JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
FDA Legalizes Nonprescription Birth Control, but Legal Challenges Await
Brief #81 – Health & Gender Policy Brief
by Geoffrey Small
According to the FDA, “Almost half of the 6.1 million pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended.
The Ukraine Crisis Situation Update #25
Brief #84 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Ibrahim Castro
The world’s most vulnerable among the hungry will suffer the worst consequences.
Is Doug Burgum Breaking Campaign Finance Laws to Try to Get on the Debate Stage?
Brief #87 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum recently launched a Presidential Campaign, which he is largely funding through his personal fortune.
Were Asian Americans Manipulated and Used As Pawns To Overturn Affirmative Action?
Brief #209 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
A significant number of Asian American groups and individuals rejected the Supreme Court decision and are now discussing the strong possibility that genuine Asian American interests was not the real goal. The true purpose was instead to…
Is that Hotel or Airbnb Really Clean, Sunny and Well-Appointed?
Brief #92 – Technology Policy Brief
by Mindy Spatt
With the rise in online reviews we have seen that bad actors can manipulate or fake reviews to deceive consumers for their own benefit. In the meantime, how can you protect yourself?
Charter Schools and the Myth of Desegregation
Brief #83 – Education Policy Brief
by Steve Piazza
When it comes to the progress of desegregating schools, charter schools have actually been shown to have little success achieving diversity, and even creating more segregated environments.
Presidential Plans to Circumvent the Supreme Court Veto of The Student Loan Program
Brief #86 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
Biden has unveiled the SAVE plan… Rather than a conventional loan forgiveness plan.
A Depressing Look at the Current List of GOP Presidential Candidates
Brief #85 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Abigail Hunt
As the political primary season looms, the candidates of the Grand Ol’ Party are going to extreme lengths…
Education Will Be a Hot Button Political Issue in 2024
Brief #82 – Education Policy Brief
by Rudolph Lurz
Zeal for conservative education ideas has not equated to good education policy in recent history.
Can a UN Treaty Curtail Industrial Revolution on the High Seas?
Can a UN Treaty Curtail Industrial Revolution on the High Seas?
Environmental Policy Brief #154 | By: Todd J. Broadman | May 4, 2023
Header photo taken from: marketplace.org
Policy:
Oceans make up over 70% of the Earth’s surface and contain 95% of total habitat – only 9% of which has been classified. Most of that watery habitat lies unprotected from human exploitation. That is beginning to change. In early March of this year, a UN treaty was signed that aims to protect the high seas: the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction treaty (BBNJ). The agreement creates marine protected zones, preserving ocean ecosystems throughout the earth’s deep oceans, areas beyond national boundaries. A country’s marine boundary extends 200 nautical miles off-coast.
While the UN’s “30×30” agreement intends to protect 30% of all land and 30% of all water, just 3% of the ocean is “fully protected.” Previous to this agreement, in 1982, there was an agreed upon framework about how to use the extensive resources of the seas: the Convention on the Law of the Sea. This Convention attempted to frame and limit deep seabed mining, commercial fishing, and research, yet only 1.2% of the high seas came under its protection.
BBNJ claims to be legally binding and the agreement was only arrived at after five long, previous rounds of negotiations. The scientific community have been relied upon to prioritize regions of the ocean for protection. For example, Douglas McCauley, an ecologist at the University of California Santa Barbara, presented his findings on “biodiversity hotspots,” areas of importance due to species richness, extinction risk and habitat diversity.
Analysis:
In spite of the media excitement surrounding this new agreement, the BBNJ agreement has not been formally adopted; there is an upcoming meeting to do just that. Existing global marine organizations, though not bound by its content, are expected to “promote the Treaty’s objectives.” To add a further dose of realism, the Treaty defines a protected area as one that is “managed” and “may allow, where appropriate, sustainable use provided it is consistent with the conservation objectives.”
It is not an overstatement to say that scientists are more familiar with the moon and outer space than with our deep oceans. There are an estimated 240,000 marine species and to date only 17,903 have been evaluated for possible extinction. If nothing is done, the rate of species extinction will accelerate, well before given a chance to understand what species have been lost. What we do know is that half of our atmosphere’s oxygen has its origin in the ocean’s phytoplankton.
According to Dr. McCauley, “We’re effectively seeing an industrial revolution in the ocean.” As on land, commercial investments are driving ocean resource development – the so-called “blue economy” which extends to marine genetic resources. The BBNJ does attempt to address these resources as well, outlining how the “benefits” of such genetics can be shared – in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals for example. Also troubling is what may be exclusive reliance upon this and similar agreements. Liz Karan, Director of Ocean Governance project at Pew, said the BBNJ is “the only pathway to safeguard high seas biodiversity for generations to come.” Sixty nations need to ratify the Treaty before it can be implemented.
This latest Treaty, though ambitious, is a success only to the extent that participating countries adhere to its environmental protections. Recent rulings are not encouraging in this regard. China was recently taken to the Permanent Court of Arbitration for commercial fishing that encroached upon Philippine national waters in the South China Sea and the court ruled against China. China’s reaction: “It is only a scrap of paper.”
Each member state will have to go through an internal national ratification process for the BBNJ, a path fraught with difficulty as we experienced with the Paris Climate Accords. Beyond this, the legal framework for high seas enforcement and dispute resolution have not been worked out. And then there is the question of who pays for it.
At least we have recognition and a decided leaning towards protection of what makes up 70% of our planet. While government representatives are diligently working to seal these protections, the International Forum for Deep Sea Mining Professionals will be holding their 11th Annual Deep Sea Mining Summit 2023 in London on May 3rd and 4th. Immediate economic interests like these will likely not be constrained by well-meaning language in a UN Treaty.
Engagement Resources:
- https://marine-conservation.org/ uses the latest science to identify important marine ecosystems, advocate for their protection, and measure progress toward effective, sustainable marine protection.
- https://aida-americas.org/en uses the law and science to protect the environment and communities suffering from environmental harm.
- https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/projects/ocean-governance addresses the challenges of a changing world by illuminating issues and creating common ground.
An Early Overview of the 2024 U.S. Senate Races
An Early Overview of the 2024 U.S. Senate Races
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #76 | By: Ian Milden | May 4, 2023
Header photo taken from: aa.com.tr
Summary:
One-third of the U.S. Senate will be up for election in 2024. This Brief will provide an overview of what seats will be up this cycle, and where each party has strengths and weaknesses for this cycle’s elections.
Analysis:
Democrats will have a large number of seats to defend after stacking together strong cycles in 2006, 2012, and 2018. Given that Democrats only have a 51-49 majority, they can’t afford to lose more than two seats (or one if they lose the presidency), if they are to retain their majority. The map for Democrats is particularly challenging this cycle because they are defending three seats in states that will likely be won by the Republican presidential nominee.
The most difficult one to defend will be in West Virginia. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) has not decided whether he will run for re-election, and he has said that he won’t until later this year. If Manchin chooses not to run for re-election, Republicans are very likely to take the seat since no other Democrat has been competitive in a statewide race in West Virginia in years. Republicans have recruited Governor Jim Justice (R-WV), the state’s wealthiest resident, to run for the seat. Justice is expected to face Congressman Alex Mooney (R-WV) in the primary. If Manchin does run, he will face a formidable opponent.
The other two seats in red states that Democrats will defend are held by Jon Tester in Montana and Sherod Brown in Ohio. Both incumbents have said that they will run for re-election, and they have significant amounts of money in their campaign accounts.
Most major presidential battlegrounds will also feature Senate races where Democrats are defending seats. Democrats will defend seats in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nevada, and Arizona. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Jacky Rosen (D-NV) have announced that they are running for re-election and have significant amounts of money in their campaign accounts. Casey, Baldwin, and Klobuchar are all tested incumbents who have won multiple terms. Rosen won competitive elections for a US House seat before she defeated Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) in 2018. All of these incumbents should be early favorites, though it is unclear whom the Republicans will nominate to face them.
In Michigan, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) announced that she planned to retire. Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who represents a swing district, has launched a campaign for the vacant Senate seat. Most prominent Democrats in Michigan have expressed disinterest in running against Slotkin, so she will likely be the Democratic nominee.
Arizona is more complicated. Senator Kyrsten Sinema recently left the Democratic Party to become an independent. She has not declared whether she is running for reelection. Congressman Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) has launched a campaign for the Democratic nomination. If Sinema runs, that might help Republicans’ chances of winning the seat.
There aren’t many Republican-held seats that Democrats can realistically target. Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) is up for re-election, but Democrats have performed poorly in the Miami area in recent elections. Democrats can’t compete statewide if they are not winning in the Miami area by large margins, and Democrats have not been willing to invest the resources needed to fix that problem.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is also up for re-election in 2024. While Cruz had a close call in 2018, I would be surprised if Democrats can achieve that same level of success in 2024. Changes in voting patterns, particularly in the urban and suburban areas of Texas, have made Texas more competitive, but the margins have not shifted enough for Democrats to start winning elections. Texas is also a very expensive state to compete in, so I would expect national Democrats to prioritize defending incumbents over takeover targets like Texas.
The other seats that Republicans have to defend are in Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, and North Dakota. Democrats are unlikely to be competitive in any of those races.
Engagement Resources:
The Battle Over Gig Worker Protections Heads to the California Supreme Court and the US Senate
The Battle Over Gig Worker Protections Heads to the California Supreme Court and the US Senate
Technology Policy Brief #86 | By: Mindy Spatt | May 2, 2023
Header photo taken from: calmatters.org/Mike Blake/Reuters
Summary:
Rideshare companies have won the latest round in their fight to stop California’s gig worker protection legislation from becoming law. At the same time, a high-profile campaign to defeat Julie Su, President Biden’s pick for Labor Secretary, who the industry opposes, failed to stop Su’s nomination from advancing out of Committee to the full Senate.
Analysis:
Prop 22, the industry backed initiative to roll back gig worker protections in California, passed after a record breaking $224 million campaign, the most ever spent on a statewide ballot initiative. But a Superior Court Judge deemed the measure an unconstitutional usurping of the state’s authority over workers compensation. A San Francisco Appeals Court recently overturned that ruling, setting the stage for the issue to go to the state Supreme Court.
The same battle over the status of gig workers is playing out in Washington. Julie Su, who delivery and rideshare companies blame for supporting and enforcing worker protections in California while serving as labor secretary there, is seeking confirmation as President ‘Biden’s Labor Secretary, a cabinet-level position.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee advanced Su’s nomination on a party line vote on April 26, setting the stage for what will undoubtedly be a close floor vote. Republicans on the Committee were vociferously opposed, lambasting Su as “The Chief Enforcer of AB 5.”
AB 5 was the California statute that classified some gig workers as employees and hence entitled to minimum wages, sick time and healthcare. It was dismantled by the expensive and deceptive campaign for Prop 22.
The Flex association, which represents Uber, Door Dash and other companies that rely on gig workers, complained to Biden in a letter that Su “does not appreciate” that classifying gig workers as employees could cause many to lose access to such work and demanding that she commit to not trying to do so on the federal level.
Stand Against Su, a new organizations led by the California Business and Industrial Alliance (CABIA) has even gone so far as to run anti-Su ads on Facebook and pricey print and billboard adverts in states represented by Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and Jon Tester, in hopes they will break ranks with democrats and vote against her.
While the industry fears a repeat of AB 5 on a national level if Su is confirmed, they are unlikely to like any of Biden’s choices. The President has made it clear that he is strongly in favor of increased rights for gig workers.
And Prop 22 is far from settled. A strongly worded dissent from Justice Jon Streeter is giving advocates hope as the issue heads to the California Supreme Court. Streeter criticized the faux benefits Prop 22 put in place as not providing any health or safety protections whatsoever for workers.
That is certainly the conclusion reached by the National Equity Atlas, whose September 2022 report on rideshare workers’ pay and conditions found that :
- “Drivers’ median net take-home earnings are just $6.20 per hour under Prop 22. Drivers who pay for health insurance out of pocket earn nearly half of that.”
- “Drivers would earn nearly $11 more per hour if they were classified as employees.”
- “Rideshare work has become less flexible and more controlled by rideshare companies under Prop 22.”
Su’s opponents argue the opposite, although they have no data to back up their claims, and are likely to ramp up their lobbying campaign even further as her nomination heads to the Senate floor for approval.
Engagement Resources:
- Revealed: The Corporations Mobilizing to Defeat Biden’s Labor Secretary Nominee By Donald Shaw and David Moore, April 12 2023, Sludge
- Prop 22 Depresses Wages and Deepens Inequities for California Workers By Eliza McCullough, Brian Dolber,* Justin Scoggins, Edward-Michael Muña, and Sarah Treuhaft, September 21, 2022
- New Brief Finds Uber & Lyft Took Highest Commissions During the Worst of Pandemic, February 15, 2023
Justice Thomas’ Ethical Lapses Illustrate The Need of An Ethical Code for the Supreme Court
Justice Thomas’ Ethical Lapses Illustrate The Need of An Ethical Code for the Supreme Court
Civil Rights Policy Brief #204 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | May 2, 2023
Header photo taken from: npr.org
Policy Summary:
Except for the United States Supreme Court, members of the federal bench (judges, magistrates) are bound by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. At the state level, every state has enacted a code of conduct that all state judges must abide by. The names may differ by state, e.g. Judicial Conduct Commission, Board on Judicial Standards, Judicial Standards Commission, but the purpose is to impose ethical standards for every judge in order to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and promote confidence in the courts and the decisions that a court issues. The United States is not alone in having an ethical code for their jurists. Internationally, many courts have enacted their own judicial codes, such as this ethical code for the International Criminal Court in Europe. Even non – governmental organizations recognize the importance of having an ethical code for courts and jurists as the American Bar Association has issued a model code for a state to adopt whole or piecemeal if it decides. The issue of judicial ethics is a well-accepted legal concept with no lack of codes and resources for a jurist to refer to to guide his actions as a member and officer of the judiciary.
However, there is no enforceable code of judicial ethics for members of the United States Supreme Court.
On April 6, 2023 the website ProPublica published an explosive expose of Justice Clarence Thomas’ relationship with billionaire GOP donor Harlan Crow. The article revealed that for more than two decades, Crow has bestowed on Justice Thomas and his wife trips, travel and accommodations that could be considered luxury gifts because of their high dollar value. Justice Thomas and his wife traveled on Mr. Crow’s private jet, were guests on his private yacht and traveled to numerous locations around the globe. An estimated cost of the use of Mr. Crow’s private jet and superyacht if Justice Thomas had paid for it out of his own pocket would be in excess of $500,000. However, Justice Thomas and his wife never paid any of these expenses and allowed Mr. Crow to foot the bill. Additionally, in 2014 Harlan Crow purchased three properties owned by Justice Thomas. Mr. Crow paid $133,363 total for all three and then allowed Justice Thomas’ mother to continue to live in one of the homes on the lot he purchased. Mr. Crow subsequently made $36,000 worth of improvements on the lot. These gifts were not reported in the Justice’s federal disclosure reports even though federal officials must disclose real estate sales over $1,000.
In anticipation of a May 2, 2023 hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, chairman of the committee Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL, invited Chief Justice John Roberts to testify before the committee to discuss proposals about possible ethical codes for the Supreme Court. Citing separation of powers concerns and the independence of the judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts declined the invitation. Sen. Durbin subsequently responded that he would continue working for Supreme Court ethics reform.
Learn More on How Chief Justice Roberts Declines Senate Request To Testify On Judicial Ethics
Policy Analysis:
The fact that the United States Supreme Court is the only court in the United States without a binding ethical code is a lapse that must be corrected immediately.
The likely reason that the Supreme Court does not currently have an ethical code may be due to the concept of separation of powers. That idea states that powers expressly declared to be within the province of a particular branch of government are for that government branch to decide alone at the exclusion of the other branches of government. This has led to the legislative and executive branch taking a hands off attitude when it comes to the business of the Supreme Court. The thinking goes, that if the Supreme Court needed an ethical code, the Supreme Court would decide to give itself one.
However, all of the ethical codes at the lower levels of the judiciary and in the state courts have shown that the current hands off approach towards the Supreme Court are unworkable. Justice Thomas’ activities has created problems that is undermining confidence in the Court and in the judiciary. An analysis of the codes for the lower levels of the federal judiciary and the state courts illustrate the purpose of the ethical codes and what they are designed to prevent. One particular language that is key to Justice Thomas’ questionable activities that is found in all the codes is that a judge should avoid “impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” in all activities. What this means is that a judge should avoid activities that would raise the impression that the judge or justice’s integrity or impartiality would be impaired. Because Justice Thomas accepted gifts that are estimated to cost in excess of $500,000 on more than one occasion, a reasonable person could conclude that a wealthy donor is trying to influence the justice’s legal decisions. Mr. Crow is well known as a donor who supports GOP causes and he also serves on the boards of conservative think tanks. While Mr. Crow does not need to have a pending case in front of Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court to create the impression of improper influence, his gifts to the Justice and his wife now raises the question “Did Mr. Crow’s gifts influence the Justice to rule a certain way?” Had the Supreme Court had an ethical code for its justices modeled on any of the state judicial ethical codes or the codes for other members of the federal judiciary, then this problem of improper influence of a sitting Supreme Court justice would not have arisen. Justice Thomas would have been obligated to disclose the gifts and would have been obligated to avoid situations where an improper influence could be perceived.
What is just as disappointing as Justice Thomas’ behavior is the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts has declined to work with Congress to have an ethical code implemented for the Supreme Court. The opportunity is there and, in fact, it would be very easy to do. A new code would not even have to be written as Congress, with the Chief Justice’s support, could simply use the current ethical code that applies to all the other members of the federal judiciary at the appeals and district court levels and apply it to the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice refusing to even work with Congress only ensures that another justice could find him or herself in the same situation that Justice Thomas (and his wife, for other reasons) has now found himself in.
Engagement Resources:
- ProPublica – News group’s expose of Justice Thomas’ relationship with GOP donor Harlan Crow.
- National Center for State Courts – group’s info page on every state’s ethical judicial codes with links.
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 Challenge in Regulating AI
The Challenge in Regulating AI
Technology Policy Brief #85 | By: Steve Piazza | April 28, 2023
Header photo taken from: innovationatwork.ieee.org
Policy Issue Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Since artificial technology (AI) technology is relatively new, policy regarding the appropriate use of it is still evolving. Domestically and abroad, actions have been taken to minimize any of the harm that may ensue due to possible misuse.
For example, last year 17 states introduced legislation, and three more states passed laws in response to growing concerns of the use of AI. Studies are also underway in a small handful of other states to explore the issue. To date, though, no sweeping federal legislation exists.
Meanwhile, in September 2022, the United States government banned two U.S. companies, Nvidia and AMD, from exporting select AI chips to China. The reasoning was to prevent China from getting ahead in the AI race and to use the technology for military purposes.
Despite minimal legal action to ward off threats, however, the numerous ethical dilemmas being raised remain in the shadows. Such questions are crucial in the effort to utilize the extremely valuable advantages of the technology while at the same time keep severe consequences from occurring.
Policy Analysis
Each time a new technology is introduced, whether it is nuclear energy or cloning, arguments supporting or opposing it become more difficult to formulate. The arguments themselves, which frequently emanate from unverified news, often fail to reflect the underlying ethical dilemmas presented by new breakthroughs. And when it comes to passing laws or creating public policy, the advantages and consequences of the technology are becoming less and less tangible.
The utilization of AI is rapidly influencing just about every industry, such as health, education, transportation, and finance. The benefits of this new technology are many: it can help spot diseases early on, deliver customized learning opportunities and immediate feedback to students, detect hazardous driving conditions and regulate emissions in cars, and alert commercial institutions and their clients when fraud is occurring. Such benefits justify the existence of AI. It’s hard to argue against technologies that save lives and secure property.
But the benefits can come with a price. When AI devices replace humans who traditionally perform tasks requiring judgment, questions about integrity and objectivity arise. AI can easily create a false sense of security.
Michael Sandel, Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government, say “AI not only replicates human biases, it confers on these biases a kind of scientific credibility. It makes it seem that these predictions and judgments have an objective status.” Said another way, AI may replace human tasks but not human judgment.
The speed and lack of understanding of this technology is so vast, it leaves protections against machines making existential decisions in the hands of an industry that is too in awe of what it creates to act. Underprepared public officials under growing tremendous pressure are unable to do something about it.
It’s one thing to agree safeguards are necessary, and another to put them into place and enforce them. Even when existing laws have served well, many do the exact opposite of what they intended to do. For example, as the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA) uses artificially developed, but extremely enhanced methods to generate selection criteria in lending, housing, and insurance, it may end up discriminating against those traditionally underserved and actually deny rights and services to them.
Government agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have expressed the commitment to prevent businesses from using AI to mislead and take advantage of the unsuspecting. But like those in the AI world who don’t understand what the AI they invent might do in the long run, the FTC has taken to using terms like “advised companies, “emphasize the use of” and “offer important lessons” suggesting that they are relying on the industries themselves to do the right thing.
At the moment, standards developed by The National Institute of Standards Technology (NIST) do exist. NIST created The Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) which, in effect, provides a “voluntary” Framework, to “help foster the responsible design, development, deployment, and use of AI systems over time.”
That may be something, but it still leaves us with more, effective AI laws waiting to be written and practical methods by which to enforce them. Meanwhile, ethicists will be busy addressing AI dilemmas as they emerge and find they’ll be revising both questions and answers frequently just to keep up.
The list of benefits and concerns will continue to develop, as will AI. And like any tool, AI technologies must be used by those who are adept and judicious. It might even help employing AI to develop answers to our legal and moral questions, just as long as we’re the ones asking them and judging the answers.
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Engagement Resources
For an example of efforts made towards establishing worldwide principles for the ethical use of AI, read UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137
Here are two extensive lists of organizations promoting the responsible use of AI (limited overlap):
https://alltechishuman.org/responsibble-ai-knowledge-hub/#ri-orgs
https://www.aiethicist.org/ai-organizations
The Center for AI and Digital Policy Studies (CAIDP) examines the policies of countries around the world for their commitment to using AI responsibly and reports their progress. This map is good place to see how countries compare based on metrics in the Artificial Intelligence and Democratic Values 2022 Index developed by CAIDP: https://www.caidp.org/reports/aidv-2022/aidv-maps/
Congress Tries to Tame Big Tech: Anti-Trust, Content Regulation, and Privacy Protection: Part I
Congress Tries to Tame Big Tech: Anti-Trust, Content Regulation, and Privacy Protection: Part I
Technology Policy Brief #84 | By: Inijah Quadri | April 28, 2023
Header photo taken from: ft.com
This Brief introduces a new series of U.S. RESIST NEWS reports on the challenges involved in regulating big tech. The Brief provides an overview of the key challenges involved in such regulation — content moderation, privacy protection, and anti-trust regulation. In subsequent Briefs in this series, we will take an in-depth look at each of these issues.
Policy Issue Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Big tech companies, such as Meta (formerly Facebook), Twitter, TikTok, and various right-wing platforms like Truth Social and Parler, have dominated the digital landscape and transformed the way people communicate and share information. While these platforms have undeniable social and economic influence, concerns have arisen over their monopolistic practices, content moderation policies, and privacy issues. As a result, the U.S. Congress has been pushing to regulate these giants and protect consumers. This Brief provides an in-depth analysis of congressional efforts to address anti-trust issues, content regulation, and privacy protection within the social media industry.
I. Anti-Trust Measures
In this section, we discuss the various concerns and proposals regarding the monopolistic practices of Meta, Twitter, TikTok, and other social media platforms. Congress has been examining their acquisitions, market power, and influence to ensure a competitive environment and prevent anti-competitive behavior.
Meta has faced scrutiny from Congress due to its massive market power and acquisitions of new tech companies. Lawmakers argue that these acquisitions have resulted in an uncompetitive market and reduced innovation. As such, proposals have been made to break up the company, as well as establish clear guidelines for future acquisitions to prevent monopolistic behavior.
Similar to Meta, Twitter has been accused of wielding too much influence in the social media space, which has led to calls for more stringent anti-trust measures. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had proposed preventing companies like Twitter from engaging in self-preferencing practices that disadvantage competitors.
Additionally, Congress is examining acquisitions and mergers in the broader social media industry, including TikTok and right-wing platforms like Truth Social and Parler. Of particular concern is TikTok, owned by Chinese company ByteDance, due to its foreign ownership and potential national security threats. As the platform and others gain popularity, these investigations aim to identify anti-competitive practices and ensure a level playing field for all companies.
II. Content Regulation
Content regulation is a critical issue in the social media landscape, and this section focuses on the ongoing debates and proposals related to Section 230 reform, political advertisements and misinformation, and content moderation policies. The goal is to strike a balance between protecting users from harmful content and preserving the platforms’ ability to facilitate free expression.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity to internet platforms from liability for user-generated content. However, there are increasing calls to reform this law to hold platforms more accountable for harmful content, misinformation, and the spread of extremism.
Congress is also working to create regulations that increase transparency for political ads, limit microtargeting, and tackle the spread of misinformation. Legislation, such as the Honest Ads Act, aims to promote transparency and disclosure requirements for political advertising on social media.
Also, the inconsistency of content moderation policies across platforms has prompted Congress to push for clearer guidelines and increased accountability. Lawmakers are considering proposals that require platforms to be transparent about their moderation policies and processes.
III. Privacy Protection
Privacy protection is a growing concern, as users become increasingly aware of how their data is being collected and used. This section explores congressional efforts to develop comprehensive data privacy legislation and promote algorithmic transparency, aiming to provide users more control over their personal information and create a more transparent digital ecosystem.
Congress is working on comprehensive data privacy legislation to protect user information and establish strict guidelines for data collection, usage, and sharing. While some of these practices are being implemented in several states, there is yet to be cohesion across the board. This unified legislation would give users more control over their personal information and set penalties for companies that violate privacy rules.
In addition to the above, concerns over algorithmic bias and the lack of transparency in how algorithms shape user experiences have prompted congressional efforts to require platforms to disclose their algorithmic processes. This would enable users to better understand the factors influencing the content they see and provide an opportunity to challenge potential biases.
Conclusion
Lobbying efforts by big tech companies and their affiliated organizations have significant influence over the legislative process. Despite these efforts, there is still a chance that Congress can pass meaningful legislation to address the industry’s various issues, particularly if public pressure mounts and lawmakers find common ground. The ultimate success of these legislative efforts will depend on the ability to navigate partisan differences, overcome industry resistance, and respond to public demand for change.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available
Congressional Research Service: (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46875)
Investopedia: (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/regulating-economy.asp)
ScienceDirect: (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923000018)
The Guardian: (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/dec/09/facebook-lawsuit-antitrust-whatsapp-instagram-ftc)
The New York Times: (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/politics/think-tanks-research-and-corporate-lobbying.html)
The Sling: (https://www.thesling.org/the-antitrust-case-against-elon-musks-twitter/)
The Week that Was: Global News In Review #6
The Week that Was: Global News In Review #6
Foreign Policy Brief #75 | By: Ibrahim Sultan | April 28, 2023
Header photo taken from: theconversation.com
This is our 6th in a series designed to help our readers catch up on international events of the past week.
Conflict in Sudan
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
For the last two weeks intense fighting has raged in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, between warring factions that has plunged the country into chaos. The violence was triggered over a disagreement on an internationally backed plan to form a new civilian government in Sudan. Since the fall of ousted Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir two years ago, Sudan has been under military rule and was supposed to move toward a civilian run democracy. A rivalry between Sudan’s top two generals General Abdel Fattah Burhan who leads the country’s military and General Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo who leads the Rapid Support Forces has turned into a deadly conflict as of April 15, 2023. Over the weekend foreign governments such as the US, UK, and France began emergency evacuations of diplomats, staff, and foreign nationals out of the country. The fighting has already claimed hundreds of lives, with both factions using heavy weaponry in residential areas, leading to tens of thousands of Sudanese fleeing their homes, while millions more are currently trapped between the warring sides with diminishing supplies of food and water.
Global Military Spending Reaches New High
Global military spending reached an all time high last year, reaching $2.24 trillion. Military spending rose across the globe for the eighth consecutive year, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and tensions in East Asia as the fuel to the increase in military spending. Regionally, Europe saw the largest spike in spending at 13 percent, the highest in at least 30 years. The total expenditure by Central and Western European states reached $345 billion and marked the first time they have surpassed military spending in 1989, the final year of the Cold War. The fact that global military spending reached the level that it has and continues to increase along with an ever growing number of conflicts demonstrates that we are living currently in a very fragile international system. Among military spenders the United States remained the world’s largest military spender at $877 billion in 2022, which alone was 39 percent of total global military spending. Meanwhile, Russian military spending grew by an estimated 9.2 per cent in 2022, to about $86.4 billion, China, which is the world’s 2nd largest spender, allocated $293 billion to its military, and Japan spent $46billion on its growing military budget, a rise of 5.9 percent from the previous year. Tensions in Europe as well as in East Asia have risen over the past few years and will likely continue to grow, and along with those tensions military budgets will continue to reach record highs.
Extreme Heat Wave Across Asia
Temperature records across Asia are being broken as an intense April heat wave sweeps across large portions of the continent. Over the weekend, Thailand topped 113°F for the first time in its history. Although not record-breaking in most cases, the heat has also been prevalent and deadly across South Asia. Pakistan, India, Nepal and Bangladesh have all seen temperatures topping 104°F for many days. The extremely hot temperatures across South and Southeast Asia are expected to continue into the months ahead into the region’s monsoon season.
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
The GOP’s Silly Fight Against “Wokeness”
The GOP’s Silly Fight Against “Wokeness”
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #75 | By: Rudolph Lurz | April 26, 2023
Header photo taken from: nbcnews.com
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In 2020, Joe Biden carried Virginia comfortably, more than doubling Secretary Clinton’s margin of victory in the 2016 election. A year later, in a surprising upset, Republican Glenn Youngkin defeated Terry McAulliffe in the 2021 gubernatorial election, securing over 50% of the vote in a state that has leaned blue in recent years.
Governor Youngkin made parent involvement in public education a central issue of his campaign. He promised to ban critical race theory (CRT) in Virginia classrooms during the campaign, a promise he kept with one of his first executive orders as governor. Youngkin even established a hotline for parents and students to submit complaints about CRT being implemented in the classroom. That hotline was eventually shut down, as parents, teachers, and students used it to deliver critiques about Governor Youngkin’s policies.
Youngkin’s success in winning the Virginia gubernatorial race using CRT as a campaign centerpiece caught the attention of other GOP policy actors nationwide. Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) codified anti-CRT measures in the Stop W.O.K.E Act (Stop the Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees), which also folded protections for employees against perceived “activism” of private corporations. When promoting the legislation in December 2021, DeSantis stated, ““We won’t allow Florida tax dollars to be spent teaching kids to hate our country or to hate each other. We also have a responsibility to ensure that parents have the means to vindicate their rights when it comes to enforcing state standards. Finally, we must protect Florida workers against the hostile work environment that is created when large corporations force their employees to endure CRT-inspired ‘training’ and indoctrination.”
The claim of “indoctrination” is central to GOP diatribes against CRT as well as DEI programs. DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) is designed to ensure that traditionally marginalized populations receive support and resources to succeed. It is used by corporate HR departments for employee recruitment and retention. It is used by higher education institutions to foster a positive and inclusive environment on campus.
The GOP sees both CRT and DEI initiatives as pathways to indoctrination of so-called “woke” ideology that discriminates against conservatives. In Texas, Governor Abbott’s office sent out a warning to state agencies and public universities to not use DEI with hiring decisions. Governor Abbott’s chief-of-staff stated, “The innocuous sounding notion of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) has been manipulated to push policies that expressly favor some demographic groups to the detriment of others…Rebranding this employment discrimination as ‘DEI’ doesn’t make the practice any less illegal.”
DEI initiatives in the U.S.military were criticized in a recent panel, with U.S. Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) stating, “…Department of Defense and the services have embraced DEI training full cloth, without empirical evidence. And worse, they may very well be increasing racism and division in our military.” This echoes previous statements from Ted Cruz (R-TX) who complained that the U.S. military was too “woke” to compete with Russia.
On campus, in school board meetings, in the cubicles of private businesses, and even in the military, CRT and DEI initiatives are squarely in the crosshairs of conservative policymakers.
Policy Analysis
In my doctoral program at the University of Pittsburgh, I examined different research paradigms, including CRT. This was not a controversial or politically-charged class subject in my classes. It is difficult for me to understand the animus against CRT, because CRT is not a curriculum. A theory in that research paradigm category (such as critical race theory, critical feminism, and critical Marxism) is not a belief system, but rather a lens that one can use to view the world.
Critical theorists view events and history through the lens of power dynamics. There is typically a group that is oppressed, and the power structures which perpetuate the system of oppression.
It is impossible to “ban” CRT because it isn’t a curriculum; it’s a way of thinking. Banning CRT means trying to control the thoughts of students and faculty members, evoking images of an Orwellian Thought Police. If a student writes about the post-WWII economic landscape of the United States and focuses on redlining and systematic oppression of African-Americans, a CRT ban would require interrogating that student to determine why she chose those topics for her essay, and/or potentially deducting points for focusing “too much” on “divisive topics”. The aftermath of anti-CRT and ubiquitous “anti-Woke” policies has been almost dystopian, with book bans resulting in over 1,500 titles being removed from school district libraries across the country.
The attack angles of conservatives criticizing American education, from the days of A Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind have normally been centered on the failures of public schools, and solutions have typically been either school vouchers or increased school accountability measures.
Instead of taking a voucher and leaving public schools, parents are demanding more control over the curriculum, and school board meetings on these topics have been chaotic and even violent. As I discussed in a previous policy brief, Republicans will keep a spotlight on an issue as long as polling data supports their positions. 59% of Republican or Republican-leaning respondents in a recent poll stated, “I worry that our schools are focusing too much on issues related to race and racism”. The Virginia gubernatorial success of Governor Youngin shows that the issue mobilizes Republican voters. Accuracy does not matter. If parents think that DEI and CRT are somehow being used as tools for indoctrination, and are willing to go to the polls and vote red, GOP candidates will continue down this path.
As a teacher, I am thrilled whenever my students get excited about reading. Anyone in education knows that these fears of indoctrination are a modern Red Scare, and the folks supporting book bans are generally not looked upon kindly by historians. CRT and DEI are not the boogeyman, and teachers are not brainwashing kids. I can only hope that the adults in the room can somehow turn the talking points back to the issues that truly matter to education policy.
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Engagement Resources
- Center for Public Integrity
- Lou Frey Institute of Policy and Government.
- President Biden’s Executive Order on DEI
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
U.S. RESIST NEWS PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY
U.S. RESIST NEWS PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY
U.S. Resist News Op Ed. | By: U.S. Resist News | April 2023
Header photo taken from: theguardian.com
Democracy in the United States is under attack. Donald Trump demonstrated that you could be President and yet disregard the political and legal norms and values that made the US a symbol of what it means to be a democratic country. He politicized the justice system, showed disregard for the rule of law, and refused to accept the results of a free and fair Presidential election. Trump unleashed a wave of democracy disrespect by his followers that climaxed in the January 6th insurrection attack on our nation’s capital.
And now, although Trump is out of office and faces criminal indictments, the threat to our democracy remains. A significant but so far minority group of our citizens lacks the understanding of democracy’s importance. In the face of this threat there is a concerted effort to reaffirm and strengthen our democratic system by those of us who believe it is still the best from of governance. U.S. RESIST NEWS supports this effort, and believes it should be guided by the following list of principles.
- We live in a culturally diverse, multi-ethnic and racial society where everyone has the same political and legal rights.
- Everyone in our country is subject to the Rule of Law, even movie stars, and porn stars, and billionaires, and Presidents.
- Our system runs on free and fair elections that periodically and routinely take place providing accountability for existing leaders and opportunities for those who want to serve in leadership roles.
- We vote for policies that support our rights and opportunities and for the integrity, intelligence and compassion of those who want to lead us.
- Those who run for political office respect their opponent’s points of view and honor the peaceful transfer of power regardless of whether they win or lose.
- We place a cap on the use of money in politics so as to limit the influence of money on political campaigns and outcomes.
- We value the separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; with each branch having a distinct role that enables them to co-exist and exercise checks and balances with each other
- We respect the roles played by the media and civil society as organizations that help hold our politicians accountable, inform us about the issues, and serve as a voice of advocacy for our citizens
- Our democracy can’t exist and flourish with large income inequalities between members of society.
- We need to have an educated and informed citizenry for a healthy democracy.
This list of democratic principles is most likely incomplete, and we welcome suggestions from our readers and subscriber for additions to this list (Please send suggestions to our Managing Editor: roncisrael@gmail.com.
It is important to never lose sight of the principles of our democracy. They are the basis for the freedoms we enjoy and the debates and conversations needed to draft and support our public policies.
An Early Look at the 2023 Kentucky Governor’s Race
An Early Look at the 2023 Kentucky Governor’s Race
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #74 | By: Ian Milden | April 24, 2023
Header photo taken from: courier-journal.com/Matt Stone
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Kentucky is one of three states to elect Governors in the year before the Presidential Election. Incumbent Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY) is running for re-election with strong approval ratings, but the strong Republican partisan lean of Kentucky makes it challenging for any Democrat to win there. This brief will take a look at the race a few weeks before Republicans choose a nominee.
Policy Analysis
In 2019, then-Attorney General Andy Beshear defeated Republican Governor Matt Bevin to become the Governor of Kentucky. During his time in office, Beshear has dealt with the Covid-19 pandemic and multiple natural disasters. Beshear has provided updates frequently to Kentucky residents to inform them of the latest developments and what his administration was doing to help. Beshear’s presence, crisis-management skills, and focus on issues that matter to Kentucky voters have given him one of the strongest approval ratings among governors in the United States.
While Beshear’s excellent job performance has positioned him well for re-election, Kentucky is an increasingly difficult state for Democrats to win in. Republicans have taken over most of the remaining statewide offices, and they hold supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature. Democrats also haven’t been competitive in major federal races in the state except for the third Congressional district, which contains Louisville. Republicans also finally passed Democrats in statewide voter registration numbers.
Republicans are currently in the middle of a competitive primary race. The major candidates for the Republican nomination for Governor are Attorney General Daniel Cameron, State Auditor Mike Harmon, State Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles, and Former Ambassador Kelly Craft. Cameron succeeded Beshear as the Attorney General and has the endorsement of Donald Trump. Cameron also has close ties with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Mike Harmon became the auditor in 2015 when he defeated incumbent Auditor Adam Edelen (D-KY). Quarles was elected as the agriculture commissioner in 2015, and he has strong relationships within the Kentucky state Republican Party. Kelly Craft served as the Ambassador to Canada and the Ambassador to the United Nations during the Trump Administration. Her family has donated a lot of money to Republicans in Kentucky. Craft’s campaign was the first to air ads on television, which was a necessity since many Kentuckians did not know who she was when she launched her campaign. Attacks between the Craft campaign and the Cameron campaign have gotten uglier in recent weeks. The primary is on May 16th.
Regardless of whomever the Republicans nominate, they won’t have the baggage of unpopular former Governor Matt Bevin (R-KY). Bevin alienated voters by attempting to roll back the popular expansion of Medicaid services, which occurred under former Governor Steve Beshear (D-KY). Bevin also attempted to reduce pensions for Kentucky teachers, which also prompted significant protests. Bevin also had poor relationships with members of his own party, which resulted in some of his vetoes being overridden by the Republican-controlled state legislature.
Bevin’s unpopularity cost him significant amounts of votes in the 2019 election. In addition to losing Louisville and Lexington by historically large margins, he lost some counties in rural areas of Eastern Kentucky and suburban counties in Northern Kentucky that most Republicans have won comfortably in recent years. Bevin also lost Warren County and Davies County, which hold the third and fourth largest cities in Kentucky. Bevin also underperformed typical Republican margins in many rural counties, which is why he could not make up for losses in other areas.
If Andy Beshear is going to win reelection in November, his performance will need to be similar to his 2019 election win. The Louisville and Lexington areas are Beshear’s base of support, so he needs to win there by large margins and get high voter turnout rates in those areas. Beshear will also need to win Warren and Davies Counties and perform well in the northern Kentucky suburbs. Beshear will also need to contain Republican vote margins in the rural areas that compose the rest of the state. Most of these counties will vote for the Republican nominee, but the Republican nominee will have to perform better than Matt Bevin in order to win the Governor’s office this year.
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Engagement Resources
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!