Guest authored by Helen Brown, president of the Helen Brown Group
Originally published via HelenBrownGroup.com
Here’s the complaint I hear frequently about wealth screenings, prospect research, and real estate: Knowing what our prospect holds in real estate is useless! She’s never going to give any of those houses to our organization!(*)
That’s absolutely right. She’s probably not. But that completely misses the point of why real estate is key.
Here’s why:
Imagine with me that you’re on a lovely sailboat. You’re out for the day with friends in the Caribbean enjoying the sun and the breeze. You’re moving along at a pretty fast clip with the wind, but all of a sudden an unexpected gust causes the boom to flip from one side of the boat to the other, and somehow you’re overboard.
The water’s warm but it’s going to take a few minutes for your friends to turn the boat around and get you. That thin orange ring they tossed you is by no means reliably holding up your weight, but it’ll help keep you buoyant enough to tread water until the boat comes back. The orange ring may be crummy, but it’s the most solid thing you’ve got right now.
Real estate is that life-preserver ring for prospect research.
Because when we run a wealth screening, we’re looking for assets, right? We want to know: Is this person a major gift prospect? Do they have assets of $1 million or $10 million or $100 million – or more?
The trouble with that question is that 70-99 percent of assets are completely private information. For example: salary?** Private. Bank accounts? Private. Jewelry, art, stocks*** and bonds? Private, private, private, and private. Wealth screenings can only match to things that are in publicly-available resources. And the asset that is the most publicly-available is real estate.
So wealth screenings depend on real estate to form the basis of ratings. Like I said, it may be thin, but it’s the only solid thing we’ve got. But we can at least use it to float well-educated guesses.
*Check out our webinar recording with the Helen Brown Group, "Navigating the Changing Landscapes of Wealth & Philanthropy."
How?
For example, we may consult annual wealth studies like the venerable Capgemini World Wealth Report which tell us that, for high net wealth (HNW) people (those with investable assets of over $1 million not including primary residence), real estate makes up about 15% of their total portfolio.
So let’s say you have a prospective donor who is a hedge fund partner at a firm with assets under management over $1 billion (which is our first clue that he is probably a HNW individual). Unless Forbes has helped us out, you probably won’t be able to find his compensation because it’s private. But if you know that he owns 4 properties worth a total of $30 million, based on the Capgemini information you can estimate that his net wealth is somewhere in the ballpark of $200 million.
You may be right, you may be wrong, but at least it’s something to go on in this business where we’re all operating on uncertainty, every single day. We attach ratings to and hang our hopes and our cultivation strategies on people who may or may not support our organizations. It’s a guessing game to which we apply the most solid things we can to hold back a sea of uncertainty.
The rating is a just starting point anyway.
So that’s why wealth screenings – and prospect researchers – rely on real estate to create ratings and wealth estimates. So, dear fundraisers: next time you hear a colleague complain about prospect research’s over-reliance on real estate, do us a favor and clue them in. Because there’s nothing we researchers like better, or need more, than frontline fundraising allies.
And researchers, feel free to print this out and leave it lying around your office.
*Caveat: I’ve never heard a planned giving officer say this.
**Salaries are private unless a person is one of the top officers of a publicly-held company. Or a government employee (but chances are good you’re not expecting major gifts from government employees.) There are a few other examples, but generally speaking salaries are unavailable. Which is fine because, in my opinion, they’re none of our business.
***Stock holdings are private unless a person is one of the top officers or board members of a publicly-held company.
A governor’s daily schedule can be hectic, so every little thing that eases the pressure can be a help. Which is why, as the Associated Press reports, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s schedule includes suggested attire for most of the events on his calendar. What, aren’t governors always dressed in business attire? Not if your Pritzker, who favors khakis and blazer over suits and ties whenever possible. As such, his calendar includes suggestions like “Business: suit and tie,” “button-down and pullover,” and “polo with Columbia jacket.” The gov retains final say, so anyone trying to prank him by suggesting big floppy shoes and a rainbow wig is likely to be disappointed.
Twenty-nine states have passed laws broadly legalizing the use of marijuana. Twenty of those states allow the use of the drug for medical purposes, such as pain relief or the control of nausea. Nine states have legalized recreational use of marijuana by those over the age of 21 in addition to medical use of the drug.
This month Kentucky became the first state to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients. Federal health officials granted permission for that action a day after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued guidance making it easier for states to implement such requirements. At least nine other states have applied for federal waivers to require those who receive Medicaid to work or engage in educational, vocational or other activities.
Source: Washington Post, Reuters
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the tallest pol of them all? According to the Guinness Book of World Records, that would be New York City Councilman Robert Cornegy, Jr, who stands 6-foot-10. But wait! As the Associated Press reports, nobody checked in with North Dakota’s Insurance Commissioner Jon Godfread, a former college basketball player who stands just a tick over 6—foot-11. But wait some more! Another former college and NBA hoopster, Warrensville Mayor Brad Sellers, stands 7-feet even. And as long as we’re gonna be all competitive about it, nobody can quite reach the heights of yet another former NBA star turned politico, Chinese icon Yao Ming. The one-time Houston Rocket turned delegate to China’s National People's Congress comes in at a towering 7-feet-6.
If the November election holds to the usual pattern for the first midterm election of a new presidency, Democrats could win control of nine legislative chambers in seven states, according to Tim Storey of the National Conference of State Legislatures. In the event of a big “wave” election, Storey said Democrats could pick up 6 more chambers in five other states, for a total of 15 chambers in 12 states.
For most of the last three decades, Sacramento resident Scott Kirchner had only one thought about legalizing marijuana: no way, no how.
“I was totally against it,” he says.
It was a perspective driven by his own recovery from years of drug and alcohol addiction. Now clean for almost 27 years, he says the hard and fast tenets of recovery preclude any consideration of legalizing weed. But the longer he stayed in recovery, the more he felt that what was right for him wasn’t necessarily right for others.
“My thinking was always very black and white, but the world is not a black and white place,” he says. “The short and dirty of it is that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not harming others.”
Kirchner is among a growing number of people who say their position on marijuana has similarly evolved. A recent Quinnipiac poll showed 63 percent of Americans now support legalizing weed, up from 61 percent last August. A whopping 93 percent favor marijuana use for medical purposes.
With marijuana still a Schedule 1 drug akin to heroin or cocaine under federal law, the change in attitude has for years been driven at the state level. Starting with California in 1996, 29 states and the District of Columbia have gradually legalized medicinal marijuana use. Missouri may soon join them. The House overwhelmingly approved a medicinal marijuana bill (HB 1554) last week, sending it to the Senate.
Since the approval by Colorado voters of Amendment 64 in 2012, nine states and D.C. have also now approved limited recreational use. This includes Massachusetts, which is currently deep into the process of developing a framework for implementing voter-approved recreational use that goes into effect in July, and Maine, where lawmakers last week overrode Gov. Paul LePage’s (R) veto of legislation (HB 1199) implementing rules for voter-approved recreational use there.
At least three more marijuana measures head to the ballot this November: medical use proposals in Oklahoma and Utah, and a recreational use measure in Michigan. Strong efforts to put recreational proposals on the ballot are also underway in Rhode Island and Connecticut and Nebraska. And while Vermont is the only state to legalize recreational use via legislation – HB 511, signed by Gov. Phil Scott (R) in January – legalization bills are pending in several more, including Hawaii, New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Connecticut and New Hampshire.
Weed has also become an early flashpoint for many of November’s gubernatorial, legislative and congressional races, some in states where being pro-pot has traditionally been a non-starter for most voters. In Texas, for instance, incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Ted Cruz is facing an unexpectedly strong challenge from Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who has been outspoken in his desire to see marijuana legalized nationwide. Strong gubernatorial candidates in Maryland, New Mexico, New York and Illinois have also taken pro-legalization positions.
The increasing acceptance of weed seemed to be in imminent danger in January, when U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he was rescinding the Cole Memo, the Obama-era policy that directed federal prosecutors to go after weed operations that were adhering to laws in their own states. That drew the ire of U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colorado), who accused Sessions of going back on a promise to leave marijuana states alone. Incensed, Gardner vowed to block all of the president’s DOJ nominations unless Sessions backed off. By April, Gardner had held up at least 20 nominations and President Trump ordered the DOJ to stand down.
Perhaps of even greater interest to states, Gardner said Trump assured him he would also back legislation that would “support a federalism-based legislative solution to fix this states’ rights issue once and for all.”
With such a strong tailwind behind them, pro-weed advocates now believe federal legalization is inevitable.
“This is something that is going full steam ahead in the states and it’s just a matter of time before the federal government tries catching up to these state laws,” says Aaron Smith, executive director for the National Cannabis Industry Association.
That time could be fast approaching. Saying his views on the issue “have evolved” from his own days of devout opposition, U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-New York) announced plans last month to introduce legislation in Congress to legalize recreational weed usage. Schumer – who made the announcement on April 20, international 420 “Weed Day” – noted his bill would “allow each state to ultimately decide how they will treat marijuana” and “make targeted investments which are necessary to protect public health and safety and ensure that members of all communities are able to participate in the new and thriving marijuana economy.”
Schumer’s bill is the latest in what has become a regular drumbeat of legalization measures in Congress. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Corey Booker (D-New Jersey) have also introduced legalization proposals, with Booker’s recently drawing support from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).
It’s not Democrats alone who are making waves on weed. In addition to Gardner, who is working on bipartisan legislation to bar the federal government from interfering in marijuana states, Rep. Tom McClintock (R-California) – one of the most conservative members of Congress – has co-authored an amendment with Jared Polis (D-Colorado) that would also bar federal intervention in pro-weed states. And former House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), once “unalterably opposed” to weed legalization, has also “evolved” so much on the issue that he recently took a board position with Acreage Holdings, which has cultivation, processing and dispensary operations in 11 states.
Boehner also called for weed to be removed from its Schedule 1 listing. Although he is no longer in office, Boehner’s pro-weed conversion is seen by many as the greatest indication that longstanding opposition to legalization by his GOP colleagues is nearing an end.
Even so, the idea that a marijuana bill will actually get to the president’s desk remains highly speculative. Presuming one does clear the many hurdles in Congress, President Trump has shown numerous times over multiple issues, including this one, that he is prone to changing his mind, often on short notice and without an easily discernible reason.
Joe Devlin, the chief of Sacramento’s Office of Cannabis Policy and Enforcement, is cautiously optimistic about marijuana’s legal future.
“It does seem to be tending in the right direction,” he says. “What all of this means to us is that hopefully we’re going to have some solutions to some of these problems that really do require federal participation.”
Chief among those is the current lack of access to traditional banks and other financial institutions for most legal weed operations. As long as weed is still a Schedule 1 drug, most banks are unwilling to take on weed clients out of fear that federal regulators or prosecutors will take action against them.
Money has long been the primary driver behind legalization efforts, and it remains so today. A recent report from San Francisco cannabis research firm ArcView Group predicts that North American weed revenues will grow from $9.7 billion in 2017 to $57 billion by 2027. Another report from the investment firm Cowen Group predicts global revenues for weed sales will reach $75 billion by 2030, which is a lot of cash coming in to retail outlets that can’t even get a checking account or take a credit card.
Banking is far from the only concern faced by weed entrepreneurs. Laws about issues such as home delivery, public consumption, advertising, regulation of edibles, so-called “pot lounges” and tax rates vary widely from state to state, creating a dreaded patchwork of standards that make economies of scale far more challenging. And none of that even begins to address other significant social questions around legal marijuana: mass incarceration, minority access to weed entrepreneurship, weed’s potential impact on the opioid crisis and even water and land use.
Whether federal de-listing or legalization would fix any or all of these problems is unclear. Devlin notes that California weed growers already produce far more product than can be legally sold in-state, making it very hard to squash black market operations.
“The biggest thing for a state like ours is to be able to sell across state lines,” he says.
Whether that specific allowance ever happens, NCIA’s Smith believes major federal action to allow states to move forward will come sooner than later.
“This is a global market now, and America is losing its competitive edge,” he says. “It’s just not sustainable to have a federal law so outdated.
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court took up a pair of redistricting cases giving the court the opportunity - for the second time in two years - to decide whether there’s a constitutional limit to partisan gerrymandering. The cases involve congressional districts drawn by Democrats in Maryland and Republicans in North Carolina.
There appears to be little disagreement that the two maps are overtly partisan. Maryland’s plan ousted a 20-year GOP incumbent by packing his rural district with thousands of urban Democratic voters. North Carolina’s map conceded to Democrats just three districts, in the liberal strongholds of Charlotte, Durham and Raleigh, and awarded the state’s 11 other districts to Republicans, in part by absorbing other liberal urban areas within conservative rural ones. The chairman of the North Carolina House Elections Committee, Rep. David R. Lewis (R), began the state’s drafting session by stating, “I acknowledge freely that this would be a political gerrymander.”
A ruling against either of the maps would potentially rein in a process that some say is only getting more partisan, while a decision upholding the maps would likely have the opposite effect.
The court punted on last year’s gerrymandering cases from Maryland and Wisconsin, sending them back to lower courts for further consideration. But it has actually dodged the issue for decades, deadlocked on whether a standard for determining when gerrymandering is unconstitutional could ever be established and what it would mean for the court if there were such a standard.
The court may be inclined to continue that tradition, with its newest justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both having suggested during oral arguments last week that independent redistricting commissions were a potential solution to the problem that wouldn’t require court involvement.
But as Emmet Bondurant, an attorney representing those challenging North Carolina’s map, pointed out, redistricting commissions aren’t a complete solution. They’ve largely been adopted in states west of the Mississippi “that allow the people to amend their state constitutions without the consent of the state legislature” by initiative or referendum, he said, adding that “most states east of the Mississippi, including North Carolina and Maryland, do not allow the people of the state to amend their state constitutions without first obtaining the consent of the legislature which usually requires a super majority vote of both houses.”
“Thus, the problem of partisan gerrymandering does not have a ‘political solution’ in the majority of states that do not allow amendments to their state constitutions by initiative or referendum,” he said. (USA TODAY, NEW YORK TIMES, BLOOMBERG)
When voters in Denton, Texas shocked just about everyone last November by banning the controversial oil and gas extraction process hydraulic fracturing within city limits, it set up a clash between what the Texas Tribune called “two interests Texans hold dear: petroleum and local control.” But while Denton, a small city about an hour northwest of Dallas, won that battle the petroleum industry ultimately won the war. On May 18 Gov. Greg Abbot (R) signed HB 40, industry-backed legislation that nullified Denton’s ban and essentially barred cities and counties across Texas from adopting their own rules regulating oil and gas operations in the Lone Star State.
The bill is just one of numerous statehouse measures around the nation this year aimed at countering a growing number of local ordinances that impose their own regulations within city or county boundaries. With Congress and even some statehouses often bogged down in partisan gridlock, advocacy groups on both ends of the political spectrum are now more than ever taking their fights directly to city councils and local ballot measures. Local municipalities have in recent years become ground zero for battles over not only fracking but regulating ridesharing services and payday lenders, raising the minimum wage, imposing soda taxes, electronic cigarette bans and labeling GMO foods among other issues.
It is a strategy that has worked well, particularly for advocates of raising the minimum wage. Although several states have raised their wage over the last two years, cities like Seattle, San Francisco, Santa Fe, Chicago and Los Angeles have adopted their own measures calling for significantly higher benchmarks than current state standards. Seattle and Los Angeles have raised the bar the highest, hiking their respective wage floors to $15. That is the highest in the country and almost $5 per hour more than the $10.10 standard currently under consideration on Congress. Washington’s statewide standard is $9:47; California’s is $9.00.
As advocates gain more success with this and other issues at the local level, opponents are now turning back to statehouses for help avoiding what they see as a patchwork of confusing or contradictory local laws.
In May, for instance, at the behest of the GOP-controlled Legislature and ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) signed AB 143, which establishes statewide rules for those services while also barring local governments from imposing harsher standards. In April, under heavy lobbying from plastic bag manufacturers Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed SB 1241, which prohibits local governments from banning single-use plastic bags and from letting retailers charge customers a fee for them. That same month Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) signed HB 995, an NRA-backed bill allowing anyone with a concealed-carry permit to bring their guns into parks, schools and sports fields. The measure further bars local governments from imposing any further bans on weapons in public parks. And in February, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) signed SB 202, a measure that blocks cities and counties from adopting anti-discrimination protections for members of the LGBT community or others not currently covered under state anti-discrimination laws.
Other measures may soon follow. Two more bills pending in Oklahoma would bar cities and counties from directly regulating fracking. The first of the Oklahoma measures, SB 809, would prohibit cities from banning fracking and is now with Gov. Mary Fallin (R), who is expected to sign it into law. The second, SB 468, which would deem any interference with oil and gas production to be theft and allow the oil companies to sue for economic damages, has passed both legislative chambers but is currently held up in a joint House-Senate conference committee. According to LexisNexis State Net, measures are also currently pending in Texas to prohibit local governments from installing red light cameras (SB 714 and HB 1131), in Michigan (HB 4052) to block cities from raising the minimum wage or mandating certain employee benefits, and in California (AB 34) to give the state primacy over regulating medical marijuana dispensaries, now currently in the purview of cities and counties.
The reason for going local is simple, says political consultant Grant Gillham, who has worked on ballot measures and legislative campaigns all over the country: success at the local level, particularly in a major metropolitan area like Chicago or Los Angeles, is a great way to leverage statewide action down the road. It can also force opponents of a cause like hiking the minimum wage to fight costly battles on multiple fronts.
“For corporations, it is just a lot harder and a lot more expensive if you are trying to stop something in multiple locations at the local level than at the state level,” he says. “It really makes a strong argument for starting a campaign locally.”
Measures to override the results of those efforts have some people accusing state lawmakers of talking out of both sides of their mouths. After signing HB 40, Gov. Abbot was asked if Texas was being hypocritical for striking down local control when he and legislators routinely accuse the federal government of overreaching its authority and usurping states’ rights. Abbot rejected the claim.
“We have sued the federal government multiple times because of the heavy hand of regulation from the federal government – trying to run individuals’ lives, encroaching upon individual liberty,” he told the Texas Tribune. “At the same time, we are ensuring that people and officials at the local level are not going to be encroaching upon individual liberty or individual rights.”
Gillham calls Abbot’s stance “situational ideology,” though he adds that all parties are prone to use such logic when it suits their needs.
“Getting HB 40 through the Texas legislature was shooting fish in a barrel,” he says. “But most of the time it’s a fine line.”
Chris McKenzie, Executive Director of the League of California Cities, says there are many issues, such as traffic codes and civil rights standards, which really do cry out for statewide laws. And while he can cite many cases where cities have “fought small wars” of jurisdiction with state lawmakers – bills have been introduced in the California Legislature in each of the last three years that would strip cities and counties of all of their regulatory control over medical pot – he agrees that there are also just as many times where the two sides work together as partners. The League has in fact asked lawmakers in each of the last two years to step in to manage some elements of marijuana regulation he says cities don’t do well, such as oversight of pot cultivation that happens counties away from where it is consumed.
“We’re always searching for that sweet spot where the state can complement what we do,” he says.
That may have already happened to some degree again this year. Last Thursday the Assembly Appropriations Committee rejected AB 34, but parts of it were incorporated into another marijuana regulation bill, AB 266, which the League of California Cities is enthusiastically behind. AB 34’s author, Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D), has also signed on as a co-author on AB 266.
Meanwhile, back in Texas the search by Gov. Abbot,for lawmakers and cities to reach their own regulatory sweet spot remains ongoing. And if another pending bill, HB 2595 is any indication it may not be found any time soon. Under that measure, also backed by the oil industry and approved by the House on May 11, cities and counties would be barred from using ballot measures to “restrict the right of any person to use or access the person’s private property” for economic gain. The measure is currently in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Economic Development.
-- By RICH EHISEN
Calling it a “critical public health issue that requires immediate attention,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) announced a multi-pronged plan to combat the Sunshine State’s ongoing opioid abuse epidemic.
DeSantis issued Executive Order 19-97, which reestablishes the state Office of Drug Control and creates the Statewide Task Force on Opioid Abuse.
“Substance abuse is a serious public health concern, and although great progress has been made, the opioid epidemic continues to devastate families and communities throughout our state,” DeSantis said at a press conference announcing the task force’s actions. “These issues require effective and immediate action, and my administration is committed to taking the necessary steps to combat this crisis.”
The Office of Drug Control was first established by former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) in 1999. Amidst much criticism, it was abolished by then-Gov. Rick Scott (R) as one of his first acts as governor in 2011. The closing was particularly odd timing given it came as the opioid abuse epidemic was just then reaching crisis proportions. He later rejected a request in 2017 by Florida’s Drug Policy Advisory Council to bring the office back.
DeSantis made clear he was not going to follow suit.
“The importance of restoring its functions could not be more obvious,” DeSantis said in a press release last week.
The drug office will help coordinate local, state and federal government anti-abuse efforts, while the task force will be expected to develop a long-term strategy for dealing with the problem. (ORLANDO SENTINEL, TAMPA BAY TIMES, SARASOTA HERALD-TRIBUNE)
The next generation of wireless technology, 5G, could bring major advancements in everything from entertainment to public safety. But federal, state and local governments are at odds over how that technology should be deployed and where regulatory authority over it should reside.
5G promises data transfer speeds 100 times faster than current cellular technologies, as well as lower network communication delays known as latency. Those upgrades may not only let mobile users download high-definition videos in seconds and access virtual reality while on the move, but also enable “telemedicine applications” like remote patient monitoring or even remote surgery and “smart city applications including public transit scheduling, crime detection and reporting, smart streetlights and sensors that monitor things such as air quality, water use, parking spaces, traffic flow, sewers and trash collection,” as Network World reported.
Those changes are still a ways off. But wireless providers have been offering to upgrade municipalities’ telecommunication networks with 5G technology for years. Some of them have been more receptive than others. Doylestown, Pennsylvania battled cell tower operator Crown Castle in state and federal courts for nearly two years over the company’s proposed placement of dozens of 5G “small-cell” antennas along the streets of the borough’s historic downtown. Crown Castle ultimately agreed to deploy fewer antennas, conceal them more and compensate the town for the use of its rights of way.
Other towns and cities, including New York and San Jose, have also entered into agreements with carriers authorizing the deployment of the technology. But many have also been blocked from doing so by state legislation establishing statewide requirements for small-cell installations.
Twenty-one states have passed such laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some bar local governments from negotiating their own deals with wireless providers or impose restrictions on such agreements. For example, legislation enacted in Texas in 2017, SB 1004, capped municipal ROW fees for small-cell installations at $250 per network node, well below the $1,500-$2,500 some of the state’s major cities were charging, potentially denying them millions of dollars a year, as Governing reported.
“We just don’t need to make this a major revenue source,” said Sen. Paul Bettencourt (R), who co-sponsored SB 1004. “We should keep government out of the way of technology.”
Other states, like Hawaii, have passed small-cell laws that are less restrictive for local governments.
“In Hawaii, we took a big step forward in deploying 5G technology by instituting certainty in the permitting process while still allowing cities and counties to negotiate to address their needs with the industry,” Hawaii Rep. Takashi Ohno (D), who sponsored HB 2651, enacted last year, told NCSL.
But in September the Federal Communication Commission approved a declaratory ruling and order preempting both state laws and local ordinances that conflict with its provisions. Those provisions include “shot clock” time limits for processing applications for small-cell installations - 60 days for installations on existing infrastructure and 90 days for those involving new utility poles - as well as limits on application fees and a $270 cap on ROW charges. The order also provides guidance on when aesthetic or other state or local requirements, such as “undergrounding,” the deployment of infrastructure below ground, constitute an “effective prohibition” of service.
“The FCC is committed to doing our part to help ensure the United States wins the global race to 5G to the benefit of all Americans,” the order states. “Today’s action is the next step in the FCC’s ongoing efforts to remove regulatory barriers that would unlawfully inhibit the deployment of infrastructure necessary to support these new services.”
The agency also noted it had drawn “on the balanced and commonsense ideas generated by many of our state and local partners in their own small cell bills.” And dozens of state and local officials voiced support for the order, several of them suggesting it would address the “digital divide” between urban and rural areas. As Maureen Davey, a commissioner in Stillwater County, Montana, stated, “the Commission’s actions to lower regulatory barriers can enable more capital spending to flow to areas like ours.”
But the order has also generated plenty of pushback. NCSL and the National Governors Association filed a joint statement saying the order would hamstring any state “looking to ensure inclusive and equitable access to high-speed internet services to residents.”
Arthur Scott of the National Association of Counties’ (NACo) said the ruling’s shot clocks force “local governments to make a decision between rubber stamping applications or facing crippling litigation with these providers in court,” as Governing reported.
Local governments have also insisted they should be able to charge ROW and other fees at market rates.
“We never saw this new infrastructure as a cash cow,” John Davis, borough manager of Doylestown, told CNET. “But they’re using rights of way that belong to the public, and we deserve to be fairly compensated for it.”
Some have also disputed the contention that lowering costs in urban areas will speed up development in rural ones.
“Freeing up a dollar in one market doesn’t mean it will be spent in another,” said Blair Levin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and former FCC official, according to CNET. “There needs to be a business case. And without that, carriers won’t build a network.”
Levin pointed out in a blog post that San Jose and other cities had reached agreements with carriers that “provide benefits to both sides and will result in deployment without the need of a top-down, one-size-fits-all framework that the FCC is preparing to impose on thousands of diverse municipalities.”
But as San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (D) said at the U.S. Conference of Mayors annual winter meeting in January, the way the FCC sees it, “local government is the problem,” with its “high fees, red tape and restrictive permitting,” as Route Fifty reported.
For Liccardo, who served on the FCC’s Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee until resigning early last year, the problem is “the pervasive and overwhelming influence of big telecom and industry interests over the body, and the predetermined, industry-favoring outcome,” according to a press release announcing his resignation.
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, in turn, has criticized Liccardo’s broadband policies, posting on Twitter that they’ve “held San Jose back,” while “thousands of small cells were deployed in other cities, closing their divides & growing their economies.”
Jessica Rosenworcel, the FCC’s only Democrat when the small-cell order was approved, meanwhile, supported the agency’s decision to shorten the time frames for state and local review of small-cell deployments, given the size and scale of the technology. But she called its decision to take away state and local governments’ ability to determine what fees and other requirements are appropriate “extraordinary federal overreach.”
“I do not believe the law permits Washington to run roughshod over state and local authority like this,” she said.
San Jose and dozens of other cities and counties have sued to block the FCC’s ruling. Their petitions were initially consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. But they managed to get the case transferred to the Ninth Circuit, which could help them significantly, given the FCC’s order defies two long-standing decisions by that court, as Gerry Lederer, one of the attorneys representing the petitioners, told Route Fifty.
Incidentally, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon, are also petitioners. They contend the FCC’s order actually didn’t go far enough and should have provided for the automatic approval of applications that aren’t processed quickly enough.
If the local governments prevail in the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court could always overturn that decision. Much has been made of the Ninth’s overturn rate, the third highest of the nation’s 13 federal appeals courts between 2010 and 2015, at 79 percent, according to Politifact. But of the 11,900 cases the Ninth considered in the 12-month period ending March, 31, 2015, the Supreme Court heard only 11 of them and reversed eight, less than 1 percent of the total.
In the meantime, states continue to introduce bills dealing with 5G. Nine states have done so this year, according to NCSL. Most of the measures provide for the deployment of small-cell technology in states that haven’t already passed such legislation, including Georgia (HB 184 and SB 66), Maryland (HB 64) and West Virginia (HB 2005 and SB 3, both of which have been passed by their originating chambers). Others address the health effects of 5G technology (Montana HJR 13 and New Hampshire HB 522) or encourage cooperation between the federal government and wireless providers on 5G development (New Jersey AR 144).
If the FCC order is struck down, there will probably be more bills like the former variety. If it stands, there may only be more like the latter.
As Election Day nears, Democrats seem on track to regain some of the ground they have lost to Republicans in statehouses during the Obama years. But celebrations by the victors, whether Democrats or Republicans, are likely to be muted as states confront troublesome accumulated problems on health care, pensions, immigration and other issues.
No matter who wins the presidency – and Hillary Clinton is solidly ahead in most polls – states will seek more flexibility from the new administration in dealing with “the tangled web of Medicaid,” says Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Governors Association. Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor and disabled, is in most state budgets the second costliest item after education, and costs are rising. States want room to innovate to reduce costs and improve care, Pattison said.
The Obama administration has been gradually heading in this direction, issuing waivers to six states that allow them latitude in expanding Medicaid. Most recently, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) announced a $1.1 billion federal grant for a five-year demonstration project that includes prevention of conditions such as diabetes, treatment for mental illness, increased home care and support for unpaid care givers. An additional $375 million was earmarked for reducing the costs of Apple Health, as Medicaid is called in the Evergreen State.
The biggest challenge both for states and the new administration in Washington, D.C. will be dealing with a range of growing problems that beset the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. Echoing congressional Republicans, GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, has promised to scrap Obamacare and start over. Republicans generally favor increased tax credits, greater use of health savings accounts and allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines.
Campaign rhetoric aside, repeal of Obamacare is a non-starter. Even in the unlikely event that Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House, Democrats could block repeal with a Senate filibuster. Reform, rather than repeal, is a more viable option. Health care experts have warned that the Affordable Care Act, despite success in enrolling 20 million previously uninsured people since 2014, is on shaky ground as the fourth open enrollment season begins Nov. 1, a week before Election Day. Consumers face higher premiums and fewer choices as major insurers such as Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealth have withdrawn from many of the exchanges that sell Obamacare policies. “...Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement will almost certainly have to change to survive,” Robert Pear wrote in the New York Times. “The two [political] parties agree that for far too many people, health plans in the individual insurance market are still too expensive and inaccessible.”
The nature of the changes could be influenced by November ballot initiatives in Colorado and California. Amendment 69 in Colorado would create ColoradoCare, a single-payer government-run plan dear to the hearts of liberals and long the norm in the United Kingdom, Canada and Scandinavia. Martha P. King, health program group director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, says that other states could take their cue from the voting results on this ballot measure.
Polls show Amendment 69, which would be financed by a 10 percent income tax increase, heading for defeat. But because of its ballot wording, Amendment 69 may not be a fair test of voter sentiment on universal health care. It begins with an off-putting question: “Shall state taxes be increased $25 billion annually in the first full fiscal year…?”
Proposition 61 in California would prevent drug companies from charging state health programs more than the negotiated price paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This measure, put on the ballot by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, leads in polls despite opposition from the California Medical Association and a television advertising blitz from pharmaceutical companies, which have raised more than $86 million to defeat it. Drug prices are a contentious issue in the Obamacare debate; advocates are pushing a similar proposal in Ohio that could reach the ballot in 2017. Other states that use the initiative process may follow suit if Proposition 61 passes.
States will also face increased pressure in the coming year to reform public pension systems. Because of insufficient contributions and weak investment performance, unfunded state liabilities for public pensions ballooned by 40 percent to $1.75 trillion through the 2017 fiscal year, according to Moody’s Investors Service. Moody’s found in a recent report that half of all states did not put enough money into their retirement systems in 2015 to curb the growth of unfunded liabilities. Overall, state pension funds earned just a median 0.52 percent on investments in fiscal 2016 versus an average assumed rate of 7.5 percent, Moody’s said.
The need to make up for pension shortfalls has led to credit-rating cuts in Illinois and New Jersey and several cities, most prominently Chicago. Pension fund shortfalls in California contributed to the bankruptcies of the cities of Stockton, San Bernardino and Vallejo.
In California, as in many other states, public pensions have long been considered a vested right that could not be altered. But in August a California appellate court opened the door to changes when it found that “reasonable” pension cuts were allowable. Without defining “reasonable,” the court upheld a lower court decision in which Marin County, a wealthy area north of San Francisco, redefined employees’ retirement benefits to prevent pension “spiking,” which boosts compensation at the end of an employee’s career to increase benefits.
The Marin Association of Public Employees said it will ask the California Supreme Court to overturn the decision, which both the union and pension-reform advocates see as a crucial change in pension law. Although the decision has no legal impact beyond California, it could inspire local governments in other states to seek changes in pension benefits.
On another front, states will again be left to their own devices in dealing with immigration issues. Although the Supreme Court has held that immigration is a federal responsibility, Congress repeatedly has declined to step up to the plate. Prospects are dim for a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which the Senate passed and the House rejected in 2013. And although immigration, with Trump as the catalyst, has been a sensitive – some would say demagogic – issue in the current presidential campaign, it’s a muted one in states with large numbers of Latino voters. California, home to an estimated 2.4 million unauthorized immigrants, has in many respects become an immigrant haven. Most California law enforcement agencies no longer inform federal authorities when an unauthorized immigrant is apprehended for a misdemeanor. These immigrants can get driver’s licenses and receive in-state tuition at public colleges. Their children are eligible for health coverage and under a law signed recently by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), adults can enroll for Obamacare, although unlike citizens they receive no subsidy.
In Arizona, once considered hostile to unauthorized immigrants, an agreement signed in September by the state and the National Immigration Law Center, banned the practice of allowing police to demand the papers of people suspected of being in the country illegally. This practice, the result of a 2010 state law, was considered odious by immigration activists, business leaders and several city governments. It ignited national boycotts that economically harmed the Grand Canyon State.
Many other thorny issues will confront state governments after the end of the long and divisive political campaign. In facing these challenges, states will be swimming upstream against what Scott Pattison of the NGA calls an “undercurrent of economic concern that has been reflected in relatively cautious budget projections.” Memories of the 19-month Great Recession that ended in 2009 linger in the states, where revenues did not return to normal for four or more years.
Now, despite a relatively healthy domestic economy, 30 states reported lower-than-expected revenues in the first quarter of the fiscal year that began in July. Is this a harbinger of economic downturn? State budget officials don’t know the answer to this question, but they’re not inclined to wild spending in the year ahead.
Breaking a tradition of not commenting on bills that are still in the legislative process, ARIZONA Gov. Doug Ducey (R) said he is “pro-vaccine” and would veto any bills to weaken the state’s vaccination laws that reach his desk. (ARIZONA REPUBLIC [PHOENIX, GOVERNING)
Former COLORADO Gov. John Hickenlooper and current WASHINGTON Gov. Jay Inslee each announced last week they would seek the 2020 Democratic nomination for president. Hickenlooper said he will make his background as a mayor and governor noted for bipartisan accomplishments the backbone of his campaign, while Inslee announced a more singular focus on battling climate change. (NEW YORK TIMES, DENVER POST)
Citing a finance-driven threat of school closings, MASSACHUSETTS Gov. Charlie baker (R) proposed a bill last week that would give state education officials new oversight of colleges and universities at risk of closing and require them to have a plan in place to accommodate displaced students. (BROCKTON ENTERPRISE)
Saying she wants to shut down out-of-state funders of Keystone Oil Pipeline protesters, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) filed legislation that would allow police to follow such money and “cut it off at the source.” (GLOBE AND MAIL [TORONTO])
Saying “taxpayers, parents and ultimately kids deserve to know how schools are using their tax dollars,” CALIFORNIA Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 126, a bill that requires Golden State charter schools to adhere to the same public records and open meeting laws as do public schools. (CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE)
-- Compiled by RICH EHISEN
Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt will not be cowed by your cow-tipping obsession. Yes, as the AP reports, Holt recently celebrated the removal of all T-shirts being sold at the city’s airport that referenced cow-tipping, where rural youths allegedly sneak into a pasture at night and push over a cow that is standing but asleep. We say allegedly because cows don’t actually sleep standing up, so such activity is about as legitimate as a snipe hunt. Holt wasn’t a fan of the shirt, which definitely did not convey the image of the city he wanted the world’s travelers to see.
- By RICH EHISEN
Is sustainability part of your corporate social responsibility commitment? This year’s Earth Day festivities mark the 49th year of the global awareness event and brings into focus a pressing concern for all Earthlings—from CEOs to regular Joes. To the point where a joke is perhaps the best way to sum up what Earth Day is about.
Q: What did Earth say to the other planets?
A: Get a life.
It may come as a surprise to learn how big an event the first Earth Day was. On April 22, 1970, an estimated 20 million people across the United States took part in peaceful demonstrations calling for environmental reform. In what has been widely cited as the launch of the modern environmental movement, the first Earth Day spawned groundbreaking U.S. laws:
Europe also moved forward with a range of environmental laws within a few years of the first Earth Day, and the official EU website notes, “Green growth is at the heart of EU policy to ensure that Europe’s economic growth is environmentally sustainable.”
The Earth Day Network, which grew out of the inaugural event, went global in 1990. EDN now works with more than 50,000 partners in 193 countries, and more than one billion people participate in Earth Day activities each year.
The theme this year is Protect Our Species (from extinction), which touches on all manner of environmental concerns, from localized pesticide use to global climate change. People across the world will march, sign petitions, meet with elected officials, plant trees, and clean up their towns and roads. Corporations and governments will make pledges and announce sustainability measures.
Spotlighting CSR and ESG
While Earth Day is the largest civic observance in the world, it also gives the business world plenty to think about.
For one thing, companies might deem it timely to reassess their corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies and ethics strategies, or lack thereof. Due to many developments over the past decade or so, these may extend to international laws and the authority of various organizations that take voluntary CSR self-regulation beyond individual companies to industry-wide initiatives and mandatory schemes at regional, national and even transnational levels.
There’s also the matter of growing investment in sustainable and ethical companies, and the three central factors in measuring it: environmental, social and governance (ESG).When considering CSR and ESG, companies might like to note that Earth Day has always been of great appeal to young people. In the U.S. in 1970, about 2,000 colleges and universities, and 10,000 primary and secondary schools, took part in the inaugural event. Very recently, of course, it is young people, including very young people, who have passionately seized the initiative in driving the call for genuine, committed action on climate change.
Millennials prioritize sustainability—and the brands that support it
By young people, we mean: consumers and investors of the not too distant future. To a significant degree, the millennials, or Gen Y—the children of the baby boomers, born between the early 1980s and early 2000s—have arrived already.
“Millennials are already coming into their own as an up-and-coming economic powerhouse, which means companies that embody their compassionate views have an opportunity to build a strong relationship on the ground floor,” says the global measurement and data analytics company Nielsen in its recent report Unpacking the Sustainability Landscape.
“When it comes to purchase behavior, it has become abundantly clear that consumers care. In fact, 73 percent of global consumers [adults of any age] say they would definitely or probably change their consumption habits to reduce their impact on the environment. As consumers become increasingly aware of what they put in and on their bodies, they are also interested in buying—and sometimes paying more for—products that simultaneously help the environment. In fact, 41 percent of consumers from around the world say they are highly willing to pay more for products that contain all-natural or organic ingredients.”
In surveys Nielsen conducted in the U.S. in 2017, 83 percent of millennials (aged 21-34) said it was extremely or very important to them that companies implemented programs to improve the environment. This compared to 66 percent of Gen X (35-49) and 62 percent of baby boomer (50-64) respondents. Similarly, 75 percent of the millennials said they would definitely or probably change any purchase/consumption habits to reduce their impact on the environment, compared to 46 percent of Gen Xers and 34 percent of baby boomers.
While the breakdown of responses to such questions varies in different parts of the world, there is clearly an ever-increasing need for companies to address CSR and ESG, to monitor for risk on environmental issues, and to thoroughly assess the threat of reputational and financial risk if they fall short.
It could be said that when it comes to Earth Day 2019 and its relevance to the world of business, Protect Our Species refers to more than the survival of threatened animals of the furred and feathered kind.
Take Action Now:
Republicans have flourished in U.S. statehouses during the Obama presidency, winning a best-ever number of legislative chambers and a near-record majority of governorships. But GOP legislative domination, as well as control of Congress, may be threatened by the rise of Donald Trump.
“Trump is causing extreme anxiety, even dismay, among Republicans at state and congressional levels,” said Tim Storey, who analyzes politics for the National Conference of State Legislatures. Storey said there is widespread concern that Trump would have a toxic effect on Republican legislative candidates if he is the GOP presidential nominee.
This concern dominates private conversations of Republican officeholders, some of whom have spoken out publicly. In Wisconsin, for instance, Assembly Majority Leader Jim Steineke denounced Trump for lacking a “moral compass.” Steineke, who had originally backed Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the Badger State primary earlier this month. Cruz won an overwhelming victory and with it 36 of Wisconsin’s 42 delegates to the Republican convention.
Republicans enter the 2016 elections in a commanding position in the statehouses. They hold 68 of 99 legislative chambers, more than ever before, and have 4,120 legislators, more than any time since 1920. (Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, which is nominally non-partisan but functionally Republican.) The GOP leads the Democrats in governorships 31-18, with one independent. Since Obama became president, Democrats have a net loss of 816 state legislative seats. Republicans also hold the U.S. Senate 54-46 and control the U.S. House by more than 50 seats.
Republicans have used their dominance, especially in the 23 states where they control the governorship and both legislative chambers, to advance a mostly conservative agenda of lower taxes, reduced business regulations, tighter abortion controls and strict voter identification laws. Democrats hold only seven such “trifecta” states, where they have pushed climate and minimum wage legislation.
What happens at the top of the ticket usually matters in a presidential election year, and orthodox Republicans fear that a landslide loss for Trump could cost the GOP congressional control and translate into heavy statehouse losses. Trump is viewed unfavorably by two-thirds of Americans, according to a recent Gallup survey. In 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson defeated GOP presidential nominee Barry Goldwater in a landslide, Republicans lost 530 state legislative seats. In 1984, when President Ronald Reagan carried 49 states and won re-election over Democrat Walter Mondale, Republicans picked up 300 legislative seats.
Despite his Wisconsin loss and Cruz’s subsequent pickup of 34 more delegates in Colorado, Trump has a large delegate lead going into the April 19 primary in New York State, in which he is favored. Trump has 743 delegates compared to 545 for Cruz and 143 for Ohio Gov. John Kasich. With 854 delegates yet to be chosen, Trump needs to win 494 of them – 58 percent – to reach the 1,237 required for nomination. He was behind this pace even before his setbacks in Wisconsin and Colorado.
Trump has a hard core of support, concentrated among working class whites and persons without a college education. He has won many more votes than any other candidate in the primaries and sparked heavy turnout. Historically, however, there has been little correlation between how a candidate performs in the primaries and what happens in the general election. That’s because only a fraction of those who vote in November participate in the primaries. By the time of the final primary in California on June 7 about 30 million people will have cast ballots in the primaries, estimates the New York Times. The turnout in November is expected to be four times as much: it was just under 130 million in 2012 and could be higher this year.
Storey said that Republicans enter the state legislative elections this year with the principal goal of holding what they have already won. Still, there are opportunities for both parties in November. Democrats aim at capturing Republican-held senates in Colorado, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Washington and West Virginia. They are also targeting Republican-held houses in Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire and New Mexico and hoping to reduce Republican legislative super-majorities in states such as North Carolina. Republicans are targeting Democratic-held senates in Iowa and Minnesota and Democratic-held houses in Colorado, Kentucky, Maine and Washington.
In this year’s governor’s races, it is mostly Democrats who are playing defense. Democrats hold eight of the 12 contested governorships, and five Democratic governors are retiring or termed out. If Republicans net even a single gain, they will match their modern high of 32 governorships.
Governorships are the most stable offices in American politics, perhaps because voters tend to judge governors on their merits independently of national trends. In 1964, when the Johnson landslide carried Republican congressional and state legislative candidates to defeat, every GOP gubernatorial candidate ran ahead of Goldwater, and Republicans wound up gaining a governorship. As Kevin Robillard of Politico has observed, sitting governors have won 50 of the past 53 contested races, and most turnover occurs when there are open seats.
Republican hopes of adding to their total of governors this year rest on three of the five states in which Democratic governors are departing: West Virginia, Missouri and New Hampshire. The best chance is probably West Virginia, where popular and relatively conservative Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin is term-limited. In Missouri, Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon is also term-limited. New Hampshire is up for grabs because the well-liked Gov. Maggie Hassan is running for the U.S. Senate. All three states have yet to hold gubernatorial primaries.
Republicans have two vulnerable incumbent governors, according to separate analyses by political scientist Larry Sabato and The Washington Post. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence faces a rematch with Democrat John Gregg, who lost by 3 points in 2012. North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, under fire for conservative policies, is seeking a second term. He faces a primary and then a challenge from Democrat Roy Cooper, North Carolina’s attorney general.
Divided government persists in the United States in part because the electorate in presidential election years differs from the electorate in mid-term elections, when Republicans have made most of their congressional and legislative gains. In off-year elections, the electorate is older and whiter than in presidential years, when more minorities and young people, who tend to vote Democratic, cast ballots.
Latinos are a target group in 2016. In previous elections they have voted in lower percentages than whites or African Americans, but a Trump nomination might bring them to the polls in protest. A rolling Gallup survey taken from January through March found 77 percent of Hispanics opposed to Trump, who has made building a high wall on the Mexican border a centerpiece of his campaign.
Many Republicans are also concerned that Trump will alienate women voters. A CNN poll in mid-March found he was viewed unfavorably by nearly three-fourths of women despite doing almost as well among women as men in several primaries.
Storey said that some Republicans fear that Trump’s unpopularity with women and minorities could cause a three to five percent vote drop off in November if he is the presidential nominee. A decline of this magnitude could threaten the GOP majority in Congress and Republican dominance of statehouses across the land. It would be an “absolute disaster” for the party, said Rob Stutzman, a Sacramento-based GOP consultant who previously worked for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and is now trying to mobilize anti-Trump forces in the California primary.
But it’s only April, far too early to know how voters will behave seven months from now. If the rise of Donald Trump holds any lesson, it is to expect the unexpected in politics.
Immigrants, legal and otherwise, are having a difficult year. In Europe, swarms of refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war have overwhelmed the resources of many nations and fueled the rise of populist, nationalist political parties. In Britain, immigration concerns proved decisive in the vote to withdraw from the European Union. In the United States, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has promised to deport all unauthorized immigrants, while the Supreme Court — on the same day as the Brexit vote - rejected President Obama’s attempt to shield immigrants whose children were born in the United States from deportation.
Against this immigrant-unfriendly backdrop, a handful of U.S. states led by California are extending economic opportunities and otherwise assisting unauthorized immigrants, many of whom have lived in this country for decades. California is home to 2.4 million unauthorized immigrants, the most of any state. The Golden State allows them to obtain professional licenses and provides some immigrants with in-state tuition, financial aid and health insurance. Connecticut, Illinois and Washington also provide some benefits to unauthorized immigrants, including health care for children and pregnant women. These states and eight others plus the District of Columbia allow such immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.
These are bright spots on a bleak landscape. Mexico is the source of the majority of unauthorized immigrants, and many U.S. citizens of Mexican heritage have relatives or friends who are in this country without legal sanction. Citizens and unauthorized immigrants alike in this broader Latino community were disheartened by the Supreme Court decision striking down a program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, that was created by an Obama executive order. DAPA protected four million parents of children born in the United States from deportation and allowed them to obtain work permits. The overturned order also would have expanded another Obama program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which grants immunity from deportation to some immigrants brought here as children.
The high court’s decision came on a 4-4 tie, the fourth in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last February. This left in place lower court rulings favoring Texas and other states that had challenged the legality of DAPA. The Supreme Court did not engage the merits of the lower-court rulings, saying only: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview with the New York Times that the result could have been worse if Scalia were still on the court, which might then have issued a precedent-setting decision limiting the president’s authority to grant such orders that would have inflicted lasting damage on the immigrants Obama was trying to protect. As it now stands, Ginsburg said, the case could return to the court when it has the full complement of nine justices, whenever that might be.
Obama promised after the court’s ruling that parents of U.S. citizens without a criminal record will remain “low priorities” for deportation. This won’t, however, protect all DAPA-eligible immigrants, some of whom are among the thousands of persons deported weekly from the United States. In many cases these deportees were found guilty of a misdemeanor years ago, often the act of entering the United States illegally or using false identity papers. Consider, for example, the case of construction worker Jose Cervantes, who has lived 18 years in the United States and is married with two daughters. He was arrested recently at his Wisconsin home and faces deportation to Mexico because he pled guilty in 2006 to working under a false identity.
This is not an isolated case. Obama, dubbed “deporter in chief” by The Economist, has deported 2.5 million people, far more than any other president, and about the same number deported from the United States in the entire 20th century. Peter Markowitz, a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, wrote in the New York Times that Obama had been trying to “demonstrate his bona fides on law enforcement to persuade recalcitrant Republicans to work with him on immigration reform. It didn’t work.”
But after a bipartisan immigration bill passed by the Senate in 2013 died in the House, Obama has attempted to forge a different legacy in his second term, reducing deportations to 253,413 in 2015 as well as establishing DACA and DAPA.
In California alone, DAPA would have lifted 40,000 children out of poverty, according to the Dornsife Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration at the University of Southern California. It also would have broadened health care coverage for other unauthorized immigrants, said Anthony Wright, executive director of California Health Access. Most non-citizens are ineligible for health insurance, but a unique California policy allows coverage under Medi-Cal, the state’s low-income health program, for immigrants granted temporary relief from deportation. Had DAPA been upheld, an estimated 500,000 unauthorized immigrants in California would have been covered by Medi-Cal.
As it is, the Golden State has done more than any state to address the health needs of unauthorized immigrants. In May, California began allowing children and teens under age 19 to participate in the state’s health program regardless of immigration status. Some 250,000 persons are eligible, with 185,000 expected to sign up. California has also petitioned the federal government to allow unauthorized immigrants to purchase health care insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
Currently, there are 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, according to the Pew Research Center, a number that has remained essentially constant for several years. Six states — California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois — account for 60 percent of this population.
Polls show that a majority of Americans consider illegal immigration a problem but sympathize with immigrants who are already here. Gallup found in a survey last August that two-thirds of Americans favor a path to citizenship for these immigrants. There are differences among states. A poll taken for the Los Angeles Times in March found that three-fourths of Californians believe that immigrants who are here should be allowed to stay. But a June survey by the University of Texas found that a slight majority of Texans favor deporting these immigrants.
Immigration has been a hot-button issue in the presidential campaign ever since Trump launched his candidacy by calling Mexicans “rapists” and accusing them of bringing drugs into the United States. He has promised to build a high wall on the U.S.-Mexican border if he is elected. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has denounced these statements and pledged to make immigration reform an early priority if she wins the White House.
History going back to 1924 suggests that comprehensive changes in immigration law require bipartisan agreement. The last time such a consensus prevailed was in 1986, when Congress passed legislation co-authored by Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) and Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D-Kentucky) that was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill was supposed to enable the United States to gain control of its borders and also provided amnesty to three million unauthorized immigrants who lived here. Simpson later acknowledged that the law fell short as a border-security measure but said the amnesty had served a useful purpose. This had long been Reagan’s view. “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,” Reagan said in 1984 during a presidential debate.
Reagan is an iconic figure, but few of today’s Republican leaders share his benign view of unauthorized immigrants. The call for deporting them didn’t start with Trump. Four years ago, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said that those living illegally in the United States should “self-deport.”
Can a bipartisan consensus for comprehensive immigration reform emerge again? Certainly not in an election year in which Trump and Clinton hold diametrically opposed views. But, depending on the outcome, the situation could change after the election. Ann Morse, program director of the Immigrant Policy Project at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), observes that House Speaker Paul Ryan (D-Wisconsin) has left himself open to the possibility of an immigration bill next year. Ryan has clung to a middle ground, denouncing DAPA as presidential overreach while also opposing mass deportations.
Caution is the watchword in immigration reform, says Morse. Absent any action by Congress, reform advocates are focusing on state efforts to increase economic opportunities for immigrants. That makes sense. So do state attempts to extend health care to immigrants, as a healthy immigrant community benefits everyone. Even without DAPA, California and a few other states are setting positive examples.
At least six states have introduced bills or resolutions dealing with digital driver’s licenses this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and LexisNexis State Net’s legislative database. Three of those resolutions (Delaware’s SCR 4, Illinois’ SJR 11 and North Dakota’s HCR 3036) have been adopted, and one of the bills (Tennessee’s HB 556) has been enacted.
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, LexisNexis State Net
Key:
Adopted digital driver’s license resolution: Delaware, Illinois, North Dakota
Enacted digital driver’s license bill: Tennessee
Legislation pending: California, New Jersey
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert (R) has signed a pair of school safety measures, one aimed at colleges and the other at K-12 institutions.
The first one, SB 134, orders Beehive State colleges and universities to develop a campus safety plan that makes clear the rights of sexual assault victims, as well as those of victims of stalking or domestic or dating violence. It came as a response to the shooting death of a University of Utah student by a man she briefly dated. Campus officials and police were accused of failing to share information between one another that might have prevented the murder.
Herbert also signed HB 120, a bill that requires K-12 teachers to take more training on school lockdowns in the event of an on-campus shooter. The measure also funds two new state positions, one a public safety liaison and the other a mental health specialist, both tasked with helping to improve safety in the public school system. (SALT LAKE TRIBUNE)
The IDAHO Senate approves SB 1204, a bill that would require able-bodied Medicaid recipients who fail to meet certain work requirements to make a copay when seeking medical services. The measure moves to the House (ASSOCIATED PRESS).
COLORADO Gov. Jared Polis (D) signs HB 1028, which legalizes the use of medical marijuana to treat autism in children (COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE).
NEW MEXICO Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) signs HB 322, which requires health insurers to cover autism spectrum disorders without age or dollar-amount limits. Lujan Grisham also signs HB 324, which adds PTSD to the list of conditions presumed to have been caused by firefighters’ jobs and requiring employers to provide medical treatment for it (SANTA FE NEW MEXICAN).
The GEORGIA House and Senate each approve HB 324, which would allow private companies and Peach State universities to grow marijuana for medical purposes. The measure moves to Gov. Brian Kemp (R), who supports the bill and has indicated he will sign it into law (ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION).
At least 20 bills dealing with the arming of teachers and other school employees have been introduced in 12 states since the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14, according to legislative information from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and LexisNexis State Net. Another 10 such bills were introduced in seven states in the month and a half prior to that shooting. Most of the measures have failed without making it out of committee.
The U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has released new guidance on strengthening sanctions compliance programs for companies based in or conducting business in the U.S. In the same month, there have been developments in sanctions in the U.S., China, Russia, Ukraine and Iran, and signs that U.S. and EU sanctions regimes are diverging. It has never been more important for companies to improve their compliance process to mitigate the risks caused by increasingly complex global sanctions regimes.
Rapidly changing sanctions
The global sanctions landscape never stands still.
Recent sanctions developments show the importance of any company that operates internationally having in place a rigorous sanctions compliance program. The U.S. has added Chinese telecom giant Huawei to a list of sanctioned companies for violating U.S. sanctions on Iran. It has also tightened sanctions against Iran by revoking waivers on some buyers of Iranian crude oil. In response, China’s foreign minister opposed the U.S. sanctions against Iran.
The following week, Ukraine imposed new economic sanctions against Russia banning supplies of certain agricultural products, transport vehicles and industrial goods. Russia is expected to respond with new sanctions of its own against the Ukraine.
New OFAC guidance
In a timely move, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has underlined the importance of sanctions compliance by releasing new guidance on sanctions. This does not only apply to U.S. firms, but any global firm doing business with or in the U.S. OFAC “strongly encourages” firms to “employ a risk-based approach to sanctions compliance by developing, implementing, and routinely updating a sanctions compliance program.”
The five principles of a good program, according to OFAC, are as follows:
The new guidance from OFAC has many similarities to the EU’s draft guidance on best practices for internal compliance programs, which it released in September 2018. It listed seven best practices, including management commitment, training and awareness raising, organizational structure and auditing. But it specifies certain additional responsibilities, including “a comprehensive record keeping system”, an “adequate filing and retrieval system” both on paper and electronically, and a recommendation to consult with the relevant authorities “in case of doubt or suspicion” of a sanctions breach.
While the guiding principles for companies from the U.S. and EU may appear similar, the actual sanctions each imposes often differs significantly. This is evident in their recent respective approaches to sanctions against Iran.
The U.S. recently re-imposed sanctions on Iran after withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action last year. But in return, the EU updated its regulations to restrict EU firms’ compliance with the new U.S. sanctions. Although there are signs the UK’s sanctions policies could change after it leaves the EU, it has committed to supporting the EU on this issue.
This is a further reminder of the complications that sanctions pose for firms operating on both sides of the Atlantic.
What should companies do?
If a company breaches a sanction, it exposes itself to significant reputational, legal, financial and strategic risks. So, staying on top of changes in sanctions is vital for companies with a global supply chain or client base, and the best way to do that is by introducing a compliance program that monitors sanctions watchlists and media coverage of sanctions on an ongoing basis.
Technology is becoming an increasingly useful asset in companies’ sanctions compliance programs. Firms have successfully used Robotic Process Automation (RPA) and other AI-driven technology to help automate compliance checks. When sanctions regimes change and new individuals or organizations are added to a watchlist, such tools automatically alert the company to these changes so they can carry out enhanced due diligence or even stop doing business in that area. This is more efficient and effective than carrying out regular manual checks to sanctions lists.
3 ways to apply this information:
In 2016, LexisNexis developed a series of predictions for the consulting industry based on insights and information gathered by Teague Communications and powered by Nexis. The comprehensive industry report focused on seven trends impacting consultants in multiple industries.
We’re taking the time to revisit a few of these in our latest blog series: Consulting Predictions that Proved True. We’ll assess how far we’ve come, where we need to go and how leveraging reliable and deep research can help move us toward success with our clients and with our own firms.
A few years ago, it was becoming apparent that the pool of highly qualified talent was shrinking. The consulting business has always been about the people doing the work and their ability to achieve measurable results. Are teams strategic? Growth oriented? Big picture? The list of attributes required continues to grow as business becomes more global, technology-enabled and complex. In 2016, corporate spending showed modest year-over-year increases and private-sector job growth, meaning the competition for consulting talent became tighter than it had been in quite some time. Finding and retaining the best people moved to the top of the agenda for nearly one in four management consulting firms (24%), according to Business2Community.
Has this trend continued or has it receded, only to be replaced by more pressing issues? In 2018, we find that the demand for top talent has not changed; if anything, it’s become even more complicated.
According to Oliver James Associates, global recruiters, there are key challenges that face consulting firms today, including technology, the demand for more flexible work environments, and effective succession planning.
In their recent article, Talent Challenges for Management Consulting in 2018, consulting firms must shed their traditionally risk averse nature to attract and retain top talent.
New business models based on cutting edge technology are emerging with greater frequency. This often points firms to the tech space for new hires. However, don’t assume that the best adopters of technology live here. Be sure to look at other industries that may not develop the technology but prove to be effective at leveraging it – like start ups and non-corporate firms. The skillsets required by today’s consultants extend beyond corporate business and hit on areas like agility, openness to new ideas and a willingness to take risks.
To ensure your firm is offering your clients the best insights and strategies, you have to keep your talent pipeline full. Today, that’s about more than high salaries and specializing in niche industries. It’s about flexible schedules, non-traditional work environments and clear succession planning that creates visible paths that make it worth young talent to invest in the long-term with your firm. Things like four-day work schedules, remote offices and job sharing are becoming more and more common in this typically traditional market. According to ERE Recruiting Intelligence, it’s subtle shifts like this, as well as identifying top talent and developing long-term relationships with them before even starting the recruitment process, that turns your efforts from reactive to proactive, and ultimately, to strategic.
While the focus is on finding the best people, don’t overlook the value of technology. Be sure you’re leveraging research and content solutions as often as possible to give your teams global views with local context; deep data you can trust; and historical insights that provide context for current events. While you’re building a top team, you can be confident that your clients are receiving actionable insights built on content that drives measurable business growth.
Hopefully, as a consulting firm, you began your planning for highly competitive recruitment in 2016 or earlier. If not, it’s never too late to develop an approach based on sound principles that will place your firm top of mind with clients around the world.
In our next blog, we’ll take a look at another prediction from 2016 and uncover its relevance for today.
Ready to learn even more? Check out our website with tips and resources developed specifically for consultants:
When it comes to finding new donors for your university or non-profit, it's important to look beyond your alumni and current donor base and dig deeper into your community, special interest groups, corporations and partnerships. But where do you start?
THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX
Your research doesn’t have to start with a name. Strategically expand your prospect list by conducting searches by university or company. Identify executives with similarities in their educational or professional backgrounds to leverage existing donor relationships. Prioritize your prospecting efforts using wealth indicators to rank giving potential. Shared similar interests with your donor base.
Ideas could include:
• Possible Relationships with major donors, staff or partners• Location within a specific geographical region• Potential donors with means or perhaps a new reason for giving
LOOK AT COMPANIES AND EXECUTIVES
In addition to identifying potential new donors, you can also create and download a list of executive contacts and companies for your next fundraising campaign and corporate giving database. You'll want to be sure your selected tool has company and executive sources that provide contact information and precise targeting capabilities that help you locate and reach your best prospects and high-wealth donors.
And while you're at it. You'll want to look for opportunities to double your fundraising efforts by identifying donors affiliated with companies that have donations matching programs. Company research can also help you identify alumni or current donors who sit on corporate boards, providing gateways to larger corporate donations, you can also review corporate hierarchies to identify other potential opportunists within the same corporate family tree.
HARNESS THE POWER OF SOCIAL MEDIA
The average person has five social media accounts and spends around 40 minutes to two hours on these networks every day. It’s important to be where your market is. So set up a few key accounts and find out what your current donors are interested in and share and engage your social media platform with things that matter to both your mission and theirs.
You can also keep your eye on the competition and promote new and exciting things happening within your everyday fundraising that engages current donors and brings in new ones!
DO YOUR RESEARCH
Conducting research and keeping track of news about current or prospective donors can help you uncover details—affiliations that indicate hobbies or topics of interest, news reports that highlight events such as promotions or awards—that provide natural opportunities, like sending a simple note of congratulations, to strengthen your relationship and stay top of mind with donor prospects.
Identifying who to target is a critical advantage when it comes to fundraising research, but how do you ensure your donor outreach is successful?
Using this comprehensive donor research technology for thorough prospect research, you can uncover key indicators of wealth such as assets, education, employment, compensation, affiliations—along with other factors such as interests, relationships and associations—that could be valuable in fundraising efforts.
INVEST IN THE RIGHT TOOLS
Fundraising goals are always climbing, making data mining, prospect research and donor stewardship tools more important than ever. As an all-in one resource, Nexis for Development Professionals helps you saves time and effort on the research you conduct, leaving more time to focus on fundraising campaigns and relationship building. More efficient research and more effective fundraising help ensure a positive return on investment.
Find out more at lexisnexis.com/ndp
Lawmakers in at least 10 states are considering bills that would impose the first state bans on the sale of flavored tobacco and “vaping” products.
The measures are part of a wave of legislation dealing with e-cigarettes and other vaping devices currently being considered in statehouses across the country, despite the fact that those devices are regulated by the federal government. Many of the state measures, like the proposed bans on flavored tobacco products, are aimed at curbing skyrocketing e-cigarette use among teenagers, which has also been a recent focus of federal regulators.
E-cigarettes have been subject to federal regulation since 2016. In August of that year the Food and Drug Administration finalized a rule extending its regulatory authority over cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to encompass all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems like e-hookahs, vape pens and vaporizers. The rule also prohibited the sale of the newly regulated tobacco products to those under the age of 18.
Last year the FDA initiated a crackdown on sales of e-cigarette products to minors, which included the largest coordinated enforcement action in the agency’s history, resulting in the issuance of over 1,300 warning letters and fines for online and brick-and mortar retailers nationwide. The agency also stated that it intended to continue its stepped up enforcement effort “indefinitely” and that it had directed manufacturers of the top-selling e-cigarette brands to submit plans for addressing youth access to their products or risk having them removed from the market.
FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. said the agency was “committed to advancing policies that promote the potential of e-cigarettes to help adult smokers move away from combustible cigarettes,” but it also saw “clear signs that youth use of electronic cigarettes has reached an epidemic proportion,” necessitating an adjustment of the agency’s strategy.
Manufacturers of e-cigarettes have promoted them both as a safer alternative to conventional cigarettes and a way to help smokers quit. And the FDA actually allowed the sale of the devices without manufacturers having to first prove they provided a net public health benefit. The jury is still out on whether they are either safer than regular cigarettes or an effective smoking-cessation aid, and no e-cigarette maker has yet sought FDA approval for its product.
Meanwhile, between 2011 and 2018, e-cigarette use among middle school students increased 716.7 percent (from 0.6 percent of their total number, or about 60,000 students, to 4.9 percent, or about 570,000 students), according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among high school students, e-cigarette use rose 1286.7 percent (from 1.5 percent of their total number, or 220,000 students, to 20.8 percent, 3.05 million students) over the same period, the CDC report said.
In response to those surging teen usage rates and the FDA’s threatened ban, JUUL Labs, maker of the sleek, USB flash drive-like JUUL device, which commanded 75 percent of total e-cigarette sales as of October 2018, announced in November that it was suspending sales of its Mango-, Fruit-, Creme-, and Cucumber-flavored “pods” at the 90,000-plus retailers that carry its products, making them available only on its website, which restricts sales to those 21 and older.
“Our intent was never to have youth use JUUL products,” said Kevin Burns, CEO of the San Francisco-based company. “But intent is not enough, the numbers are what matter, and the numbers tell us underage use of e-cigarette products is a problem. We must solve it.”
And in March came the surprise announcement that Gottlieb was resigning from the FDA, creating uncertainty about the agency’s position on teen vaping and other issues going forward.
“We believe his resignation calls into question whether or not the FDA will in fact enforce harsher regulations around youth e-cig usage/access, cig nicotine limits and a cig menthol ban given he was the champion behind these initiatives,” Bonnie Herzog, managing director and senior beverage, personal care and tobacco equity research analyst at Wells Fargo Securities, stated in an email to clients, according to a report by the New York Times.
The Times also reported that Gottlieb had increasingly come under pressure from some Republican members of Congress and other conservatives “for his tough stance against youth vaping and traditional cigarettes.”
This month, however, the FDA announced it has seen “a recent uptick” in reports of seizures associated with youth e-cigarette use, signaling “a potential emerging safety issue.” Although the agency stressed in another statement that it didn’t “yet know if there’s a direct relationship between the use of e-cigarettes and a risk of seizure,” the substantiation of such a connection would presumably constitute a compelling reason for it to take further action on e-cigarettes.
But regardless of what happens at the federal level, new e-cigarette laws are on the way in the states. As of April 9, at least 175 measures dealing specifically with e-cigarettes and other vaping devices had been introduced in 40 states, according to LexisNexis State Net’s legislative tracking system. The measures include proposed taxes on those products, as well as restrictions on their promotion and sale, particularly to minors, and the use of the products in public places, such as schools.
A dozen of the bills had already been enacted, including Illinois HB 345, Utah HB 324, Virginia HB 2748 and Washington HB 1074, all of which prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to those under the age of 21. As of last December, six other states - California, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Oregon - had already raised their minimum legal sales age for e-cigarettes to 21, according to the Public Health Law Center.
As of last week, at least 10 states had also introduced bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products (see Bird’s Eye View). Most of those proposals would exempt establishments that prohibit minors. Some would apply only to e-liquids used to refill vaping products. But legislation introduced in California - where more than two dozen cities and counties, including San Francisco, have already approved restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco products - had no such exclusions.
One of those bills, SB 38, was approved by the state’s Senate Health Committee last month. And one of the measure’s strongest supporters on that panel was Sen. Jeff Stone, a Republican from Riverside County. Bucking the general inclination of his party, which receives substantial financial backing from tobacco giant Altria, Stone took aim at that company’s acquisition of a 35 percent ownership stake in JUUL for $12.8 billion last year.
“It is very transparent that these tobacco companies investing in these vaping companies have one goal, and their one goal is not to try to get people to stop using traditional tobacco,” he said, according to a report by CALmatters. “Their goal is to get youngsters addicted to nicotine, one of the most addictive products in the world, even as addicting as heroin.”
The issue is personal for Stone, who told CALmatters’ Dan Morain that his mother, who died at the age of 52, had been addicted to cigarettes.
JUUL spokesman Ted Kwong told the San Francisco Chronicle the company supported “reasonable regulation to restrict inappropriate flavors such as cotton candy and gummy bear that are clearly directed at children.”
“We look forward to working with the California Legislature in the coming months,” he said.
California’s Legislature isn’t the only one the company will need to work with this session. At least one other state, Hawaii, is considering measures similar to California SB 38, one of which, SB 1009, has already been passed by its originating chamber.
The House version of that bill, HB 276, was amended to exempt menthol-flavored tobacco products, because menthol cigarettes provide $30 million in revenue for ambulance services and a hospital trauma center, according to the chairman of the House Health Committee, Rep. John Mizuno (D), as the New York Post reported.
Still, Scott Rasak, vice president of sales for VOLCANO Fine Electronic Cigarettes, which has stores on three of the state’s islands, suggested the ban would push “75 percent of the adult vaping community back to smoking cigarettes” and “annihilate” independent retailers.
The future growth of the whole tobacco industry could take a hit from bans like those proposed in California and Hawaii, as well as the other e-cigarette legislation enacted or pending in the states.
Global cigarette sales, valued at $604.35 billion in 2015 by one estimate, dwarf those of e-cigarettes, valued at $13.9 billion in 2017. But a cumulative annual growth rate of 2.8 percent has been forecast for the former from 2016 to 2021, while a CAGR of 19.6 percent has been forecast for the latter from 2018 to 2023.
As Altria Chairman and CEO Howard Willard explained to investors last year, by acquiring 35 percent of JUUL, the company was “taking significant action to prepare for a future where adult smokers overwhelmingly choose non-combustible products over cigarettes.”