JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Ukraine Crisis Situation Update #25
Brief #84 – Foreign Policy Brief
by Abran C
The world’s most vulnerable among the hungry will suffer the worst consequences.
Is Doug Burgum Breaking Campaign Finance Laws to Try to Get on the Debate Stage?
Brief #87 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Ian Milden
North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum recently launched a Presidential Campaign, which he is largely funding through his personal fortune.
Were Asian Americans Manipulated and Used As Pawns To Overturn Affirmative Action?
Brief #209 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
A significant number of Asian American groups and individuals rejected the Supreme Court decision and are now discussing the strong possibility that genuine Asian American interests was not the real goal. The true purpose was instead to…
Is that Hotel or Airbnb Really Clean, Sunny and Well-Appointed?
Brief #92 – Technology Policy Brief
by Mindy Spatt
With the rise in online reviews we have seen that bad actors can manipulate or fake reviews to deceive consumers for their own benefit. In the meantime, how can you protect yourself?
Charter Schools and the Myth of Desegregation
Brief #83 – Education Policy Brief
by Steve Piazza
When it comes to the progress of desegregating schools, charter schools have actually been shown to have little success achieving diversity, and even creating more segregated environments.
Presidential Plans to Circumvent the Supreme Court Veto of The Student Loan Program
Brief #86 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Arvind Salem
Biden has unveiled the SAVE plan… Rather than a conventional loan forgiveness plan.
A Depressing Look at the Current List of GOP Presidential Candidates
Brief #85 – Elections & Politics Policy Brief
by Abigail Hunt
As the political primary season looms, the candidates of the Grand Ol’ Party are going to extreme lengths…
Education Will Be a Hot Button Political Issue in 2024
Brief #82 – Education Policy Brief
by Rudolph Lurz
Zeal for conservative education ideas has not equated to good education policy in recent history.
Supreme Court Declares Affirmative Action Unconstitutional
Brief #207 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
While the decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College was a disappointing decision it was not unexpected.
Why The Republicans Got It Wrong Expelling Democratic State Legislators In Tennessee
Why The Republicans Got It Wrong Expelling Democratic State Legislators In Tennessee
Civil Rights Policy Brief #72 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | April 12, 2023
Header photo taken from: cnn.com/Cheney Orr/Reuters
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On March 27, 2023 a shooter entered The Convent School in Nashville, Tennessee and killed six people. Three of the victims were nine – year old students with the other three victims adults who were employees of the school. On March 29, protesters staged a peaceful protest at the Tennessee Capitol building demanding a solution to gun violence.
On March 30, three Democratic members of the Tennessee House disrupted the proceedings of the chamber to illustrate that the House chamber was not listening or being responsive to calls for gun reform. The Democratic members were State Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, both black, and State Rep. Gloria Johnson, a white woman. On April 6, 2023 the House chamber took votes to determine whether to expel any of the three members. The House voted 72 – 25 to expel Justin Jones. The House’s vote was 69 to 25 to expel Justin Pearson. And, when the House voted whether to expel Gloria Johnson the vote was 69 to 26 in favor, which was one vote shy required to kick her out of the House chamber. Rep. Johnson was permitted to keep her seat while the seats occupied by Rep. Jones and Pearson is now vacant.
Under the Tennessee Constitution, any vacancy in the seat of a state legislative member will be filled on a temporary basis by the legislative body of the county where the seat is vacant. This means that the Metropolitan Council of Nashville and Davidson County and the Shelby County Board of Commissioners will appoint a successor until a special election will be held to determine who will hold the seat. Initial reports have indicated that the county legislative bodies will reappoint Justin Jones and Justin Pearson to the state House seats.
- Learn more about protesters demanding change at the state capitol.
- Learn more about Tennessee lawmaker, Justin Pearson, who is expecting to be reappointed after unprecedented expulsion.
Photo taken from: pressdemocrat.com/AP Photo/George Walker IV
Policy Analysis
Why was the expulsion of two state legislative members in Tennessee significant?
While many legislative chambers have rules on seating and disciplining members of their chamber, the expulsion of two Democratic and nearly another Democratic member was no ordinary action. The action was taken as retaliation for the political position of the three members and actions the two expelled members took to express a message that was the focus of a protest that was occurring just outside the Tennessee Capitol building. It was an exceedingly rare move that has not been seen in state United States statehouses for more than one hundred fifty years.
At this time, Republican lawmakers in Tennessee have a supermajority in both chambers of the state Legislature. What this means is that their majority is not simply more than half but high enough to overcome any opposition from the opposing party. It is even large enough to overturn a veto from Republican Governor Bill Lee should he decide to veto a bill (not likely). Currently, the Tennessee House membership is comprised of 75 Republicans and 24 Democrats prior to the expulsion of Reps. Jones and Pearson. The Tennessee Senate is made up 27 Republicans and 6 Democrats.
The reason why the expulsion was an extraordinary move is because the move was taken to silence legislators who were trying to say something that the Republican leadership simply did not want to hear. But this diminishes the legislative process because it subverts the will of the voters who decided that these are the two people who will be their representative and who will bring their message to the state capitol. Yet the Republican majority decided that they did not want to hear the message of gun reform and instead voted to kick them out and deny them access to the chamber for the rest of the term. In effect, they told the two legislators that their political position is not good enough for them to serve as a state legislator.
Photo taken from: pbs.org
However, the Tennessee Constitution provides that legislators have a “liberty to dissent from and protest against, any act or resolve which he may think injurious to the public or to any individual, and to have the reasons for his dissent entered on the journals.” Legislative chambers are a place of competing ideas and, hopefully, compromise and so different ideas and positions are encouraged in order to find the best solution possible. However, here the Republicans completely ignored that and took measures to expel members because they just so happened to have a position that the Republicans did not approve. They could have censured the lawmakers or even delivered a statement that the Republicans simply disagreed and left it at that. Expulsion was unnecessary especially when Republicans had a supermajority in the chamber. What the Republicans did here was try to suppress a message. This is a dangerous road to go down because it could seem to set a precedent that only the Republican message is the “right” message for a legislator to have. Informed and civil dissent is no longer to be tolerated is what the Tennessee House seems to be saying to the rest of the country.
However, it seems likely that the two expelled House Representatives will have the last laugh. Even though they were expelled, the Tennessee Constitution permits the county legislative councils to appoint an interim successor. And it looks likely that both Reps. Pearson and Jones will be re-appointed by their respective county councils.
In late breaking news, the Nashville Metropolitan Council voted unanimously (36 members) on Monday April 10 to reinstate Rep. Justin Jones to the Tennessee Legislature. Within an hour of the vote, Rep. Jones was sworn in and immediately marched back into the House chamber to applause. As for Rep. Pearson, the Shelby County Board of Commissioners will hold a vote on Wednesday April 12 whether to reappoint Rep. Pearson. While his reappointment seems likely, it probably will not be unanimous, as a commissioner has indicated that she may not support a reappointment at this time.
Learn more about Ousted Tennessee legislator Justin Jones reinstated after Nashville council vote.
Learn more about Tennessee House GOP expelling 2 Democrats in retaliation over gun control protest.
Learn more about Tequila Johnson’s opinion on Democracy in Tennessee.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
MSNBC Report – report from news site detailing how Reps. Jones and Pearson were targeted for removal by the Tennessee GOP for months prior to vote on expulsion.
National Public Radio (NPR) – analysis of whether other state houses will follow and vote to expel members for their political positions.
It’s Past Time to Overhaul the Federal Election Commission
It’s Past Time to Overhaul the Federal Election Commission
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #73 | By: Ian Milden | April 12, 2023
Header photo taken from: brennancenter.org
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is supposed to be the primary regulator for federal campaigns. However, the structure of the organization has made it dysfunctional for years. This brief will discuss the consequences of the FEC’s dysfunction and propose some potential reforms.
Photo taken from: govexec.com/Mark Van Scyoc/shutterstock.com
Policy Analysis
The Federal Election Commission was founded in 1975 to enforce campaign finance rules described in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 for Presidential and Congressional campaigns. It is an independent agency led by six commissioners. These commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Commissioners serve for six years in staggered terms. No more than three commissioners are allowed to be of the same party. The commission was designed this way to promote bipartisan decision-making.
The Federal Election Commission is required to have paperwork registering every new campaign organization and political action committee. These organizations are required to report their fundraising and spending activities every quarter to the FEC. The FEC examines filings for potential violations and makes rules on what campaign funds can be spent on. Serious violations of campaign finance laws are referred to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
Candidates for federal offices are also required to file a personal financial disclosure form once they raise or spend $5000 dollars. The deadlines for the filing are May in the year before the primary or within 30 days of meeting the $5000 fundraising threshold. There is a fine for failing to file the personal financial disclosure form, but this is rarely enforced. Several current members of Congress failed to file a personal financial disclosure form on time during their most recent campaign.
Unfortunately, the current structure of the commission has resulted in gridlock. Many non-criminal campaign finance violations, such as sloppy record keeping, go unpunished due to a 3-3 vote by the commissioners or the campaigns get off with very light fines. The gridlock on revising the rules is also problematic for regulating the digital activities of campaigns as online fundraising and advertising tools have evolved fast enough to render many existing rules moot. At times in recent years, the FEC has not had enough commissioners on unexpired terms, which has left the FEC without the ability to make decisions or enforce penalties.
The FEC also maintains a system for public financing of campaigns, but the rules for spending campaign funds are so severely restrictive that most campaigns since 2008 have not used it except for long-shot candidates who make desperate attempts to keep their campaigns alive. The FEC may need new legislation from Congress to overhaul or abolish this outdated and dysfunctional system, which costs taxpayers money when hopeless candidates decide to use it.
The FEC has also done a poor job of regulating campaign organizations that remain in operation after a particular campaign has ended. There are several campaign organizations that continue to spend funds on consultants, restaurants, transportation expenses, and more items long after the candidates they are supposed to be promoting have left public office or, in some cases, when a candidate has died. The media has called these campaigns “zombie campaigns”. The Tampa Bay Times published an extensive investigation into zombie campaigns in 2018. Many other unsuccessful campaign organizations still exist because they are unable to pay their debts. For example, Newt Gingrich’s 2012 Presidential Campaign still exists because it has been unable to pay off the millions of dollars in debt that Gingirch acquired during the campaign. Gingrich’s 2022 year-end report lists $4.6 million in remaining debt.
Photo taken from: brennancenter.org/BCJ/Getty/Phil Roeder
Potential Reforms
Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) introduced the ZOMBIE Act in 2021, which would require campaign organizations to close their accounts within six months of the end of a campaign unless a candidate filed for re-election. It did not pass and GovTrack indicates that the bill never received a floor vote.
In addition to Senator Bennet’s Zombie Act, new legislation is needed to address specific circumstances that the current FEC has failed to effectively deal with. Specific punishments for non-criminal violations like sloppy financial records may deter campaigns from trying to cut corners or violate rules. These punishments should be adjusted by law every campaign cycle relative to inflation, cost of living, and other changes in campaign finance rules that affect how much campaigns can raise and spend.
If the FEC is to become a respected enforcer of campaign finance rules, major changes to the structure of the organization are necessary. The structure of the six-member commission is no longer viable in a highly partisan environment. The number of commissioners should be changed to an odd number of commissioners in order to eliminate the 3-3 votes. While the law preventing a majority of commissioners being from the same party is a good idea, it would be better to make a majority of the commissioners non-partisan. Specific regulations on who can be appointed should be included to uphold the non-partisan ideal. Examples of potential appointees for future commissioners could include long-time civil servants, academics, retiring judges, or other judicial officials who lack significant ties with any party or campaign.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Beyond the Headlines: A Closer Look at the Charges Facing Donald Trump
Beyond the Headlines: A Closer Look at the Charges Facing Donald Trump
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #72 | By: Arvind Salem | April 11, 2023
Header photo taken from: 9news.com
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On March 30, 2023, after months of deliberation, a Manhattan grand jury indicted former President Donald Trump, making him the first president to be indicted, sending shockwaves throughout the United States. Given the politically charged and historical significance of this trial, discourse on the trial has understandably tended to focus more on its political implications and its larger ramifications on American democracy rather than on the many complex legal issues the trial features, the nature of the charges, and the events that ultimately led to this historical moment in American history.
The events that have led to this trial stretch all the way back to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. In the days leading up to the election, porn star Stormy Daniels wanted to go public with her story of an affair she had with Donald Trump. Stormy Daniels contacted the National Enquirer to sell the rights of the story. Instead of publishing the story, The National Enquirer brokered a deal between Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer at the time, and Stormy Daniels’s lawyers, resulting in Cohen paying $130,000 to silence Stormy Daniels. After Trump had won the election and became president, he reimbursed Michael Cohen, and when doing so, he allegedly improperly categorized his payments as a legal expense pursuant to a fictional retainer.
Photo taken from: forbes.com/Andrew Kelly/Pool Photo via AP
Policy Analysis
The Manhattan District Attorney charged President Trump with 34 counts, or instances, of falsifying business records. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all counts. Falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanor charge, yet Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has upgraded the charges to felony, which can only be done if he can prove that Trump falsified business records in order to conceal another crime. The District Attorney did not state the other crime in the indictment, but when asked he noted several possible underlying crimes including illegally promoting a candidate, making false statements to tax authorities, and violating federal election contribution limits. However, citing federal election contribution regulations as a possibility for an underlying crime raises the question if a violation of a federal law can justify elevating a state misdemeanor to a state felony. The answer to this question is largely unknown, as it has not been resolved by any appellate court in New York.
Another legal issue is the statute of limitations. The falsifying business records felony has a statute of limitations of 5 years, meaning that prosecutors have 5 years from the crime to initiate legal proceedings. Since Trump’s final payment to Cohen was in December 2017 the statute of limitations has expired. However, the statute of limitations can be paused when the defendant is “continuously outside the state.” Prosecutors will likely argue that Trump’s time as president from 2017-2021 represents a period when he was continuously outside the state, thus allowing them to pause the statute of limitations and prosecute Trump.
Photo taken from: theconversation.com/Joe Raedle/Getty Images
An issue for Trump’s defense is that the trial is taking place in Manhattan: a liberal area, where Trump is quite unpopular. Trump has repeatedly stated that any trial in Manhattan would be unfair, and has suggested that the trial be moved to the far more conservative area of Staten Island.
Regarding the actual outcome of the trial, it is the general consensus that Trump is extremely unlikely to spend any time in prison. Trump technically faces a maximum sentence of 136 years in prison, each count of the falsifying business records felony carries a maximum sentence of 4 years in prison, and the misdemeanor version carries 1 year per count, however, there is no mandatory minimum sentence, meaning that many other factors will play a role in sentencing. Many attorneys have said that a similarly situated defendant in their 70s, with no previous criminal history would not see the inside of a jail cell for a nonviolent Class E felony with no specific victims. However, others have argued that Cohen’s 13-month jail sentence for campaign finance violations in relation to the Stormy Daniels payment, tax fraud, and false bank statements, mean that prison time is not off of the table for the former president.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Act for America is an organization that seeks to educate and mobilize Americans against foreign and domestic threats, and advocates for bills to achieve these aims. Those who feel that this indictment constitutes a breakdown of justice may wish to support this organization.
ActBlue allows people to donate to a host of Democratic organizations, candidates, and causes. Readers are likely to find organizations that are supporting the Trump indictment on this site and may wish to donate money to further that cause.
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School is an organization that promotes reforms to American democracy and argues against many practices today such as gerrymandering and mass incarceration. Readers who are concerned about the health of democracy in light of this indictment may wish to support the Brennan Center and help it advance its proposed reforms.
Winred allows people to donate money to Republican candidates to support their campaign. Readers interested in supporting President Trump or other members of the Republican party may find that this is a useful way to convey their support and help the Republican cause.
Don’t Say Gay Reprise: A Look Ahead
Don’t Say Gay Reprise: A Look Ahead
Education Policy Brief #82 | By: Rudolph Lurz | April 7, 2023
Header photo taken from: ulink.miami.edu
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
March 28th, 2023 marked the first anniversary of the signing of Florida’s controversial Parental Rights in Education Act. Critics have commonly labeled it as the “Don’t Say Gay” law. The law effectively prohibits the instruction of sexual orientation and gender identity in grades K-3 in Florida classrooms, and gives parents the opportunity to sue school districts if the policy is violated. Governor DeSantis and his allies argue that the law is necessary to prevent “grooming” of minors. Governor DeSantis, in a heated exchange with a reporter, repeated those arguments and noted additionally that it was inappropriate for kindergartners to discuss sexual topics in their classrooms. At the time of the bill’s debate and passage into law, DeSantis frequently criticized the term “Don’t Say Gay” as a misrepresentation by the media. The age of children in question is a frequent defense by DeSantis and his allies in the Florida Legislature and beyond.
Multiple other states are copying Florida’s law, demonstrating that there are strong currents in the GOP pulling for these cultural measures in the classroom. A bill in the U.S. House of Representatives aims to expand the law’s language to prohibit instruction at any building or agency that receives federal funding, which would potentially include some libraries and after school programs. Despite DeSantis’s early insistence that the law’s aim was to protect young children in grades K-3, Florida’s Department of Education is attempting to expand the provisions of the law into grades 4-12. The vague language of the law has a chilling effect on classroom discussions on any subject matter that approaches these topics, as educators fear losing their employment or subjecting their district to a lawsuit.
Photo taken from: mynews13.com
Project Analysis
I began my teaching career at a rural Title I school in central Florida. I conducted my dissertation research on education policy formation in Florida. I am familiar with Governor DeSantis’s past and his political acumen.
On the surface, the Governor’s policies, which are part of a broader culture war, do not seem to make much sense. His anti-LGBTQ+ stance and other social policies have alienated younger voters. The “Don’t Say Gay” debate sparked a huge fight with Disney, one of the largest employers in the state. Generally speaking, conservatives tend to be pro-business and strong supporters of the free market economy. Wielding the power of the state to meddle with a large corporation’s policies, especially a behemoth like Disney, seems like a real head scratcher.
Unlike former President Trump, Governor DeSantis does not shoot from the hip and improvise his political attack angles. He is a shrewd, Harvard-educated politician who trounced his gubernatorial opponent by twenty points in what was once a swing state. If he takes a strong stance on a position, it is because he sees a quantitative advantage.
Photo taken from: wcjb.com
If one looks past the noise, Governor DeSantis’s tactics are straight out of the traditional GOP playbook to put Democrats on the wrong side of 60/40 cultural issues. In 2004, that cultural issue was marriage equality. Ohio’s Marriage Protection Amendment was widely viewed as a ballot initiative to drive up conservative turnout. At the time, same-sex marriage was opposed by 60% of Americans. By 2012, that figure swung to over 50% opposition in swing states to banning same sex marriage at the federal level.
Today, marriage equality is both settled law and politically popular. Culture warriors like Governor DeSantis needed a new 60/40 issue to galvanize support and paint opponents as extremists. They simply moved from left to right on the LGBTQ+ acronym to attack the TQ+ portion of it. A recent poll by YouGov showed that just 32% of Americans would be “very supportive” if their child came out as transgender, and just 14% of Republicans.
Governor DeSantis recognizes that this is a political winner for him, so it’s no surprise he will continue promoting legislation that puts the issue front and center in the public sphere. With a budget surplus in excess of twenty billion dollars, the Governor can afford to antagonize Disney. They are unlikely to pack up and leave the state, considering they have multiple theme parks and resorts located in central Florida. With a margin of victory approaching twenty percentage points, he can afford to antagonize younger voters with his social policies. With Florida’s large (and growing) senior population, the polling figures will likely continue to land in his favor.
DeSantis’s crusade might be a solution in search of a problem, but as long as he’s on the correct side of state and national polling, he’ll keep advancing it.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
For further engagement on this topic, consult the homepage of Florida’s largest teacher’s union, along with Florida’s Department of Education
Insulin Prices: Are They Low Enough?
Insulin Prices: Are They Low Enough?
Health & Gender Policy Brief #159 | By: Geoffrey Small | April 5, 2023
Header photo taken from: nbcnews.com
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
As the U.S. healthcare system continues to fall short, when compared to other peer countries, the battle for insulin prices highlights just one of the major issues the country is facing. Congress recently passed The Inflation Reduction Act, where the cost of insulin was capped for senior citizens on Medicare Part D starting in 2023. President Biden also announced that major drug manufacturers of insulin are also capping their prices to meet the demand. Despite the efforts of legislation, the Biden administration and major drug company manufactures, critics are calling on Congress to pass a uniform law which mandates that the price of insulin be capped for all Americans.
Photo taken from: insights.bu.edu
Policy Analysis
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On August 16th, 2022, President Biden signed The Inflation Reduction Act. A major component of the bill, which was sponsored by Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin, required all insulin prices for senior citizens on Medicare Part D to be capped at $35. This news was welcomed from advocacy groups like the American Diabetes Association. In their press release, they stated that “$1 in every $3 spent on prescription drugs in the U.S. is spent on someone with diabetes, and this out-of-pocket cost limit will benefit people with diabetes who rely on more than just insulin to survive.” The new law also caps all prescription drug costs for senior citizens on Medicare Part D at $2000 per year.
It is well known that critics believe The Inflation Reduction Act does not do enough to reduce the cost of prescription drug prices for all U.S. citizens. That is why on March 2nd the Biden administration announced that Eli Lilly, the largest U.S. insulin manufacturer, is lowering their cost of insulin by 70%. Other major drug companies are also following their example. Capping the prices for insulin will also reduce health inequality for minorities. According to studies, conducted in-part by the CDC, Native Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic groups are being diagnosed with diabetes at proportionally higher rates than other ethnicities.
Despite all of the efforts to reduce the cost burden for individuals diagnosed with diabetes, critics still believe States and Congress can do more. A recent Yale Study concluded that 14% of people on insulin used at least 40% of their available income to pay for the prescription. The study indicated that insulin prices have more than doubled in the past decade. Kasia Lipska, an associate professor at Yale School of Medicine, stated “this is not inflation, there’s much more going on.”
Photo taken from: cdc.gov
In Iowa, AARP State Director Brad Anderson explained that “there are still around a quarter of a million Iowans on health insurance plans that are regulated by the state, where their insulin is not capped at $35 per month.” Anderson believes the recent caps are a move in the right direction, but emphasizes that companies can change or eliminate the caps at any time. That is why uniformity at the state or federal level is needed to avoid the confusion on who benefits from the recent changes.
Efforts are being made to reduce the cost of insulin at the federal level. However, more cost control needs to be mandated to ensure healthcare equality . That is why donating to advocacy groups like the American Diabetes Association are instrumental for advocating more uniform federal and state laws. We need laws on insulin costs that benefit everyone in the U.S. who has been diagnosed with diabetes.
Donate to the American Diabetes Association
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
The Current Status of Congressional Efforts to Pass Gun Control Legislation
The Current Status of Congressional Efforts to Pass Gun Control Legislation
Social Justice Policy Brief #145 | By: Inijah Quadri | April 5, 2023
Header photo taken from: abcnews.go.com
Policy Issue Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Gun control legislation has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades. As the debate surrounding the Second Amendment and its implications for American society continues, we will provide a thorough, fact-based analysis of the current status of congressional efforts to pass gun control legislation. This Brief will cover recent trends in mass shootings, the prevalence of gun ownership, the power of the Second Amendment, the role of weapons of mass destruction, and the impact of a gun violence reduction law signed by President Biden last year.
Photo taken from: washingtonmonthly.com
Recent Trends in Mass Shootings
The United States has experienced a troubling increase in mass shootings over the past several years. High-profile incidents such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Uvalde, and Nashville have sparked national conversations about gun control measures. According to the Gun Violence Archive, year on year, there is usually an uptick in mass shootings in the USA. This upward trend underscores the urgency for Congress to address gun control measures.
Gun Ownership and the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution has long been used to defend the right to bear arms. It states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” According to a recent Gallup poll, approximately 32% of Americans own guns, while 44% live in households with guns. This widespread ownership, coupled with the Second Amendment, complicates efforts to enact gun control legislation.
Weapons of Mass Destruction and Past Efforts to Ban Them
In addition to discussions about everyday firearms, the debate around gun control legislation often includes concerns about weapons of mass destruction. The United States has implemented several bans on such weapons in the past, including the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. This ban lasted from 1994 to 2004. However, attempts to reinstate similar bans have been met with resistance from pro-gun lobbyists and lawmakers.
Photo taken from: findlaw.com
The Gun Violence Reduction Law and President Biden’s Stance
In 2022, President Biden signed a gun violence reduction Law, which aimed to reduce gun violence through a combination of measures such as background checks, increased mental health resources, and improved data collection. However, in a recent statement, Biden acknowledged that his hands are tied in enacting further gun control measures and that the responsibility lies with Congress.
Current Congressional Efforts and Challenges
Despite the urgency of the situation, congressional efforts to pass gun control legislation have been slow. Divisions along party lines and the influence of powerful pro-gun lobbying groups, such as the National Rifle Association, have stalled progress. While some bipartisan efforts have emerged, such as one aimed at closing the “Charleston Loophole,” which allows individuals to obtain firearms if their background checks are not completed within three days, they have not yet resulted in significant legislative changes. The good news, though, is that while this legislation has not yet been passed at the federal level, several states have recently closed this loophole.
Conclusion
The increasing prevalence of mass shootings and gun violence in the United States highlights the importance of addressing gun control measures. While efforts like the gun violence reduction law have been implemented, the responsibility for further action lies with Congress. As the debate surrounding gun control continues, it is essential to keep in mind the facts and the gravity of the situation. The future safety of American citizens depends on the decisions made by lawmakers and the public’s engagement in the conversation.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
- Virtual Library Search
- Access Denied: How the Gun Lobby is Depriving Police, Policy Makers, and the Public of the Data We Need to Prevent Gun Violence
- FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer
- NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
- Understanding the 1994 assault weapons ban and why it ended
- Which states have closed or limited the Charleston Loophole?
- What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?
- Gun Violence Archive GUN VIOLENCE ARCHIVE
A New Standard For Homelessness Prevention Programs
A New Standard For Homelessness Prevention Programs
Social Justice Policy Brief #144 | By: Caroline Howard | April 4, 2023
Header photo taken from: stjosephsgilroy.org
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Like many places in the United States, King County, Washington has had a persistent and increasing Homelessness problem for years. As of 2020, 11,751 people were experiencing homelessness in the county, and the number has only continued to grow due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Within that number, more than half were unsheltered, meaning that they were forced to sleep in conditions that are not meant for human habitation. To deal with this growing problem, the King County Regional Homelessness Authority has introduced a 5-year plan to end homelessness in the region of the state called the Homes for All plan. This plan would aim to tackle the underlying causes of homelessness by providing long-term stable housing, as well as other services such as job training programs, mental health treatment, and addiction counseling services for people with substance abuse issues.
The plan sets goals to be accomplished over the next 5 years which include building thousands of new affordable housing units, expanding rental assistance programs so people can maintain affordable housing prices, and providing services such as job training, addiction and mental health programs so people can stay housed and become self-sufficient. 23,000 of these new units will be used to help households who are already spending more than 30% of their monthly income on housing, which is considered to be housing burdened by the federal government. These units would be one of the main priorities, so people who are likely to face homelessness in the near future can be in a stable situation. The increase in rental assistance would go towards the King County Housing Choice Voucher program, which helps residents of the county pay a max of 40% of their annual income on housing and utility bills. There would also be another aspect of the plan that would focus more on specific groups like veterans, younger residents, as well people in the LGBTQ+ community.
The total price tag of this program would be roughly $25.5 billion. They plan on raising this money through new taxes, more funding through different federal government programs, and new bonds for people who want to invest in the plan. Kings County plans on implementing a new sales tax of 0.1% which would raise an estimated $50 million annually. They also plan to use the state’s new Real Estate Excise Tax, and at the federal level, gain funds from the Home Investments Partnership Program, and the Community Development Block Grant Program to finance affordable housing development. They also are hoping to garner philanthropic investment to help with other aspects of the plan to fund different services for people experiencing homelessness.
Photo taken from: dca.ga.gov
Project Analysis
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
If implemented successfully, the Homes for All plan has the potential to make a significant impact on the homeless population in King County. By creating new affordable housing units and expanding rental assistance programs, the plan would provide more stable, long-term housing solutions for those experiencing homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless. Homelessness is an ever growing issue in our country as prices for pretty much everything, including housing, are skyrocketing. While we are still in the capitalist system, we must have a multi-faceted approach to ending this issue once and for all, and this plan does just that. By helping to fund mental health treatment, rehabilitation programs for people with substance abuse issues, and funding job training programs that will allow people to gain the skills they need to start a thriving career, this plan understands that homelessness has multiple root causes in our society, and allows people not only to have stable housing, but achieve self-sufficiency through extra services that will allow people to not continue to live with the threat of homelessness weighing over them everyday. Financial stress can cause massive health issues, which leads to people falling down a rabbit hole of despair, developing addiction issues, and eventually leading to homelessness. This new plan will diminish this issue for so many people currently at threat of becoming homeless. This will allow the people of King County to not only survive, but thrive. Plans like this should be the new standard for dealing with homelessness across the country. With funding for affordable housing to get people off the streets to begin with, and then giving them the tools needed to survive on their own, this plan is an example of what can happen when communities come together and decide that the problems in their community need to end, no matter the cost.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Strengths and Weaknesses of ICC Warrant for Putin’s Arrest
Strengths and Weaknesses of ICC Warrant for Putin’s Arrest
Foreign Policy Brief #178 | By: Yelena Korshunov | March 30, 2023
Header photo taken from: atlanticcouncil.org
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for the Russian president, Valdimir Putin, and Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova. The warrants were issued in relation to the forced unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. The court’s President, Piotr Hofmanski, said in a video statement that while the ICC’s judges have issued the warrants, it will be up to the international community to enforce them, “the ICC is doing its part of work as a court of law. The judges issued arrest warrants. Their execution depends on international cooperation.”
In a response to the arrest warrants Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that Russia found the questions raised by the ICC “outrageous and unacceptable,” and that any decisions of the court were “null and void” with respect to Russia. A spokesperson for Russia’s Foreign Ministry said the arrest warrant had “no significance whatsoever.”
“The decisions of the International Criminal Court have no meaning for our country, including from a legal point of view,” spokesperson Maria Zakharova said on her Telegram channel. “Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and bears no obligations under it.” However, the warrant means that Putin could be arrested and sent to The Hague if he travels to any ICC member states.
Photo taken from: aa.com.tr
Despite the pathetic speeches by Russia’s officials, issuing of the warrants is a significant act for a number of reasons. Putin seems secure in his power and safe from extradition and it’s extremely unlikely that his entourage may decide to send him to The Hague. However, the arrest warrant sends a signal to senior Russian officials that they may be vulnerable to prosecution either now or in the future and this would further limit their ability to travel internationally, including to attend important international forums and events.
Although the warrant likely will not have direct legal consequences that will result in Putin’s arrest, diplomatic impact already is visible. The ICC warrant will undoubtedly hinder Russia’s rapprochement withthose non-Western countries, with which Putin is trying to replace his damaged relationships with the US and Europe. Russia’s opposition news portal Meduza says that in 2023 the Kremlin planned to promote the image of Putin (including for the domestic Russian audience – in the run-up to the presidential elections) as a “fighter against the West”, “a defender of the countries of Latin America and Africa from colonial oppression” and “one of the main leaders of the multipolar world.” This requires foreign trips, in which Putin is now restricted due to the warrants of the International Criminal Court.. Theoretically, the president of the Russian Federation can now be detained under The Hague warrant in 123 countries, and the Kremlin certainly does not how it is possible to “ensure the safety” of the President in these new conditions. Even the former Soviet Union republics such as Tajikistan (that have ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC) cease to be a safe destination for Putin. Although it’s unlikely that someone from the countries that were previously part of the USSR might decide to arrest Putin, Russia’s president never visits a country where there is even a minimal risk of being arrested. In 2022, the Russian president, apparently fearing his own safety, did not come to the G20 in Indonesia, where they were ready to see him. Even when traveling within the country, he is increasingly trying to use a special train instead of an airplane.
Photo taken from: myinfo.com.gh
The possibility of Putin’s personal presence at the G20 summit in South Africa, which recognizes the jurisdiction of the ICC, is unlikely after the warrants have been issued. South Africa is a member of BRICS. The second BRICS member, Brazil, also recognizes the court. While the Kremlin’s largest non-Western interlocutors — China, India, and Turkey — do not recognize the ICC, it is recognized by almost all of Africa and Latin America, the continents to which Russia is trying to present itself as the flagship of the struggle against Western neocolonialism. Some African countries not only recognize the ICC, but have cooperated with it in the administration of justice.
The order may also affect the president’s relationship with his own inner circle. Court prosecutor Karim Khan called the warrant against Putin a regrettable event and the first step in a series of other investigations. If the number of similar orders for Putin’s entourage grows, we may see evidence of a repeat of the situation with the foreign sanctions that have recently been imposed on Russia. Some of Russia’s politicians will protect themselves from the risks of prosecution, while others will compete for who will be the next one to be subject to the warrant after Putin, since they now find themselves in a situation where they have no way out. If after the Western sanctions, Putin, standing above the restrictions, had watched what would happen to the people from his entourage, now it’s their turn to watch what will happen to the president. In fact, the warrant is another call to Russia’s political elite to abandon Putin, who is now literally leading them to prison. Now the risk of being detained or interrogated in countries that recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC is much higher for them, and it may encourage them to take certain steps. This entire situation recalls how the same state apparatus, which worked for Milosevic for many years, extradited him to The Hague almost immediately after his overthrow.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Re-Energizing the Nations’ EV Infrastructure
Re-Energizing the Nations’ EV Infrastructure
Technology Policy Brief #82 | By: Steve Piazza | March 30, 2023
Header photo taken from: forbes.com/Getty
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed back in November, 2021 has reportedly already provided funding for over 20,000 projects related to strengthening the nation’s present and future transportation and energy needs. Beyond providing support for more traditional activities focusing on highways and bridges, the law has paved the way for advancements in electric vehicle (EV) technologies.
President Biden recently announced that his administration would be working closely with the EV industry to improve the infrastructure specifically for EVs. According to a recent White House FACT SHEET, forthcoming action steps include increasing the number of charging stations, creating charging accessibility for all vehicles regardless of manufacturer, and funding for additional research and development.
These measures are designed for meeting the Administration’s goal of creating 500,000 new EV charging stations placed 50 miles apart by 2030. $7.5 billion of the Infrastructure Law is earmarked to meet that goal.
Meanwhile, another $7 billion is allocated for the development of improved battery technology and distribution.
Photo taken from: cnbc.com/Evan Vucci/AP
Project Analysis
The automobile landscape is undergoing another historic transformation. From the design of cars to the online buying and selling of them that leave car dealership lots virtually empty, the world of cars is becoming almost unrecognizable. One significant catalyst might be the way cars are being powered.
The number of EV registrations jumped over 60% in the early part of 2022, despite an overall automobile market trending downwards. The Wall Street Journal reports that over 800,000 EVs were sold last year, reaching over 5% of all car sales.
But that’s not the only change in the scenery. Just as solar panels and windmills have found their place, so too has the EV charging station. And with the recent financial support from the government, we can expect to see even more and more charging stations in retail centers, gas stations, school campuses, homes, and elsewhere.
According to the Alternative Fuels and Data Center, there are over 50,000 charging stations around the country. But with so many EVs on the road and the count projected to become 50% of all vehicles by 2030, the government is now partnering with private companies to make charging them more accessible. The list includes automobile manufacturers like Tesla, General Motors, and Ford, industry charging station leaders such as EVBox (Netherlands), Charge Point (U.S.) and ABB (Switzerland), and other energy technology firms like Francis Energy and Forum Mobility.
In the United States, Charge Point presently leads the way with 27,000 charging stations in place offering a total of 50,000 ports, followed by Tesla, with 6,000 and 28,000, respectively. But this ranking can be deceiving.
The Open Charge Point Interface Protocol, developed by the Dutch-based EV Roaming Foundation, provides a common standard used in many countries to determine the effectiveness of different charging devides and platforms,
The distance you are able to drive on a charge will vary depending on the type of charger and the length of time you leave it on. Battery size and type is another key variable that helps determine who far you can drive on a charge.
Photo taken from: forbes.com/Getty
Charging stations come in three separate port types: Level 1 (110V, similar to a standard wall outlet), Level 2 (240V, what’s used for heavy appliances in the home), and Level 3 (480V, aka Fast Charge). Level 3 uses direct current (DC), and is what constitutes most of Tesla’s ports.
Often referred to as the Level 3 Supercharger, Tesla’s proprietary ports can charge a battery in a fraction of the time it takes Charge Point’s Level 2. In 15 minutes, the Supercharger can energize a car for 200 miles of range, whereas a Level 2 charger would provide a similar range only if charged overnight. For additional perspective, the lowest of the three charging level types, Level 1 would require days to reach full charge.
But since not all EVs and charging stations are compatible and increased accessibility is what the government is attempting to accomplish, cost incentives are a logical approach.
And they seem to be working. Tesla has already pledged to install or retrofit 7500 chargers so their ports can accommodate competitors’ vehicles, while others have promised to increase the number of Level 2 or Level 3 stations.
But the effectiveness of the charging stations can only be as good as the batteries they’re charging, and though advancements in battery technology have been made, more improvement is needed.
That’s why the government is also making funds available to strengthen the supply chain. Supported programs are underway at companies, universities, and other organizations develop safer batteries that can recharge more rapidly and more often, provide longer lasting charges, and can withstand extreme temperatures.
Another objective is to reduce dependence on rare and expensive elements like nickel and cobalt, main ingredients in many existing batteries. New alternatives, which include potassium-ion or sodium metal batteries, can add to the increased use of lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries by leading global companies like China’s BYD and Tesla.
Cars, car dealerships, and parking lots may never look the same as before, but this transformation is no different than any other previous seismic shifts and seems poised to stay. Time embraces change, and incentives like these can only accelerate it.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Advocates, like Drive Electric USA, work to educate states and consumers on the benefits of EVs
Tools related to alternative fuel technologies
Dark Money in Politics: Understanding its Impact, Origins, and How to Combat It
Dark Money in Politics: Understanding its Impact, Origins, and How to Combat It
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #71 | By: Inijah Quadri | March 28, 2023
Header photo taken from: brennancenter.org/Getty/Shutterstock/BCJ
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the influence of money in politics, particularly in the form of “dark money.” “Dark money” refers to political spending by groups that are not required to disclose their donors. Dark money can be used for a variety of political activities, including advertising campaigns, direct mail campaigns, and issue advocacy.
These groups are not required to disclose their donors because they are classified as non-profit social welfare organizations under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which allows them to keep their donors’ identities private. This form of political spending has become increasingly prevalent in the United States, and its impact on democracy is a cause for concern.
Other organizations, like political action committees (PACs), are required to disclose their donors because they are specifically designed to support or oppose political candidates, while 501(c)(4) organizations are primarily intended to promote social welfare.
This article aims to provide a comprehensive overview of dark money in politics, its origins, and its effects, as well as explore ways to combat it.
Photo taken from: publicintegrity.org
The Origins of Dark Money in Politics
The use of dark money in politics is not a new phenomenon in the United States. Dark money has been used since the 1970s, but it gained prominence after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. In this case, the court ruled that corporations and unions have the same First Amendment rights as individuals when it comes to spending money on political campaigns. These rights include the freedom of speech, which allows for the expression of ideas, opinions, and support for (or opposition to) political candidates or issues, including through financial contributions.
This decision opened the door for unlimited spending by corporations and unions, and it also paved the way for the rise of super PACs (Political Action Committees). Super PACs are independent political organizations that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, as long as they do not coordinate with a candidate’s campaign.
The 2010 Citizens United decision also allowed for the creation of dark money groups, which are non-profit organizations that can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, without disclosing their donors. These groups are known as 501(c)(4) organizations, after the section of the Internal Revenue Code that governs their tax status. These organizations are primarily intended to promote social welfare, but they are also permitted to engage in limited political activities, as long as those activities do not constitute their primary purpose. Due to this classification, they are not required to disclose their donors, which differentiates them from other types of political organizations, like PACs.
The Impact of Dark Money on Politics
Dark money has a significant impact on politics, as it allows wealthy individuals and corporations to have an outsized influence on the political process. By spending unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, these groups can sway public opinion and influence the outcome of elections. Some campaigns and candidates have gotten help from dark money. For example, President Biden is reported widely to have gotten a lot of help from dark money groups for the 2020 presidential election.
The use of dark money also undermines transparency in the political process. When donors can give money to political groups without disclosing their identity, it becomes difficult to determine who is behind a particular political campaign. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for voters to make informed decisions about candidates and issues.
Furthermore, dark money can give the appearance of impropriety. When candidates receive large amounts of money from unknown sources, it can create the perception that they are beholden to these donors, rather than to their constituents.
The rules governing the size of regular campaign contributions vary depending on the type of organization and the election. For example, individuals can contribute about $3,000 per election to a federal candidate, $5,000 per year to a PAC, and about $40,000 per year to a national party committee. These limits are subject to change and are adjusted for inflation every election cycle.
Photo taken from: newyorker.com/Mark Henle/The Republic/Reuters
How to Combat Dark Money in Politics
There are several ways to combat dark money in politics, including:
a. Disclosure Laws
One way to combat dark money is to strengthen disclosure laws. This would require political groups to disclose their donors, making it easier for voters to understand who is behind a particular political campaign. This could be done at the federal level, but it could also be done at the state level.
Several states have already taken steps to increase transparency in the political process. For example, California requires all political advertisements to disclose their sponsors, and Maryland also pioneered local laws that required online platforms to disclose the sponsor of any political ad.
b. Public Financing
Another way to combat dark money is to provide public financing for political campaigns. This would give candidates an alternative to relying on wealthy donors and corporations for funding. Public financing can level the playing field and reduce the influence of special interests in the political process.
c. Overturning Citizens United
Another way to combat dark money is to overturn the Citizens United decision. This would require a constitutional amendment, which is a lengthy and difficult process. However, several states and cities have passed resolutions calling for an amendment to overturn Citizens United.
Alternatively, the Supreme Court itself could overturn Citizens United in a future case that challenges the precedent set by the decision. This has happened before with other landmark cases, such as when the Supreme Court overturned its previous ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson with the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
d. Advocacy and Education
Finally, advocacy and education can play a role in combating dark money in politics. Educating the public about the impact of dark money and advocating for stronger disclosure laws and public financing can help build momentum for reform.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dark money in politics is a significant issue that undermines transparency and democracy, as it allows wealthy individuals and corporations to have an outsized influence on the political process. To combat dark money, strengthening disclosure laws, public financing, overturning Citizens United, and advocating for reform are all viable options. These solutions can help reduce the influence of special interests in the political process and promote true democracy. It is important for citizens to stay informed and engaged in the fight against dark money in politics.
Follow us for the latest U.S. RESIST News!
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
California Fair Political Practices Commission
California Fair Political Practices Commission Political Advertisement Disclosures
