Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
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

 

Jobs01 e1489352304814
Book Review: Traffic: Genius, Rivalry and Delusion in the Billion-Dollar Race to Go Viral, Ben Smith, Penguin Press, N.Y., 2023.

Book Review: Traffic: Genius, Rivalry and Delusion in the Billion-Dollar Race to Go Viral, Ben Smith, Penguin Press, N.Y., 2023.

Book Review: Traffic: Genius, Rivalry and Delusion in the Billion-Dollar Race to Go Viral, Ben Smith, Penguin Press, N.Y., 2023.

Technology Policy Brief #92 | By: Mindy Spatt | July 11, 2023
Photo taken from: theintercept.com

__________________________________

A history of the early 2000’s Internet media wars by a former Editor of Buzzfeed News.  Ben Smith describes how the founders of upstart news sites like Gawker and the Huffington Post started off racing to post breaking, under-reported news and ended up in a race for online traffic.  And how Breitbart News and Steve Bannon were ultimately the ones who won that race. 

Review

If you’re a news freak like I am, you might enjoy this romp through some of the tawdriest news stories of the first 20 years of this century, including Anthony Weiner’s penis pics and Trumps’ pee tape.  Ben Smith is the ideal person to guide us, since as he experienced the boom and the bust from two perspectives, working at Buzzfeed News in its heyday and joining the NY Times as media correspondent after that.   

The story goes something like this:  privileged young white guys want to shake up the media landscape via the Internet, but get caught up in an urgent competition for traffic on the information superhighway.  Smith attempts to put a human face on the story by centering it around himself, Jonah Peretti of Buzzfeed and Nick Denton of Gawker as they move through a series of offices in the hippest parts of Brooklyn and lower Manhattan and lunch with potential financiers at Balthazar.  As characters Peretti and Denton aren’t particularly likeable or interesting, and there’s no surprise in their pursuit of engagement becoming the pursuit of profit. 

Peretti was an editor at Huffington Post, working alongside Andrew Breitbart, an even less likeable character who Stein repeatedly describes as “pudgy“, “overweight” and a “flea bag.” But there’s no surprise as Breitbart ended up heading a right-wing media empire either; he knew Ariana Huffington from her days as a republican spokeswoman and had worked for the Drudge Report, whose right-wing views Huffington launched her site to counteract.  Since neither reader nor author like him, the lengthy descriptions of Brietbart’s  “humiliations” at the hands of Matt Drudge, and how they might have made him feel, add nothing to the book. 

The subtitle notwithstanding, I wasn’t particularly impressed with the genius of the three either, as they watch traffic carefully in order to devise new ways to attract it.  For example, he describes the exhilarating moment when Buzzfeed editors realized how they could monetize 10 best lists or quizzes, i.e., “What’s your love style,” the type of content that, as Stein notes, was already a mainstay of women’s magazines.  After posting a quiz entitled “What State Do You belong in” that readers had strong reactions to on Facebook, “…we gathered astounded as [T]raffic …built to around 200,000 people…about twice as many as most days.”  Now Buzzfeed knew how to use Facebook to its own advantage. 

Gawker, with its often-salacious coverage of media celebrities, comes off as little more than tabloid journalism for the Internet age.   According to Stein “Nick had always produced traffic flow by giving people the things they wouldn’t admit they wanted, and by publishing the things that nobody else would.  The purest form of this was the sex tape….”  It’s ironic that one of Denton’s earliest successes was outing financier Peter Thiel as gay, since Denton is gay himself.  Theil returned the favor years later by backing Hulk Hogan’s sex tape lawsuit that forced Gawker into bankruptcy.

“While Stein speaks admiringly of a few women who rose to the top of this field, he doesn’t ponder whether the sites might have had more staying power or more substance had they included more content by and about people of color or women, or had more diverse leadership and staffing.  However, he does note the great success of Gawker’s sister site for women, Jezebel, which “had a community, a real one.” 

In the final chapters of Stein’s book we see Steve Bannon succeed Andrew Brietbart after his death and, with Bannon’s help, candidate Donald Trump decisively wins the traffic wars.  “He’s made for Facebook” Stein says.  And anyone can get in on the act.  Stein describes how “a handful of teenagers in Veles, Macedonia,” hoping to make a few bucks, created anti-Hillary websites with articles like “Your Prayers Have Been Answered” (Hillary will be indicted) that drove Americans to their sites.  Genius?  

Stein doesn’t have much to say about why things worked out so badly, or how lies and misinformation became so easy to spread, nor does he appear to question the capitalist underpinnings of the traffic race.  His conclusion focuses on a few individuals who went over to the dark side rather than any broader societal implications or doubts about his own role. 

Democrats’ Attempts to Rearrange the Primary Calendar Have Put Biden in a Bind

Democrats’ Attempts to Rearrange the Primary Calendar Have Put Biden in a Bind

Democrats’ Attempts to Rearrange the Primary Calendar Have Put Biden in a Bind

Elections & Politics Policy Brief #84 | By: Ian Milden | July 7, 2023
Photo taken from: newrepublic.com

__________________________________

Summary

With Joe Biden’s support, the DNC worked to rearrange the early parts of the primary calendar. However, states where Republicans play a role in scheduling primaries have not cooperated. This brief will explain the dilemma that Democrats put themselves in, with a focus on the first in the nation primary.

Analysis

Earlier this year, the DNC and President Biden proposed a plan to alter the presidential primary calendar for the 2024 nomination. The proposal, which was approved by the DNC, would remove Iowa from the early state lineup, move South Carolina to the first spot, have New Hampshire and Nevada go the week after that, and have Georgia and Michigan be the last two states to go before Super Tuesday. I’ve previously written about this plan with a focus on the effects of removing Iowa from the early part of the calendar.

The implementation of this became problematic because the states have the formal power to set their own primary dates since they pay for and administer the election. South Carolina is an exception because the state parties have some flexibility in setting the date. The DNC only has the power to set rules for delegate selection, which have specifications on what days states can hold their primaries. Some of these states have Republican Governors and state legislatures that are controlled by Republicans. The most notable of these states in the early primary slate is New Hampshire where the Governor is a Republican, and Republicans control a majority in both houses of the state legislature. Neither is likely to take orders from Biden or the DNC on how their state should conduct its primary.

If the lack of power in the New Hampshire state government wasn’t a big enough challenge to change the date of the primary, there is a New Hampshire state law in effect that requires the state to have the first Presidential primary in the nation. The law also gives the state Secretary of State, which is the state’s top election official, broad power to move the New Hampshire Primary’s date to keep the state in compliance with the law. New Hampshire state government officials have made quite clear to the DNC that they will not change the law. 

The DNC has responded by repeatedly postponing the requirements for New Hampshire to change the law, which pushes the problem to a later date. The latest date is September 1st, which won’t result in any changes on New Hampshire’s part. The Republicans in the state government don’t stand to benefit in any manner if they comply with the DNC’s requests.

If New Hampshire remains the first primary, Biden will have broken a promise to South Carolina Democrats. This would be particularly harmful to Biden since South Carolina Democrats helped him get the nomination in 2020. South Carolina’s main Democratic constituency is black voters, whom Democrats need to turn out to vote in large numbers in the general election. If Biden appears insensitive to black voters in South Carolina, black voters in other states will notice and might be less likely to vote.

If Biden sticks with his plan and elects to ignore the New Hampshire primary, he risks allowing a fringe candidate such as anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Marianne Williamson to gain a foothold in the primary and appear credible. The Biden campaign and the DNC do not want to waste financial resources fending off a primary challenger to an incumbent President, especially one who has suggested without evidence that the CIA could assassinate him.

There’s not a particularly good solution available to Biden and the DNC in resolving the primary calendar dilemma. At this point, Biden and the DNC should quietly begin to accept that New Hampshire is going to go first and plan around that. While they don’t control New Hampshire politics, they can control the strategic decisions they make. Their strategy for the primary campaign should revolve around figuring out how to prevent any primary opponent from gaining a significant following in New Hampshire while appeasing black voters in South Carolina by being visibly present in the state.

Supreme Court Rejects Independent State Legislature Doctrine in Moore v. Harper

Supreme Court Rejects Independent State Legislature Doctrine in Moore v. Harper

Supreme Court Rejects Independent State Legislature Doctrine in Moore v. Harper

Civil Rights Policy Brief #206 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | July 7, 2023
Photo taken from: npr.org

__________________________________

Summary

On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court handed down the decision in the Moore v. Harper case. At issue in the case is a redistricting map from North Carolina that was being challenged as an impermissible partisan gerrymander. But the heart of the case is a challenge to the Elections Clause found in Article I, § 4, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution which requires the legislature of each state to prescribe the “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner of” federal elections.

After the 2020 decennial census, the North Carolina General Assembly proceeded to redraw its state congressional district map. The map was passed in November 2021 but immediately came under scrutiny by several voting groups and individual voters and a lawsuit was subsequently filed. The lawsuit alleged that the maps were drawn to favor and give an advantage to Republican candidates in the state while excluding Democratic candidates from being competitive in a number of districts. The trial court agreed but said that no relief could be had. An appeal was taken to the North Carolina Supreme Court. That Court reversed the trial court and declared that the maps drawn were impermissible partisan gerrymanders and that North Carolina state courts could issue relief to the plaintiffs. The Court then ordered a redrawing of the congressional district map. However, the legislative defendants again made a second appeal of the trial court’s remedial order ruling to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Court then overruled it’s decision in the first appeal and held that partisan gerrymander cases could not be reviewed by North Carolina state courts and again ordered the North Carolina General Assembly to again redraw the state’s congressional district map. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court to determine the question if state legislatures have the sole power to determine redistricting issues free from restrictions and limitations from state law and other branches of state government, e.g. review by a state court or veto from the Governor.

The Supreme Court eventually decided by a 6 – 3 vote that the Elections Clause does not give state legislatures the sole power to act under that clause and that the power wielded by state legislatures is subject to state constitutional limitations such as review by a state court and a veto by the Governor. LEARN MORE

Analysis

The Moore v. Harper case was an eagerly anticipated Supreme Court case because of the fringe legal doctrine at issue, the independent state legislature doctrine (ISLD), and the possibility that an adverse decision would plant the seeds for a chaotic 2024 election season.

In 2000, the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore. But in Chief Justice William Rhenquist’s concurring opinion he mentioned in passing that the Elections Clause granted to state legislatures authority over elections that could not be diminished or altered by state judges. It was easily overlooked but soon gained traction in Republican circles who interpreted the Elections Clause to mean that state legislatures had exclusive and near – absolute authority to regulate federal elections in their state. State legislatures would have a free hand and did not have to abide by any restrictions or limitations in regulating federal elections. Their actions would not be reviewable by a state court and a veto by the state’s Governor would be unenforceable.

Under this interpretation, there could be several different scenarios where the doctrine could be used to try and undermine a U.S. election. It was this theory that President Donald Trump and his allies relied on to try and overturn the results of the election in a number of states. Additionally, some state legislatures have tried to ban their extreme drawing of gerrymandered state district maps from review by state courts because they claimed that only the state legislature could decide what a state congressional map looked like. And the theory could also be used to rationalize the elimination of state independent redistricting commissions in a number of states as well as permit a state legislature from refusing to certify a properly conducted election based on flimsy legal arguments and other unwarranted excuses.

But the Supreme Court, surprisingly, rejected the theory outright. While some thought that the conservative majority on the Court would adopt the theory, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Barrett joined the three Liberal justices in rejecting the independent state legislature doctrine. They also brought numerous historical examples and Court precedents to show that that doctrine has never been accepted. Chief Justice Roberts cites historical evidence that the word “legislature” during the era of the Founding Fathers was not meant to refer to the legislative body only as we know it today but instead meant all of the branches of government together. This implies that sole power over elections was not meant to be held by the state legislature alone. And, his opinion cites cases that have rejected the legal theory. He cites Ohio v. ex. rel Davis v. Hildebrandt and Smiley v. Horn where a state legislature’s power under the Elections Clause was subject to a state referendum in the former case and where a Governor’s veto of a redistricting plan was proper in the latter case. What the historical evidence and the Court’s precedents demonstrate is that the independent state legislature doctrine has always been a failed legal doctrine, which the Court strongly emphasized. The conduct of free and fair elections in the U.S. can be subject to review or veto from the other branches of government.

An interesting side note is that the case may have been used Chief Justice Roberts to try and boost the current standing and reputation of the Supreme Court, which has flagged recently. Some believe that the conservative majority on the Court is merely rubber – stamping conservative policies instead of being unbiased when cases come before the Court. However, when it comes to the legitimacy of the Court, Chief Justice Roberts has been known to switch sides in order to save the Court from accusations of partisanship. In 2012, the Chief Justice famously sided with the liberals on the Court to save Obamacare and demonstrate that the Court can side with liberal policies even if they personally did not support it. The Chief Justice may have just done the same thing in this case to try and persuade a skeptical public that there is no partisan bias at the Supreme Court.

In the aftermath of what President Trump tried to do in attempting to steal the 2020 election and of what other Republican candidates and operatives have been trying to do to manipulate state legislatures to ignore the will of the people, this decision is the best decision at the most opportune time. The decision takes steps to ensure that elections will have the safeguards of their state constitutions and other branches of government while rejecting the independent state legislature doctrine once and for all. 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 rodwood@email.com.

The Path to U.S. Immigration Reform: Addressing the Challenges and Opportunities in a Globalized World

The Path to U.S. Immigration Reform: Addressing the Challenges and Opportunities in a Globalized World

The Path to U.S. Immigration Reform: Addressing the Challenges and Opportunities in a Globalized World

Social Justice Policy Brief #147 | By: Inijah Quadri | July 5, 2023
Photo taken from: lwvgr.org

__________________________________

Summary

Immigration, a cornerstone of the United States’ history and growth, also has consistently been a contentious topic in U.S. policy discourse. Immigration public policy has been influenced by socio-economic, political, and humanitarian considerations. According to data from the Pew Research Center, more than 44 million immigrants live in the U.S., making up 13.7% of the nation’s population. The complexities of immigration are escalating in an era of globalization, technological advancement, and increased international mobility.

The current U.S. immigration system is widely criticized as being outdated and ineffective, often failing to address economic needs, family reunification, refugee and asylum considerations, and the status of undocumented immigrants already in the country. Comprehensive immigration reform, therefore, is essential for a system that is just, humane, and suits America’s needs in the 21st century.

Analysis

Approaches to immigration reform in the United States have been multifaceted, ranging from attempts to overhaul the entire immigration system to more targeted policies addressing specific issues. These include the DREAM Act, which provides a way to achieve legal status for individuals brought to the U.S. as children, and the RAISE Act, which aims to transition the U.S. to a merit-based immigration system. 

The DREAM Act, offering a potential pathway to legal status for individuals brought to the U.S. as children, has been introduced in Congress multiple times. However,  it has yet to become law. Similarly, the RAISE Act, which aims to transition the U.S. to a merit-based immigration system, prioritizing immigrants based on skills, education, and proficiency in English, has also not been passed as of now.

Proposed immigration reforms have sparked considerable debate. Critics (e.g. political conservatives, anti-immigration groups, and some segments of the general public concerned with national security and resource allocation) argue that lenient immigration policies may lead to a surge in illegal immigration, risk national security, and strain public resources. Proponents (e.g. human rights organizations, immigrant advocacy groups, and businesses seeking skilled labor), on the other hand, point to the potential economic growth stimulated by skilled immigrants, the moral imperative to aid refugees and asylum-seekers, and the need to resolve the status of millions of undocumented immigrants currently residing in the U.S.

Some significant cases that shed light on the complexity of immigration reform include:

a. DACA and DREAM Act: The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was established by President Obama in 2012 to protect from deportation certain immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. The Dream Act is legislation that seeks to make the DACA Program law. The Act directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cancel removal and grant lawful permanent resident status on a conditional basis to certain non-U.S. nationals who initially entered the United States as minors (younger than 18 years of age). The DREAM Act, offering a more permanent solution, has been introduced in Congress multiple times but has never become law.

b. Trump Administration’s “Zero Tolerance” policy: Under this policy, adults who entered the U.S. from the southern border were prosecuted for illegal entry. Children can’t be imprisoned with parents and other family members, so young kids were taken into federal custody — resulting in more than 3,000 children being separated from their families. This policy provoked a national and international outcry about the treatment of migrants, and was rescinded by the Biden administration in early 2021.

c. The Biden Administration’s immigration bill: The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 is a sweeping immigration bill proposed by President Biden. The proposal included a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, expanded refugee admissions, and increased funding for border technology. However, its passage remains uncertain.

Addressing the issue of immigration reform requires careful balancing of various interests. It necessitates cross-party cooperation, comprehensive legislation, effective enforcement, and consideration for humanitarian concerns. A modern and efficient immigration system that is flexible to changing dynamics can contribute significantly to the country’s economic growth, diversity, and global standing.

Engagement Resources

  • American Immigration Council (https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/): A nonprofit organization advocating for the value of immigrants and immigration to the nation.
  • National Immigration Forum (https://immigrationforum.org/): An advocacy organization promoting the value of immigrants and immigration, with a focus on policy analysis and communication.
  • Immigrant Legal Resource Center (https://www.ilrc.org/): The ILRC is a national nonprofit resource center providing legal training, educational materials, and advocacy to advance immigrant rights.
  • Migration Policy Institute (https://www.migrationpolicy.org/): MPI is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank dedicated to the analysis of the movement of people worldwide.
  • National Immigration Law Center (https://www.nilc.org/): NILC is one of the leading organizations in the U.S. exclusively dedicated to defending and advancing the rights of low-income immigrants.
  • American Civil Liberties Union (https://www.aclu.org/): ACLU works in the courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the U.S. guarantee everyone in this country, including immigrants.
Medicare for All: Assessing the Potential for Universal Healthcare in the United States

Medicare for All: Assessing the Potential for Universal Healthcare in the United States

Medicare for All: Assessing the Potential for Universal Healthcare in the United States

Health & Gender Policy Brief #80 | By: Inijah Quadri | July 5, 2023
Photo taken from: businessinsider.com

__________________________________

Summary

The healthcare system in the United States has long been a topic of debate. Despite significant advances in medicine and technology, access to high-quality healthcare remains out of reach for many Americans, largely due to affordability issues. The current system relies heavily on private insurance, often provided through employers, creating disparities in access and coverage.

A proposed solution gaining traction is “Medicare for All“, a single-payer healthcare plan aimed at providing comprehensive healthcare coverage to every American, irrespective of employment status or income. This approach is based on the belief that healthcare is a fundamental right, not a privilege tied to economic status. While proponents argue that it would ensure universal coverage and potentially reduce total healthcare costs, critics express concerns over issues such as funding, potential impacts on healthcare quality, and the role of the private sector. 

In my opinion, I share the belief with many others that healthcare is a right for all people. This belief stems from the understanding that the availability and quality of healthcare can significantly impact one’s quality of life, longevity, and overall well-being. Therefore, it is a critical resource that should be accessible to all, not only those who can afford it.

According to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll, quite a number of Americans support the idea of a national health plan or Medicare for All, indicating growing public interest in exploring more equitable healthcare solutions.

Analysis

The implementation of Medicare for All would constitute a significant shift in the US healthcare landscape, transitioning from a multi-payer to a single-payer system. It would eliminate the need for private health insurance, as the federal government would be the sole payer for all medical services.

Typically, the divide between proponents and critics of Medicare for All seems to align somewhat along political and wealth lines, although there are exceptions. Generally, more progressive and left-leaning individuals and those with fewer economic resources tend to support the idea. Conversely, conservatives and those with more substantial economic resources, including many in the healthcare industry, often express reservations.

Proponents argue that the adoption of Medicare for All could lead to a more equitable system with improved health outcomes. They cite examples of other developed nations that have successfully implemented universal healthcare systems, leading to better health outcomes at lower per-capita costs.

Critics, however, raise concerns about the financial feasibility of such a plan, citing the potential for increased tax burdens and concerns about government control over healthcare decisions. They also highlight potential impacts on innovation and quality of care, as well as the significant disruption to the current healthcare industry that a shift to Medicare for All could entail.

Key examples of healthcare systems that could inform the Medicare for All debate include:

a. Canada’s Single-Payer System: Canada’s healthcare system is publicly funded and mostly free at the point of use, offering a potential model for a U.S. Medicare for All system. However, critics note that Canadians often face long wait times for certain procedures and treatments.

b. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare): The ACA expanded access to health insurance for millions of Americans and implemented important consumer protections. However, it did not achieve universal coverage, and affordability remains an issue for many.

Given the compelling need to address healthcare disparities and access in the U.S., I am persuaded that a strategic shift toward a Medicare for All system is a course of action that warrants earnest exploration. Yes, such a transition would be monumental and not without challenges – increased tax burdens and the disruption of the current healthcare industry, to name a few. Yet, the potential to extend comprehensive healthcare to every American – regardless of employment status or income – cannot be overlooked or undervalued.

However, moving forward does not mean moving hastily. Thoughtful, meticulous planning and implementation will be essential to mitigate any adverse effects of such a substantial systemic change.

While the task of healthcare reform is complex and intimidating, it is more a time for decisive action than for continued debate. Policymakers, healthcare professionals, and the public need to rally together and push for a transformative resolution. The ultimate goal must remain clear – an equitable, accessible healthcare system for all Americans.

Engagement Resources

  • Physicians for a National Health Program (http://www.pnhp.org/): PNHP is a non-profit research and education organization of physicians advocating for single-payer national health insurance.
  • Healthcare-NOW (https://www.healthcare-now.org/): Healthcare-NOW is an organization working to help achieve a national single-payer healthcare system because access to healthcare is basic to human dignity.
  • The Commonwealth Fund (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/): The Commonwealth Fund promotes a high-performing healthcare system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency.
  • National Nurses United (https://www.nationalnursesunited.org/): National Nurses United is a large union and professional association of registered nurses in the US. They support Medicare for All.
  • Kaiser Family Foundation (https://www.kff.org/): KFF provides information on health issues, including the analysis of the U.S. healthcare system, Medicare, and health policy proposals.
Saudi Arabia’s Buys Into Sports as an Image Builder

Saudi Arabia’s Buys Into Sports as an Image Builder

Saudi Arabia’s Buys Into Sports as an Image Builder

Foreign Policy Brief #83 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | July 3, 2023
Photo taken from: newarab.com

__________________________________

Saudi Arabia is undergoing a massive public relations revolution that is heavily focused on the investment, and promotion of, global sports. The arrival of global football phenom, Cristiano Ronaldo (arguably one of the most famous athletes ever) made a historic move to Saudi Pro League team Al-Nassr earlier this year. Saudi Arabia, as reported previously, has had their hands involved heavily in creating a second professional golf tour to rival the PGA tour. The details are not entirely clear yet, however, the two golf leagues have prepared to merge into one. 

Saudi Arabia is attempting to invest in areas that will allow them to maintain their financial status in the world, after the planet has moved away from fossil fuels and oil. This is bankrolled by the Saudi’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) which has done a remarkably good job laying out all of their investment plans and ideas, even outside of the sports world. But the question remains, is Saudi Arabia doing this to perhaps try to mask or wash away a fraction of the horrific human rights abuses that they are guilty of, or is this an attempt to genuinely move the world in a better direction free of oil?

Analysis

The PGA Tour is one of the most iconic sports leagues in the world. LIV Golf has changed the way professional golf works – it has added a more dynamic way of play, involving teams and ways to expedite the time it takes to play a golf tournament. They have expanded the number of golfers who win money at tournaments; and they have been criticized by some for the amount of money that they are willing to pay the golfers in the league as well as the economic perks given to these athletes. Oh, and not to mention that LIV streamed all of their tournaments on YouTube, for free – which seems insane in the world of digital streaming. Needless to say, PGA and LIV have not been getting along very well in the last few years due to these massive differences. 

However, the PGA Tour and LIV Golf have decided to merge together, along with the European DP World Tour, to create a new entity. It remains to be solidified entirely and brought into fruition. At least, according to a report by CNBC, the PIF/LIV Golf will be a minority stakeholder in this new arrangement; but they still plan to invest millions of dollars into the venture. This new merger will eliminate the need for any and all pending lawsuits between the two major golf leagues; it will also alleviate any punishments given to individual golfers by the PGA for switching to compete with the LIV Golf tour.

The US Senate, on July 11th, is planning on having a hearing where the parties involved in this deal will testify; as the Justice Department is looking into antitrust allegations connected to the three leagues joining forces. There are questions about whether the PGA players who did not join the LIV tour will be compensated, and the merger has yet to be approved by the PGA’s player board of directors.

Saudi Arabia’s millions of dollars of investment into sports, especially football (or soccer for some readers), is starting to bear fruit – the Saudi PIF owns English Premier League club Newcastle United, which has just qualified for the UEFA Champions League for next season; domestically, the PIF owns severally teams in Saudi Arabia – most notably, Al-Nassr; the team that signed Cristiano Ronaldo. Several other major stars of world football have signed with Saudi Arabian teams such as Karim Benzema (current winner of the Ballon D’or) from Real Madrid in Spain’s La Liga, Ruben Neves from Wolves in the English Premier League, N’Golo Kante from England’s Chelsea FC, Edouard Mendy also from Chelsea FC, and many more will sign over the summer as well. 

The important question to be asking, as global citizens, is does Saudi Arabia seriously believe that this attempt at ‘sports-washing’ will make people forget about their human rights abuses? The murder of journalist Jamal Khassogi? Their brutal war in Yemen? Or their treatment of women as 2nd class citizens?

Engagement Resources

The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #24

The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #24

The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update # 24

Foreign Policy Brief #82 | By: Ibrahim Castro | June 30, 2023
Photo taken from: pbs.org

__________________________________

Wagner’s Mutiny

On June 24, 2023 the Wagner group led by hot dog sales-man turned warlord Yevgeny Prigozhin, led an armed revolt against the Russian military. The world watched in shock as an armed rebellion made its way from Ukraine towards Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin called the action treasonous and vowed punishment for those responsible. The Wagner group is a large, 25,000 member strong, mercenary group created by Prigozhin. It was first identified in 2014, when it started backing pro-Russian separatist forces in eastern Ukraine. Wagner forces have since been operating in multiple African and the Middle Eastern countries as a proxy for the Russian military. Although mercenary forces are illegal in Russia, Wagner officially registered as a company in 2022. Most recently the group was heavily involved in the capture of the city of Bakhmut, in eastern Ukraine. 

Wagner’s leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has been at odds with Russian military leadership for some time now, threatening to pull Wagner troops out of Ukraine if the military did not take actions suggested by him. Prigozhin has repeatedly accused defense minister Sergei Shoigu and the head of armed forces in Ukraine, Valery Gerasimov, of incompetence. On 23 June, Prigozhin accused top Russian defense officials of bombing Wagner troops in Ukraine. A day later, his troops seized control of the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don and began their march towards Moscow. The stated aim of their mutiny was removal of the military leadership and not a coup. However, the convoy stopped the advance after negotiations with the Kremlin were mediated by Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko. Ptigozhin agreed to go into exile in Belarus, along with Wagner troops which remain loyal to him. 

It’s unclear what Putin’s next steps will be. The Russian leader is not one known to allow criticism or disloyalty in his ranks, much less an armed mutiny against his own military. Russia’s global image and Putin’s grip on power have certainly dwindled with this most recent event. It is also not certain what Prigozhin will do in the future, as so often throughout history, powerful opposition leaders to authoritarian leaders who are exiled abroad and told to stay out of politics rarely remain so.

Nuclear Weapons in Belarus

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko recently announced that his country has started taking delivery of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. The small Eastern European state of Belarus has had no nuclear weapons on its territory since the early 1990s. Shortly after gaining its independence following the fall of the Soviet Union, it agreed to transfer all weapons of mass destruction to Russia. President Vladimir Putin announced in March that he had agreed to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, pointing to the US deployment of similar weapons in a host of European countries over many decades. On Friday Putin said that Russia, “will retain control of the tactical nuclear weapons,and would start deploying them in Belarus after special storage facilities to house them were made ready”. 

Ukraine Counter Offensive 

Earlier this month, President Zelensky confirmed Ukraine’s long-awaited counter-offensive to recapture areas occupied by Russia had begun. Last week, he acknowledged that the battlefield progress has been slower than desired. Ukrainian forces have, however, reportedly made gains in the previously Russian occupied southern Kherson region, crossing the Dnipro river and establishing a foothold there. With the Kremlin occupied with the fallout of last week’s mutiny, it may be difficult for them to fight both internal and external battles, and provide a window for Ukraine to retake its territory from the invading army.

“March for Justice” in Russia Broke Illusion of Putin’s Power

“March for Justice” in Russia Broke Illusion of Putin’s Power

“March for Justice” in Russia Broke Illusion of Putin’s Power

Foreign Policy Brief #81 | By: Yelena Korshunov | June 30, 2023
Photo taken from: rferl.org

__________________________________

The “March for Justice”, announced by the head of Wagner mercenary forces, Yevgeny Prigozhin, on the evening of June 23rd, ended as suddenly as it began. On the morning of June 24th, mercenaries captured the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don, with a population of over one-million, located not far from the Ukrainian border. While some residents of the city gathered in the center to take pictures with soldiers in uniform and military equipment, others asked them to leave. From Rostov, the Wagner mercenaries headed to Moscow – through the Voronezh and Lipetsk Russian regions. During the “march” of the Wagnerites, an oil depot caught fire near the city of Voronezh, and the huge flame was ultimately extinguished after 12 hours. The cause of the fire is still uncertain, although it was reported that a military helicopter flew over the depot shortly before.

Then, what was the purpose of the sudden rebellion? (Perhaps not so unexpected for the US officials, which, according to mass media sources, were warned by the intelligence about the impending uprising.) There is a lot of perplexity around it. “What the heck just happened in Russia?” states a caption in the Morning Brew news review. Prigozhin said that one of the reasons for the armed rebellion are the numerous defeats of the Russian army in Ukraine, including the battles for the Zaporozhye region.

 Since the beginning of the Ukrainian counteroffensive a few weeks ago , Ukrainian troops have advanced about three kilometers. However, the situation for the Russian military forces was not yet critical since their defense was strongly strengthened in this particular area in tense anticipation of the counteroffensive

Prigozhin demanded that Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff and First Deputy Minister of Defence Valery Gerasimov be turned over to mercenaries. Soon after, a criminal case under the Russian  Article on Armed Rebellion was opened against Prigozhin. However, when Wagner mercenaries were 200 kilometers from Moscow, Prigozhin reported that they were “going in the opposite direction to the field camps according to the plan [because] now has come the moment when blood can be spilled.” This was not only vague, but also a false and meaningless statement: at least 13 (up to 18, according to various sources) Russian pilots had already been killed by mercenaries during the day of the mutiny. In fact, Prigozhin made that statement after the press service of Belarus president Alexander Lukashenko announced the end of the negotiations with him, which were held in agreement with Russia’s president Vladimir Putin. The press secretary of the Russian president, Dmitry Peskov, said that the criminal case against Prigozhin would be dropped and he would “leave” to Belarus (for a foggy purpose). The mercenaries who participated in the rebellion would not be prosecuted. Moreover, they will be able to sign military contracts with the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. 

The day before, Prigozhin accused the leadership of Russia’s Ministry of Defense of shelling the mercenaries. He declared that the Wagner mercenaries dealt with the “brutes” who “destroy Russian soldiers.” In a response to the rebellion and Prigozhin’s speech, Putin appeared on TV accusing Prigozhin (though without mentioning his last name) of “betrayal” and “stabbing in the back”. Prigozhin replied that “the president made a deep mistake”. He said that “no one is going to repent at the request of the president, the FSB, or anyone else.” By that time, the Wagnerites already controlled Rostov-on-Don and during the next hours unimpededly advanced towards Moscow.

Policy analysis

So far, what are the outcomes of the “March for Justice ”, initiated by the criminal from Putin’s close circle nicknamed “Putin’s chef”, and that arose and burst as fast as a soap bubble within 36 hours? Prigozhin’s rebellion lasted less than a day, but this story won’t pass without consequences for the system of power diligently built up by Russia’s leader. From this point, it will be much more difficult for Putin to assemble and hold his vertical of power since the Russian elite’s demands to reorganize the system will only increase. For Putin what is truly important is his ability to reliably hold the levers of control in his hands. The de facto amnesty for Prigozhin that has been announced right after Putin labeled him a “traitor” indicates that there are serious doubts about the president’s aptitude of holding these levers.

The rebellion demonstrated the vulnerability of Putin’s system of power at its very core. Prigozhin’s acts clearly proved that in Russia it is possible to easily capture a metropolis without a single shot, and then move towards Moscow without meeting any serious resistance. This means that Russian military authorities thrown into the war with Ukraine may not be willing to risk their lives for the sake of commands from Moscow. A draw, which ended the confrontation, does not change the whole picture that demonstrated to the entire world Putin’s inability to keep under control even his most trusted and formerly devoted courtiers.

The Republican Presidential Candidates Positions on Education and Immigration

The Republican Presidential Candidates Positions on Education and Immigration

The Republican Presidential Candidates’ Positions on Education and Immigration

Elections & Politics Policy Brief #83 | By: Abigail Hunt | June 27, 2023
Photo taken from: wired.com

__________________________________

Summary

The ever-expanding field of 2024 Presidential candidates for the GOP nomination includes several current or former politicians, including governors from Arkansas, South Carolina, Florida, New Jersey, and North Dakota, an ex-President, an ex-Vice President, an entrepreneur of biotech and health care, a Midwestern businessperson, and a conservative radio host. As per usual, the candidate options tend to be older, white, and male, but there is some diversity with two African American and two Indian American candidates, one of whom is the only female so far in the running. With the number already in the double digits so early in the race, it looks to increase further before the nominee is found.  

Overloading the candidate pool may very well help cement another Trump-Biden head-to-head, only the future will tell. In the interim, it is necessary to know where each potential nominee stands on pressing issues of education and immigration. 

The following, which is gleaned from various press reports and candidate and government websites, is not a comprehensive breakdown of each candidate’s views but a taste of their policy. On educational policies, some candidates have supported an influx of monies to boost their state’s educational outcomes, and most candidates support funneling federal and state funds to private schools as well as public, based on the parent’s choice, laying the framework for state-funded religious schooling. Each candidate has something to say about immigration, but not one of them has a comprehensive and logical plan for how to address the problem in practice, other than to advocate for illegal immigrants to work their way toward earning citizenship in a society with little to no social support structures and few legal protections for most people and even less for undocumented workers. 

Education

In response to South Carolina’s abysmal education, Haley, as Governor, faced criticism for proposing a three-pronged $97 million educational funding plan which included more than $50 million on reading coaches and classroom technology. 

Burgum was a mover behind 2021 legislation for North Dakota education, providing $88 million in funding into career academies across the state allowing high school students to earn educational credit through vocational work, such as apprenticeships or internships, through club participation, or through other extracurriculars. 

Scott supported the CHOICE Act (Creating Hope and Opportunity for Individuals and Communities), which ensures or expands educational access for millions of students with disabilities, or from military or low-income families in the Washington D.C. area. 

DeSantis banned the teaching of critical race theory in Florida schools, stating that students should not feel guilt while learning history. He eliminated Common Core requirements and replaced it with benchmarks for “excellent student thinking” focusing on civics and history which, of course, was heavily edited. 

Hutchinson as governor signed a law increasing teachers’ salaries by thousands of dollars a year and proposed increasing state education funding by $550 million. 

Ramaswamy advocates for shutting down the Department of Education as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigations, stating that the Department of Education uses federal funding to blackmail local schools into pushing a certain political agenda, aka “wokeism.”

Elder, a public personality, opposes sex education in schools, does not believe in critical race theory, and thinks federal and state monies should fund children’s educations as private, charter, or public schools, depending on where the parents choose to enroll their students. 

During his time as Governor, Christie backed the proposal of a charter school with upgraded facilities to improve performance in an under-funded school district. While well-intentioned, the state’s attempt to repair the issue was too simplistic to address the complex set of underlying issues found in an impoverished community. A decade later, test scores have improved but the district faces issues with insufficient funding, decrepit buildings, and inefficient management.

Pence, while Indiana governor, increased the number of students receiving taxpayer dollars to pay for private school from 4,000 to more than 30,000. Despite facing opposition from others in his party, Pence created a pre-K program for Indiana, the first of its kind there, as Indiana had no state-funded pre-K program prior to 2014. 

Johnson wants to increase accessibility for children with disabilities, expand support for parents to access charter schools, and close public schools which consistently record inferior performance, which sounds a lot like cutting off educational access to any kids who live near those underperforming schools. 

Like the rest of the GOP candidates, Trump wants to expand school choice options and access to private schools. He promotes “patriotic education” curriculum, whatever that is, and advocates teaching “American exceptionalism” in schools, without any elaboration on what it means, why it is important, or how it will benefit students.

Immigration

Haley has plans for a national E-Verify program to verify a person’s immigration status, the same program she made mandatory for South Carolina employers, and wants to cut off access for illegal immigrants – at the border by reinstating the “Remain in Mexico” policy and by removing their access to entitlement programs. Like other candidates, she plans to defund sanctuary cities. Haley also told her state’s law enforcement officers to request, “Papers, please,” from anyone they suspect could be illegal. 

In April 2023, Burgum signed legislation enacting the Office of Legal Immigration in North Dakota’s Department of Commerce. The office was created to assist in the recruitment and retention of foreign labor and will include programs to support businesses and communities which pursue, employ, and integrate legal immigrants. 

In South Carolina, Tim Scott says part of the solution to the “crisis in the workforce” is going to a “merit-based immigration system.” While a merit-based immigration system could be imagined in such a way as to allow indentured servitude, Scott claims that after addressing another “crisis” at the southern border, we can solve the problem with his proposed system which will be “a marvel of the world.” We can only hope he is right. 

DeSantis made headlines transporting migrants from the South to sanctuary cities and has stated previously that he would support closing the 1,954-mile U.S.-Mexico border entirely, claiming we will finish the wall started decades ago. DeSantis signed a bill invalidating migrants’ ID cards and strengthening E-verify requirements. To assist with the overwhelm at the border, DeSantis sent troops from Florida to assist in Texas, as did Burgum from North Dakota and Hutchinson from Arkansas. 

Trump has a long history of referring to illegal immigrants coming across our southern border as criminals and rapists, as well as encouraging his supporters to chant, “Build the wall! Build the wall!” During Trump’s administration, 458 miles of the border wall were constructed, much of it in areas where pre-existing walls or barriers already existed.

Hutchinson splits from his counterparts in his view of refugees, stressing the importance of welcoming them to the country because they “love freedom and love America.” He advocates for U.S. involvement in international discussions. Like his compatriots, Hutchinson has no good plan of action to deal with the influx of refugees at the southern border. 

Ramaswamy states he understands the desperation of immigrants seeking refuge and new life in the U.S. – as the child of immigrants, it is true that, at the least, he has a clear understanding of his parents’ immigrant experience. Despite his insight, Ramaswamy has no innovative ideas to address immigration, advocating for a merit-based system. 

Elder supports eliminating birthright citizenship for children of immigrants, which would invalidate at least two of his competitors for the nomination, denying illegal immigrants access to education and hospital care, and requiring police to contact federal authorities when they encounter an undocumented individual.

Pence, like so many of the other candidates, invalidates sanctuary city designations, keeps Title 42 in place, reinstates the “Remain in Mexico” policy, and finishes the border wall. Pence also wants to deport any illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.

Christie believes immigrants should have a path to citizenship and suggests imposing fines on employers caught employing illegal workers. In 2015, Christie suggested a tracking program for immigrants who have overstayed their visas, but the suggestion was not well-received. 

Perry Johnson’s plan to deal with the immigration crisis is so undefined that a Google search returned this message: We did not find any results for “Perry Johnson” + “immigration plan.”

Google Profits from Barriers to Abortion Access

Google Profits from Barriers to Abortion Access

Google Profits from Barriers to Abortion Access

Technology Policy Brief #91 | By: Mindy Spatt | June 27, 2023
Photo taken from: wired.com

__________________________________

Summary

A Google search for abortion services will often serve up just the opposite- ‘Pregnancy Crisis Centers’ and other fake clinics dedicated to preventing abortions rather than providing them.  It isn’t a new problem, but the complaints about the misinformation that appears in searches became more urgent after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that enabled many states to outlaw or severely restrict the availability of abortions, forcing many women to search further afield.  In response to advocates’ demands, Google promised to remedy the problems, but two recent reports say not only that it continues, but also that low income women are especially impacted, and that Google is profiting handsomely from the fake ads. 

Policy Analysis

As far back as 2015, a study by Prochoice America concluded that “Crisis Pregnancy Centers”  (CPCs) were deliberately trying to “lure” women to their websites with deceptive advertising tactics, bidding on keywords such as abortion and then aggressively using them in keyword based online ads.  The ruse worked well, and cost was apparently no object.  Prochoice America found that just two CPCs were spending $18,000 a month on pay per click advertising, purchasing over 100 keywords that also included “morning after pill” and “women’s health clinics.” 

Fast forward to June 2023, and a report from Center for Countering Digital Hate which found that CPC’s are the “cornerstone of the anti-choice movement” and are spending four times as much on deceptive search ads on Google then they do on their out-and-out anti-choice campaigns.  

The amount the CPCs pay Google for the ads is staggering, over $10 million in the last two years alone.  The misinformation spread for that price included deceitful ads linking abortions and cancer and other serious diseases.  And Google has been slow to follow through on one relatively easy fix.  Although the company had previously committed to requiring disclaimers on CPC websites to clearly inform visitors that their clinics do not provide abortions, the Center’s report noted 38% of CPC sites still have no such disclaimer. 

What’s worse, the false advertising is especially impacting low income women.  The Tech Transparency Project (TTP) reached this conclusion in February 2023 by creating a new Google account for testers in Phoenix, Atlanta, and Miami, all for women born in 1992.  Then, within each account’s advertisement personalization settings, the testers selected either high, middle or low for their household income.  When the testers searched for abortion services, a higher percentage of the lower income testers drew search ads from CPCs than those who had listed themselves as high income.

TTP noted that “by serving a higher rate of crisis pregnancy center ads to lower-income women, Google is helping these centers reach their intended audience. Abortion rights groups and academic studies have noted that crisis pregnancy centers typically target women of lower socioeconomic classes…”

Profiting from false advertising isn’t the only way Google is standing in the way of access.  After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and some states moved to criminalize abortion, the protection of users’ healthcare information and searches related to it became far more urgent.  Google had been under fire in the past for collecting and retaining sensitive healthcare data, and advocates demanded that data that law enforcement could use in prosecutions be routinely deleted.  Google promised to do so, but here too, advocates from Accountable Tech found that Google failed to live up to its promises.  (See Brief #153 – Health & Gender )

Now a group of democratic US Senators including Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar are pressing those demands.  The Senators recently sent a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, citing Accountable Tech’s investigation and an expose by the Washington Post, and strongly urging that healthcare related location data be deleted within 24 hours. 

 

Engagement Resources 

 

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