JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
States Continue Efforts to Remove Facts from History
Brief #60 – Education Policy
By Steve Piazza
Six states have recently signed into law restrictive measures regarding the teaching of race in K-12 schools. New laws in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Tennessee consist of, amongst other things, measures prohibiting anything appearing on a list of “divisive concepts.”
George Santos and the Character of Congress
Brief #62 – Elections and Politics
By Maureen Darby-Serson
George Santos, elected to the House of Representative through an upset in a New York seat, has been at the center of several scandals since the election. What first became a question of his resume soon turned into legal questions about where campaign finances came from.
The GOP’s Alarming Opposition to Raising the Debt Ceiling
Brief #52 – Economic Policy
By Caroline Howard
The United States is currently heading toward the path of a debt default, for the first time in the nation’s history. This could have catastrophic effects not only on the American economy but on the entire world economic order. The country already went past its debt ceiling in January, going over the 31.4 trillion dollar limit it set for itself in December 2021.
America’s Old-Growth Forests in Need of New Protections
Brief #152 – Environment Policy
By Todd J. Broadman
Just over a third of what remains as forested land in America is classified as “old-growth forest,” equivalent to 167 million acres. By definition, old-growth is at least 80 years old, and just 24% of old-growth forest is fully protected – the balance exposed to the risk of logging. 58 million acres of this old-growth forest are on federal lands under management by either the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management.
Alaska Republicans Should Learn a Lesson About Altering Election Rules from Georgia
Brief #51 – Elections & Politics
By Ian Milden
After Democrat Mary Peltola (D-AK) won a special election for a U.S. House seat and the subsequent general election, Republicans in the Alaska state legislature are attempting to abolish the all-party primary system that was established by a voter referendum before the special election.
The Week That Was #3
Brief #168 – Foreign Policy
By Abran C
A new series to catch you up on the top stories that occurred around the world last week.
Brazil indigenous genocide | US secretary of state Anthony Bliken visits the Middle East | France protests against raising the retirement age
North Dakota Anti-Trans Law Will Jail Librarians For Displaying Books About Sexual and Gender Identity
Brief #156 – Health and Gender Policy
By Caroline Howard
A new law introduced in North Dakota will make it a class-b misdemeanor for librarians in public libraries to have any books on display that are deemed “sexually explicit”. Within this list of topics that meet the definition of sexually explicit, are the classifications of sexual identity, and gender identity.
Fox News’ Role in FIFA Corruption Trial
Brief #167 – Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
The Fédération Internationale de Football Association, more famously known as FIFA, is the global face of football (or soccer, for Americans). They make the rules of the sport, they can sanction players and teams for misconduct on the pitch, they decide the when and where of major tournaments, they decide the TV rights for tournaments, and they also decide where to take bribes from.
Corruption and global sports have always been entwined; just as sports and politics have been. In regards to the most recent world cups in Qatar (2022), Russia (2018), and Brazil (2014), there has been a consistent documented pattern of corruption in which individual executives and corporations have been banned, imprisoned, sanctioned.
China’s “Zero-COVID”: Was it worth it?
Brief #154 – Health and Gender
By Geoffrey Small
During December, 2022, citizens of China took to the streets and sparked a mass protest against the government’s “zero-COVID” policies that had been in place for over two years.
According to Human Rights Watch, prolonged lockdowns, administered unpredictably, by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) have hampered accessibility to necessities like food and proper healthcare.
Reducing the Separation of Religious Schools and Public Money
Reducing the Separation of Religious Schools and Public Money
Education Policy Brief #56 | By: Steve Piazza | October 4, 2022
Header photo taken from: MATTHEW SOBOCINSKI, USAT
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more education policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: CNS / Tyler Orsburn
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In line with a recent string of United States Supreme Court (USSC) decisions lauded by many as protecting religious freedoms, the USSC overturned a lower court decision that prevented state money from being used for religious school tuition. The June 21, 2022 6-3 decision in Carson v. Makin was arrived at by an ideologically divided court.
The issue centered on Maine’s policy that provided funds for rural county students to attend private, nonsectarian schools if the distance to public schools proved too prohibitive. Parents had sued claiming religious discrimination after they attempted to apply the funds to a religious institution but were denied.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts states, “ As we held in Espinoza [Espinoza V. Montana Department of Revenue (2020)], a ‘State Need not subsidize private education. But once the state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.’”
Justice Stephen Breyer asserts in the dissent that it’s more about what is being taught, and how. “Here, again Maine denies tuition money to schools not because of their religious affiliation, but because they will use state funds to promote religious views.
Policy Analysis
By the time a case reaches the USSC, it may have taken on a larger context than when it began. What starts as a parental complaint over school tuition can find itself at the center of a longstanding, contentious national debate.
For many, it becomes a fight against religious discrimination. For others it’s about defending public schools from sectarian advocates. Still others see it as the larger question hitting right at the core of first amendment rights, if not the moral fabric of the country itself.
Just for context, of the more than 30,000 private schools in the U.S. in 2019-2020, almost two thirds were considered religious, according to a survey by the National Center for Educational Statistics. This is compared to 97,500 public schools.
And though the number of private schools has decreased, the number of religious schools have increased. This may be due to a number of dynamics, not the least of which is that currently 28 states and D.C. offer school voucher and/or tax credit programs.
Nonetheless, it is clear here that this USSC majority does not consider funding religious schools as a violation of the church and state clause, any more than it did when ruled in favor of religious expression by an Idaho football coach in the case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District [2022].
But it’s not simply a philosophical exercise.
Chart taken from: YouGov America
(click or tap to enlargen)
This of course leads us further to yet another level of context: whether members of the USSC are activist justices or not. It’s not hard to accept that the conservative appointed justices on this court are amenable to conservative and theocratic agendas.
After all, the plaintiffs’ case in Carson was argued by attorneys from the Institute for Justice, a conservative organization that has close ties to the Koch family and Betsy DeVos.
The case itself may even have been chosen since, according to EdChoice, a conservative pro choice organization, Maine ranks fifth nationally in money given to private schools as percentage of its total education revenues; moreover, while having just 5% of the Illinois population it spends 10 times more than Illinois using that calculation.
To point, cases like this do not solve religious discrimination. In fact, they can even perpetuate it.The dividing line between church and state is a cornerstone of US democracy. Over the years the line has been both defended and crossed in the decisions of the Supreme Court.
At present, the line is being crossed by conservative special interests on the court that have gamed the system in their favor, a trend that is yet another example of how vulnerable our democracy truly is.
It’s not quite the charge of the USSC to directly make rules, but more so test their constitutionality. However, court interpretations of the constitutionality of certain laws can lead to changes in regulations at the state and local level that fly in the face of constitutional wisdom, as is currently the case in the court decisions cited above. Such court decisions should compel the other branches of government into action to preserve the integrity of church state division.
It should be noted that the child of the original plaintiffs graduated high school before the decision and was never able to benefit from it.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
The text for the ruling in Carson v. Makin can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf
Here is a link to an organization advocating for public funding of schools: https://pfps.org/home/
Americans United has long been supporting the separation of church and state in order to protect all religions as they interact with public life: https://www.au.org/#
For more reading, try The Journal of Church and State: https://academic.oup.com/jcs
The Radicalization of the Anti-Abortion Movement
The Radicalization of the Anti-Abortion Movement
Health & Gender Policy Brief #146 | By: Emily Scanlon | September 30, 2022
Header photo taken from: Joy Asico / AP Images for the Center of Reproductive Rights
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more TBA policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Alex Wong / Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
For years, the anti-abortion movement has been focused on one main goal: the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Because of this unifying goal, the movement has not had to grapple with fringe beliefs. Now that their main goal has been accomplished, anti-abortion groups are considering next steps and facing more radical ideas within the movement.
From this comes a group of self-proclaimed “abolitionists” who believe abortions, under any circumstance, should be treated as homicide from conception. The group believes fetuses should receive the same protection as all US citizens. While the majority of the anti-abortion movement does not support the criminalization of women who receive abortions, the “abolitionist” ideas are gaining traction within the movement.
Across the country, states are reflecting these fringe sentiments and pushing the limits on the anti-abortion movement. States that have proposed radical abortion bans and punishments include Indiana, Texas, Arizona, and Kansas. These laws largely contradict public opinion, as 62% of people say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.Yet here are a few examples of radical ideas being discussed:
- Doug Mastriano, the Republican nominee for the 2022 Pennsylvania Gubernatorial election, sponsored a bill in the Pennsylvania General Assembly that would treat abortion as homicide as soon as cardiac activity is detected, around 6 weeks.
- A bill in Louisiana would criminalize doctors who perform in-vitro fertilization, a fertility treatment that has been used by millions in the US. This bill was passed in committee and made it to the State floor, where it was ultimately defeated after much debate.
- The Southern Baptist Convention—the largest Protestant denomination and a strong measure of the opinion of Evangelicalism—passed a resolution calling for the abolition of abortions.
There is one striking similarity across all of these proposed bills: they are all exclusively sponsored by men. More than half of US adults—51% of men and 60% of women—believe women should have more say than men in abortion policy.
Chart taken from: National Abortion Federation
(click or tap to enlargen)
Chart taken from: Pew Research Center
(click or tap to enlargen)
The main issue with a male-dominated conversation around abortion is that many of these men fundamentally misunderstand what their proposed bills mean and what effects they would have.
- Ohio lawmaker John Becker sponsored a bill that would limit insurance coverage for abortion but said the bill would allow exceptions for treatment of ectopic pregnancies. He suggested that ectopic pregnancies—which are unviable in 100% of cases and are often life-threatening—could be removed from the fallopian tube and reinserted in the uterus, a made-up and medically impossible procedure.
- Missouri Congressman Todd Adkin suggested that exceptions made for rape were unnecessary because in a “legitimate” rape, “the female body has ways to shut it down.”
- Alabama State Senator Clyde Chambliss, when asked about in-vitro fertilization treatment and the fertilized eggs that are destroyed in the process responded by saying, “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.”
Senator Chambliss’ comment, above all, shows what abortion rights activists have been saying all along: Abortion laws are not about preserving life, they are about controlling people who can become pregnant. If it were about the preservation of life, these lawmakers would see a fertilized egg as life whether in a lab or in a pregnant person. The new push for the criminalization of abortion proves this further. There is a sick irony to calling for harsher punishments, including the death penalty, under the guise of being “pro-life.”
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
The Healthcare Industry is Reeling from COVID-19
The Healthcare Industry is Reeling from COVID-19
Health & Gender Policy Brief #145 | By: Geoffrey Small | October 3, 2022
Header photo taken from: Getty Images
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Alberto Giuliani, Wikimedia Commons
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
President Joe Biden has declared that the COVID-19 pandemic is over. Many experts in the scientific community may agree or disagree with Biden’s assessment, but the prospect of herd immunity, public awareness, and methods of prevention have undoubtedly come a long way since the coronavirus first made its global impact. As U.S. society is transitioning back to pre-pandemic social norms, the healthcare industry is still reeling from COVID-19. Studies indicate U.S. healthcare workers’ emotional exhaustion and burnout is worsening, increasing the likelihood of frequent staff turnover.
As staffing becomes a major issue, physician groups across the country are consolidating at an accelerating pace in an effort to save costs and promote greater efficiencies in the delivery of services. Some experts believe this consolidation of services could lead to more corporate influence. These changes in the dynamics of the healthcare industry come at a time when global demand and cost for services continues to rise. Also, another development in the health care industry related to are cent Texas Federal District court decision may hamper accessibility for the Affordable Care Act and its cost-reduction policies in the United States.
Policy Analysis
Two surveys conducted by Duke University analyzed 107,122 U.S healthcare workers’ responses between September 2019 and January 2022. The surveys indicated that emotional exhaustion in the healthcare industry rose from 31.8% to 40.4%. The authors of the study indicated that current well-being programs for healthcare workers may not be enough to address the significant increase in emotional exhaustion rates. Lack of accessibility to healthcare worker well-being programs, such as counseling and support groups, are part of the issue.
These services are also not immune to increased staffing turnover and burnout. Staffing shortages will also be exacerbated by an aging workforce. According to a Association of American Medical Colleges study, “more than two of five currently active physicians will be 65 or older within the next decade.” The U.S. will face a shortage of physicians by 2034 if the rate of medical graduates doesn’t increase.
Graph above taken from: Association of American Medical Colleges
As systemic issues with emotional exhaustion, burnout, and an aging workforce increase in the healthcare industry, physician groups are consolidating IN PART to help address these compounding burdens.
The Physicians Advocacy Institute reported that 31,300 physicians practices were acquired by corporate entities between January 2019 and January 2022. This comes at a time when the American Medical Association reported that 2020 was the first year in modern medical history where fewer than half of the physicians worked in a private practice. Experts in the physician community believe that corporations absorbing private practices can potentially interfere with physicians’ judgement on care and a patient’s best interests.
Graph taken from: American Medical Association
As physician groups are consolidating, world-wide expenditures are projected to rise annually by 3.4% according to a global healthcare study. This is due to a high demand for healthcare access in lower and middle-income countries, as well as global population increases. The demand is especially high for age groups 50 years and older in a post-pandemic world. The United States may also experience immediate cost increases, due to a recent court decision involving the Affordable Care Act. A Texas Federal District Court Judge recently ruled in a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act’s policy of requiring health insurance companies to pay the full cost of a patient’s preventative services, stating that the law is unconstitutional.
Medical staffing issues, high global demand for quality healthcare, and corporate influence can lead to a perfect storm of accessibility issues for patients. It is important to recognize that healthcare workers need better access to well-being programs that mitigate burnout and prevent staffing shortages. Project Hope is one of the major non-profit organizations that is distributing protective equipment, training, and mental health support to health care workers still fighting COVID-19. Donating to organizations like these can help mitigate the issues the United States faces in a post-pandemic society.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Protest Against “Partial Mobilization” in Russia
Protest Against “Partial Mobilization” in Russia
Foreign Policy Brief #150 | By: Yelena Korshunov | October 3, 2022
Russian special forces detained a protester. Header photo taken from: Meduza.io
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more foreign policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
On September 21, Russia’s president Putin announced the start of “partial mobilization” in Russia. He signed a law amending the Criminal Code, according to which the Russian Federation introduces punishment for voluntary surrender and desertion during the period of mobilization and refusal to participate in hostilities. Violators face punishment of up to 10 years in prison for voluntary surrender and up to 15 years in prison for desertion.
Putin announced the draft as Ukraine continues pushing Russian troops back from territory they seized during the war. This month, Ukraine launched a major counter-offensive that resulted in the recapture of thousands of square kilometers of territory. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky offered guaranteed protection to Russian soldiers who voluntarily surrendered. He said that Ukraine could guarantee them safety. According to Zelensky, such Russians will be treated in a civilized manner, the circumstances of their surrender will remain undisclosed, and Ukraine will find a way to ensure that those who do not want to return to Russia are not exchanged.
Immediately after the start of mobilization on September 21, queues arose at the Russian border with Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia. There are multiple reports on social networks showing how individuals were forbidden from crossing the border out of Russia. Initially, the military commissars of the regions of the Russian Federation forbade people who were subject to conscription for mobilization to travel outside their city or district, and on September 23, bans on leaving Russia appeared in their orders.
A source close to the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation told the information agency Meduza that the Russian authorities are going to close the borders for all men of mobilization age “after the referendums” that are held in the self-proclaimed DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic), LPR (Luhansk People’s Republic), and in the partially occupied territories of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions of Ukraine. They will end on the evening of September 27th.
After Vladimir Putin announced the mobilization, military commissariats and administration buildings were set on fire with renewed vigor throughout the country. During the first six months of a full-scale invasion of Russia, at least 20 military commissariats were set on fire. Now the frequency of such incidents has dramatically increased.
Responding to Putin’s announcement of “partial mobilization”, a new wave of protests takes place in many Russian cities. The actions were violently dispersed, and many of their participants were detained.
Photo taken from: Meduza.io
Photo taken from: Reuters / Scanpix / LETA
Photo taken from: Ukrainska Pravda
On September 25, residents of Dagestan, a subdivision of Russia, held several protests against the mobilization, and the largest was in Makhachkala, the capital of Dagestan. Around 3pm that day local residents, mostly women, began to gather in the city center, near the Puppet Theater. Calls to come to the rally were published by the Morning Dagestan telegram (social media) channel, to which a little more than 30,000 people had subscribed before the start of the rally.
The Dagestan informal newschannel Chernovik reported that “mothers with children, representatives of the adult generation, and youth gathered.” In total, several hundred people participated in the protests in Makhachkala, judging by the video of eyewitnesses. The protesters, in particular, chanted “No war!”, “No mobilization!” and “Our children are not fertilizer!”
Policy Analysis
Day by day, reality is becoming more cruel for the people of Russia. According to Ukraine, about 55,000 Russian soldiers have died in Putin’s war in Ukraine, and this number is growing every day. Only a small number of brave people dare to take part in the protests, which are brutally suppressed by police and special forces.
The arbitrariness of power, violence, and cruelty have turned the majority of the nation into obedient slaves, frightened and silent, or blindly supporting their leader. The unlimited permissiveness and absolute power of Russia’s president have led to a war in which more and more Russians will ingloriously and uselessly die unless they find the courage to resist Putin’s dictatorship.
The Troubling Influence of Corporate Money
The Troubling Influence of Corporate Money
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #38 | By: Abigail Hunt | September 24, 2022
Header photo taken from: Daniel Huizinga
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and poltics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Getty Images
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Lobbying is as necessary as it is corruptive. The origin of the word lies in the earliest version of lobbyists – men who stood in the lobby of a legislative building to catch government representatives in order to plea their cause.
To lobby is to appeal to a government official on behalf of a person or organization. There are different types of lobbying. Grassroots lobbying employs the influence of the voting public to encourage legislators to make changes, while direct lobbying is considered outspoken communication with a member of the legislative government.
In the U.S., each state has its own definition of lobbying and its own guidelines for registration and reporting requirements. State lobbying laws laws are not just nuanced, they are muddled; Texas, for example, only requires lobbyists to register once they have received a certain amount of money in exchange for their services.
Although legislation to re-affirm limits on lobbying is passed each year, the laws are paper-tiger limitations that in reality have no teeth. The last legislation to limit lobbying—the Lobbying Disclosure Act– was passed in 1995. The Act provides for the disclosure of lobbying activities to influence the Federal Government. It requires lobbyists to register and to report income over a certain amount and to file a report regarding each of their clients, including how much money they were paid by them for lobbying services.
However, lobbyists find ways to get around the provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act – by keeping contributions under different names or certain amounts and percentages, those involved in lobbying can skirt registration while complying with the law. It has been more than a quarter century since any new federal legislation, dealing with loopholes in existing law, has been passed.
RepresentUs is a nonpartisan organization that fights corruption in politics.
The American Anti-Corruption Act (AACA), provides a list of 14 provisions to combat conflicts of interest and political bribery. Developed by RepresentUs, the AACA has been a framework for federal and state lobbying legislation, used to draft anti-lobbying legislation on the local and state level across the country. Per the RepresentUs website, the AACA has been used in legislation in 161 municipalities across the country, but we still have a long way to go.
According to the independent and nonpartisan nonprofit OpenSecrets.org – which tracks money in politics – from 1998 to 2022, lobbyists spent more than $80 billion. Just the top 10 entities that spent the most to influence politics during that time paid out more than $7. 8 billion. The top ten contributors, their spending totals, and the industries associated are as follows:
| US Chamber of Commerce | $1.7 billion | Business Associations |
| National Association of Realtors | $742.5 million | Real Estate |
| American Hospital Association | $480 million | Hospitals/Nursing Homes |
| American Medical Association | $473.5 million | Health Professionals |
| Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America | $464.8 million | Pharmaceuticals/Health Products |
| Blue Cross/Blue Shield | $435.7 million | Insurance and Health Services/HMOs |
| General Electric | $378.7 million | Oil & Gas, Pharmaceuticals/Health Products, Air Transport, Railroads, Misc Manufacturing & Distributing |
| Business Roundtable | $359.3 million | Business Associations |
| Boeing Co. | $320.8 million | Air Transport |
| Northrop Grumman | $315.3 million | Defense Aerospace, Sea Transport |
OpenSecrets tracks more than money – it tracks the people, corporations, and influence behind the money. In another section on their website titled Revolving Door, there are 460 former members of Congress listed who are now working as lobbyists. The Congressional committees with the greatest number of employees who have gone to work with special interest groups or came from special interest groups into politics are as follows:
| Senate Finance | 222 |
| House Ways & Means | 217 |
| Senate Judiciary | 179 |
| Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions | 178 |
| House Energy & Commerce | 171 |
| House Appropriations | 164 |
| Senate Appropriations | 153 |
| Senate Commerce, Science, & Transporation | 152 |
| House Government Reform | 145 |
| Senate Governmental Affairs | 139 |
Per Open Secrets’ tally for the 2022 election cycle, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer received more from just lobbyists than any other member of Congress to the tune of $711,742. Second in line is Republican Senator Kevin McCarthy with a total – so far – at $477,236.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has received $2.2 million so far this year from lobbyists; likewise, also in 2022, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has accepted $1.9 million and change in payouts from lobbyists. The national Democratic and Republican Congressional campaign committees accepted $1.3 million and $1.4 million respectively.
The interests of the majority will never be prioritized by our representatives as long as they are in corporations’ pockets. If we do not make sweeping changes limiting lobbyists’ influence, our voices will continue to fade into the background, no matter how we clamor.
Infographics taken from: Represent.us
(click or tap to enlargen)
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Open Secrets, a nonpartisan nonprofit independent research group tracking money in U.S. politics. The site was founded in 1996 by the Center for Responsive Politics and is now the leading provider of information on money in politics.
Public Citizen, founded in 1971, has half a million members across the country. It is a non-profit independent organization unaffiliated with either party and not beholden to any entity for financial reasons. Public Citizen is a voice for the people, and the people alone.
RepresentUs, founded in 2012, is a leading, nonpartisan organization advocating for pro-democracy and fighting corruption in politics. The organization has won 161 victories for democracy across the country since its inception. Article on lobbying. https://represent.us/action/is-lobbying-good-or-bad/
Writer’s Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Duke Health Government Relations. “Lobbying Definitions, Exceptions, and Examples.” 2022.
https://govrelations.duke.edu/ethics-and-compliance/lobbying-definitions-exceptions-and-examples. Accessed September 21, 2022.
Open Secrets, Following the Money in Politics. “Top Recipients of Contributions from Lobbyists, 2022 Cycle.” 2022. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-recipients. Accessed September 21, 2022.
Quist P. et al. “Layers of Lobbying: Federal and state lobbying trends in spending, representation and messaging.” June 2, 2022. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/layers-of-lobbying. Accessed September 25, 2022.
Quiner, Mark. “How States Define Lobbying and Lobbyist.” National Conference of State Legislators. September 3, 2021. https://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-chart-lobby-definitions.aspx. Accessed September 21, 2022.
RepresentUs. The American Anti-Corruption Act. https://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/. Accessed September 21, 2022.
Senate Office of Public Records. “Lobbying Disclosure Act Guidance.” February 28, 2021. https://lobbyingdisclosure.house.gov/ldaguidance.pdf. Accessed September 27, 2022.
Mar-a-Lago Search Takes Disappointing Turn After Court Rulings
Mar-a-Lago Search Takes Disappointing Turn After Court Rulings
Civil Rights Policy Brief #195 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | September 29, 2022
Header photo taken from: Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Mario Tama / Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In a September 16, 2022 entry on this news site, we recounted the facts of the classified documents saga that culminated in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) search of former President Donald J. Trump’s office at his home in Mar – a – Lago, Florida.
Very briefly, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) were trying to retrieve classified documents from President Trump’s home. These were eventually revealed to be documents containing sensitive nuclear weapons information. Some documents were retrieved. However, a dispute arose as to whether the documents in question could be used by the government in its criminal investigation. President Trump claimed the documents were shielded from use because of a legal privilege.
President Trump claimed executive privilege over the documents and also the attorney – client privilege. Judge Aileen Cannon ruled in favor of the former President and in a legally unprecedented move appointed a Special Master to review the seized documents to determine if any of the documents were covered by a legal privilege. Additionally, Judge Cannon ordered that the documents could not be used by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI in their criminal investigation into the handling and storage of the documents. The DOJ disagreed with the rulings and appealed Judge Cannon’s order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
On September 21, 2022 a three – judge panel of the appeals court issued its opinion. In its ruling the court analyzed the case in terms of whether Judge Cannon’s ruling should be stayed. The appeals court unanimously granted the stay. The ruling now permits the DOJ access to the seized materials to continue their criminal investigation and no longer requires the Special Master to review the documents marked classified. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
The ruling handed down from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit meticulously took apart the arguments President Trump’s lawyers had made to Judge Cannon and was definitely a win for the Department of Justice.
While the ruling was not a ruling on the core issues raised in the case the court did find a way to address the substantive issues in the context of its analysis of a stay of Judge Cannon’s ruling. As to the privilege issues, the appeals court first analyzed whether the plaintiff (Mr. Trump) had any individual interest in the documents. The individual interest is important because it determines which party has a stake in the proceedings. The documents at issue belong to the United States and not President Trump in a personal capacity.
The documents are significant because the interest lies in safeguarding the nation and not because of any individual interest centered around President Trump’s personal affairs as a private citizen. This is key because without that individual interest than it would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for Trump to claim a privilege over the documents and have them shielded from review.
Mr. Trump even made the argument that the documents should be shielded because it contained his “medical records, correspondence related to taxes and accounting information.” While this may apply to some documents if it contained that, it certainly does not apply to documents relating to strategic nuclear weapons information.
The court cleverly undercuts President Trump’s privilege claim by showing that he has no individual interest in the documents. With no individual interest, than a privilege claim goes out the window. And the court goes further by saying that if the documents are released the injury will not be one the former President personally suffers but will instead be a harm to the people of the U.S. and her national security interests. This key distinction illustrates that this is a matter of public concern and not a matter that relates to the activities of only one person.
Photo taken from: Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images
(click or tap to enlargen)
Lastly, the appeals court addressed Judge Cannon’s ruling barring the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from reviewing the seized materials for criminal investigative purposes. This ruling was highly criticized and the appeals court agreed here. The court reasoned that the U.S. faced likely harm if the intelligence office could not review the materials. The intelligence office could not be barred from reviewing the classified documents because it needed to determine the identity of anyone who may have accessed the classified documents, whether any particular materials were compromised and whether any documents were unaccounted for.
These documents are so sensitive that having a Special Master review them would create a danger of exposure if the appointed Master and his team reviewed them. The appeals court recognized this likely harm and correctly concluded that the better and more prudent course would be to have the intelligence office use and review the seized documents for possible unauthorized access and exposure. And, possible violations of federal law under the Espionage Act.
The court of appeals delivered the correct ruling here by considering the national security interests of the United States. Now, it remains to be seen whether President Trump will make an appeal to the United States Supreme Court which is a distinct possibility. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
Lawfare – in depth analysis and criticisms of Judge Cannon’s September 5, 2022 ruling.
Washington Post Special Report – exclusive report on search for classified nuclear materials at Mar – a – Lago.
Nice Democracy You’ve Got Here. Shame If Something Happened To It.
Nice Democracy You’ve Got Here. Shame If Something Happened To It
Elections and Politics Policy Brief #36 | By: David A. Graham | September 19, 2022
Header photo taken from: The Atlantic
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections & politics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Alex Kent / Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Originally posted for The Atlantic
The line between imagination and delusion is thin, as Donald Trump’s initial reaction to an FBI search at Mar-a-Lago in August demonstrated. In the first days afterward, the former president saw the search as a political gift, not a blow: a chance to rally his base, put would-be challengers like Ron DeSantis in their place, and reconsolidate his eroding position as the leader of the Republican Party.
Over time, it has become clear that the FBI finding reams of top-secret documents at his club is not, in fact, a boon to Trump. Even with the presidential-records investigation slowed down by a sympathetic judge, the probe has exacted costs both political and monetary, including a $3 million prepayment to a lawyer aware of Trump’s tendency to stiff people who provide services.
Nearly every Trump adviser you’ve ever heard of, plus a few you haven’t, has been subpoenaed by the Justice Department in an investigation into election subversion, and the House committee looking into the same matter will return to public hearings later this month. The New York attorney general just rejected a settlement offer in an investigation into Trump’s business.
No single strategy can handle the range of problems Trump faces. With some clever forum-shopping, he managed to get the FBI investigation into the hands of a judge whom he appointed late in his term—she was confirmed after the 2020 election—and whose rulings have baffled and appalled legal experts. But this is a stalling tactic, not a solution, and not every judge draw will be so lucky. A second strategy is to cry political persecution, which is good at rallying the minority of the population who already stands behind him but unlikely to win over those who don’t, especially because the claims are so unpersuasive.
This brings us to a third gambit: threats. If the people pursuing these criminal investigations into his conduct don’t back off, he warns, someone—not him, mind you—might do something dangerous. In this heads-I-win, tails-you-lose logic, the justice system can either exempt Trump from the rule of law or risk someone destroying it by other means. Nice democracy you’ve got here. Shame if someone tried to make it great again, again.
In an interview yesterday, the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, a Trump critic turned flatterer, asked whether being criminally indicted would dissuade Trump from running for president in 2024. Trump took the answer in a dark direction.
“I don’t think the people of the United States would stand for it,” he said. “I think if it happened, I think you’d have problems in this country the likes of which perhaps we’ve never seen before. I don’t think the people of the United States would stand for it.”
The implication was clear enough that Hewitt felt the need to throw Trump a preemptive lifeline: “You know that the legacy media will say you’re attempting to incite violence with that statement.”
“That’s not inciting,” Trump replied. “I’m just saying what my opinion is. I don’t think the people of this country would stand for it.”
But there’s no need to believe he’s merely making an analytical judgment. Anyone else can see as clearly as Hewitt what Trump is doing. As The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, has noted, Trump commonly uses this mob-boss-derived method: He speaks in fluent innuendo and implication, making his desires clear while leaving himself just enough vagueness to be able to smirkingly deny it.
Like a Mafia don’s warnings, this Don’s warnings serve as a kind of intimidation, trying to make authorities who care a great deal about the government, civil peace, and the reputations of their agencies (as Attorney General Merrick Garland clearly does) wonder whether it’s really worth enforcing the law against this particular would-be defendant.
Photo taken from: Forbes
(click or tap to enlargen)
These threats might also actually occasion violence. By now, everyone—Trump, Hewitt, you, me—has seen this happen. Sometimes, the violence comes from mentally disturbed individuals who think they’re doing what Trump wants, such as Cesar Sayoc, who sent bombs to Trump critics shortly before the 2018 midterms, or Ricky Walter Shiffer, who was killed after attempting to attack an FBI office in Cincinnati just days after the Mar-a-Lago search.
Other times, the violence comes from Trump backers who simply listen to what he says: the kinds of people who slugged protesters at campaign rallies after he waxed nostalgic for the “good old days” of rough treatment and offered to pay legal bills, or who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021, after Trump called on them to “fight like hell.”
If there was a time when Trump didn’t know how people would respond when he makes these veiled threats, it has passed. He understands now, and does it anyway. His persistence also helps show why his claims that his exhortations on January 6 were not incitement are not to be believed.
This very real menace also makes Trump’s threats ultimately self-defeating. When he speaks this way—or when he embraces QAnon, or whatever fringe view he happens to be espousing at the moment—it riles up his backers, but it also drives away voters he needs to be a viable political force. This means the threats are unlikely to be Trump’s salvation, even as they could inflict real harm on American democracy. He seems not to care.
The Controversial Texas Voting Access Bill: Its Effects on the Coming Mid-Terms
The Controversial Texas Voting Access Bill: Its Effects on the Coming Mid-Terms
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #36 | By: Inijah Quadri | September 22, 2022
Header photo taken from: Evan L’Roy/The Texas Tribune
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections & politics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: Bob Daemmrich / ZUMA Press Wire / REX / Shutterstock
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
The Republican-dominated Texas Legislature on August 19th passed an election bill that Democrats and advocates say will restrict voting rights for minorities.
Republicans inflicted a crushing defeat on Democrats, who fought for months against what they saw as a brazen attempt to disenfranchise minorities, including African-Americans, and other voters who are more likely to vote Democrat.
Once in force, which is expected at the upcoming mid-term elections, the nearly 75-page bill, will notably limit the hours of voting, prohibit drive-through voting, require new ID requirements, and will give increased powers to partisan observers.
Policy Analysis
In a statement released minutes after the bill passed, Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican governor, said he had looked forward to signing a piece of legislation that would make it easier to vote, make fraud harder, and ensure the integrity of elections in Texas. But, did this bill make voting any easier? Take a look below.
The Bill Limits the Hours of Voting
The Bill limits the hours of voting to between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., instead of the 24-hour period that was in place before. The reasoning behind this change is that it would already cover the usual times people go to the polls, and it would also reduce the potential for fraud.
Postal Voting Changes
The law establishes a new procedure for voters to make changes to their mail-in votes if they are at risk of being rejected due to a technological problem. A new online ballot tracker, authorized by the legislature, would allow voters to make these changes electronically. If a voter makes a mistake on their application for a mail-in ballot, they will be able to fix it under the new law.
The Bill Prohibits Drive-Through Voting
The bill prohibits drive-through voting. This prohibition came about as a result of concerns about the security and integrity of election processes. As such, it is now illegal for Texas voters to cast their ballots through a drive-through window. This restriction prevents individuals from voting outside of conventional polling locations.
The Bill Requires New ID Requirements
Under the new bill, voters would need to provide one of several forms of identification in order to cast a mail-in ballot. These include a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their SSN, rather than the previous name and address on their voter registration card.
Chart taken from: Fair Fight
(click or tap to enlargen)
This change is intended to prevent voter fraud and make the voting process more secure. Critics argue that the new requirements may disenfranchise some voters, particularly those who cannot easily obtain required identification documents.
The Bill Gives Increased Powers to Partisan Observers
This bill also gives partisan observers increased powers during elections. This would include the ability to monitor voting procedures freely. The only restriction would be within the polling booth itself, in which they are not allowed.
How African-Americans and Other Minorities Will Be Impacted by New Texas Voting Law
Research shows that the racial turnout disparity widened when states passed tough voter ID laws. In a similar vein, according to the findings of yet another study, the proportion of Black and Latino voters in Texas who would be disenfranchised in the absence of the state’s “Reasonable Impediments Declaration” (a court-ordered remedy that allows voters who do not have proper IDs to participate) is disproportionately high.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Texas voting access bill passed recently may have serious consequences on the midterm elections. The bill allows new requirements and procedures, which we have shown you above.
As you may understand, these changes could affect many voters who are not able to (or who may struggle to) meet these requirements. Whatever the case may be, it is best for voters in Texas to be aware of these changes and make sure they are, if need be, prepared to work around them and cast their ballots when the mid-terms come.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on resource URL to visit links where available
The New York Times: (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/31/us/politics/texas-voting-rights-bill.html)
The Wall Street Journal: (https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-voting-bill-what-you-need-to-know-11630667069)
Explaining Alaska’s Election Reforms: Ranked Choice Voting
Explaining Alaska’s Election Reforms: Ranked Choice Voting
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #37 | By: Ian Milden | September 28, 2022
Header photo taken from: Mark Thiessen / The Associated Press
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections & politics policy briefs from the top dashboard
Photo taken from: CNN
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In the recent special election to replace the late Congressman Don Young (R-AK), Mary Peltola (D-AK) defeated former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) and Nick Begich (R-AK). This brief will examine the recent election reforms in Alaska that led to the upset and how they may affect the U.S. House and Senate races this year. The brief will also briefly discuss the implications of ranked choice voting.
Policy Analysis
Alaska implemented a ranked choice voting system after approving it in a ballot referendum in 2020. The system has a primary where all candidates compete for four spots on the general election ballot. The primary is not separated by party, similar to primary elections in California and Louisiana. The four slots on the general election ballot are reserved for the candidates with the four highest vote totals, regardless of party affiliation.
In the general election, voters then have the option to rank candidates. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote in the initial ballot count, the votes for the last-place candidate are redistributed to the second-choice candidate of those voters. This process is repeated with the third-place candidate if no candidate has a majority of the votes after the last-place candidate is eliminated. Voters are not obligated to pick a second or third choice.
Nick Begich (R-AK) was the third-place candidate in the special election, so the people who selected him over Sarah Palin and Mary Peltola had their votes redistributed. Many of Begich’s supporters did not choose to support Palin or Peltola. Some of Begich’s supporters had Peltola as their second choice due to their distaste for Palin, which helped Peltola win.
U.S. House Race
The special election only filled the seat for the remainder of Don Young’s term, which expires in January of 2023. Mary Peltola, Sarah Palin, and Nick Begich will all be in the general election again in November. While the candidates will be the same, the results can be different this fall.
Graph taken from: Sightline Institute
(click or tap to enlargen)
Special elections have unusual voter turnout patterns and low participation rates, so a normalized electorate may help the Republicans perform better in November. It’s also possible that Republicans vote differently to improve the chances of a Republican winning the election after seeing the results of the special election.
However, there isn’t any history to examine to make predictions on voter behavior.
U.S. Senate Race
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is running for re-election. Her main opponent is Kelly Tshibaka. Democrat Patricia Chesboro and Republican Buzz Kelley will also appear on the general election ballot, but neither of them got over 10% of the vote in the primary. Kelley recently suspended his campaign and endorsed Tshibaka, though his name will still be on the ballot.
Tshibaka has held roles in the Alaska state government with the most recent being in the Alaska Department of Administration. Tshibaka is positioning herself to be a more conservative alternative to Senator Murkowski. Based on the primary votes and my educated guess on voter behavior, Murkowski will likely pick up Chesboro’s supporters when votes are redistributed if no candidate receives a majority of the votes. Murkowski finished ahead of Tshibaka in the primary and won a majority of the Republican vote in the primary.
The Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC aligned with Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), recently canceled an advertising campaign planned to help Senator Murkowski’s campaign. Officials with the super PAC said that they canceled the reserved campaign ad time because they expect Murkowski to win.
Implications of Ranked Choice Voting
Ranked Choice Voting is not necessarily better or worse than the plurality winner systems used by most jurisdictions in the United States. Ken Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem argues that no election system is perfect. While I am not personally endorsing or condemning ranked choice voting, voters may have to consider the benefits and consequences of ranked choice voting.
Photo taken from: Daniel Clark / The Nevada Independent
(click or tap to enlargen)
Some organizations, such as the nonprofit FairVote, are pushing for the implementation of ranked choice voting through ballot initiatives, like the one that will appear on Nevada’s ballot this fall. The supporters of ranked choice voting may present an overly optimistic view of ranked choice voting that glosses over or ignores the potential challenges and drawbacks of ranked choice voting, such as the long time it takes to redistribute votes from eliminated candidates. This process took three weeks in Alaska’s special election.
A major selling point for ranked choice voting is that it allows voters to do more to express their preferences. While ranked choice voting may allow voters to express some form of preference among the available candidates, the ranking and redistribution of votes may not accurately reflect the overall preferences of the electorate. The special election for Alaska’s U.S. House race reflects this because most voters would have preferred a Republican candidate for the seat, but a Democrat ended up winning because the Republican candidate with more votes after the first round was unpopular within her own party. As long as Alaska continues to use this election system, the redistribution of votes can impact election results in this manner.
The U.S. Must Assure Voting Access for All and Free and Fair Elections
The U.S. Must Assure Voting Access for All and Free and Fair Elections
U.S. Resist News Op Ed | By: Abigail Hunt, Inijah Quadri, Steve Piazza, Rod Maggay and Ron Israel | September 26, 2022
Header photo taken from: Getty Images
Photo taken from: Jay Janner / Austin American-Statesman / The Associated Press
Policy Summary
At the core of the American republic is the principle of consent of the governed, or as Alexander Hamilton put it, “Here, sir, the people govern” (Alexander Hamilton “Remarks on the U.S. House of Representatives, at the New York state convention on the adoption of the Federal Constitution,” July 27, 1788
And yet in recent years there have been efforts in several states, e.g. Georgia, Texas, Florida, to restrict the right to vote. Many of these efforts seem to be aimed restricting minority access to the ballot box and keeping Republicans in power.
They have been enacted in response to the Trump big lie that the 2020 election was stolen. They respond to problems that heretofore have not existed. The regulations threaten the fairness and the outcomes of the 2022 and 2024 federal elections.
U.S. RESIST NEWS offers the following suggestions to prevent these regulations from going into effects. In the long-term Congress needs to pass several important pending federal legislative proposals that will put all federal elections on a fair and equal footing for American citizens.
These proposals include passage of pending Federal voting rights legislation aimed at ensuring and maximizing voter access, transparent counting of ballots, and the security of election workers. Much needed efforts also are underway in several states to do away with the practice gerrymandering by establishing non-partisan Independent Redistricting Commissions
Policy Analysis
Options are limited for addressing new state-level voting restrictions before the mid-terms. However there are some actions that have already been taken and may help. These include the following:
Photo taken from: New York Civil Liberties Union
- Mounting legal challenges to the new restrictions, are are being done by the ACLU and the Department of Justice.
Photo taken from: PBS Newshour
- Taking steps to protect poll workers from harassment, as is being done through a new Law Enforcement Election Task Force established by the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Photo taken from: Our Common Purpose
- Accelerate voter education and voter turnout efforts that make people aware of the new voter restrictions and how to address them.
Open, free and fair voting processes are at the heart of our democracy. We must protect the right to vote at all cost.