JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
CRISPR Gene Editing: Medical Breakthrough or Ethical Minefield?
Policy Brief #167 – Health and Gender
by Inijah Quadri
The promises of CRISPR are undoubtedly enticing, but the underlying concerns regarding its long-term implications, especially when it comes to tampering with the very fabric of life, are undeniable.
Biden’s New Office of Gun Violence Prevention is More Necessary than Ever
Brief #151 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
The purpose of the new office is to act as an enforcement mechanism for prior gun safety legislation: most prominently The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act enacted in 2022.
Democrats Should’ve Saved Kevin McCarthy
Brief #104 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
The effort to oust McCarthy, spearheaded by Representative Matt Gaetz, was initiated after he compromised with Democrats to pass two compromise bills to raise the debt ceiling and avert a government shutdown.
The Oil from Fracking Flows Freely in a Fractured Society
Brief #162 – Environmental Policy Brief
by Todd J. Broadman
This need for carbon energy has led to thousands of new oil leases and the increased oil extraction has moved the U.S. ahead of Saudi Arabia as the globe’s biggest oil producer.
Will Airbnb Restrictions Save Renters?
Brief #100 – Technology Policy Brief
by Mindy Spatt
As Airbnb vacation rentals have proliferated in cities across the globe, local renters have seen rapidly rising prices and far fewer housing units available.
The Russian-Ukraine War: Where are We Now?
Brief #96 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Abran C
The last few weeks have seen two new wars spring up in our increasingly volatile international arena.
Congressional Support Lapses in the Fight Against Fentanyl
Policy Brief #166 – Health and Gender
by Geoffrey Small
Eight states reported increased death rates from nine percent to twenty one percent last year.
Gig Economy Insights: Benefits, Drawbacks, and the Future of Freelancing
Policy Brief #56 – Economic
by Inijah Quadri
In the age of digital transformation, the gig economy has emerged as a significant paradigm shift. Platforms like Uber, Airbnb, Upwork, and Fiverr have become the bridges connecting freelancers with opportunities, altering the traditional employment landscape.
An Analysis Of The Gag Orders In Criminal Cases Against Former President Trump
Brief #213 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
In the months leading up to the trial, the court issued Trump a limited gag order in order to try and limit some of his inflammatory comments while allowing him to still speak on public issues.
Russian Bombing Can’t Break the Spirit of the Citizens of Odessa
Russian Bombing Can’t Break the Spirit of the Citizens of Odessa
Foreign Policy Brief #85 | By: Yelena Korshunov | August 1, 2023
Photo taken from: Collage by author Yelena Korshunov, Transfiguration Cathedral in Odessa, Ukraine, before and after Russia’s shelling.
__________________________________
On the night of July 18th Raisa woke up from a terrible roar and heart-rending children’s screams. It seemed like their house was exploding and this is the end. This family was lucky enough to stay alive that night; just the deep crater from the explosion in front of their building and glass shards from broken windows became that night’s gift of “Russian peace”.
It was a quiet night when a massive shelling of Odessa began. The Russian side justified it as “retaliation strikes” for the explosion on the Crimean bridge. Night after night, Russian missiles not only damaged the infrastructure of the local port, but also destroyed many historical buildings and the Transfiguration Cathedral that was rebuilt in the last century after already being destroyed by the Soviet authority in 1936. Many people died and were injured, including children.
The Russian army launched its attacks immediately after their withdrawal from a UN-brokered grain agreement with Ukraine, which implied guarantees for the safe export of grain from the port of Odessa. On Sunday, July 16, the last vessel with Ukrainian grain left the port, and two days later Russia carried out a large-scale mortal shelling. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation stated that the targets of the “precision weapons” were some facilities where “terrorists” prepared acts against the Russian Federation, fuel storage facilities, and a ship repair plant that produces boats which “terrorists” would use for their acts. In fact, the beautiful small port temple, a hotel, a restaurant, and private houses were the target of Russia’s missiles. Next night heavy shelling ruined the grain and oil terminals and other port infrastructure. According to the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food of Ukraine, 60 tons of grain were destroyed, which, as President Volodymyr Zelensky later clarified, the country was going to send to China. The shelling also left 3,000 people without electricity that night.
On the night of July 23, Russia resumed strikes. This attack was the most destructive yet since the beginning of the war. Russian missiles hit the port infrastructure again and destroyed six residential apartment buildings. The historical center of Odessa was also damaged. Among Russia’s targets were 29 architectural monuments under the protection of UNESCO. These buildings survived the violent destructive revolution of 1917 and World War II, but they apparently bothered the Kremlin too much. The Chinese consulate in Odessa also suffered from that attack. On July 29th a UNESCO mission arrived in Odessa to assess damage.
In the days after the night horror Odessa residents have been leaving their homes and shelters to help the municipal services with the elimination of the shelling’s ramifications. People go out to sort out the rubble, clean streets, and remove debris from the areas of the tragedy.
After massive attacks on the center of Odessa, the mayor of the city, Gennady Trukhanov, addressed the citizens of Russia in Russian language: ”If you knew how Odessa hates you. Not only hates, but also despises. You are fighting with little children and with churches. Your rockets fly even to cemeteries. During this war, you were called differently: rashists, orcs, scum, nits. But it’s still sweet. You are just creatures without family and tribe, morality and values. And with no future. You don’t know us Odessans very well. You will not break us, but only anger us even more. The strength of our defenders, multiplied by the anger and pain of ordinary people, will be your death sentence.”
Carbon Taxes: Balancing Climate Change Mitigation with Sustainable Economic Growth
Navigating the Information Jungle: Social Media, Disinformation, and Political Polarization
Environmental Policy Brief #157 | By: Inijah Quadri | July 31, 2023
Photo taken from: internationaltaxreview.com
__________________________________
Addressing climate change is a pressing concern that demands comprehensive policy responses. Among various climate policies, carbon tax implementation has emerged as a pivotal tool for promoting a transition towards a greener economy. A carbon tax imposes a fee on the carbon content of fossil fuels, thus financially incentivizing businesses and individuals to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
While the carbon tax is perceived as a practical strategy for curbing emissions, it is a contentious policy area in the United States, where concerns about economic competitiveness, equity, and efficacy of the tax are prevalent. Potential repercussions on low-income households and certain industries are a particular source of debate. However, evidence from other nations and a few localized examples within the U.S. illustrate the viability of a carbon tax as a tool for climate action while maintaining economic growth.
Analysis
Studies suggest that carbon taxes can effectively reduce GHG emissions. Countries like British Columbia and Sweden have experienced significant emission reductions following carbon tax implementation, without inhibiting economic growth.
a. British Columbia, Canada: The province implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2008. Years later, per capita fossil fuel consumption decreased by over 15% in British Columbia relative to the rest of Canada, with minimal impact on overall economic performance.
b. Sweden: Implemented in 1991, Sweden’s carbon tax is one of the highest in the world. Despite this, Sweden’s economy has grown year upon year since the tax’s inception, challenging the belief that environmental regulations necessarily harm economic growth.
Closer to home, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – a cooperative effort among the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states that implements a regional cap-and-trade program (a market cousin of a carbon tax) – has seen success in reducing emissions while generating economic benefits. However, for broader application across the U.S., concerns over economic and social implications require careful design of a national tax policy.
Another key U.S. initiative in carbon pricing is California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. This program sets a statewide limit on GHG emissions while permitting entities to buy and sell emission allowances. The program has contributed to California’s progress in reducing emissions and has generated billions in revenue for climate and clean energy programs.
Addressing equity issues is vital. Potential regressive impacts of a carbon tax can be offset through tax rebates or by directing revenue to fund social programs. The idea of a revenue-neutral approach, like that in British Columbia, where tax revenues are returned to citizens through other tax reductions, may be appealing.
Tackling climate change necessitates a comprehensive suite of policy measures, with a carbon tax potentially playing a significant role in the U.S. context. The implementation of such a tax demands ongoing refinement, transparency, and a focus on fairness to ensure that the tax burden is appropriately shared.
Engagement Resources
- Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition (https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/): The CPLC supports and encourages successful carbon pricing implementation worldwide.
- Environmental Defense Fund (https://www.edf.org/): The EDF focuses on key environmental issues, including climate change and carbon pricing.
- Citizens’ Climate Lobby (https://citizensclimatelobby.org/): A grassroots organization advocating for national climate change policies, including carbon pricing.
- World Resources Institute (https://www.wri.org/): A global research organization turning ideas into action to preserve our natural resources.
- Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (https://www.c2es.org/): This center promotes robust policy and action to address energy and climate change challenges.
- Resources for the Future (https://www.rff.org/): An independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC, focusing on environmental, energy, and natural resource issues.
Navigating the Information Jungle: Social Media, Disinformation, and Political Polarization
Navigating the Information Jungle: Social Media, Disinformation, and Political Polarization
Technology Policy Brief #93 | By: Inijah Quadri | July 31, 2023
Photo taken from: www.aa.com.tr
__________________________________
Social media has emerged as a pivotal platform for communication, entertainment, and information dissemination in the 21st century. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube command billions of users, profoundly influencing global culture, policy debates, and political discourse. While the rise of social media has undoubtedly democratized access to information, it has also become a fertile ground for disinformation and political polarization.
Disinformation—the deliberate creation and sharing of false information with the intent to deceive or mislead—is not just misinformation or rumors. It is an orchestrated campaign designed to propagate lies, distortions, and half-truths, ultimately impacting public opinion, aggravating political division, and undermining democratic processes.
Significant evidence points to the role of social media in propagating disinformation, with repercussions visible in landmark political events, such as the 2016 US Presidential Election and the Brexit referendum. A 2019 report from Oxford University’s Computational Propaganda Research Project disclosed organized social media manipulation in 70 countries, a substantial increase from 48 the previous year and 28 the year before that. The gravity of these findings suggests that unchecked disinformation can destabilize societies and impede democratic processes.
Analysis
Political polarization—intense divergence of political attitudes to ideological extremes—isn’t a novelty. However, social media has catalyzed and amplified its effects by creating echo chambers and filter bubbles, where algorithms curate content that aligns with a user’s existing beliefs and interests.
These algorithms are essentially complex computational procedures designed to present users with content that they would likely find engaging. By analyzing data like previous likes, shares, and time spent on different types of posts, they make educated guesses on what a user might want to see next. This, however, can often lead to the amplification of misinformation as controversial and sensational content tends to generate high engagement. This selective exposure to information bolsters cognitive biases, with a 2022 study demonstrating how these echo chambers can foster extremism by reinforcing and amplifying partisan views.
Disinformation thrives in these digitally-fueled environments. Its seeds are sown deep and spread rapidly within the echo chambers, often remaining unchecked or contested. The 2020 US Presidential Election stands as a stark testament to this, as false narratives about election fraud circulated widely on social media platforms despite the claims being thoroughly debunked by fact-checkers. The aftermath—an unprecedented attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021—laid bare the dangerous repercussions of this disinformation.
Addressing the role of social media in fanning the flames of disinformation and political polarization is a challenging task. Policymakers are navigating a tightrope between the need for information integrity and the preservation of freedom of speech. However, steps can be taken. Greater transparency from tech companies about their algorithms, stronger and more proactive fact-checking measures, education focused on media literacy, and potential regulation of social media platforms are strategies currently under consideration.
But the key is fostering a multidimensional approach that involves all stakeholders—governments, tech companies, civil society, and users—to ensure that the digital public square can support a vibrant, yet responsible, exchange of ideas. More specifically, stakeholders need to converge on the adoption of standards and guidance to address the spread of disinformation effectively.
As an example, the recent legislation proposed by Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham can serve as a pivotal reference. This law attempts to introduce stricter rules for social media platforms in curbing the spread of misinformation, thereby holding them more accountable. As such, stakeholders must critically examine, discuss, and build upon such legislative efforts to achieve a more comprehensive and resilient approach against disinformation.
Engagement Resources
- Center for Humane Technology (https://www.humanetech.com/): Advocating for the redesign of technology to better align with human interests, focusing on the harmful effects of social media and disinformation.
- The Poynter Institute (https://www.poynter.org/): An international leader in journalism, promoting the responsible production and sharing of news, with significant resources on fact-checking and combating disinformation.
- Digital Forensic Research Lab (https://www.digitalsherlocks.org/): An entity dedicated to the study and exposure of disinformation and misinformation on social media, providing digital tools to discern truth in the digital age.
- The Media Manipulation Casebook (https://mediamanipulation.org/): A digital research platform combining theory, methods, and practice for mapping media manipulation and disinformation campaigns.
- First Draft (https://firstdraftnews.org/): A nonprofit that provides resources and training for journalists in the digital age, including a focus on verification and fact-checking to combat misinformation and disinformation.
- Stanford Internet Observatory (https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io): The observatory conducts research on abuse in current information technologies, with a focus on social media and the integrity of information.
Why The Religious Liberty Argument Threatens Civil Rights And Anti – Discrimination Statutes
Why The Religious Liberty Argument Threatens Civil Rights And Anti – Discrimination Statutes
Civil Rights Policy Brief #210 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | July 28, 2023
Photo taken from: americanprogress.org
__________________________________
On June 30, 2023 the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis. That case began when the owner of a graphic design business in Colorado considered expanding her business to include wedding website design. She had concerns, because of her religious beliefs and opposition to same – sex marriages, that she would be compelled to create a wedding website for a same – sex couple. The Supreme Court decided in a 6 – 3 decision based on free speech grounds that “The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”
In the aftermath of the decision, a number of notable incidents occurred indicating that the decision was being interpreted in an extreme manner. In July in Traverse City Michigan Christine Geiger, the owner of Studio 8 Hair Lab announced on Facebook “If a human identifies as anything other than man/woman, please seek services at a local pet groomer. You are not welcome at this salon. Period.” In subsequent interviews with the owner, she clarified that she was opposed to the TQ+ of the LGBQT+ acronym and claimed she had a right refuse service to those persons. The T stands for transgender persons and Q stands for those who identify as queer. The + is an all – encompassing symbol for those who identify as intersex, asexual, pansexual, two – spirit or omnisexual.
In Texas, McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley filed a lawsuit in 2019 after being warned by the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct for her refusal to perform same – sex marriages in the state. Her rationale is that she is being unfairly punished for her religious beliefs and opposition to same – sex marriages. Her case was subsequently dismissed after reaching a lower appeals court tribunal. But with the recent Supreme Court decision in 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to consider whether her lawsuit should be revived. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
These two incidents and a number of other lower court cases illustrate the danger and hatred that LGBQT+ people face in the ongoing discrimination because of religious liberty debate. The 303 decision carved out a free speech exception but it was clear that the motivation behind the case was in using a person’s religious beliefs as justification to refuse to serve other persons in the marketplace because of their opposition to the lifestyle choice of the other persons.
But the danger and harm that appears to be emerging may not be just against the LGBQT+ community. The rationale of the 303 decision and the justification often put forth by those who are claiming that their religious liberty is being infringed is that they are being forced to do something against their religious beliefs. In the 303 case the reasoning was that the graphic designer was being forced to say words or express views in her own designs that went against her religious beliefs. In other cases, the rationale is that by providing a service or selling a product to a couple living their lifestyle choice means that the religious people endorse or support same sex marriage.
But now, legal scholars are wondering if this refusal to serve another person could be extended to matters outside LGBQT+ issues. In Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the 303 case, she listed numerous examples where a person might decide to refuse someone service because of their religious beliefs. She listed a photographer refusing to take professional head shots of a woman because he might not believe women should work outside the home. Or that a vendor could refuse service of any item or service to an interracial couple because of religious beliefs against people of different races mixing or even marrying. Anti – miscegenation laws were once justified on religious grounds with reasoning as ignorant as “because the Bible was against races mixing.” And during the 1960’s, a reliance on religious beliefs and religion was once used as the reason to refuse to support passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If the 303 case and its rationale becomes more accepted and widespread than it is likely that certain civil rights and anti – discrimination statutes can be nullified and given minimal effect if a person can simply claim religious liberty for any law they do not want to follow. This is a very dangerous road to be going down but that seems to be the effect that the 303 decision is having. Over one hundred and forty years ago in the 1879 Supreme Court case Reynolds v. United States the Court recognized this problem and Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote
“Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….”
It is unfortunate that today’s Supreme Court has failed to follow this legal principle, opting instead to give a preferred position to religious beliefs over the rule of law. No person should be deprived of their civil rights by a hairdresser or even a judge simply because of the religious beliefs of those people. Maybe one day the Supreme Court will revisit these discrimination in the name of religious liberty cases and re-adopt the legal principle from the Reynolds case, lest the LGBQT+ community and other vulnerable communities be deprived of the protections of civil rights and anti – discrimination statutes and their basic civil rights. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- National Constitution Center – analysis of the 303 decision and discussion about free speech, expressive conduct and discrimination.
- The First Amendment Encyclopedia – a history and explanation of the Supreme Court’s 1879 Reynolds v. United States decision.
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.
FDA Legalizes Nonprescription Birth Control, but Legal Challenges Await
FDA Legalizes Nonprescription Birth Control, but Legal Challenges Await
Health & Gender Policy Brief #81 | By: Geoffrey Small | July 28, 2023
Photo taken from: pink.pharmaintelligence.informa.com
__________________________________
On July 13th, the FDA approved nonprescription birth control pills for use in the United States. Opill, generically referred to as norgestrel, is a progestin-only oral contraceptive that will be available for purchase at drug stores, grocery stores, convenience stores, and online. Patrizia Cavazzoni, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, stated that the approval “marks the first time a nonprescription daily oral contraceptive will be an available option for millions of people in the United States.” HRA Pharma, recently acquired by Perrigo Company plc, applied for norgestrel to be switched to non-prescription after it met FDA requirements with studies that showed the drug can be “used by consumers safely and effectively, relying only on the nonprescription drug labeling without any assistance from a health care professional.” The approval is a significant victory for reproductive rights, as recent Supreme Court rulings have stripped U.S. citizens of universal access to abortions. However, experts are wary of the legal challenges that may follow the FDA approval. Exploring recent Supreme Court decisions may help the public understand the future of nonprescription birth control.
Policy Analysis
According to the FDA, “Almost half of the 6.1 million pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended. Unintended pregnancies have been linked to negative maternal and perinatal outcomes, including reduced likelihood of receiving early prenatal care and increased risk of preterm delivery, with associated adverse neonatal, developmental and child health outcomes.” Despite this data, reproductive rights have been under siege since the recent infamous Supreme Court ruling that dismantled Roe v. Wade and left the legality of abortion procedures to be determined by the states.
Many experts also point to the recent challenges of mifepristone, an abortion pill, that could set a precedent for nonprescription birth control. On April 21st, the Supreme Court blocked a lower court decision to ban the FDA-approved drug while lawsuits are challenging the agency’s recent sanctioning of ordering abortion medication online. The ruling doesn’t mean the decision is final. The justices left the decision to ban mifepristone in the hands of the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals. Justice Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Texas U.S. District Judge appointed by the Trump Administration, issued a national ban on April 7th arguing that the approval of the drug 23 years ago was not properly executed. However, Judge Thomas O. Rice in Washington issued a contrary ruling to expand the use of mifepristone minutes after Kacsmaryk’s ruling. Also, The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially limited Kacsmaryk’s decision, as the statute of limitations to challenge the approval passed long ago. Legal experts speculate that the mifepristone decision will almost certainly end back up in the Supreme Court during the next term, because the 5th Circuit still needs to inevitably rule on the lawsuits challenging the drug.
Lawsuits, backed by anti-reproductive rights groups, for the recent FDA-approval of nonprescription birth control are all but certain to make their way through the federal courts. The mifepristone legal battle is not over and may help determine legal precedents for over-the-counter drugs, like Opill. Organizations like the ACLU are challenging abortion abolitionist legal efforts in the United States. Donating to their organization can help protect reproductive rights from these challenges.
Engagement Resources
- https://www.aclu.org
The Ukraine Crisis Situation Update #25
The Ukraine Crisis Situation Update #25
Foreign Policy Brief #84 | By: Abran C | July 27, 2023
Photo taken from: https://www.ft.com/
__________________________________
Drone strikes
Russian authorities have accused Ukraine of launching a drone attack on Moscow early Monday that saw one of the aircraft fall near the Russian Defense Ministry’s headquarters. This is another attack in what has become a series of drone attacks and bombings in the Russian capital since the beginning of the war. Russia later launched its sixth air attack on Ukraine’s capital this month, but all incoming drones were shot down and reports indicated no damage or casualties. The recent attack on Kyiv, came the day after Russia warned of “tough retaliatory measures” for the attempted drone strike in Moscow. Russian airstrikes also severely damaged dozens of Ukrainian architectural landmarks, including a historic Orthodox cathedral in the southern city of Odessa, sparking outrage and prompting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to vow retaliation.
Russia-Belarus-Poland
With the war in Ukraine came the strengthening of ties among some allies and increase in distrust among rival states. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently warned Poland that any attack on Belarus will be considered an attack on Russia, in a direct threat to the NATO ally. Putin made such threats in response to Warsaw’s decision this week to station military units to the east of the country, closer to the Belarusian border. Poland stationed troops closer to its border in response to thousands of Wagner mercenary troops holding military exercises with Belarusian troops near the Polish border. Putin though, claimed, “that Poland appeared to have interests in retaking eastern territories it lost to former Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin, including “a good chunk of Ukraine … to take back the historic lands… it’s well known that they dream of Belarusian lands as well.” Adding that Moscow would treat any aggression against Belarus with all means at its disposal.
Russia-Ukraine grain deal
Russia announced last week that it was suspending its participation in a deal that allowed the export of Ukrainian grain to the rest of the world, once again raising fears over global food supplies and upending a rare diplomatic breakthrough since Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Wheat prices have risen more than 14% since last week, and corn prices are up more than 10%. Russia has for some time complained that it is being prevented from adequately exporting its own goods under sanction, while Ukraine is able to ship grain out of the country, and Russian foreign minister Peskov cited that objection as the reason for pulling out of the deal. The UN Chief, Antonio Guterres, on Monday, urged Russia to resume the internationally brokered deal so that grain could be shipped from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, saying that otherwise, the world’s most vulnerable among the hungry will suffer the worst consequences.
Engagement Resources
Is Doug Burgum Breaking Campaign Finance Laws to Try to Get on the Debate Stage?
Is Doug Burgum Breaking Campaign Finance Laws to Try to Get on the Debate Stage?
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #87 | By: Ian Milden | July 25, 2023
Photo taken from: www.newsnationnow.com
__________________________________
North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum (R-ND) recently launched a Presidential Campaign, which he is largely funding through his personal fortune. The RNC’s requirements to get on the debate stage require candidates to demonstrate a degree of grassroots support though donors and polling. Burgum is employing tactics that might not be legal in order to reach the donor threshold. This Brief will discuss those tactics, why they might be illegal, and what the government should do about it.
Analysis
In nearly every election cycle, longshot candidates launch campaigns for President. The campaign for the 2024 Republican Presidential nomination is no different. With the increasing number of candidates, the national parties have installed requirements in recent cycles in order for candidates to participate in debates. While the debates themselves are not always impactful, the difference between making the debate stage and being left off is still considered a critical measure of viability for longshot candidates.
In order for a candidate to receive an invitation to participate in next month’s debate, they must have 40,000 unique donors from at least 20 states. They must also reach 1% in three national or state polls that meet the RNC’s specifications, which are not in line with modern polling criteria. Candidates will also be required to pledge to support to the eventual nominee.
While longshots have to be creative in order to meet these criteria, Governor Doug Burgum’s strategy might be illegal. Burgum, a former CEO of Great Plains Software, is using his personal fortune to send $20 gift cards to the first 50,000 donors to his campaign. While candidates have given away merchandise in exchange for donations (such as shirts, yard signs, and other memorabilia), nobody has ever given away something with a clear monetary value.
Burgum’s strategy might be illegal because it effectively makes Burgum a straw donor. A straw donor is someone who gives money to a campaign through another person as a way of circumventing campaign contribution limits. This is illegal and the Justice Department has prosecuted people for straw donor schemes. It is not completely clear if this is illegal as there are a few differences from the traditional straw donor schemes that the Justice Department typically prosecutes.
The first difference is that the candidate who is effectively acting as the straw donor. Candidates are not limited in the amount of money that they can give their own campaign. Typical straw donor schemes are usually attempts to circumvent campaign contribution limits (both on dollar amounts and foreign nationals), and there is no limit on candidates giving themselves money. The second difference is that most straw donor schemes are secret attempts at circumventing campaign finance laws. Burgum is doing this transparently and not asking people for contributions that would exceed existing campaign finance limits.
Is Burgum’s Strategy Illegal?
To be honest, I don’t know. I don’t know if those differences matter enough in the eyes of the law. The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is the agency that would usually determine whether Burgum’s strategy is legal or not. As I have written in a previous brief, the FEC is not a very functional regulator. This allows campaigns to try lots of different strategies and see if they work. If they happen to violate existing campaign finance rules, the FEC might fine the campaign in a few years for an amount that is not substantial for a billionaire like Burgum. This is not effective enforcement of campaign finance law.
There is a simple solution that might work better for the public. The Justice Department has a unit that prosecutes people for federal campaign finance offenses. Since the FEC is dysfunctional, it would be in the best interests of the public if the Justice Department could determine whether new strategies like the one Burgum is using with gift cards for donations are legal or not. If the Justice Department thinks that the strategy is illegal, it can inform Burgum’s campaign and tell it to stop rather than having to invest resources in an investigation and potential prosecution. If the strategy is legal, the Justice Department can put out a statement saying so. The Justice Department has taken this approach on other legal areas such as helping businesses comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. While this approach would further harm the authority of the FEC, the FEC can only have its authority restored by a complete overhaul, which requires Congress to act on. The Justice Department should only take on this responsibility temporarily for time-sensitive matters until Congress overhauls the FEC.
Engagement Resources
- For more about the Federal Election Commission and how it works contact https://www.fec.gov
Were Asian Americans Manipulated and Used As Pawns To Overturn Affirmative Action?
Were Asian Americans Manipulated and Used As Pawns To Overturn Affirmative Action?
Civil Rights Policy Brief #209 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | July 20, 2023
Background photo taken from: prospect.org
__________________________________
On June 29, 2023 the United States Supreme Court decided the case Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College. That case held that affirmative action policies used in college admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The crux of the argument being made by the Students For Fair Admissions (SFFA) group was that the affirmative action policies discriminated against minority Asian – American students when race was being used as a factor for admission. They argue that this discrimination results in many qualified Asian – American students being rejected from Harvard solely because of their race. Their reasoning starts with the premise that many Asian – Americans are qualified and get accepted in great numbers. They then assert that colleges who have already accepted a large number of Asian – American students conclude that there are already “enough” Asian – American students. So, those Asian – American students who did not get accepted must score significantly better to overtake a white student for a spot in the enrolling class. As a result, their convoluted and weak argument states that these Asian – American students are being harmed because the use of race for other minorities has diminished their chances to earn a spot at the college.
In the aftermath of the decision, this case was touted as a win for Asian – Americans and the discrimination they faced in college admissions. However, 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 use, manipulate and use as pawns Asian – Americans in order to have affirmative action declared unconstitutional.
Analysis
Many, many people from all walks of American life weighed in on the Students For Admissions case and commented on the merits of the case – the legal history of racial inequity in this country, the legal analysis of Chief Justice Roberts and the opposing views of the dissent. However, one thing that may have been overlooked is how the case arrived at the Supreme Court and the one nagging question that the Asian – American community is now grappling with – were they used and manipulated to bring about a result that the Asian – American community may not have wanted at this time?
The Asian – American non – profit group Asian – American Advocacy Fund did not mince words and directly addressed the issue by calling the decision “an example of ‘Asian – Americans’ being used as a “wedge” to erode civil rights.” The group went further and called the efforts by this group as a shield for a “white supremacist” agenda that used “a small number of Asian – Americans against affirmative action as pawns” in order “to divide our communities.” Even noted Hollywood and Star Trek actor George Takei commented on Twitter by calling those Asians who supported overturning affirmative action as having “Asian Sucker Syndrome (ASS).”
So, are the claims that the Asian – American community was used and manipulated by Ed Blum and his Students For Fair Admissions group valid? The signs certainly seem to point in that direction. Mr. Blum and SFFA had previously brought a case to the Supreme Court to overturn affirmative action with a white plaintiff claiming affirmative action had cost her a spot at the University of Texas but he lost the case. That prompted Ed Blum to find a more sympathetic plaintiff who could more plausibly claim discrimination and that is when he focused on finding an Asian plaintiff. However, when word got out that he wanted an Asian plaintiff to bring another case, he found that not many Asian groups supported his efforts. In fact, just a few years previously, more than 150 Asian – American groups signed an open letter supporting affirmative action policies. And it is also notable, that once Mr. Blum’s group started litigating their cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, no Asian – American students came forward to testify as having experienced discrimination in the college admissions process. And, in a National Public Radio (NPR) podcast, it was revealed that the data relied on by Mr. Blum to claim anti – Asian discrimination in Harvard’s admissions data was unsupported and that there was an overall feeling from Asian – American leaders that they felt used by Mr. Blum’s efforts. This was not a genuine effort to help Asian – Americans or to advocate for their interests as a community. Even the press release released by Mr. Blum when the decision was handed down failed to mention Asian – Americans anywhere in the text. Instead it is looking more and more likely that SFFA and Mr. Blum manipulated the small number of Asian – Americans who were opposed to affirmative action and twisted their narrative of discrimination in the U.S. to reach for another result – the end of constitutional protection for affirmative action policies, which he got. There are a number of reasons to be angry at the Students For Fair Admissions decision but for Asian – Americans the anger and disappointment is for something else – at being used to dismantle affirmative action policies that most Asian – Americans support. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- National Public Radio (NPR) – report on history of Ed Blum’s anti – affirmative action efforts and why Asian – Americans felt used and manipulated by his efforts.
- Asian American Advocacy Fund – statement from non – profit group condemning Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard College decision.
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.
Is that Hotel or Airbnb Really Clean, Sunny and Well-Appointed?
Is that Hotel or Airbnb Really Clean, Sunny and Well-Appointed?
Technology Policy Brief #92 | By: Mindy Spatt | July 19, 2023
Photo taken from: www.reddit.com
__________________________________
If you’re considering online reviews when booking summer travel accommodations, you’re not alone. Numerous surveys show a majority of consumers rely on online reviews when choosing products, accommodations and services. Unfortunately, those reviews are not always trustworthy, as anyone who’s arrived at a well-reviewed vacation rental only to find a dump knows. The World Economic Forum estimates that 4% of online reviews worldwide are fake, with costs to consumers in the billions.
Many of those fake reviews come from paid services. According to the Harvard Business Review, there is a “large and thriving market for fake reviews.” One method the Review noted was through Facebook groups that sellers use to recruit “buyers” for their products who post positive reviews and are actually compensated for doing so. And while many platforms, including Yelp and Airbnb, take measures to root out phony reviews, sellers are finding new ways to outwit them, and making them harder for platforms to find.
Some states are fighting back, as are federal regulators. California, New York and several other states joined the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in a suit against Roomster, an online apartment rental site, for using paid, fake reviews in its listings, which customers must pay to access.
“The FTC has seen a massive increase in online reviews in the past few years,” Serena Viswanathan, associate director of the FTC’s division of ad practices, told CBS News in an interview. “We’re all using them now to make decisions on whether to buy a product, where to stay on vacation. But unfortunately, 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 announcing new efforts to rein in fakes, FTC Chair Lina Kahn called out the practice, saying “The incentives extend beyond the seller of the product itself. The platforms that host reviews may also, in some instances, benefit indirectly from fake ratings and endorsements and have financial incentives to turn a blind eye to misconduct that brings in revenue.”
Kahn’s agency is proposing rules that would penalize companies that use fake reviews to promote their products and services. The FTC’s proposal would make selling and buying phony reviews illegal, and also seek to prevent “review hijacking,” which is when real reviews are repurposed so they appear to be for a different product then originally intended. If the rules are finalized, violators would be subject to penalties of up to $50,000 for each violation. The proposed rules couldn’t come at a better time, as artificial intelligence is likely to make sham ads much easier to create and distribute.
In the meantime, how can you protect yourself?
Look for concrete wording.” A study conducted by Cornell University found that “Truthful hotel reviews…. are more likely to use concrete words relating to the hotel, like “bathroom,” “check-in” or “price.” Deceivers write more about things that set the scene, like “vacation,” “business trip” or “my husband.”
The quantity of reviews matters. If a product or service only has only a few reviews in comparison to the numbers for similar products or services, it may not be as good as it sounds. On Airbnb, beware of new accounts: Although the platform will delete or ban users after they have been caught posting fake reviews, those users will often be able to create new accounts and continue to scam consumers. Beware!
Engagement Resources
- https://fakereviewwatch.com
- How Policymakers Can Thwart the Rise of Fake Reviews by Morgan Stevens and Daniel Castro, September 12, 2022 https://datainnovation.org/2022/09/how-policymakers-can-thwart-the-rise-of-fake-reviews/
Charter Schools and the Myth of Desegregation
Charter Schools and the Myth of Desegregation
Education Policy Brief #83 | By: Steve Piazza | July 19, 2023
Photo taken from: www.theatlantic.com
__________________________________
Equal access to public schools in America has long been considered a tenet to maintaining its democracy. The push to desegregate them was viewed as an extension of this principle as its intention was to provide increased equitable academic opportunities and resources for students of all ethnic and economic backgrounds.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is the U.S. Supreme Court precedent for the desegregation of American public schools. Yet, even after the 1954 decision, the road to desegregation has been a slow one. In some instances, it took schools over a decade to begin complying with federal law. In the eyes of many, despite early improvement in graduation rates in African American and Hispanic students, the actuality of integration has been digressing.
School choice, and more specifically charter schools, have been thought of by some as a way to help desegregate schools. Charter schools are allowed greater local control and are not subject to the same rules and regulations as public schools. Charter schools and districts receive funding from the state and the local school system, though recent federal funding opportunities exist to assist with start-up costs.
Ordinarily, there are no demographic enrollment requirements for charter schools since by nature they are open to all students. In other words, they are not permitted to select their students to fulfill diversity goals like magnet schools can. This means that a charter school may find itself even more segregated.
Analysis
When it comes to improving schools, there is an enormous difference between educational innovation and school choice strategies like charter schools.
Education innovations range anywhere from year-round schools to technology-based lessons to experiential learning. Rather than mere rote memorization, the emphasis is on critical thinking, collaboration, and cultural awareness, attributes that colleges look for in those applying for admission. But a charter school is not so much an innovative teaching methodology as it is a process and framework that allows innovations to take place, which is part of their widespread appeal.
Since the early 1990s, charter schools have become one of the more popular choice approaches, and by 2019 3.4 million students were reported as being served by over 7500 schools with charter designation.
Despite their popularity, results on academic progress are mixed. In studies performed by the National Center for Education Statistics and the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, little or no differences in performance exist between traditional and charter schools.
However, according to a study done by Education Next, from 2005 and 2017 charter school students have demonstrated higher achievement by at least a half a year, and mostly by those who are African American or in lower economic groups particularly in urban areas. Researchers caution these trends do not point directly at an ethnic or poverty level, but do suggest that either the education quality has improved or that newly enrolled students are entering possessing more proficiency.
But 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.
Statistics demonstrate that many charter schools enroll students that tend to be predominately one ethnic group. This means that many charter schools have become racially identifiable, and thus students are isolated from others of different backgrounds.
On its own, a school being racially identifiable is not a bad thing, but if students are de facto segregated, they are missing out on interactions with other groups of children that may provide a more realistic view or representation of the larger society, not to mention the intrinsic advantages that come with cross cultural collaboration.
Researchers of a 2019 Cornell study suggest that what is needed to reverse this trend of resegregation are “policies such as weighted lotteries, controlled choice and diversity-conscious admissions algorithms to ensure that charters operate more like racially inclusive magnet schools, and federal grant competitions should reward such efforts.” It might be a surprise to some that these strategies have not already been commonplace.
Many believe the real problem in education has been one of poverty and disproportionate funding, not race, as income segregation has increased significantly since the 1990’s. That But the sum of that argument does is not entirely made up of it parts hold up though, since at present, it appears to have so much to do with race as it can’t be a coincidence that white school districts still get more than $23 billion in funding than African American districts, and this includes charter schools.
Of course, all this raises the question: is integration for integration’s sake worth it?
Some would argue no as there are instances of improved achievement at many predominantly African-American charter schools. But if those are the exception in segregated charter schools rather than the rule, and academic results show a correlation to funding, we still have more to learn about what it means to be equitable.
Engagement Resources
- For more data on charter schools provided by The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) click here.
- EdBuild advocates for equitable funding for school districts. To learn more, visit their site at https://edbuild.org/
Brown’s Promise, a new program located at the Southern Education Foundation, advocates for school integration and the fair allocation of resources: https://www.brownspromise.org/