JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Medium is the Manipulation, Part 1: Misusing Campaign Ads to Fight Legal Battles
Brief #94 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Steve Piazza
What do Alvin Bragg, Jack Smith, Letitia James, and Fani Willis all have in common?
Situation Update: The Ukraine Crisis
Brief #90 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Ibrahim Castro
Drone attacks on Russian territory have become an almost daily occurrence…
Is Trump Barred From The 2024 Ballot By The Constitution’s Disqualification Clause?
Policy Brief #211 – Civil Rights
by Rodney A. Maggay
Could Donald Trump be barred based on the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment “Disqualification Clause?”
Medicare Negotiations on Drugs Save Money and Lives
Policy Brief #163 – Health and Gender
by Geoffrey Small
The Inflation Reduction Act, which was enacted last year, gives Medicare the authority to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies….
Google Cloud’s AI Conference Draws Protestors
Brief #97 – Technology Policy Brief
by Mindy Spatt
The emergent capabilities of AI systems have blurred the boundaries between machine autonomy and human control…
Examining Competitive US House Races in California
Brief #93 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
The small size of the Republican majority leaves Democrats with a path to re-take the House majority.
Donald Trump and Accountability
Brief #92 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Abigail Hunt
Donald Trump is currently the leading candidate for the Republican party Presidential nomination – this man who openly bragged, on tape, about sexually assaulting strangers…
The Increased Clout of Youth Climate Activists: The Case of Montana
Brief #159 – Environmental Policy Brief
by Inijah Quadri
In a world demanding urgent action on climate change, youth activists are going beyond marching…Are we on the cusp of a new era of environmental litigation?
Is Donald Trump a Mob Boss? How Georgia is Using an Organized Crime Law to Prosecute Him
Brief #91 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
President Trump has been indicted once again for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election: this time in Georgia, which means…
Indicted Again: Breaking Down the Classified Documents Case Against Donald Trump
Indicted Again: Breaking Down the Classified Documents Case Against Donald Trump
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #82 | By: Arvind Salem | June 26, 2023
Photo taken from: politico.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary
On June 8, 2023, Donald Trump became the first president in history to face federal criminal charges. The 37 federal felony charges stem from his alleged mishandling of classified documents from his presidency and obstruction of justice when he was investigated.
The indictment claims that boxes of classified information were stored in Mar-a-Lago, with a picture in the indictment showing boxes stacked in rows on the ballroom’s stage. The indictment also argues that Trump knew this information was classified but disregarded this fact, as shown by a July 2021 meeting in Bedminster, in which he showed off what he knew to be classified military information.
Prosecutors allege that on an audio recording, Trump said that he knew the information was classified and he was showing it to people who didn’t have appropriate clearance and that he could’ve declassified the information as President but didn’t. This occurred as the National Archives made repeated demands for Trump’s presidential records, after realizing that many documents from Trump’s presidency were missing. The National Archives started these requests in May 2021 and informed Trump that they would refer the matter to the Justice Department in June 2021. In January 2022, Trump turned over 15 boxes to the National Archives found to contain 197 documents with classified markings. The National Archives expected to find presidential records, but did not expect to find classified documents and thus referred the matter to the Justice Department in February 2022. The Justice Department opened an investigation roughly a month later. The Justice Department seeked access to the documents that Trump provided theNational Archives, but Trump’s lawyers repeatedly ask for extensions.
Two months later, on May 11, 2022, a grand jury issued a subpoena for all classified materials in Trump’s possession. Before his legal team could search Mar-a-Lago to find classified materials in compliance with the subpoena, Trump had his assistant, Walt Nauta, move 64 boxes away from the storage room, eventually moving 30 of them back to the storage room, resulting in the lawyers being unable to access 34 boxes and unwittingly lying to the Justice Department when they certified that they had conducted a search and delivered all classified materials. This is also a reason why Nauta was named a co-conspirator in the indictment for many of the charges. Nauta repeatedly told the FBI he had no knowledge of the location of the boxes, which prosecutors allege was untrue as they believe he moved the boxes himself. The Justice Department, suspecting that there were additional classified materials being stored at Mar-a-Lago, successfully obtained a warrant and seized 102 classified documents.
The Justice Department brought 37 felony charges against Trump: charges 1-31 stem from his alleged storing of 31 classified documents at Mar-a Lago, charge 32 is conspiracy to obstruct justice by allegedly attempting to keep the classified documents out of the grand jury, charge 33 is withholding a document or record by allegedly moving the boxes of classified documents so the attorneys could not present them to a grand jury, charge 34 is corruptly concealing a document or record pertaining to the alleged attempts to hide the boxes of documents from the attorney, charge 35 is concealing a document in a federal investigation pertaining to allegedly hiding the documents and causing a false certificate to be submitted to the FBI, charge 36 is a scheme to conceal by allegedly hiding continued possessions of the documents from the FBI and grand jury, charge 37 is false statements and representations stemming from statements that Trump allegedly made which caused his lawyers to make false statements to the FBI. Charges 32-36 name Nauta as a co-conspirator and he is separately charged in another count accusing him of lying to the FBI in a voluntary interview.
Policy Analysis
Trump has fairly limited options for his defense in this case, especially in relation to the cases he’s fought before. His three main options appear to be he declassified the documents before leaving office, he is a victim of selective prosecution, or at least some form of prosecutorial misconduct, and he could fight key evidence that comes from his lawyers on the grounds of attorney-client privilege.
As the investigation has proceeded, Trump, his lawyers, and his aides have all argued that the documents he keeps are his personal records that he has a right to under the Presidential Records Act. The Presidential Records Act, enacted in 1978, four years after President Nixon’s resignation, established that presidential records are government property and do not belong to the president. According to Jason R. Baron, former director of litigation at the National Archives, “Presidential records are records in the White House relating to the constitutional, statutory or other official or ceremonial duties of the president” and personal records, such as diary entries, that are not used for official government business are excluded from the definition of presidential records. Trump was also responsible under the act for separating his personal records from presidential records and handing his presidential records over to the National Archives.
However, this argument has been widely debunked and recognized as an extremely tenuous legal argument. The problem is that many of Trump’s documents were given to him by agencies and other government institutions and are property of the federal government under the Presidential Records Act and are not Donald Trump’s personal records. Many people, including former Attorney General Bill Barr have completely dismissed this argument. Moreover, the prosecution is not charging him for violating the Presidential Records Act, since the Act includes no enforcement mechanism, and is instead being charged under the Espionage Act for illegally retaining national defense information. A related argument is that Trump said he had unlimited power to declassify the documents as President and that he did so. However, Trump admitted on a recording that at least some of the documents he showed to people were classified and that he didn’t declassify them as president.
Another one of Trump’s options would be claiming that he is a victim of selective prosecution since he was charged for the mishandling of classified documents, but other officials such as Hillary Clinton and Mike Pence were not charged for a similar offense. However, those cases have significant differences to this case. Both Clinton and Pence largely cooperated with the government, whereas Trump made significant attempts to obstruct the investigation. For Clinton, she mostly cooperated by turning over 30,000 work-related emails to the FBI and instructed an employee to delete any emails older than 60 days from her personal account. Later, an employee of the company that managed Clinton’s servers realized that the emails hadn’t been deleted and proceeded to delete them using a software program called Bleachbit the same month as the House was investigating Clinton for using her personal email for work-related matters. In further investigations, the FBI found no evidence that the emails were deleted in an effort to conceal them.
For Pence, he had much less classified material at his house (around a dozen documents were found at his home) and the FBI consensually searched his home and found one more. Pence also cooperated fully with the authorities, whereas President Trump stored hundreds of documents containing extremely sensitive information about the country’s military plans and nuclear arsenal and did not cooperate with the authorities to return them.
Trump is also likely to attempt to throw out evidence provided by his lawyer M. Evan Corcoran to the prosecution by arguing attorney-client privilege. The evidence, specifically notes of their meetings that Mr. Corcoran recorded on his iPhone, is some of the prosecution’s strongest evidence and it shows Trump attempting to avoid complying with the subpoena. However, the prosecution argued that the evidence could be used, by using an exception to attorney-client privilege known as the crime-fraud exception. The crime-fraud exception can be invoked when there is reason to believe that legal services have been used to further a crime, which prosecutors will argue occurred when Trump misled Corcoran about complying with the subpoena.
However, a potential bright spot for Trump could be the assignment of one of his appointed judges, Judge Aileen M. Cannon, to the case. Judge Cannon has a history of issuing abnormally favorable decisions to President Trump, so favorable that one was unanimously reversed by the conservative Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Judge Cannon set the trial date for August 14th, but it is extremely unlikely to start by then. Trump’s team is likely to have a bevy of pretrial motions, such as selective prosecution and motioning to throw out evidence from Corcoran as mentioned earlier, which will take time to argue and rule on. Additionally, Prosecutor Jack Smith requested to delay the trial by around 4 months: from August 14th to December 11th, arguing that both sides need more time to prepare and the defense does not object to moving the trial date. However, Judge Cannon is clearly trying to ensure a speedy trial by setting a deadline for July 24th for filing pre-trial motions, although she has not yet ruled on the motion to delay the trial. Additionally, since this case deals with classified information, Trump’s lawyers need to obtain appropriate security clearances to handle that information. They started that process quite recently, around a week before at the time of writing, but the process can take months, adding another reason why both sides argue that the trial should be delayed.
Prosecutor Jack Smith has also recently turned over his first batch of evidence to the Trump legal team to review, including evidence from the subpoena and search warrants, transcripts of grand jury testimony, witness interviews, and excerpts of closed-circuit television footage.
Engagement Resources
Winred allows people to donate money to Republican candidates to support their campaign. Readers interested in supporting President Trump or other members of the Republican party may find that this is a useful way to convey their support and help the Republican cause.
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School is an organization that promotes reforms to American democracy and argues against many practices today such as gerrymandering and mass incarceration. Readers who are concerned about the health and protection of our democracy in light of this indictment may wish to support the Brennan Center and help it advance its proposed reforms.
The Conservative Political Action Coalition
The Conservative Political Action Coalition (CPAC) is a conservative advocacy organization that seeks to promote conservatism, which it defines as popular sovereignty, and enact conservative policies. Readers against this indictment or wishing to help promote conservative values and policies may wish to give to this organization or get involved in their work.
ActBlue allows people to donate to a host of Democratic organizations, candidates, and causes. Readers are likely to find organizations that are supporting the Trump indictment on this site and may wish to donate money to further that cause.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Foreign Policy Brief #80 | By: Ibrahim Sultan | June 21, 2023
Photo taken from: ndtv.com
__________________________________
US – China talks
Late last week US Secretary of State Antony Blinken began a visit to China in an effort by both Beijing and Washington to normalize relations after a particularly tense year. Blinken was originally scheduled to visit China in February, but his trip was canceled after the US shot down what was determined by officials to be a “Chinese spy balloon” over US territory and domestic military sites. This visit marks the first time since 2018 that a senior US official makes a visit to China. The main focus of Bliken’s trip has been re-establishing communication and attempting to ensure the differences between the two countries does not devolve into armed conflict. After a meeting with Chinese President Xi on Monday, Blinken said that the US had achieved its limited objectives and was satisfied with the progress made. Additionally, president Xi was reported to have said he was pleased with the outcome of Blinken meeting with himself and with top Chinese diplomats. Thus the diplomatic visit, though short, ended in a positive light between the two world powers, a good first step in today’s increasingly polarized and militarized international area.
Boat carrying migrants sinks off the coast of Greece and UN report on displacement
At least 79 people have died with many more missing after a fishing boat carrying refugees and migrants sank off the southern coast of Greece last week. Rescuers saved 104 passengers made up of citizens of multiple countries, including Egyptians, Syrians, Pakistanis, Afghans and Palestinians. The boat which was bound for Italy is believed to have sailed from eastern Libya before capsizing off the coast of Greece. Last year, nearly 3,800 people died on migration routes from the Middle East and North Africa attempting to reach Europe, the highest number recorded there since 2017. The number of displaced people around the globe has reached a record high of 110 million according to a new report released by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Wars, climate change, collapsing and deteriorating conditions in multiple countries all contribute to the growing global number of refugees. Of the total refugees in need of international protection, about half of them came from just three countries, Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan.
Civil war in Sudan
Last week the intense war waged between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) hit the two month mark. The fighting between the army and the RSF has forced more than 2.2 million people to flee from their homes and caused an acute humanitarian crisis. The conflict has concerned many international players, including Russia, the United States and regional powers, all of whom are vying for influence in Sudan. Saudi Arabia and the US brokered pre-negotiation talks in the Saudi city of Jeddah between the warring sides, urging the combatants to agree to a lasting ceasefire. In a slow start to negotiations the two sides agreed to the start of a 72-hour ceasefire beginning on Sunday.
The Country’s Debt Ceiling is Some Students’ Floor
The Country’s Debt Ceiling is Some Students’ Floor
Education Policy Brief #81 | By: Steve Piazza | June 21, 2023
Photo taken from: businessinsider.com
__________________________________
On his first day in office, President Biden extended a “pause” on student college loan repayments as part of Covid relief efforts which had started in March, 2020 under Section 3513 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Since the January, 2021 Executive Order, the pause has been extended eight times.
Meanwhile, two lawsuits as to the constitutionality of an Executive Order on student loan forgiveness that President Biden announced on August 24, 2022 have now made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is planning on issuing a ruling soon. Regardless of how the USSC rules in the cases (Biden v. Nebraska and U.S. Department of Education v. Brown), the Biden administration has stated that the end of the pause is near, seeing its termination to come some time in August.
Leaving nothing to chance, Senator Ted Budd of North Carolina, added an amendment, S.Amdt.127 to the recent debt ceiling bill, formally known as H.R.3746 or the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. The amendment purported to prohibit any further pauses in payment, but in the end it was never brought to a vote.
The FRA was passed on June 6, 2023, and the debt crisis was avoided, but the fact that loan forgiveness language somehow still found itself included in a debt ceiling bill shows how far reaching the divisiveness of the loan forgiveness debate can go.
Analysis
According to various estimates, over 38 million people owe more than $1.78 trillion on loans taken for college. The Biden administration’s forgiveness program calls for waiving up to $10,000 for individuals making $125,000 a year or less, and up to $20,000 for those who had received Pell grants. Eliminating debt for qualified borrowers could cost the government $400 billion dollars according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), while the Education Department puts that figure more at $305 billion.
President Biden’s announcement to forgive all or portions of qualified students’ loans came as a relief to some and an outrage to others. Republicans immediately sought to block the program and took the administration to court.
This has left many borrowers confused and uncertain as to where they stand.
The pause in payments may have prolonged the need for clarity, but once the pause is lifted, the smoothness of the repayment process is anybody’s guess.
Regardless of when the pause is removed, it still raises the question about how the pause found its way into the FRA at all. Perhaps it’s not surprising when we consider that the bill also includes other contentious items, among them a reduction in the amount allotted to the IRS for its tax revenue recovery effort, an increase in work age requirements for those receiving assistance for food and other necessities, and the retrieval of unspent covid relief funds. All these give cause for Republicans to claim victory.
One reason items like this end up in debt legislative discussions is clearly reflected in a press release by Senator Ted Budd (R-NC): “Throughout this process, I have said that we should only raise the debt ceiling if we fix Washington’s spending addiction. Unfortunately, this bill fails to do that.”
In other words, any spending item can become a target. The problem here is that Senator Budd is conflating defaulting on what is owed with what is needed in the future.
It should be noted that a request for a clarification received no response from Senator Budd’s office. Nonetheless, that argument is nothing new and surfaces every time a debt ceiling deadline looms.
This of course has been written off as the nature of negotiations. As the President said, “No one got everything they wanted but the American people got what they needed.” There’s truth to this point as the bill has left a good part of the Inflation Reduction Act unscathed.
But, a soundbyte such as this seems like it’s referring to federal debt crisis circumvention, when in reality the bill also includes other items that have been causing a divide between the two parties, and the country. For example, in addition to those stated above, Joe Manchin finally secured the removal of regulations holding up completion of the West Virginia Mountain Valley Pipeline.
In the flurry of desperation amidst sounds of impending doom in the media, it’s easy to get the sense that the American public are all in that without a debt ceiling agreement, the economy would be seriously in danger.
What isn’t so apparent is that it seems that anything on either side’s agenda, no matter how incongruous, becomes appropriate to place on the table and just get it done because it’s what’s best for the country.
Many people who owe large sums of money for their education, may feel differently.
Engagement Resources
- The Student Debt Crisis Center (SDCC) advocates for the end to the college tuition debt crisis. For more information on their efforts, click here.
- The Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) has dedicated itself to protect borrowers’ rights amidst a predatory lending environment.
The Spread of Political Misinformation and How to Stop It
The Spread of Political Misinformation and How to Stop It
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #81 | By: Rudolph Lurz | June 21, 2023
Photo taken from: hewlett.org
__________________________________
On December 4th, 2016, Edgar Welch drove several hours from his North Carolina home and entered the Comet Ping Pong pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C. carrying an AR-15 rifle. He demanded to know where Hillary Clinton was keeping the child sex slaves. Mr. Welch proceeded to fire rounds into locks to gain access to rooms, finding only pizza supplies and terrified employees. He was later sentenced to four years in prison and expressed remorse for his actions. Mr. Welch felt compelled to help the children after reading horrifying things online about how prominent Democrats were torturing kids in the basement of that particular pizza restaurant. Employees and customers suffered psychological damage as a result of Mr. Welch’s actions, believing that they were about to become the victims of a mass shooting.
Mr. Welch acted on a popular conspiracy theory, spread by disgraced outlets such as Alex Jones’s “Infowars”. It is one of the central tenets of the Q-Anon group. Roughly 1 in 3 Republicans believed that the radical views espoused by Q-Anon were “mostly true” at the time of Mr. Welch’s crimes.
The core of these theories sounds like the plot of a bad Netflix movie. Global elites have a child sex trafficking system and prominent liberals from D.C. to Hollywood are their pedophile clients. Elderly Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are consuming the blood of these tortured children to artificially prolong their lives. The more grievously children are tortured, the stronger the amount of adrenochrome in the kids’ blood. “Adrenochrome” is the fabricated element that provides longevity for anyone who drinks the blood. In this foul conspiracy theory, sex trafficking children have two positive outcomes for the liberal elites – producing revenue for the Democratic Party and producing “adrenochrome” for the powerful to consume.
Donald Trump steadfastly refused to condemn Q-Anon, even during the 2020 election four years later, stating that he liked how they “were against pedophilia”. Trump’s public acceptance of Q-anon’s beliefs has contributed to its staying power in the public sphere. In 2022, 16% of Americans, nearly 44 million people, still believed that there was truth to the conspiracies espoused by Q-Anon.
Analysis
It is hard for me to believe that we are in this dystopian post-truth position as a nation. Yet at the same time, it can be seen as the inevitable consequence of the movement from the neutral news broadcasts of Walter Cronkite and Tom Brokaw to 24/7 partisan news consumption via social media and outlets like Newsmaxx and Fox News.
I teach logical fallacies and cognitive biases in my classes. The primary issue I see playing out with Q-Anon and Pizzagate is confirmation bias. It’s a major issue with high school and college students on their academic essays. They seek out and cite information that helps their argument and ignore anything that contradicts it.
Partisan talking heads provide folks with high volumes of confirmation bias on demand. If folks are listening to Sean Hannity or Tucker Carlson, they think that government bureaucrats are socialist Deep State operatives with far more influence than they actually possess.
If they are listening to Alex Jones or virulent Q-Anon peddlers online, they can fall victim to the kind of mental poison which brought Mr. Welch to that D.C. pizza shop and later brought 10,000 furious rioters to the Capitol on January 6th, 2021.
People who don’t like Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden will click on negative links about Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. If those links reinforce their existing beliefs, they will share them with their friends and online followers. If they see an article has been shared or viewed thousands of times, it gives it an aura of legitimacy, even if the information it describes makes zero logical sense.
Marjorie Taylor Green, a U.S. representative from Georgia, frequently espouses Q-Anon theories in the public sphere, including calling Democrats a “party of pedophiles” on 60 Minutes. Seeing politicians like MTG or Trump say these things further solidifies viewpoints tainted by confirmation bias.
Insults of Democrats which denigrated their policies as socialism and big government have been in the public sphere since the days of Harry Truman. It’s one thing to disagree with political opponents, even furiously. It’s quite another to actually believe that political opponents are consuming the blood of tortured children.
How can we engage with 44 million people whose beliefs are so far removed from reality?
If one person with a rifle can be convinced to terrorize a pizza shop, and ten thousand rioters can be compelled to storm the U.S. Capitol four years later, what will come next if we fail to act?
It has to begin with digital and information literacy measures at all levels of our education system. Students have to be able to identify legitimate sources, recognize biases, and defend arguments with evidence in a civil manner. There is more information available on a cell phone today than an entire library two decades ago.
What good is it to have all that information if we cannot recognize reality when we see it?
I cannot believe that it is necessary to write and publish this article, but the fact remains that 44 million people cannot be ignored. For the future of the country, these ridiculous and dangerous falsehoods must be confronted and refuted. Students need to learn the skills to be able not only to thrive in an Information Age economy, but also how to avoid and neutralize the virulent misinformation which leads to political extremism.
There were college graduates among the ten thousand rioters who assaulted democracy itself on January 6th, 2021. We have to do a better job with our future graduates. We must abandon this post-truth dystopia that leads to terror and authoritarianism. Otherwise, the next attack will arrive with even more numbers and more violence.
Engagement Resources
Examining the Impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
Examining the Impeachment of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #80 | By: Ian Milden | June 21, 2023
Photo taken from: dallasnews.com
__________________________________
The Texas State House voted to impeach state Attorney General Ken Paxton on May 27th after a lengthy and quiet investigation by a bipartisan state house committee. This brief will discuss the accusations against Paxton that led to his impeachment.
Analysis
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R-TX) has been impeached by the Texas State House of Representatives. Impeachments are formal accusations by the legislature of official misconduct by officials in the executive or judicial branches of government. Impeachments in state and federal politics are rare. Under Texas state law, Paxton is suspended from his role as Attorney General until a trial in the state senate resolves his situation.
In the impeachment articles, Paxton is accused of corruptly using his office to help Austin real estate developer and businessman Nate Paul in his business dealings. The impeachment articles also accuse Paxton of engaging in bribery after Paul hired a woman that Paxton had an extramarital affair with in exchange for favorable intervention in legal entanglements that Paul’s business faced. Paul was arrested by the FBI on June 9th in connection with matters related to the Paxton impeachment.
The FBI is also investigating Paxton regarding these allegations. The FBI is believed to have opened their investigation after receiving tips from staff members in the Texas Attorney General’s office. Paxton fired the staff members who reported him to the FBI, which resulted in a wrongful termination lawsuit against the state. After the lawsuit was settled for millions of dollars, the state legislature quietly began an investigation into Paxton.
The impeachment articles also accuse Paxton of lying to investigators about several matters including an accusation of securities fraud, which predated Paxton’s time as state Attorney General. Paxton was indicted for securities fraud back in 2015, but that case has yet to go to trial due to multiple legal filings attempting to change the venue. It appears that Texas state law prevents Paxton from being impeached for the securities fraud offense itself since it occurred before he took office.
While the vast majority of Republicans in the state house have turned on Paxton, he still has some supporters in national and state politics. Donald Trump put out a statement in Paxton’s defense. At least 25 Republicans in the state house did not vote to impeach Paxton. The state senate, which will conduct the trial, has historically been more ideologically conservative than the state house.
The ideological bent of the state senate might not be the only thing that could help Paxton keep his job if this impeachment case goes to trial. Paxton’s wife is a member of the state senate, so should be able to give her husband an indication of which way her colleagues are leaning. Paxton’s wife also has some financial entanglements with his campaign. Paxton’s wife has not said whether she will recuse herself in the upcoming trial. Dan Patrick, the Lieutenant Governor and presiding officer of the state senate, has also loaned Paxton money. Patrick would preside over the impeachment trial, and he has considerable influence over the legislative priorities and committee assignments in the state senate.
While it is unclear when exactly the trial will start, it will be done sometime this summer. The state senate will approve of rules for the trial on June 20th. The latest possible start date is August 28th.
Wetlands Protection Under Attack as a Result of New Supreme Court Decision
Wetlands Protection Under Attack as a Result of New Supreme Court Decision
Environment Policy Brief #155 | By: Todd J. Broadman | June 14, 2023
Photo taken from: reuters.com
__________________________________
SCOTUS has been taking up cases that concern the scope of EPA (as well as other agencies’) authority. The Court’s ruling on a recent case – Sackett vs. EPA – will have environmental protection implications for decades to come. This case centers around the Clean Water Act (CWA), legislation passed in 1972.
Back in 2004, Chantell and Michael Sackett purchased two-thirds of an acre of property in rural Idaho, situated about 500 feet from the shores of Priest Lake, for $23,000 with the intent of building their vacation home. Shortly after they began preparing the ground for construction in 2007, a neighbor filed a complaint with the EPA who soon after issued an order to the Sacketts to stop work immediately – the order read that their land was federally protected wetland. Further, they were instructed to remove the gravel that had been poured onto the lot. The Sackett’s initial law suit was filed in 2008, and has been winding its way through the court system for the last 14 years. SCOTUS unanimously affirmed in 2012 that the Sacketts could challenge the law – central to the litigation was whether or not their property can be defined as Waters of the United States (WOTUS).
WOTUS are bodies of water that are “navigable.” And therefore, the EPA is charged with regulating pollutants that may run into “navigable waters.” Even though the Sackett’s property did not have a “continuous surface connection” to “navigable waters,” the EPA argued they had jurisdiction because their property has an “indirect” subsurface connection to Priest Lake. Before SCOTUS heard the case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the EPA and the definitions as laid out in the CWA.
In a 9-0 decision, SCOTUS unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision. In the majority opinion, the Sackett’s property is not to be considered WOTUS under CWA; the implications are far reaching. Although the decision in favor of the Sacketts was unanimous, there was a sharp divide in the opinions issued by the Justices.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, further narrowed the definition of the term “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) as “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” such as “streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.” By this definition, most U.S. wetlands are not considered WOTUS and thus not under EPA authority. There is an exception if the wetland in question has a “continuous surface connection” to WOTUS. Because the Sacketts’ land does not have a “continuous surface connection,” their property is not part of WOTUS.
According to Jon Devine, the director of NRDC’s federal water policy team, the original legislation was not intended to provide, as Justice Alito argued, a narrow definition of WOTUS. To the contrary, Devine contends that WOTUS be made up of “all the relevant parts of an aquatic ecosystem, including streams, wetlands, and small ponds—things that aren’t necessarily connected to the tributary system on the surface, but that still bear all kinds of ecological relationships to that system and to one another.”
In 2006, a similar case came before the Court – Rapanos v. U.S. In that case, Judge Scalia applied the term “navigable” as well as “continuous surface connection” to waters that come under the CWA, while Justice Kennedy maintained a broader definition: “wetland that shares a significant nexus with another, adjacent body of water that is already protected.” The inference is that if the wetland is subject to pollution so will the nearby water. Judge Alito and others on the majority saw it similar to Scalia though, stating that the EPA’s broader definition leads to “serious vagueness concerns.” The narrower definition, according to Earthjustice, could open up for development 60 million acres of U.S. wetlands.
Analysis
Some environmental law experts see Sackett as the most significant water-related Supreme Court decision in a generation. There is a clear trend: the Court wants to pull back and further limit Agency authority from broadly interpreting written statutes. This was evident in the U.S. v. West Virginia case. This ruling will even open up to scrutiny wetlands and other bodies of water currently under EPA regulation. “The notion that the law can’t protect a body of water, simply because there’s a road between it and another body of water that’s unquestionably protected, is absurd and unscientific,” echoes NRDC’s Jon Devine.
Interestingly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his minority opinion, supports Devine’s same view – that “it would defeat the purpose of the Clean Water Act” and that “the Court’s rewriting of adjacent to mean adjoining” defeats what was originally intended as environmental protection in the CWA. Justice Kagan is in agreement here with Kavanaugh when she writes that “in ordinary language, one thing is adjacent to another not only when it is touching, but also when it is nearby. So, for example, one house is adjacent to another even when a stretch of grass and a picket fence separate the two.” They concur with experts in the field of water ecology who see “grave consequences for the protection of the nation’s freshwater resources.” A victory for big monied industry lobbyists who would err on the side of throwing caution to the wind when it comes to wetlands development.
Moving forward, the EPA will have no authority to regulate wetlands unless and until they can show that the water in question is “navigable” and “adjoins” a body of water that falls under the CWA with a “continuous surface connection.” States and municipalities have already begun to amend their rules in response to the Sackett decision. Although individuals such as the Sacketts would not have posed a pollution threat, larger industrial scale polluters will seize upon this ruling to develop and spoil land that would otherwise have been protected.
Engagement Resources
- https://earthjustice.org/ serves more than a thousand public-interest clients, providing top-tier legal representation in their fight for environmental justice.
- https://www.eli.org/ fosters innovative, just, and practical law and policy solutions to enable leaders across borders and sectors to make environmental, economic, and social progress.
- https://pacificlegal.org/ a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans’ liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse.
- https://americanagnetwork.com/ provides daily news, market and ag weather content to affiliate radio stations and listeners across much of the Upper Midwest.
Who really won the Debt Ceiling Compromise?
Who really won the Debt Ceiling Compromise?
Economic Policy Brief #54 | By: Arvind Salem | June 14, 2023
Photo taken from: marketwatch.com
__________________________________
On June 3, 2023, just two days before a disastrous default and government shutdown, President Joe Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 to suspend the debt ceiling until 2025. The act was a result of months of political maneuvering and negotiations as Republicans attempted to use their control of the House of Representatives and the threat of default as leverage to negotiate a compromise with Democrats, who control both the presidency and the Senate. Predictably, the deal’s provisions represent a middle-ground on many issues, with key wins and losses for both sides.
Going into the negotiations, the Republican party was keen on using their leverage to negotiate spending cuts, while Democrats wanted to pass a clean debt ceiling increase and have these policy discussions another time. However, it soon became clear that to avoid default a compromise would be necessary. Examining the key provisions of the compromise will reveal both parties’ priorities and how much influence each party had in the negotiation.
The agreement would institute spending caps that keep nondefense spending roughly flat in the 2024 fiscal year and increase it by 1% the following year, although it is important to note that these numbers don’t take into account inflation and are likely to be cut in real terms, as inflation will likely increase by more than 1% in the following year. Additionally, the agreement would rescind about $30 billion in unspent coronavirus relief money from unobligated money from many programs that received aid in the pandemic, such as rental assistance and small business loans. However, some funding is exempt including veterans’ medical care, housing assistance, and the Indian Health Service. The agreement also claws back $21.4 billion of the $80 billion that the IRS received from the Inflation Reduction Act, imposes stricter work requirements for food stamps, speeds up review of permits for new energy projects, and terminates the student loan freeze.
Policy Analysis
On one level, Democrats lost through this compromise even happening. Biden earlier refused to argue over the debt ceiling by principle, but was forced to negotiate when it was clear that Republicans wouldn’t cave in by that principle alone. Moreover, the Democrats allowed a slight Republican minority in the House to hold them hostage when they had a sizable minority in the House and controlled both the Senate and the Presidency.
However, given that the deal occurred, it included both wins and losses for both parties and overall represented a short- term compromise that didn’t decisively affect the long-term financial future of the country.
On Spending Caps, the Democrats won, as they were able to leave most programs unscathed and got the Republicans to budge from their insistence on substantial spending cuts, although they missed the opportunity to negotiate an increase in spending on those programs.
On COVID-19 claw backs, the Democrats won because the funds that were taken were unspent and mostly unobligated, meaning that the money wasn’t actively being used, protecting these programs for the near future. Additionally, many programs were left intact, including $5 billion to support research into new COVID treatments, $800 million in investments for the Defense Production Act, which includes efforts to bolster pharmaceutical supply chains, and funds for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to detect emerging variants.
Regarding the IRS funding, Democrats won because only $1.4 billion of the $21.4 billion will be rescinded and another $10 billion a year will be redirected to other federal agencies in fiscal years 2024 and 2025 during the annual appropriations bill, accounting for the other $20 billion. Although this seems huge, the cuts likely won’t substantially affect the operation of the IRS since they have time to adjust to these changes and they received $80 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act last year.
Concerning work requirements, Democrats won because they managed to negotiate work requirements that kept most of the programs intact and negotiate exceptions for homeless people, veterans, and recent foster youth and in some cases expanded programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deal would actually increase spending overall.
On energy permits, Democrats won as there were no sweeping regulatory changes and the changes do not substantially affect agencies’ ability to conduct environmental reviews of proposed projects. Importantly, the Republicans were unable to touch $369 billion in clean-energy incentives granted by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which was one of Biden’s signature achievements.
Republicans’ lone win came in terminating the student loan freeze. The student loan freeze has been repeatedly extended by executive actions by both Presidents Trump and Biden since the beginning of the pandemic. This deal would block the President from offering any further extensions past the Biden administration’s stated plan of resuming student loan payments later this year.
This deal protects most of the Democrat’s legislative victories and Republicans were unable to win a majority of the issues. Republicans got small concessions on many major issues, but they mostly fell short of what the party would have liked, as Democrats were able to avert major damage, even on the student loan payment freeze, which they already committed to ending anyways, but just made that commitment legally binding.
Engagement Resources
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that aims to educate the public on fiscal policy issues and promote fiscal responsibility. Readers interested in the issues discussed in this article may be interested in subscribing or donating to this organization.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonpartisan research and policy institute that seeks to build a nation where everyone has the resources they need to thrive. It does this through research and advocacy on a variety of fiscal policy issues on both the federal and state level. Readers interested in fiscal policy and budget issues may wish to donate or otherwise contribute to this organization.
The Economic Policy Institute is a nonpartisan, non-profit think tank that aims to highlight the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. To accomplish this goal they conduct research on working America, propose public policy solutions to the problems plaguing working America, and assess government policies’ on low and middle-income workers. Readers interested in broader economic issues implicated in the debt ceiling discussion may be interested in donating to this organization.
The Republican Presidential Candidates’ Positions on Abortion
The Republican Presidential Candidates’ Positions on Abortion
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #79 | By: Abigail Hunt | June 13, 2023
Photo taken from: time.com
__________________________________
This is the first in a series o U.S. RESIST NEWS Briefs on the views of Republican Presidential candidates on key public policy issues.
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 such as abortion, immigration, education, and race. The information for these candidate reviews is gleaned from various press reports and candidate and government websites. This is not a comprehensive breakdown of each candidate’s views but a taste of them.
The following focuses on abortion. Overall, each candidate supports banning abortion at some level, limiting women’s access to care and cementing our international infamy of having the worst maternal health outcomes of any developed nation, at a rate of more than 17 deaths per 100,000 births. With reduced abortion access, it is guaranteed that more women will die from childbirth alone, not to mention from botched procedures from unlicensed practitioners or from complications from self-abortion attempts.
Abortion
Nikki Haley, who was U.N. Ambassador under Trump and the 116th Governor of South Carolina for six years before that, supports a federal abortion ban. During her stint as governor, Haley signed a law banning abortions after 20 weeks (about 4 and a half months).
Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech and health care entrepreneur with a bachelor’s in biology – so clearly an expert on women’s bodies – supports an even earlier ban, advocating to outlaw abortions after six weeks. Many women do not even know they are pregnant until much further along.
Asa Hutchinson, former Arkansas governor, congressperson, and attorney – and a white man in his 70s – said in 2014 he would sign a 12-week abortion ban into law as Governor, and in 2022 celebrated the overturn of Roe.
Larry Elder, conservative talk radio host, is a loud critic of abortion access, calling Roe disastrous when he celebrated the SCOTUS ruling that eliminated federal protection of safe access to legal abortions.
South Carolina Governor who prides himself on being a Southern Black Republican, Tim Scott is vocally anti-abortion, posting often about it on social media over the past several years.
Chris Christie, former governor of New Jersey, opposes abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, or the health of the mother, but falls short of supporting a federal abortion ban, citing his strong belief in states’ rights, something that might win him some points with conservatives or liberals willing to vote red. As governor, Christie vetoed millions in funding for Planned Parenthood.
North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum proved in April of this year that not all people who wear glasses make smart decisions by signing one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, banning all pregnancy terminations, with rare exception for health, rape, and incest, after six weeks’ gestation.
Perry Johnson, a mid-70s white man with a bachelor’s degree and no political experience, like many of his kind heard the siren call of the Republican party and rushed to join. Johnson says he would pardon Trump and believes in zero exceptions for abortion, advocating for a total ban and ensuring that women would be forced to give birth to children that are the results of rape and incest.
Former Vice President Mike Pence is a vocal opponent of abortion access, opposing the use of mifepristone, a medication sometimes used to induce labor in a case which can cause an abortion but is also used to induce labor for live births.
At a CNN town hall in May, Trump patted himself on the back for his Supreme Court Justice appointments, claiming responsibility for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. While Trump has previously stated he thought abortion should be a state decision, in recent months to garner support from anti-abortion groups, Trump has changed his tune by insinuating he would support a federal ban.
In spring 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law on abortion after six weeks, further restricting the state’s existing 15-week ban, which is currently under review in the state’s Supreme Court. These candidates do not have to worry, as DeSantis tops off a list of candidates who, like Donald Trump, will always have access to abortion if they need it, because they are rich.
Engagement Resources
- Ballotopedia Ballotpedia is a non-profit encyclopedia of American politics that describes itself as an unbiased information resource. https://ballotpedia.org/Main_Page
- Isidewith.com is run by two friends, one a lifelong undecided voter, the other a diehard political nerd. Find out more about them and support them via Patreon here: https://www.isidewith.com/about/
- Take Isidewith.com’s 2024 Presidential Quiz to see how you align with candidates’ views: https://www.isidewith.com/elections/2024-presidential-quiz
Will Social Media for Youths be the Next Big Tobacco?
Will Social Media for Youths be the Next Big Tobacco?
Health & Gender Policy Brief #162 | By: Geoffrey Small | June 13, 2023
Photo taken from: therallymagazine.com
__________________________________
Summary
On May 23rd, The United States Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, issued an advisory about the effects of social media on youth mental health. Dr. Murthy’s Health and Human Services Report stated that social media use is nearly “universal” for youth in the United States, with 95% of ages 13-17 using it and more than a third indicating they use it “almost constantly.” Despite the HHS advisory outlining some benefits to social media use, it also cited multiple studies that correlate harmful impacts on the mental health of adolescents. Over sixty years ago, the U.S. Surgeon General issued a report documenting the causation between smoking and lung cancer. Forty years later, the federal government banned cartoon labels on cigarette packaging that targeted youth from the seventies to the late nineties. Exploring the timeline of regulating big tobacco can provide some insight into the strategies that federal and state governments may use to curb the negative impacts of social media on adolescents.
Policy Analysis
The U.S. Surgeon General advisory on social media outlines some of the factors leading to mental health issues in youth. Multiple medical studies cited in the report indicated increased depression and anxiety with prolonged exposure. Cyber-bullying is well documented in having a significant impact on mental health. Nearly half of adolescents 13-17 reported that social media made them feel worse about their body image. Adolescent girls of color were determined to be especially vulnerable, as more than one-third surveyed reported exposure to racist language and content. Studies have also indicated that social media algorithms, designed to engage users, create a change in the brain structure related to excessive exposure. These changes share similarities with individuals who face substance abuse or gambling addictions.
1956 was the first smoking advisory issued by the Surgeon General, highlighting the causal relationship between smoking and cancer. Government sponsored anti-smoking messages on television and radio soon followed, until cigarette adds were banned in 1969. States and federal agencies soon banned smoking in public places after a 1972 Surgeon General report highlighted the dangers of secondhand smoke. Big tobacco adapted by appealing to younger consumers with images of cartoons like “Joe Camel” on the packaging. However, in 1997 the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against the Joe Camel add campaign for violating the FTC Act with “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” The campaign was soon ended after the complaint and a billion dollar settlement, which was paid by big tobacco to states seeking medical costs of smoking-related illnesses.
The health effects related to smoking are clear. However, as stated in the Surgeon General’s recent advisory, the effects of social media on youth mental health is more complex. Research in the field is relatively new and more data needs to be collected. Will the federal government be able to target social media add campaigns that affect the mental health of adolescents? Will states be able to sue social media companies to cover the cost of mental health-related illnesses? The clearer the causation, the more likely these actions may occur. Donating to organizations like the Child Mind Institute, which contributed to the recent Surgeon General advisory, can help educate the public on youth mental health issues.
Link to Donate: https://childmind.org/give/donate/
DEMOCRATIC PARTY 2024 PLATFORM SUGGESTIONS PART 1: EDUCATION
DEMOCRATIC PARTY 2024 PLATFORM SUGGESTIONS
Op Ed | By: U.S. Resist News | June 2023
Photo taken from: syracuse.com
__________________________________
PART 1: EDUCATION
This is the first in a series of U.S. RESIST NEWS recommendations of platform positions for use by 2024 Democratic Party candidates.
Democrats should counter Republican curriculum interference and book banning and strike a positive tone about the needs for all children in the United States to have access to a quality education. The Democratic platform should identify the goals such as quality education and the means of achieving those goals.
Goals:
To enable students to access a quality education that prepares them for work, family life, and citizenship in a democratic society. Such an education should include having the ability to read and write, do basic mathematics; learn how to problem-solve and make up your own mind on important issues; understand the scientific method and how science works; understand your roles as a citizen in a democracy and how your government works; master digital literacy skills that enable students to smartly navigate the Internet and social media; have an appreciation for the arts; have the skills and knowledge needed to enter the job market; be physically fit and have balanced nutrition.
Means of Achieving Goals
In order to achieve these goals students should have access the following:
- A universal pre-Kindergarten instructional program
- Quality learning materials and school facilities
- Well paid and well trained teachers
- Classrooms that reflect the diversity of people in their community, including those who are disabled
- Instruction that stimulates discussion and debate and respect for different people, ideas and points of view; that does not promote one religion but supports respect for different religious points of views
- A special instructional program for those who are physically or mentally disabled
There should be an effort to provide all schools in each district with the same facility infrastructure, and level out the distribution of school finances. Alternatives to basing school funding solely on the property tax should be explored.