moments before he resigned is consistent with his approach towards federal oversight of state and local entities such as local police departments. Mr. Sessions has been a firm believer that state and local institutions should have more autonomy and not be hamstrung by demands and obligations made by a federal bureaucracy thousands of miles away. Mr. Sessions even remarked that the use of consent decrees to manage state and local law enforcement departments infringes on a state’s “sovereignty.” What is also notable is his prodding to have consent decrees include an expiration date which would mean a consent decree could end on a specified date without regard to if improvements are making progress or not.

But Mr. Sessions emphasis on upholding a state’s sovereignty misses the point. In this article examining the use of consent decrees in a number of cities from PoliceOne, a pro – law enforcement website, many of the cities that have entered into consent decrees with DOJ to improve their police departments have reported meaningful progress and improved police community relations. What is happening in cities like Ferguson, Seattle, Chicago, Cleveland and others are improvements that would not have been implemented had the federal government and DOJ not gotten involved. These agreements have helped to put into place trainings into how to properly approach the use of deadly force and how to handle motor vehicle stops in a less confrontational way. These cities have also been some of the first to use dashboard and body cams on officers to try and increase accountability for an officer’s actions. And in this report from the Washington Post, jurisdictions that have entered into consent decrees have seen a decline in civil rights lawsuits filed against local police departments. While not all consent decrees entered into can be viewed as successful, it is clear that having them does provide some benefits to communities and to the police departments themselves. Mr. Sessions own personal ideology and his desire in preserving a state’s “sovereignty” and the ability to make decisions on their own shouldn’t be the rationale to dispose of a tool that has brought improvement to communities that needed it and did not get from appealing only to their individual states. If states working together with the federal government help to bring about change then the use of consent decrees should continue under the new Attorney General. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.

Photo by unsplash-logoMatt Popovich

DACA: an update on our Dreamers

DACA: an update on our Dreamers

Brief #57—Immigration

Policy

In September 2018, the Trump Administration made known they would like to put an end to the DACA program. DACA (Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals) was an executive action under the Obama Administration that allowed undocumented immigrants who came to the US under the age of 16 to apply for protection from deportation. After background checks, they were issued renewable 2-year permits to work and study in the US; revocable if recipients commit crimes or fail to prove they are working/studying in the US. Earlier this month, Trump claimed that nearly 800,000 of these “dreamers” have taken advantage of DACA and if Congress does not take action, he will end the program in 6 months. According to the Department of Homeland Security, 690,000 immigrants are enrolled in DACA and could face deportation if and when their work permits expire. Almost as high as Trump’s claims, a cool 787,580 people had been granted DACA status between August 2012 to March 2017, but 39,514 of those “nearly 800,000” had become legal permanent residents and 1,056 became US citizens. Only 2,139 individuals have had their DACA status revoked, which has led many to still believe in the program.

There is a chance that Trump could be found guilty of violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause by his abrupt attempt to rescind the program, based on its unequal yet substantial impact on Latinos. In the meantime, the Federal Courts have ruled that the administration must resume receiving DACA renewal applications, but only from those who have previously received DACA protections; no new ones. All existing permits are to be honored of their individual 2 year expiration dates, despite the March 5 end date recently established by the Trump Administration.

Analysis

Like many of Trump’s anti-immigration arguments, opposers of DACA believe that such a program only encourages illegal immigration. Migrants who come to the US seeking better economic opportunities, a stronger education, etc., rather than wealthy individuals coming to work in the US or even fleeing a threatening regime are labeled as burdens of society and are met at the border with hostility. Which makes for a very transactional view on immigration; those who appear to contribute greatly to society (economically, mostly) are more valued and welcomed.

With this mindset, the American Dream, is easily swept under the rug and our Dreamers are valued based on their potential future contributions. Many of whom came to the US so young they do not have memories of a different home, and just like those born here, they dream too.

Resistance Resources

  • The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
  • The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
  • FWD.us: an organization that aims to promote the tech community to support policies that keep the American Dream alive. They specifically and currently focus on immigration reform.

This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.

Photo by rob walsh

Trump Wants to Call the Shots on Asylum Seekers

Trump Wants to Call the Shots on Asylum Seekers

Brief #58—Immigration

Policy Summary
In addition to the Trump Administration’s announcement of rolling back DACA (see Brief #57), they have recently announced new rules that give President Trump vast authority to deny asylum to virtually any migrant who crosses illegally. Trump specifically intends to deny asylum to the 7,000-10,000 migrants from Central America as they begin arriving in clusters from the Migrant Caravan (see Brief #56). If migrants do not enter through a designated port of entry, they will be “apprehended, detained and deported” unless they can prove they will be tortured if they are sent home. To some of the American public who have been following Trump’s far-fetched plans for reform, this might sound like similar rhetoric used to support the travel ban early in Trump’s presidency.

Though Trump wants to firmly establish a norm that individuals who cross the border illegally will be stripped of their eligibility to receive asylum in the US, many oppose and are challenging the Administrations most recent order. The ACLU has sued to block the new restrictions, calling the case “the asylum ban.” Other NGOs have resorted to referring to international law and the early origins of America as a nation that lends a hand to refugees and asylum seekers. Trump’s new order would violate international law, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and a founding principle of federal asylum in which any individual can apply for asylum regardless of where or how they entered the country and that each case is judged individually.

Analysis
The Trump Administration’s new order to revoke the rights of migrants the opportunity to seek asylum is yet another action taken with the goal of eliminating and strengthening the existing ‘weak’ immigration laws, as he has constantly reiterated throughout his campaign and presidency. This new order only further proves his commitment to propelling an anti-immigrant and anti-refugee daily agenda. Throughout the recent midterm elections, Trump has focused on the migrant caravan and posing them as a threat to the American public, continuously calling them an “invasion” and “dangerous.” By focusing on something as trivial as port of entry – in the larger picture of seeking refuge – he poses migrants as the law breakers, and those who do not follow the rules and turn themselves in at the border – a designated point of entry – and that they deserve to be stripped of their right to seek asylum. Referring to Trump’s track record of his treatment of migrants at the border, the point of entry does not seem to be the real issue but rather the concept of migration as a whole.

Resistance Resources

    • The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
    • The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
    • FWD.us: an organization that aims to promote the tech community to support policies that keep the American Dream alive. They specifically and currently focus on immigration reform.

Photo by rawpixel

Pipelines

Pipelines

Brief #47—Environment

Summary
The oil and gas industry is starting to face some blowback at the legal level. A Federal Circuit Judge in Montana recently rejected the Trump administration’s demand to build a Keystone XL pipeline, marking a new wave of environmentally charged legal decision-making. And in Pennsylvania, locals are resisting the construction of an approved pipeline, believed to cost tax-payers a fortune for virtually no benefit. These actions, however, come amidst other chaos throughout the country. In New Mexico, unaddressed oil and gas violations on public lands have become widespread, as the Bureau of Land Management has been encouraging fossil fuel production at a rapid rate. And fracking on public lands is ramping up under the Trump Administration. More still, unmanaged gas leaks have taken the lives of hundreds in recent years, prompting uproar from people but silence from local governments and industry.    

Analysis
Demands for greater opposition to environmental hazard are starting to come on The Hill. New Representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat, joined in with 200 youth climate protestors in an effort to encourage a Green New Deal, which would encourage renewable industry. Elsewhere, the EPA has decided to consider new rules that would limit emissions on heavy-duty trucks, a progressive measure out of the Obama era. Meanwhile, renewable energy is making huge leaps globally, but significant policy change is necessary in order for the industry’s potential to materialize, giving rise to the Green New Deal. The fight however, might be just what is needed, as a new field of psychology has emerged to help those dealing with the embittered struggle against climate change—it’s called ecopsychology.

Resistance Resources

 This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker. Contact: zoe@usresistnews.org

THE DEMOCRATIC CIVILITY OFFENSIVE

THE DEMOCRATIC CIVILITY OFFENSIVE

Ron Wolf:

The victorious Democrats flooded the zone on the Sunday morning political talk shows. Likely Speaker Nancy Pelosi and ranking members of key house committees who are in line to become the chairmen hit the airwaves to explain their priorities. The guests included Rep. Adam Schiff of the Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler of the Judiciary Committee and Elijah Cummings of the Government Oversight Committee.

Apart from any specific actions they said they would pursue, the overall message they presented was a dramatic change in the tone of our politics. Throughout the midterm campaign, Democratic candidates and the party leadership showed great discipline in avoiding name-calling, insults, demonization, accusations and calamitous predictions invoked by their opponents. They generally refused to play the game by Trumpian rules.

The incoming Democratic House leadership displayed that same discipline Sunday morning. They were calm, assured and firm. There was no post-election gloating — no spiking of the ball or dancing in the end zone.

The overall impression is that the strategy for the Democrats now will be a civility and decency offensive. They appear eager to present a sharp contrast to their GOP counterparts by avoiding all the fake macho posturing and bluster and wild accusations we’ve seen from the GOP throughout the campaign.

Ron Wolf is a retired daily newspaper journalist based in California who continues to write about politics and the media. He can be reached at ronwolf@outlook.com

Photo by History in HD

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest