Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

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

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Donald Trump and Accountability

Brief #92 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Abigail Hunt

Donald Trump is currently the leading candidate for the Republican party Presidential nomination – this man who openly bragged, on tape, about sexually assaulting strangers…

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Fintech Loans: Breakthrough in Payday Lending or Just Another Way to Bilk Consumers?

Fintech Loans: Breakthrough in Payday Lending or Just Another Way to Bilk Consumers?

Fintech Loans: Breakthrough in Payday Lending or Just Another Way to Bilk Consumers?

Technology Policy Brief #91 | By: Mindy Spatt | June 2, 2023
Photo taken from: money.com

__________________________________

 

Summary

The dramatic growth of Earned Wage Access apps is sending off alarm bells among consumer advocates.  Just a handful of employer-sponsored programs facilitated more than $9.5 billion in loans in 2020, about a 200% increase from 2018, with consumers borrowing before payday and agreeing to automatic repayment through their paycheck or bank account.

The majority of consumers using Earned Wage Access apps are college educated and middle class.  The majority are also women, who are targeted in deceptive ads offering fast cash for free that don’t disclose all the fees the user will have to pay. 

Analysis

‘Fintech” payday loans are the Internet’s answer to traditional payday loans and, consumer advocates claim, can be just as nefarious.  According to one provider, Earnin.com, Earned Wage Advances work two ways.

In employer-based models, the employer partners with a “provider” and the advance is repaid by taking the money directly out of the employees’ paycheck, with fees paid by either the employer or employee or both.

A direct-to-consumer model is available to people with regular direct deposit income, including gig workers.  According to Earin, “Consumers can pay for this product through a subscription fee, a per-transaction fee, or a voluntary tip amount. However, most EWA providers offer customers a no-fee version of their service.”

A no fee version sounds great, especially considering the high interest rates traditional payday loans are notorious for.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau warns that “A typical two-week payday loan with a $15 per $100 fee equates to an annual percentage rate (APR) of almost 400 percent,” compared to credit card APRs that are usually from 12 to 30 percent.

But the loans or “advances” offered by Earned Wage Access companies, even when advertised as free, mostly aren’t.  Advocates including the National Center for Consumer Law claim users are pressured to pay voluntary tips and are penalized if they fail to pony up, in contravention of truth in lending laws. 

In fact, some state regulators have demanded a stop to the deceptive advertising, including the Connecticut Department of Banking, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) and the Office of the Attorney General of the District of Columbia, where Fintech company SoLo Funds were ordered to stop offering loans with a concealed APR of over 500%. The Connecticut Banking Commissioner found that although SoLo claimed tips were optional, every single customer in Connecticut had paid one.  That’s similar to the results of California’s investigation, which found that the majority of consumers paid tips, with companies that requested them getting paid 73% of the time.

The glaring problems with this approach are not only that it bypasses truth in lending requirements, but also that it prevents comparison shopping and subjects consumers to a great deal of pressure.  Creditkarma.com lauds the website Dave as being ‘the best for low fees”, because “The Dave app doesn’t charge interest. Instead, it has a $1 membership fee.”  However, the tip request, which is repeated numerous times, can be as high as 15%, with the default for a $100 loan set at $6.00. 

In a paper urging closer scrutiny and regulation of the industry, Georgetown Law Professor Nakita Q. Cuttino points out that loan markets with ineffective price disclosures are associated with an increase in loan costs as compared to markets with clear price disclosures, and that the earned wage market is “riddled with a variety of pricing models.”

She proposes a federal-regulatory framework that would incorporate some of the consumer protections available for other types of loans such as uniform price disclosures, ability-to-repay rules and a right-to-rescind assignment. 

Some of those concerns are addressed by rules proposed in California, which would regulate app-based advances as loans and cap the interest rates and fees they could charge at the same levels as other financial products.  In a recent report on the rules in the Los Angeles Times by Aaron Glantz and Monica Campbell for the Fuller Project, the reporters found numerous examples of advertising by Fintech companies claiming funds are available with no fees or interest, in minutes, most of them featuring women of color expressing great relief at being able to rely on the app for fast cash.

California’s DFPI found that half of EWA users are non-white and predominantly (63 percent) women. A majority are employed full-time at companies with more than 250 employees and are between 25-40 years old.   Yet they are living paycheck to paycheck, and being sucked into loans that hide their full costs, which can add up to the same 400 percent APR payday lenders charge.   

 

Engagement Resources:

Expanded Border Technology Raises Human Rights Concerns

Expanded Border Technology Raises Human Rights Concerns

Expanded Border Technology Raises Human Rights Concerns 

Technology Policy Brief #90 | By:Steve Piazza | May 31, 2023
Photo taken from: immigrationimpact.com

__________________________________

 

Summary

The 4th Amendment, amongst other things, protects civilians against warrantless actions by the government. This means that authorities are not allowed to perform searches of private property nor seize belongings without probable cause and appropriate documentation.

However, the “border exception” provides federal personnel with the power to disregard the protections as long the search and seizure action is within a reasonable distance from all U.S. borders. Probable cause doesn’t even need to be factored in.

The size of the unprotected area is up for some debate, though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 20 miles is considered “reasonable.” U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers have long interpreted this distance to be approximate, meaning they believe they’re authorized to enter and search vehicles in an even wider area up to 100 miles away from any port of entry, land or sea. 

Regardless where the line is legally drawn, CBP claims of severe understaffing, recently substantiated by a Memorandum from U.S. Inspector General, Joseph V. Cuffari, means the agency is forced to cover more ground with limited personnel. To help in their attempt to secure the borders, the CBP has turned to new and improved technologies, many of which are now under scrutiny because of privacy and security concerns.

Analysis

As Title 42, the strict border policy enacted by the Trump Administration during the pandemic, was nearing its end on May 11 of this year, CBP Acting Commissioner Troy A. Miller assured the nation the illegal immigration situation at hand was under control. Miller stated that the agency has “surged resources, technology, and personnel to safely and orderly manage challenges along the southern border.” 

However  the “surge of technology” was accelerated by the passage of The Homeland Security Act of 2002, which calls for, in part, developing and implementing the use of technology systems and resources, including, “the physical and techno­logical assets that support such systems.”

From communications devices between government agents to the development of digital tracking platforms, the amount of intelligence being collected using the latest technology continues to grow considerably.  In fact, the CBP is even actively soliciting new partnerships with technology firms, according to its own CBP Business Connections page.

Since the 2002 law’s enactment, technology used in this effort seems to have grown from merely entering personal information by hand into databases to include biometric screening, such as the use of electronic finger identification and facial recognition. These are used not only at all borders, according to CBP claims, but at all airports, and 36 seaports as well.  

A chief concern of privacy advocates is new technology that is being used to access people’s phones, laptops, and even car systems. The government has been using technology from companies like Israel-based Cellebrite to break into handheld devices. This has been happening even before  2021, when an appellate court in Boston ruled that officers can search laptops and smartphones at airports and at the borders. 

But because of the expansive monitoring territory, the technology has moved on from face-to-face contact upon entry. Technology advancements have allowed the CBP to integrate a number of new innovations that include distance monitoring devices, license plate detectors, and drones.

Virtual Assistant Devices devices, like those developed by Amazon and Apple, have long been accused of listening in on homes. But within  these expanded border zones, many are concerned that there will be nothing to stop the government from doing the same thing if they had “reasonable suspicion.”

Something even more concerning to many comes in the form of video surveillance. One example is the movable surveillance towers manufactured by General Dynamics. The company secured a $177 million contract in 2013 for the construction of mobile platforms that can use video equipment capable of surveying up to 7 miles.

Concerns are growing for the rights of people living within the hundred-mile zone.  Recent Supreme Court decisions to reinforce “border exclusion” policy enables the use of technology to continue the practice of racial profiling and questioning people with only a reasonable suspicion anywhere in the 100-mile zone. 

It’s important to continue to evaluate the implications of devices being used at border stations, not to mention the technology pointed in the opposite direction for 100 miles.

Engagement Resources:

 

Balancing Power: The Anti-Trust Dilemma in the Tech Era

Balancing Power: The Anti-Trust Dilemma in the Tech Era

Balancing Power: The Anti-Trust Dilemma in the Tech Era

Economic Policy Brief #53 | By: Inijah Quadri | May 31, 2023
Photo taken from: marketwatch.com

__________________________________

This is the 3rd in a U.S. RESIST NEWS  3-part series that examines the complex socio-economiuc issues related to the increased use of technology in our daily lives.

Summary

Anti-trust laws, also known as competition laws, are designed to protect consumers and ensure a competitive market landscape. They do so by preventing abusive business practices, restricting the formation of cartels or monopolies, and overseeing mergers and acquisitions that could reduce competition. However, the rise of tech giants such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple has presented new challenges for anti-trust regulation, with these companies holding an enormous share of the market in their respective sectors.

The concern here is not merely about dominance, but also about how these companies use their dominance. Anti-competitive practices, such as preferential treatment of their own services, predatory pricing, or exclusionary contracts with suppliers, can inhibit competition and stifle innovation. According to a 2022 report by the US House Judiciary Committee, all four of the tech giants mentioned earlier have engaged in practices that either exploit or shut out competitors, confirming the fears of anti-trust advocates.

Analysis

Anti-trust regulation requires a nuanced understanding of the tech industry’s complexities and the ways in which tech giants can exploit their dominant position. Governments and regulatory bodies worldwide have started to take notice. For instance, the European Union has been a trailblazer in this regard, imposing hefty fines on Google for anti-competitive practices. They have also opened a Statement of Objections case against Apple. In the US, both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have launched investigations into Big Tech’s anti-competitive practices.

Two key anti-trust cases are currently shaping the discourse:

a. Facebook (Meta) and Instagram/WhatsApp: Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp have been a focus of anti-trust scrutiny. Critics argue that these acquisitions have allowed Facebook to monopolize the social networking space, reducing competition and limiting consumer choice.

b. Amazon and Third-Party Sellers: Amazon has faced scrutiny over its dual role as both a marketplace for third-party sellers and a retailer of its own products. The company has been accused of using data from third-party sellers to develop its own competing products, which is seen as an unfair advantage.

Solving the anti-trust dilemma in the tech sector will require a multifaceted approach. This may include strengthening existing laws, creating new regulations tailored to the digital age, and improving the enforcement capabilities of regulatory bodies. Furthermore, fostering competition and innovation should be at the heart of these efforts.

Engagement Resources:

  • Open Markets Institute (https://openmarketsinstitute.org/): Open Markets Institute is a think tank that advocates for stronger anti-trust enforcement and market competition.
  • American Antitrust Institute (https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/): The American Antitrust Institute is an independent nonprofit organization that promotes competition that protects consumers, businesses, and society.
  • Electronic Privacy Information Center (https://epic.org/): EPIC is a public interest research center that focuses on privacy and civil liberties issues, including anti-competitive practices in the tech sector.
  • International Competition Network (https://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/): The International Competition Network is a virtual network that provides competition authorities worldwide with a specialized yet informal platform for addressing practical competition concerns.
Safeguarding Personal Data: Navigating Technology and Our Human Rights to Privacy in the Age of Information

Safeguarding Personal Data: Navigating Technology and Our Human Rights to Privacy in the Age of Information

Safeguarding Personal Data: Navigating Technology and Our Human Rights to Privacy in the Age of Information

Technology Policy Brief #89 | By: Inijah Quadri | May 31, 2023
Photo taken from: thedataprivacygroup.com

__________________________________

This is the 2nd in a U.S. RESIST NEWS  3-part series that examines the complex socio-economiuc issues related to the increased use of technology in our daily lives.

Summary

Privacy, while a fundamental human right recognized in various international and regional treaties, is increasingly under threat in today’s digital age. As personal data, preferences, and activities are routinely collected, stored, and analyzed by various entities, significant privacy concerns arise. From the right to be left alone to the right to control information about oneself, privacy has many interpretations, each with its own complexities and challenges. The misuse of personal data can lead to privacy invasion, identity theft, and other forms of cybercrime. As digital technology evolves, so do privacy issues.

According to a recent report from the Pew Research Center, 81% of Americans feel they have little or no control over the data collected about them by companies. Similarly, 66% believe they have little or no control over government data collection. Another discussion highlighted that the top privacy concerns in 2023 are data sharing by companies, location tracking, and targeted advertising. These made up the largest part of the total privacy issues.

Analysis

Approaches to regulating privacy comprise a combination of legislation, self-regulation, and technology. Governments have enacted laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) here in the United States, and the Personal Data Protection Bill in India. These laws provide rights to individuals regarding their personal data and impose obligations on businesses that process such data.

Major platforms like Facebook (now Meta) and Twitter have implemented updated privacy policies. While Facebook’s approach has faced controversies with numerous instances of data leaks and misuse of user data, Twitter has taken steps to give users more control over their data, allowing them to choose whether their data can be used for targeted advertising.

Technologies like encryption and anonymization also play a critical role in protecting privacy. These technologies can secure data and protect it from unauthorized access, thus upholding user privacy.

Notable case studies highlighting different approaches to privacy include:

a. Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal: In 2018, reports were released that Cambridge Analytica harvested the personal data of millions of Facebook users without their consent for advertising. This led to a massive outcry and legal actions against Facebook, resulting in a $725 million fine by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and significant changes to Facebook’s privacy policies and practices.

b. Apple-FBI standoff: In 2016, the FBI asked Apple to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino attack. Apple refused, arguing that creating a backdoor would compromise the privacy and security of all iPhone users. The case sparked a global debate about encryption, privacy, and law enforcement.

Addressing privacy concerns requires continuous assessment and improvement. Governments, tech giants, and stakeholders must collaborate to develop transparent, fair, and adaptable privacy policies that evolve with the changing digital landscape. By fostering a culture of accountability and promoting data literacy, we can empower individuals to control their personal information and contribute to a safer digital environment for all.

Engagement Resources:

  • Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/): EFF is a leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world, including privacy.
  • Center for Democracy & Technology (https://cdt.org/): CDT is a champion of global online civil liberties and human rights, advocating for privacy rights and digital freedom.
  • Privacy International (https://privacyinternational.org/): Privacy International is a UK-based charity that defends and promotes the right to privacy around the world.
  • Future of Privacy Forum (https://fpf.org/): The Future of Privacy Forum is a US think tank that seeks to advance responsible data practices in support of emerging technologies.
    Open Rights Group (https://www.openrightsgroup.org/): The Open Rights Group is a UK-based digital campaigning organization working to protect the rights to privacy and free speech online.
The Increasing Use of Drugs to Enhance Performance in International Triathlons

The Increasing Use of Drugs to Enhance Performance in International Triathlons

The Increasing Use of Drugs to Enhance Performance in International Triathlons

Foreign Policy Brief #78 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | May 30, 2023
Photo taken from: education.triathlon.org

__________________________________

Summary

Endurance sports have long been the target of allegations and investigations into doping. No one needs an introduction to the name Lance Armstrong, for example, cycling’s worst offender and villain in terms of doping and ruining the lives of the people that accused him of cheating. Triathlon, an endurance sport that involves swimming, cycling, and running consecutively, is also no stranger to doping and cheating.

Analysis

Triathlon has a fairly short, when compared with the likes of cycling and running, history of doping. The sport really was not founded until late in the 1970s. Triathlete Magazine recently posted online a brief history of doping in the sport which included many elite triathletes. Some of these dopers have had pretty severe repercussions due to their doping, and due to some of these athletes there are more protections in place to attempt to curtail doping in the sport. 

A few weeks ago, professional triathlete Collin Chartier’s doping was discovered and he has been handed a 3-year ban from the sport.  Chartier is yet another perpetrator of dishonesty, and cheating, in endurance sports.. He is just one triathlete in a much larger group of endurance athletes that have perpetuated a long history of cheating.

Nina Kraft was one of the earliest dopers in triathlon, who tested positive for Erythropoietin (EPO). She was a German triathlete who, prior to the positive test, had won the famed and world-renowned Ironman World Championships in Kona, Hawaii; and, she won Ironman Germany, as well in 2004. She admitted to doping, and was given a one-year ban from the sport. After her ban, she had a successful comeback in both triathlon and running. The largest consequence of the events of her doping was that the German Triathlon Federation created the Elitepass for triathletes, which allowed only athletes with the Elitepass to be eligible for prize money at races with the major condition that they be subjected to unannounced drug testing. 

Bridget McMahon, a Swiss triathlete, tested positive for EPO after winning the gold medal in triathlon at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. She admitted to taking “small doses”, otherwise known as microdosing, of EPO. She never gave up the name of her supplier, however; and was given a two-year ban and never raced again as a professional athlete. However, she then entered as an “Age Grouper” (Non-professional triathlete race division) and won every race that she enetered.. It should be noted, however, that Age-Group athletes are not nearly as strenuously tested (if they even get tested) as the professional triathlon field. Another Age-Group athlete that tested positive was Eduardo Solis, a Costa Rican non-professional triathlete; he tested positive for the use of EPO and various steroids. 

EPO has long been the drug of choice for endurance athlete dopers. It is the main substance that Lance Armstrong, and many other cyclists, used through the 1990s and into the early 200s. It is a drug that is prescribed for patients, in a medical setting, that need to produce more red blood cells. Athletically speaking, the boost of red blood cells in your body allows your blood to carry more oxygen to your muscles when exercising, which allows your muscles to produce more work. For a triathlete, or other endurance athletes, it means that they are able to go longer in distance, and go faster too. Access to this drug is very easy to gain, Collin Chartier bought it online in November and began using it soon afterward. 

It has long been the stance of dopers, especially cyclists, that all of “the top athletes” worldwide are under the microscope in terms of testing. It also has been well documented by athletes in almost every sport that unannounced testing occurs and is an inconvenience to their lives, but, testing has also made it more difficult for athletes to use performance enhancing drugs. 

It remains to be seen what more can be done in terms of anti-doping measures globally. We have seen the creation of various agencies, and organizations, that are supposedly testing athletes in and out of competition. We have brand new tests to detect new substances, and can retroactively test blood samples from previous events. We have seen varying lengths of bans given out to athletes, Lance Armstrong was handed a life-long ban from competing in the sport of cycling for example. 

Ironman athlete Lionel Sanders, a professional triathlete from Canada and known associate of Collin Chartier’s, has a proposal which may help triathlon recover its image from the dopers. His suggestion was that 20% of all prize purses on the professional circuit (the Professional Triathletes Organization races) go towards drug testing athletes out of the competition. This would roughly equate to $120,000 per race – as each race offers a winner’s purse of $600,000. This is a creative suggestion that puts the athletes at the center of the solution rather than having outside agencies involved, or in the case of Russia at the Olympics – having governments involved. 

Engagement Resources:

The Implications of the George Santos’ Indictment

The Implications of the George Santos’ Indictment

The Implications of the George Santos’ Indictment

Elections & Politics Policy Brief #78 | By: Ian Milden | May 25, 2023
Photo taken from: csmonitor.com

__________________________________

Summary

On May 10th, Congressman George Santos (R-NY) was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of money laundering, wire fraud, theft of public funds, and making false statements to the government. Santos has pleaded not guilty. This Brief will discuss the charges against him and examine the political implications of his indictment.

Analysis

Congressman George Santos had gained a reputation for admitting that he made false statements about his biography during his campaign for Congress. An investigation from the Department of Justice alleges that his dishonesty went further than his campaign falsehoods.

The indictment against Santos outlines two separate schemes that resulted in thirteen charges against him. The first part of the indictment accuses Santos of taking contributions from his campaign account and using them for his personal benefit. Prosecutors say that he used these funds on personal debts and designer clothes. Prosecutors have Santos’ bank records to support their claims.

Using campaign funds for personal expenses is illegal, and other members of Congress have gotten in trouble for it. A recent example is Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) who pleaded guilty to federal charges after using campaign funds on things ranging from toys for his children to vacations.

The second part of the indictment against Santos alleges that he applied for unemployment assistance in 2020 when he still had employment. Prosecutors say that Santos gained $24,000 from unemployment assistance that he was not eligible for. Santos was likely aware that fraudulently applying for unemployment benefits was a crime since he co-sponsored a bill to combat unemployment assistance fraud that was due to receive a floor vote the same week he was indicted for it.

The indictment also says that Santos made false statements to the House of Representatives in his required financial disclosure statement. Prosecutors say he falsely stated that he earned a salary from a company he owned as well as the value of his savings and checking accounts.

When a member of Congress is indicted, they are usually required to step back from their committee assignments. This is formally required by the House Republican Conference Rules. Congressman Santos already stepped back from his committee assignments back in January, so the indictment doesn’t change any committee activities.

Santos was already facing calls to resign from disgusted colleagues and those have increased, particularly from the New York delegation. Santos has said that he will not resign. If Santos refuses to resign, Congress would have the ability to expel him. Expulsion requires the support of two-thirds of the members of the House of Representatives. Expulsion is rarely used, and most cases were for treason during the start of the civil war. More recent cases of expulsion from Congress have included members who were convicted of corruption charges and accused of sexual misconduct. House Democrats attempted to force a vote to expel George Santos from the House, but it did not get the support of Republican leadership. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy expressed a desire to refer Santos’ indictment situation to the House Ethics Committee, which usually defers to the Justice Department in cases involving criminal conduct. House Republicans voted to refer Santos to the House Ethics Committee on May 18th.

Given the speed at which the Justice Department investigation has moved and the nature of the charges and evidence against Santos, it seems unlikely that Santos will avoid a conviction and remain in Congress. To be clear, Santos would be eligible to remain in Congress if he is convicted, but House rules would prevent him from voting and his colleagues would likely move to expel him. Santos could also resign as part of a plea agreement. A special election would be called to fill the seat when Santos leaves office.

The Race to ’24: Trump and his detractors, how the Republican field is shaping up

The Race to ’24: Trump and his detractors, how the Republican field is shaping up

The Race to ’24: Trump and his detractors, how the Republican field is shaping up

Elections & Politics Policy Brief #79 | By: Abigail Hunt | May 26, 2023
Photo taken from: telegraph.co.uk

__________________________________

The 2024 Presidential election is pivotal – will we be able to continue the democratic policies of the past four years? Will a win for the Republicans mean the next administration spends time dismantling the work of the previous officeholder?

The way candidate choices are lining up ahead of the 2024 presidential election could be  Deja Vú as President Joe Biden and former President Donald J. Trump, 45th president of the United States plan to duke it out for the Presidency one more time.

Trump is in the running even though he was indicted in spring 2023 in New York on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a class E felony. Per the New York Courts website, a Class E felony is punishable by a possible sentence of less than a year up to four years in prison. 

Trump also has recently been convicted of the sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll, and faces possible federal criminal charges for the mishandling of top secret government documents and for leading the January 6th insurrection of the US capitol. At the state level he faces potential criminal charges for attempting to falsify the outcome of the Presidential election in Georgia.

Despite all this, the irascible yet indomitable Trump persists in the political arena. Once again, Biden faces the prospect of a head-to-head with Trump. Trump’s campaign, titled Agenda 47, details how he will wage war on Biden’s policies, claiming he will advocate for veterans, improve the quality of life for all Americans, and protect American workers (though he offers few details on how he will achieve these goals.

In addition to Trump other Republicans are seeking to enter the race and Trump is no longer a shoo-in… In February, Nikki Haley, a Republican and former Governor of South Carolina, and Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech and health care entrepreneur, announced their candidacies. Asa Hutchinson, former Arkansas governor and congressman, and conservative talk radio host Larry Elder joined the pack in April. The month of May brought South Carolina Governor Tim Scott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis into the ring.  

On May 24, DeSantis announced his 2024 bid in an unconventional way – via a livestream event with Elon Musk, the platform’s owner and a strong DeSantis supporter. In 2022, DeSantis raised more than any other gubernatorial candidate in U.S. history, and most of it was funded through a state-level political action committee (PAC), Friends of Ron DeSantis. DeSantis officially parted ways with the PAC, but now the $173.2 million fund is in the hands of DeSantis’s supporter, friend, and colleague, Florida Republican State Senator Blaise Ingoglia, who sponsored several conservative pieces of legislation which DeSantis signed into law, including allowing a jury to sentence someone to death from a unanimous jury decision to a 2/3rds majority. 

Scott, a junior senator, espouses traditional Republican viewpoints – he stands with Israel, criticizes the federal government, supports the police. There is a subliminal sense of pulling oneself up from the bootstraps in Scott’s life story, the child of a single mother who struggled to make ends meet. With a bachelor’s in political science, Scott has very little real-world working experience, having previously worked as an insurance and real estate agent. 

It is too early to say which of the candidates will cement the nomination, though DeSantis’s fundraising capabilities and name recognition give him an early advantage. Regardless of who takes the nomination, the candidate pool indicates that the conservative Deep South was deeply unsatisfied with Trump as their President. Whoever becomes the Republican nominee will face off against an incumbent president – historically not a fight often won.

 

Engagement Resources:

For Republicans, “Parent Choice” is About Power, not Freedom

For Republicans, “Parent Choice” is About Power, not Freedom

For Republicans, “Parent Choice” is About Power, not Freedom

Education Policy Brief #83 | By: Rudolph Lurz | May 23, 2023
Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (left) debates Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin, hosted by the Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce on September 28, 2021, in Alexandria, Virginia. Photo taken from: cnn.com

__________________________________

During a debate in the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial campaign, Terry McAuliffe made a serious blunder. He stated, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”

His opponent, Glenn Youngkin, seized on that mistake. Youngkin made “parent choice” in education the centerpiece of his campaign, especially concepts such as CRT (Critical Race Theory) and LGBTQ+ issues. Youngkin framed McAuliffe’s stance as anti-parent and elitist, and rode that messaging all the way to a surprise victory in a state that has trended blue in recent years.

The exact target of parent anger in districts nationwide is difficult to pinpoint, but can best be explained with the near-ubiquitous term of “anti-woke”. Parents and policy makers who prescribe to this philosophy claim that public school districts are indoctrinating students with so-called “woke” ideology. This includes things like the acceptance of non-binary and transgender students, health classes which include discussion of LGBTQ+ issues, and the role of racism in American history.

“Parent Choice” has become the mantra of those who stand in opposition to curriculum issues such as these. School board meetings have become raucous and even violent. School board members have received violent and obscene threats, drawing the attention of the Attorney General and Department of Justice. Attendees at these meetings sometimes do not even have children in the districts involved. Attempts to bar non-district attendees from these meetings have been denigrated as authoritarianism. The DOJ’s efforts to protect school board members have been framed as portraying parents as terrorists.  Ted Cruz, in a letter co-signed by other Senate Republicans, stated, “Parents and other citizens who get impassioned at school-board meetings are not domestic terrorists. You may believe that, but too many people involved in this issue seem to think harsh words can be criminalized. Getting the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division involved in the matter only makes this worse—dramatically worse.”

To Republicans like Senator Cruz, whether or not the protestors have children in the school district is not relevant. Advocacy coalitions such as Moms for Liberty get the word out, and meetings that were once sparsely attended have become loud battlefields of partisan vitriol.

 

Analysis

As I noted in a previous brief, the current criticism of public education is not a traditional GOP attack angle. The standard refrain was that public districts were failing, and parents should receive a voucher to use the per pupil funding of their child toward the tuition of the private school of their choice. Vouchers are a popular form of school choice, which advocates for the idea that the money should follow the student. “Butts in seats” is shorthand for a common funding formula used by school districts. A district map determines which areas are zoned for elementary, middle, and high schools. Students attend their districted school, and the number of students who are counted as “present” in the first few weeks of the year determines the funding levels for the next academic year. The per pupil figure in that formula is determined by many factors, including property tax revenues and state funding. 

Every district is different. School choice advocates vary from those who would like to take their kid’s entire per pupil amount and get a voucher from a Catholic school (which raises church/state concerns), to those who want the option to attend a different public school in the same district. That argument is more logically sound, as funds allocated for that student remain in the district instead of leaving for private schools. However, it still is problematic. If one district school is performing poorly, how many families are allowed to leave for greener pastures? Would the district then be obligated to provide transportation to schools on the other side of the county? 

These are questions I am used to discussing as an education policy analyst. This latest trend under the guise of “parent choice” is both bizarre and alarming. Advocacy groups like Moms for Liberty are not seeking opt-out clauses or pushing for vouchers. They want to control the education options for the entire district. Vicki Baggett, an English teacher in Florida, has personally filed over 150 forms seeking the removal of books from district libraries across the state. 

“Parent Choice” is a solid rallying cry for firing up suburban moms to vote Republican. It uses warm terminology with the positive connotation of having a voice in the education of their children. What parent wouldn’t want that?

The issue with this modern movement is that it’s anything but warm and fuzzy parents cheering for their own kids. It is centered on activist partisans who seek power at the state and federal levels. If groups are advocating for the removal of entire sections of books from school libraries and chilling any classroom discussions on topics they do not like, that is not “parent choice”.

That is dominion. 

Parents should absolutely have a voice in their kids’ education. They have public forums at school board meetings to make their voices heard. There are appropriate avenues available for parent input and dissent.

Parent voices become alarming when they demand dominance over the education options for every student in the district. Those voices become frightening when they show up at districts where their kids don’t live and demand dominance there, too. Those voices require DOJ intervention when they begin threatening school board members with violence if they don’t get their way. 

For the civic health of this nation, and the decentralized local control that traditional Republicans used to advocate for, it’s vital that school board meetings become boring again. 

If you are threatening other parents and educators and screaming at the top of your lungs in a county 200 miles away, you’re doing it wrong.

 

Engagement Resources

An Update on Foreign Military Support for Ukraine

An Update on Foreign Military Support for Ukraine


An Update on Foreign Military Support for Ukraine

Foreign Policy Brief #77 | By: Yelena Korshunov | May 23, 2023
Volodymyr Zelensky signs the guestbook at the Bellevue Palace before heading into talk with Germany’s President Frank Walter Steinmeyer. Header photo taken from: inkl.com

__________________________________

This month Ukraine’s President visited Italy, Germany, France and Great Britain. As a result of the meetings, the European leaders agreed on the transfer of new large packages of military aid to Kyiv and announced the creation of a coalition for the supply of Western fighter jets and the training of Ukrainian pilots. But will the new round of arms deliveries to Ukraine make the country ready for a counteroffensive?

One of Zelensky’s achievements during this trip is the creation of the fighter jet coalition: the British will train F-16 pilots and, together with other members of the coalition, transfer fighters to Ukraine. At the same time, the British have been hinting they have the opportunity to train the Ukrainian Air Force pilots on any aircraft. In Great Britain where there are pilot training centers, including for flights at low altitudes.

The announcement of the creation of a coalition can really be a kind of trigger for other countries in the direction of fighter jet deliveries. However, it is not clear whether F-16s will be supplied to Ukraine as part of the coalition. Various options are being discussed.

Great Britain announced that it would send to Ukraine drones and missiles for anti-aircraft missile systems. They are invaluable for Ukraine because they counter Russian missile and drone attacks. France also has promised to deliver several dozen armored vehicles and light tanks, including the AMX-10 RC, in the coming weeks, according to a joint statement issued after President Emmanuel Macron’s talks with Ukraine’s president. Some of them arrived in Ukraine earlier and already have been mastered by Ukrainian crews.

In addition to that, a 2.7 billion euro aid package was announced by Germany. It includes Marder BMP, Leopard tanks, 200 drones, and 100 armored vehicles. Germany is one of the centers of production of weapons in Europe, including Leopard tanks. The other day, the German weapons manufacturer Rheinmetall and the Ukrainian company Ukroboronprom concluded a major agreement on the creation of a joint arms manufacturing venture. This act is not just about the current purchase of some weapons, but also about long-term cooperation.

Quite recently, on May 9th, another American aid package was announced. New in this package was equipment for the integration of Western air defense systems into the air defense system of Ukraine; however, these deliveries will take several months. The Ukrainians themselves have been calling for the integration of foreign weapons into the unified information system of the air defense of Ukraine since the very beginning of the supply of foreign equipment at the start of the war.

Reflecting the latest news, Alexander Lukashenko, self-proclaimed President of Belarus and an ally of Putin, has said that all the statements about the Ukrainian counteroffensive are “disinformation”. Lukashenko has traditionally stated that Ukraine and Russia should sit down at the negotiating table without any preliminary demands from Kyiv.

Ukraine’s President Volodymir Zelensky is welcomed by France’s President Emmanuel Macron

Ukraine’s President Volodymir Zelensky is welcomed by France’s President Emmanuel Macron upon his arrival at the Elysee presidential palace in Paris on May 14, 2023. Photo taken from france24.com

 

Analysis

In fact, the French, German and British packages saturate the armed forces of Ukraine with the equipment that it already received earlier. The only exception was the mention in the Franco-Ukrainian declaration that France would provide an anti-aircraft SAMP-T-Mamba air defense system known for its exceptional quality. Previously it was said that they will be installed in the Spring.

There was no dramatic news during Zelensky’s visit except for the discussion of the fighter coalition. After the war ends, Ukraine will certainly adopt an ambitious program of re-construction of its armed forces, and those who are now supplying Ukraine with their armored vehicles understand that this equipment will remain in Ukraine’s service. It will need to be serviced, modernized, and updated with new systems, as part of post-war plans.

 

Important Tech Accountability Measures in California May Get Picked Up by Congress

Important Tech Accountability Measures in California May Get Picked Up by Congress


Important Tech Accountability Measures in California May Get Picked Up by Congress

Technology Policy Brief #88 | By: Mindy Spratt | May 19, 2023
Header photo taken from: calmatters.org

 

Summary

 

Two measures being considered by the California State Legislature would rein in egregious practices by tech companies that critics have long complained about.  They are of course opposed by industry that may well see them as the tip of an iceberg, as they mirror efforts in other states and at the federal level.   But some nonprofit advocacy organizations are also opposed.

 

Analysis

 

Senator. Susan Talamantes Eggman’s (D-San Joaquin)  Right to Repair Act (CA Senate Bill 244)  would require companies to eliminate roadblocks that now prevent consumers from fixing electronic products like cell phones and appliances, forcing them to buy new ones whenever something goes wrong.  The bill would provide additional benefits to the state by reducing the amount of electronic waste. 

According to Californians Against Waste, a co-sponsor of the bill, easier access to repairs would also bring much-needed economic relief in the midst of rising prices. A recent report found that Californian families could save $330 per year by repairing electronics themselves or using independent repair shops, adding up to a total savings of $4.3 billion across the state.

New York state already has a Right to Repair law on the books, although it doesn’t encompass as many products as the California proposal.   “The passage of the New York law demonstrates that there is nationwide economic and environmental urgency to extend digital rights to consumers and clear landfills from electronics and appliances waste” said Clara Vazeix, a Policy Analyst for Californians Against Waste.

New York and California are not alone.  According to Stateline.org, 17 other states are considering similar bills, and facing “furious” opposition from the tech industry.  And federal action may be coming.   President Biden issued an executive order on the subject in 2021, requesting that the Federal Trade Commission draft new rules to prevent manufacturers from limiting the right to repair, and Rep. Joseph Morelle, (D-NY-25)  introduced a federal Right to Repair Bill in 2021.

Also on the agenda in Sacramento this legislative session is the California Journalism Preservation Act (CA Assembly Bill 886).  The bill,  introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D- Oakland) would require tech platforms such as Facebook and Google to pay fees to newspaper publishers when they reprint local content.  According to Wicks, “Currently, creators of quality journalism are not adequately compensated for the use of their content that takes a tremendous investment to produce, and therefore, cannot reinvest enough in journalists and newsrooms.”  The fees from the new charges would primarily go to fund local journalism jobs.  

Who could be against that, other than Google and Facebook?  The media advocacy group Free Press for one, who said,  in a letter to California Assembly Members, that the Act “is the wrong solution to the state’s local-news crisis. This bill is nothing more than a huge handout to the same companies — including conglomerates like Gannett and hedge funds like Alden Global Capital — that have systematically destroyed local news.”

The Executive Vice President & General Counsel of the News/Media Alliance,  Danielle Coffey, disagrees.  According to Coffey, “The dominant tech platforms reap the vast majority of the online revenue at news publishers’ expense”, decimating newsroom budgets and creating more opportunities for misinformation.   Her organization, whose website says it represents “nearly 2,000 diverse publishers in the United States—from the largest groups and international outlets to hyperlocal sources…” supports the California bill and is advocating for similar legislation on the federal level. 

The federal  Journalism Competition & Preservation Act (JCPA), which came close to passing in Congress last year, was recently reintroduced by Senate Antitrust Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Senator John N. Kennedy (R- LA.)

Like the California Act, the federal one has been criticized by advocacy organizations as being too little too late.  According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation the JCPA would “limit the organizations that could get compensation under this scheme to publications with 1,500 employees or fewer. But that won’t preserve competition, because the loss of local and independent news has already happened.”

 

Engagement Resources

 

 

 

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

Pin It on Pinterest