Caroline Black is a partner in the white-collar crime team at the London-based law firm Dechert LLP. She has worked on several large multi-jurisdictional anti-corruption and bribery cases and advised major companies on putting in place adequate compliance and due diligence procedures. Speaking to LexisNexis from Dechert’s slick, modern offices near Fleet Street, she tells us that legislation against bribery and corruption around the world is getting stronger, and regulators are more willing to take enforcement action against non-compliant companies.
Is anti-bribery and corruption regulation and legislation getting tougher?It is the case that around the world, there is a rise in enforcement actions and also legislation which is being passed to assist prosecutors to take action against breaches of anti-corruption standards. In terms of enforcement and regulation, we have seen a globalization of the fight against corruption, money laundering and terrorist financing. We have seen increasing numbers of coordinated corruption investigations in recent years such as the joint Rolls Royce Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) between the British, the Americans and the Brazilians, and Odebrecht between the Brazilians, the Americans, and the Swiss.
The trend for that global coordination will continue with the US and the UK playing lead roles but also increasingly with other jurisdictions being more fully involved in anti-corruption and anti-money laundering efforts.
Interestingly there is also a drive at the moment to give prosecutors more tools through the use of DPAs. DPAs were brought into force in the UK in 2014 but have recently been increasingly used by the SFO. Similar powers have been given to the authorities in France in the form of a CJIP, and there is similar legislation being passed in Canada, Australia, and Singapore.
What do DPAs mean for companies?
There is an increased awareness and desire by the authorities to prosecute companies for anti-corruption breaches. But the use of DPAs also show that prosecutors are thinking about how to incentivize companies to cooperate, to self-report and to be good corporate citizens. The DPA format provides the authorities with greater tools in their armoury to not only incentivize companies using a large stick but also with a carrot in the form of a DPA.
How do companies benefit from being ‘good corporate citizens’, as you put it?
The main benefit is the ability to really market yourself as a company which is ethical, that does business in the right way, and will hopefully attract more work from like-minded firms. Increasingly companies around the world are looking for ethical third parties to do business with. More companies are looking to ensure that the people they do business with are ethical, that they do business in the right way, and are not ultimately going to attribute liability back to them under the very wide anti-corruption laws which are in place.
What are some of the principles of a good due diligence process?
What is really key is having a risk-based approach as a starting point, because completing the same level of due diligence for every third party which a company might engage is unworkable and unmanageable, especially in a large business. But it is also essential that companies are properly identifying those third parties who are the highest risk to their business and ensuring these entities are thoroughly checked and managed.
Another important point is to ensure that reliance is not placed on only one source of information. Information should be sourced from the third party itself, from within the business (the managers and the sales force who proposed the particular third party). Information should be considered from sources available in the public domain or through public records searches and sanctions lists checks. Then depending on the assessment of the risks of the particular third-party consideration could be given to using a reputable due diligence firm or agent. Finally, a company could also make local in-country checks with the chamber of commerce and follow that up with references.
It is also vitally important to ensure that whomever is receiving that information within the company can understand it and ask appropriate follow-up questions, because one failing I’ve seen in the past in some of the companies that we have worked with is that compliance or legal may receive information about red flags that really warrant following up, but the people receiving it do not understand the significance.
How should firms use technology in this process?
Technology is an increasing part of business around the world and it should be part of any due diligence or compliance program. RegTech is really focusing on the use of automated systems and analytical techniques where suspicious transactions may be identified across a business through a big data sampling tool, so a lot more information can be processed than by any one individual. That being said, you still need an individual to review the findings and ensure that they understand the information coming out. But I think technology is useful to highlight red flags or issues which may occur within a company.
How else is technology being used in the field?
In the field of investigations, technology is also becoming much more accepted and more widely used by the authorities. For example, the UK’s Serious Fraud Office used technology-assisted reviews in the investigation leading to the DPA that was reached with Rolls Royce, so it is a much more acceptable standard to allow the review of a lot of data in the most efficient way possible.
How important is the leadership of a company to a successful anti-bribery and corruption program?
Tone from the top is absolutely essential. No anti-bribery, anti-money laundering or anti-financial crime system can work without the buy-in from senior management. I believe it is something the authorities will continue to want to see, from those companies who ultimately end up in trouble, but also more generally to demonstrate that you do business in the right way.
Increasingly, information is being made transparent by companies, including publishing policies, procedures and leadership steps taken by CEOs and other senior members of the board or executive management team. That transparency is not limited to bribery and corruption - with the new Gender Pay Gap reporting, Modern Slavery Act reporting and other initiatives, it’s something that will continue as companies push to transform the way that business is done. It’s important that leadership is seen to endorse that transparency across the board.
What advice would you give companies that come across evidence of financial crime?
If a company decides that there is substance to an allegation, it is very important for it to be seen to be reacting in the right way. One of the key first steps that we would advise our clients is to preserve and secure evidence including paper documents and e-data and the various sources of other information that may exist. Companies should then consider whether there is an issue which could lead to a large enforcement action and which authorities may have jurisdiction as different standards may apply.
To have any chance of persuading the authorities in the UK that a company is qualified to receive an invitation to participate in a DPA, there has to be early reporting, consultation, and cooperation. This practice has become apparent from the recent DPA case law in the UK. The most striking example is Rolls Royce where a large fine of nearly £500m was levied against the company. Notably the agreement made it clear that this was a 50% discount on the penalty which it could have expected had the company not gone into the cooperative process. So, it really is financially important for companies to consider cooperation early on in the process.
It is also beneficial for a company’s corporate compliance image to be able to say, “yes we are reviewing this issue, we’ve reported it to the authorities, we are cleaning up our internal processes, we have taken disciplinary action and we have removed those wrongdoers”. This enables the entity to try to manage the process as best it can while also providing positive messaging to the market and any shareholders that the problem is historical and under control.
How can this transparency approach help during an investigation?
What the authorities are really looking for is transparency and cooperation and to approach and deal with the authorities in a way that is respectful and open. Any attempts to cherry-pick or hide specific behaviour or protect individuals is not something the authorities will want to see from a cooperating company. So, I think transparency, disclosure and cooperation are really the cornerstones of the process.
Even outside of an investigation process, transparency is what the authorities want to see. They are looking for commitment to ethical behaviour, to ensuring that reports are made through relevant money-laundering systems if required, proper disclosures to the markets, proper reaction to an adverse event that might happen within a business, and other step such as publishing gifts and entertainment registers and policies on the company’s website. Companies must demonstrate that ethical business is not just a statement that is made, it really is lived within the organization.
Actions You Can Take Now
Now more than ever, understanding the competition is a requirement for business success. From equipping teams with intelligence that allows them to better connect with customers, to identifying the next steps your industry will take before they take them, staying one step ahead matters.
If you’re responsible for conducting, organizing and socializing competitive research, how do you feel confident in the insights you’re sharing? According to an Inc.com article on competitive research, “by monitoring competitors on an on-going basis you get to know their behavior and so can start to anticipate what they will be likely to do next.” Then you can plan your own strategies so that you keep your own customers while winning customers away from competitors.
To help you focus your efforts and get the most return, we’ve put together tips for more productive, effective competitive research.
More often than not, faulty research can be traced back to faulty content. Reliable research comes from more than Google searches and quick hits on free digital platforms. Working with a partner who invests in the vetting, curation and management of ongoing content sources is a strategic first step. First, it eliminates much of the time you would invest in finding the best sources. Secondly, it connects you to full articles and complete information, versus links or excerpts, meaning you are also connecting to the context in addition to the content.
Historical information can be powerful. Don’t fall into the trap of only focusing on the present day. While what your competitors are doing now matters, what they’ve done over time can also reveal key insights. Historical data, like investments, hires, patents, acquisitions, court cases and more can help you uncover patterns and help you predict behaviors.
Social media platforms have become a part of daily business and our daily lives. This means that they carry just as much validity as a research tool as do periodicals, newspaper articles and court case documents. What does this mean for competitive insight? It means you need to monitor social conversations about your competitors. This can give you important information on not only what they’re doing, but also what people think about them as organizations. You can gauge sentiment as well as data.
There is real value in looking both at the past for historical context and gauging present day opinions and expectations. Don’t fall into the trap of considering these research streams separately from each other. The past and present should come together to give you a holistic view. This sounds simpler than it is. Often, it can be challenging to bring long-view data together with real-time insights because if you’re working with partners, few companies specialize in both. Be sure to find a solution (or bundled solutions) that can integrate long- and short-term data for the fullest possible view of the competition.
Lastly, don’t let all your hard work go to waste. It’s important to formalize your insights into easy to access and understand reports that teams can use in their daily work. How are you connecting your information to recruitment, sales, marketing and other teams who could benefit from what you’ve worked so hard to uncover? There are several digital brands that can help you take your data and transform it into graphics and visuals with real impact. Be sure to check out visme.com, canva.com and piktochart.com, to name a few.
https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/nexis.page
https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/media-intelligence-research-and-analytics.page
https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/newsdesk.page
Thirty-seven states have passed laws regulating transportation network companies (TNCs), according to the R Street Institute and LexisNexis State Net’s legislative tracking database. The most recent addition to that group is Delaware, where Gov. Jack Markell (D) signed SB 262 last week. TNC legislation is also pending in six other states.
Source: R Street Institute, LexisNexis State Net
Corporate social responsibility efforts not only benefit the planet and brand reputation, but they are also key to attracting millennial consumers.
These plugged-in and open-minded yet strongly opinionated buyers are particular about the brands they choose to support. That's because they're socially and environmentally conscious beings, which weighs heavily into their buying decisions.
Here are three qualities of the socially responsible brands that appeal to millennials and how PR professionals can emphasize them:
1. Authenticity Millennials want to support authentic brands with values that mirror their own. On top of that, they are skeptical buyers, which can make it difficult to gain their trust and loyalty. Genuine brands will have the best luck attracting and retaining millennial customers. That includes responding to negative feedback quickly with class and sincerity and avoiding rigged customer reviews. Rather than covering up mistakes with lies or empty promises, PR professionals should practice honesty as the best policy in their strategies.
2. Sustainability efforts Millennials want to invest in the companies that care about positively impacting society and reducing their footprint on the environment. They're strong advocates of environmentally friendly and cruelty-free efforts. For brands, that could mean using recycled materials in packaging or leading volunteer efforts. Millennials are usually happy to pay more for products when they know the company follows these kinds of sustainable and ethical business practices.
Sustainability and social responsibility also play into the engagement level of corporate strategies. PR professionals should give consumers an opportunity to get involved in these socially responsible efforts, whether it's a chance to volunteer their time or donate money. Millennials will be likely to engage - and become loyal consumers - to those companies.
3. Savvy social media presence Born in the digital era, millennials are pros at building their own online personas. As such, they expect brands to do the same. PR professionals can utilize social media to share their CSR story on the platforms where millennials are already engaged. Use videos, high-resolution photography and custom graphics to illustrate your efforts. Define a sincere, relatable tone that creates a conversation with millennials rather than talking at them.
Plus, take the time to see what potential millennial consumers are posting. You may gain insight into the social issues they care about, opening up the opportunity to advocate for those causes and start honest discussions about those particular issues. That way, you can demonstrate genuine concern for bettering society and appeal to millennials as a company that's worth supporting.
From governments and healthcare companies to retailers and financial leaders, no one seems to be able to avoid information security implications. Last year, some of the world’s biggest brands—Anthem, Target, Experian and the IRS, to name just a few, had their customer data stolen and put at risk, the extent of which may still be unknown. Data breaches are nothing new, with some of the earliest, large attacks happening more than 10 years ago. In 2004, more than 92 million AOL customer emails were stolen, and the trend has continued from there. What makes today feel more uncertain is the desire to use personal data for motives that often are unclear and more complicated than just hacking into an email account. And with organized groups like Anonymous adding fuel to the fire, 2016 doesn’t seem to be slowing down. From cyber activists asserting that they are using the power of data for good or sophisticated hackers stealing information as a way to expose or exploit, the fear society feels about the security of our data shows the power of information.
Just when we think we have the latest tech terminology figured out, something else starts to trend. And in 2016, the Internet of Things will be a hot topic. What is the Internet of Things, you ask? It refers to the growing trend of connecting everyday objects like mobile phones, wearable devices, thermostats and cars to the Internet.
The term isn’t actually new; it was coined in 1999. However, with the surge in connected technology, the Internet of Things is taking center stage all around the world. Gartner, Inc., a technology research and advisory firm, predicts that by 2020 there will be 26 billion devices connected to the Internet of Things. The more connected we are, the greater the risk of a breach. For example, hackers can target connected hospital equipment such as CT scanners, MRI machines or blood gas analyzers with malware, dubbed MEDJACK, and then use that access as a backdoor to more sensitive—and valuable—patient data. Researchers have also discovered vulnerabilities in drug infusion pumps that could potentially allow a hacker to change a dosage with fatal consequences. Nonetheless, this increasing connectivity and greater flow of data will continue because if there is one thing we know about ourselves when it comes to technology, it’s that we want to be connected to as many things as possible in as many ways as possible.
Wonder why your credit card company is sending you a new chip card? The new technology is in response to increasing consumer concern over data integrity. These new cards have an embedded microchip as well as a traditional magnetic stripe. The chip encrypts information to help increase data security when making transactions at chip-enabled terminals or ATMs. Unlike magnetic-stripe cards, every time a chip card is used for payment, the card chip creates a unique transaction code that cannot be used again. If a hacker stole the chip information from one specific point of sale, typical card duplication would never work because the stolen transaction number created in that instance wouldn't be usable a second time. And while chip technology won’t prevent data breaches from occurring, it will make it much harder for hackers to profit from what they steal.
As of September 2018, 23 states had enough rainy day and other reserve funds to weather a moderate recession, while 17 states lacked such reserves, according to Moody’s Analytics. The other 10 states had reserve balances that were within 5 percentage points of the amount they would need to get through a moderate recession.
Alfred Berkeley, chair of the UNGSII’s SCR500 fund, former president of the NASDAQ stock exchange and advisor to U.S. presidents Bush, Clinton and Obama, took time out at Davos to discuss the fund’s performance with LexisNexis
“The UNGSII sponsored a fund that is trying to make the point that you can make better than market averages by investing in companies that are adhering to the SDGs for 2030. We are running a paper portfolio that is doing that right now and we’ve had results for 2018 of about 13.7 percent—that’s a little better than the Standard & Poor’s 11.97 percent.”
“The great challenge in the sustainable investing area is to convince people that you can make a good return while you are making good investments, that the companies can subscribe to the SDGs, they can change their business models so they can become more sustainable and they can still make good money.”
“I think there are two keys that we need to be addressing - one is the companies themselves and our primary purpose is to make money, at least as much money as the market would make you, and then to reward companies with attention and praise for adhering to the SDGs”What is your message to companies considering putting sustainability at the heart of their business strategy?“It’s a big decision for a company to go sustainable, many companies are paying lip service to it, but more and more companies are actually delivering and doing it. We have a wonderful chance as a western society, indeed the world, to take on the challenge of the UN, to change our behavior and up our game.”
“The SDGs are all about upping humanity’s game in this long-term view of our own survival and the world’s health. So, that’s what we’re about—proving to investors that you can make a better than average return and proving to companies that it pays to be a sustainable company."
1. Learn more about SDGs on our parent company’s RELX SDG Resource Center.
2. See how a commitment to SDGs benefits companies and communities.
3. Share this blog with your colleagues and connections on LinkedIn.
Sometime in the next week – maybe by the time you are reading this – California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) will weigh in on legislation to raise his state’s legal smoking age from 18 to 21. If he signs it, the Golden State would become only the second to adopt such a standard. But with similar bills pending now in several statehouses, it might not be the last.
Although over 100 cities and other municipalities across the country have raised their smoking age to 21, no such statewide standard existed until Hawaii Gov. David Ige (D) signed SB 1030 into law last June. The law, which also applies to electronic tobacco vaping products, went into effect on January 1. Days later, New Jersey lawmakers followed suit with their own measure (AB 3254/SB 602). But Gov. Chris Christie (R) pocket vetoed the bill without comment, leaving Hawaii as the only one with a statewide age-21 standard.
But that is likely to soon change. In addition to California, similar proposals are currently under consideration in several states, including New Jersey, where Sen. Richard Codey (D) has reintroduced the proposal vetoed by Gov. Christie last year. (See Bird’s eye view.)
But will raising the smoking age actually prevent more teens from taking up tobacco?
Supporters point to studies like one released in 2015 from the Institute of Medicine that show 90 percent of smokers take up the habit before age 19. Dave Dobbins, COO of the Truth Initiative, a Washington D.C.-based non-profit working to eradicate tobacco use, says that often occurs when a younger teen gets cigarettes or other tobacco products from an older teen who obtained them legally. In theory that happens because it is not overly unusual for a 17-year-old to run in the same social circles as an 18-year-old. Raising the legal purchasing age, the studies say, can go a long way toward preventing that.
“From a policy point of view, if you increase the smoking age to 21, the young underage smokers won’t have relationships with the older up-to-21 age,” University of California San Francisco tobacco policy researcher Rachel Barry told California Healthline last month.
Dobbins says nobody thinks the age restriction alone will stop such things from happening, but he says it is a necessary component of a wide reaching plan to keep kids away from tobacco.
“We know that no age restriction will stop a kid who really wants something from getting it,” he says. “But we think stopping that first try of a kid getting it from a friend who got it legally could reduce youth tobacco uptake by as much as 20 percent.”
That’s more optimistic than the Institute of Medicine report, which estimated only a 12 percent decline in teen smoking rates if the legal age is raised to 21. Even so, the anti-smoking advocacy group Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids says such a decline would result in a 10 percent decrease in tobacco-related deaths - approximately 223,000 people – each year.
James Ross, a longtime LexisNexis employee who has smoked since his freshman year in college, isn’t so sure about all this. He got his first cigarette from an older colleague where he worked at the time, starting a habit that has lasted for decades. Like many of us, he remembers how easy it was as a young person to get alcohol or other illicit things regardless of the laws of the day. And while he supports efforts to prevent young people from starting, he wonders if this particular tack could do more harm than good.
“It could turn into a case of the forbidden fruit,” he says. “The more you try to keep something from someone the more they want it. Maybe it actually convinces someone to try it, just to see what it’s about.”
Critics also point to the record-low levels of teens smoking, begging the question of whether more anti-tobacco legislation is necessary, particularly as many states are already struggling with a significant loss of annual tax revenue resulting from decreased tobacco sales.
Loss of tax revenue is at the heart of opposition to a bill in Massachusetts (SB 2234) that would not only raise the smoking age to 21, but also bar the sale of tobacco and nicotine products in health-related outlets like retail pharmacies and stores with optical departments. The measure would also prohibit e-cigarettes in places where smoking is already barred, such as schools and workplaces. In a statement, the Retailers Association of Massachusetts said the measure will only drive smokers to purchase tobacco products in other states or online, thus “depriving the Commonwealth of tobacco excise tax revenue used to address problems associated with smoking which will endure.
Taxes were also the key element of debate in the Washington legislature. A measure there that would have barred both standards and electronic tobacco products for those under 21 (HB 2313) stalled in the House Committee on Appropriations in February. It was reintroduced in special session in March, but several lawmakers remained opposed, particularly after the state Office of Financial Management issued a report saying that raising the smoking age to 21 would cost the Evergreen State more than $10 million a year in lost tax revenue. That resistance sparked a strong response from Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D), who told the Columbian on March 22, “If you raise the smoking age, fewer teenagers will be buying cigarettes, [which is a] good thing. Is the Legislature really balancing their budget on the backs of teenage smokers? Look, the candid answer is yes.” Even so, not action was taken during the special session, which ended on March 29.
But that hasn’t discouraged advocates for raising the age, who contend that the rate of decrease in teen smoking has flattened out in recent years, due in part to the growing popularity of e-cigarettes, or “vaping.” Those products have proven to be particularly popular among young people, which is why age-hike advocates have pushed so hard to ensure they are included in the restriction bills under consideration.
Gubernatorial support for current measures has also bounced all over the map. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) said last week he supports the idea of raising the smoking age, but will need to see what the final legislation looks like before knowing if he’ll sign it. That chance could come soon as the Senate approved SB 2234 last Thursday, sending it to the House. Meanwhile, Vermont Gov. Pete Shumlin (D) has indicated he doesn’t support HB 93, which would raise both the legal smoking age and the per-pack tax on cigarettes by 13 cents a year through 2019.
Other measures Brown must act on in California include expanding the places where e-cigarettes are banned, broadening workplace smoking prohibitions and raising the licensing fee for tobacco retailers. Another measure that would ban smoking and the use of tobacco and vaping products on all of the California State University and community college campuses (AB 1594) cleared the Assembly last week and is expected to meet similar approval in the Senate. The governor has stuck to his general policy of not commenting on bills before he acts on them. But in a statehouse dominated by Democrats who are normally lined up to oppose Big Tobacco, getting the six-bill package passed was surprisingly difficult. Originally passed in March, lawmakers held back from sending them to Brown after the tobacco lobby threatened to undertake a referendum campaign to harm other ballot measures Democrats favor: one that would impose a $2-a-pack cigarette tax and another to extend higher taxes on the state’s wealthiest residents. Neither has yet qualified for the November ballot.
Whatever the results, Truth Initiative’s Dobbins vowed that organizations like his will continue to push a wide suite of both state and Congressional efforts to curb teen smoking.
“Raising the age limit is just one of many tools to stop kids before they start,” he says.
After the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the U.S. began leveraging economic sanctions against Iran, expanding them to include companies dealing with the Iranian government in 1995. In 2006, the UN Security Council piled on in an attempt to influence the government’s uranium enrichment program. Decades of sanctions took their toll on Iran’s economy, but the oil-rich nation is still an attractive market—and the sudden rush of European companies to Tehran following the announcement that OFAC sanctions would be lifted certainly demonstrates that fact.
As the sanctions are lifted, Iran will regain access to 100 billion dollars in previously frozen assets overseas—and companies in Europe are racing to claim their pieces of the pie. According to a DPA release, the Iranian Deputy Petroleum Minister promoted “excellent opportunities for partnerships and joint ventures” at a recent investor forum in Vienna. For companies that have been suffering from a less-than-spectacular European economy in recent years, the prospect of an eager—and well-funded—new customer has company executives tripping over themselves to tap the Iranian market.
It’s not all sunshine and roses, however. First, it’s important to remember that the Iran deal is not universally loved. The Republican-led Congress would love to nix the deal and with the upcoming 2016 Presidential election, the merits of the deal are likely to be hotly contested. What happens if Congress acts or a Republican wins the White House? The U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told Congress that “… if a company acts to go in and do business with Iran while the sanctions are lifting, that would be permitted. If Iran violates the deal and if the sanctions snap back, they would not be able to continue doing things that are in violation of the sanctions.” In other words, companies could find themselves unable to realize a return on major investments should Iran fail to keep its end of the bargain.
What’s more, companies must overcome reputational hurdles that may come from conducting business within a country that is openly hostile to Israel and has a poor human rights record. Already, Germany’s economic minister and vice chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has been forced to defend a trip to Tehran with a delegation of business representatives. And it’s not just company’s reputations at home that could suffer. When Nokia-Siemens sold advanced surveillance technology to Iran in 2008, the government used it to disrupt internet service during pro-democracy protests. The company’s reputation suffered, and Iranians showed their outrage with a boycott. So while the OFAC sanctions may be easing, companies must maintain the on-going due diligence and risk monitoring needed for any emerging market. The potential rewards may be high—but the risks still are too.
Around the same time that Pokémon Go players started pursuing Pikachus and tracking Tentacruels across the AR world, LexisNexis was augmenting its Web News collection with 3,700 website and blog sources covering Asia and the Middle East to help customers search for and identify regional, business critical information more quickly. Users can also search in native languages, including English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, French and Spanish. Since virtual exploring has so many fans, we decided to survey the vast content landscape of Nexis® to look at the U.S. Presidential Election from an international perspective. Here’s some of what we discovered when we tapped into Chinese content.
In an August post from China Daily, the augmented reality game earned a nod as a tool for encouraging voter registration among millennials in the U.S.[1] According to the article, the Clinton campaign arranged registration drives at PokéStops around Ohio. The drives proved so successful that the campaign used the lure of Pokémon Go to attract volunteers as well, saying, “Get free Pokémon and battle each other while you register voters and learn more about Hillary Clinton!” Trump Towers is a PokéStop by the way; although, not necessarily at the request of Donald Trump. In fact, the Pokémon Go website says that the PokéStops are generally “… near public art, unique architecture, or public gathering places,” which explains how the White House also earned PokéStop status. The article went on to note that it’s not just happening in America; during a recent walk through a Hong Kong park, the reporter saw Legislative Council candidates campaigning near a local PokéStop to “… connect with the younger generations.”
More recently, the tenor of the articles covering the campaigns has changed. Far from taking a lighthearted look at how both candidates are trying to connect with voters, articles took a much harsher look at the state of American politics, highlighting the many foibles that both Democrat and Republican candidates are using against each other. One article—authored by Zhang Zhixin the head of American Political Studies at the Institute of American Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations—said, “The chaotic 2016 presidential election has highlighted the defects in the U.S. election system and the dysfunction of democracy.” Citing the DNC “email-gate” and the “Outspoken and reckless” Republican candidates as evidence. Zhixin went on to reason that “… the de facto two-party system and the winner-takes-all delegates counting system make extreme candidates stand out in the primaries. Therefore, moderate and rational candidates are at a disadvantage.” It’s a revealing look at what our national election process looks like from an outside perspective.
Another hot topic in web news from China is how the upcoming election will impact the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Several articles noted that given the political climate in the U.S., Vietnam has already backed away from ratifying the trade pact, despite the fact that an easing of trade barriers would benefit the country. Another article predicted TPP’s downfall, noting that “Globalism, which has prevailed in the U.S. since the end of the Cold War, is now at risk of being replaced by Americanism to satisfy the sentiments of the emerging populist movement.”
We’ll just have to see what global news sources have to say after the polls close in November. Until then, enjoy the “augmented reality” that we call campaign season, and keep on researching.
You may not run across a Weedle or Wigglytuff, but having a comprehensive, diverse collection of sources can certainly provide you with the big picture your company needs to compete in the age of globalization. Are you capturing the insights you need to win?
[1] China Daily, HK Edition, 08/09/2016, p 12.
The boss walks into your office and says, “I want to see this story on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.” They are talking about the new project or service your company has spent the last year developing. It’s the most promising launch the organization has seen in a while—and the company wants to announce its availability with a major media relations campaign that will set front pages on fire with excitement.
It’s a scene familiar to communications pros… and one that rightfully fills them with dread. While the common saying “advertisements are paid for, media is prayed for” isn’t exactly true, the notion that there is an element of earned media outside of your control couldn’t be more correct. You can have the perfect plan, most thorough media research using the best tools along with a killer outreach strategy and still fall short.
This is why expectation setting is an absolutely critical step at the beginning of any media relations effort. Before the first pitch is ever made, there must be accurate level setting with all stakeholders; Clients, executives, department heads and/or subject matter experts should all know that no one can control the news cycle… and that no matter how exciting the company announcement may be there are no guarantees in securing media placements.
But as any media relations pro knows, this can be easier said than done. While they may have the best of intentions, overly zealous stakeholders may have a hard time understanding the intricacies and uncertainty of earning media placements. To help, we’ve compiled some best practices to ensure everyone is starting with the same expectations.
Identify and Eliminate In-House Bias
For people who have spent the last year or more developing a product now ready to launch or fine-tuning a first-of-its-kind service that will disrupt an industry, that’s their world. To them, announcing the culmination of their efforts is the most important thing at that moment in time.
While this internal bias often manifests itself in enthusiasm—and that’s a good thing—it can also create an echo chamber in which it can be incorrectly assumed that the biggest news within an organization will be equally important for those on the outside.
Part of expectation setting includes focusing internal passion into a realistic plan.
The responsibility to help colleagues understand how a company’s announcement fits into the broader media environment falls on communications professionals. You have to be the voice of reason that is willing to challenge the “herd mentality” and provide the perspective of the outside world. It isn’t always an easy task, but doing it at the start of a media relations plan prevents a confrontation later in the process.
Promote Good News Judgement
A good sense of what is and isn’t newsworthy is a vital skill for those working in communications roles who intend to reach out to the media. It’s a skill that is crafted and perfected over time, but colleagues that you may be working with haven’t had the opportunity to perfect their news judgment. Part of expectation setting involves imparting some of that wisdom to them.
But thinking like a journalist requires more than a sixth sense. Judging what’s newsworthy (and what’s not!) requires evidence to back up instinct. Solid media research will definitively uncover the kinds of story angles, supporting materials, sources and announcements that stand the best chance of earning media coverage.
Taking this step can show the team how incredibly high the bar is, especially for national or global news coverage. You’re not just reaching customers or potential customers—the news must be relevant to the majority of a given outlet’s audience. In practice, this often means it must have the potential to impact the economy, enact a widespread change in consumer habits or provide some unique and insightful perspective on an ongoing global or national conversation.
Here’s an example: Rising student debt is currently a major conversation the world over, and companies that have started to offer benefits packages that help to payback student loans have earned major media coverage for their efforts. Normally, the minutiae of employee benefits might be deemed too “boring” for mainstream media, yet, because it inserts itself into a national conversation, it becomes a much more newsworthy topic.
Provide Valuable Alternatives
We’ve established that not every media plan can realistically earn primetime news coverage, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an opportunity for other types of earned media. It’s the role of media relations professionals to help internal stakeholders see the bigger picture—and demonstrate the value—of earning media coverage in unfamiliar media outlets.
For example, consider quality over quantity. If your company announcement impacts only a specific population, or is targeted to a niche industry, a segment on CNN may not actually be the most strategic route. Local news outlets, business journals and trade publications often attract a targeted audience. While these media placements may not be reaching as many people as a splashy national media outlet, the quality will be much higher.
Communicate with your team to show them the value of pursuing these opportunities. In addition to a higher likelihood of securing coverage, these are valuable placements in terms of reach and influence. Metrics like reach, influence and MozRanking provide a quantitative analysis of an outlet’s value.
Most importantly, have these discussions up front. Be frank without being pessimistic and ensure consensus on how to measure success. Don’t promise any specific coverage and share timely updates. This open communication will set the foundation for a collaborative media plan in which all parties are part of the process.
Whether you’re cheering on your favorite team at a sporting event or enjoying some fun in the sun, it’s thirsty work. Unfortunately the combination of plant shut-downs in the UK and high demand has created a CO2 shortage that threatens to take the fizz out of summer. The potential for disruption to the Food & Beverage supply chain is huge and much broader than you might think. How can companies mitigate supply chain risk more effectively?
Monitoring Your Network for Potential Threats
Disruption in the Food & Beverage supply chain isn’t unusual. But the costs to companies who fail to monitor for emerging risks along their extensive supplier networks could regret it when operations are disrupted and consumers are disappointed, leading to reputational and financial damage. As Ireland's National Public Service Broadcaster Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ.ie) points out, “Beer, chicken and fizzy drink brands are nowadays more likely to feature in the social media limelight if consumers don't get their products at the right time, of the right quality and at the right price.” And believe it or not, CO2 is an important component of many foods and beverages—not just the fizzy ones. CO2 is used in everything from poultry production to flash freezing your favorite frosty treats. What contributed to the shortage? According to RTÉ.ie, “One thing no one seems to have expected over the course of the World Cup this summer, for example, is how much carbon dioxide (CO2) would be needed to keep the beer flowing in pubs.” Combine this high demand for CO2 with a 75 percent decrease in UK production due to plant shut-downs, and the supply simply fizzled out, leading RTÉ.ie to ponder whether Ireland was in for an ice cream shortage.
Monitoring Allows for Proactive Supply Chain Risk Management
Shortages like this are only one of the many risks that companies within the Food & Beverage supply chain face. The regulatory landscape is becoming more complex. The length of the supply chain introduces greater food safety concerns. And the speed of digital communications means that incidents can quickly go from a single headline to thousands of tweets in a flash.
Mitigating such threats requires more than a one-and-done due diligence check on key suppliers and third parties involved along the path from farm to fork. Ongoing risk monitoring within a PESTLE framework allows companies to fine tune monitoring to their specific risk considerations for a near real-time view of emerging threats. With better risk visibility, companies can proactively address risk so they aren’t left out in the cold by consumers.
3 Ways to use This Info
As of April, 2015 ridesharing service Uber had been banned from operating or had suspended operation in several U.S. cities and one state, according to Business Insider. Uber paused service in both Eugene and Portland, Oregon last year after being fined and sued, respectively, by the two cities. The company also suspended operation in two Alabama cities, Auburn and Tuscaloosa. And in November 2014 a district court judge in Nevada issued a preliminary injunction barring the company from operating in that state. But Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) signed legislation legalizing the service in May.
Source: Business Insider, Associated Press, Oregonian, Las Vegas Review-Journal
Legend:
State with city where Uber has been banned or has suspended operation: Alaska, Oregon, Texas, Alabama, Florida
State where Uber has been banned: Nevada
Three of the seven states with the most gun deaths per 100,000 residents -- Alaska, Mississippi and Wyoming -- are also among the seven states with the most lenient gun laws, according to analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign by InsideGov. Five of the seven states with the fewest gun deaths -- Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York -- are also among the seven with the toughest gun laws. But a list compiled by the Los Angeles Times indicated that most of the deadliest mass shootings in the U.S. since 1984 occurred in the state with the highest overall rating for gun law strictness, California.
Source: InsideGov
States with strictest gun laws: California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii
States with most lenient gun laws: Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, Mississippi, Vermont
States with most gun deaths: Alaska, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, Arkansas
States with fewest gun deaths: Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New Hampshire
Throughout December the SNCJ staff shared with you, the readers, what we believe will be some of the major issues to dominate statehouses in 2016. But as we ring in the New Year it is worth noting that thousands of new laws – the result of previous statehouse debates – went into effect as the clock struck midnight on January 1. This week we take a quick look at some of the most significant new measures.
With America’s ongoing debate over gun violence weighing heavily in both the public consciousness and the presidential campaigns, all eyes will be on a new Texas law that allows roughly 826,000 residents with a concealed handgun permit to now carry those weapons out in the open, provided they are holstered. The law has drawn fierce criticism from gun control advocates, many of whom say the measure is intended to allow gun owners to intimidate those who disagree with their views and will ultimately make communities more dangerous rather than safer. The law was vehemently opposed by most Lone Star State law enforcement agencies. Gun owners counter that 44 other states allow some form of open carry, including deep blue states like Oregon and Massachusetts. The law also allows businesses to prohibit guns, provided they post specific signs noting their policy, including separate signs for barring open carry and concealed carry. All guns remain prohibited in public buildings like courthouses and jails, as well as at polling places, schools, racetracks, bars and in the secure areas of airports.
In contrast, a pair of new laws in California – Texas’s polar opposite on many issues – ban concealed weapons from being brought onto college campuses and allow police or family members to request a restraining order to temporarily take guns away from someone deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. Other Golden State legislation that became law this month includes SB 199, a bill that requires BB guns to bear brightly colored markings to help law enforcement officers distinguish them from real firearms.
Several new state laws also combat another ongoing issue: prescription drug abuse. In Illinois, HB 3219 requires prescription pain killers to have a locking cap, while a new law set to go into effect in New Jersey on Feb. 1 bars the sale of over-the-counter medications containing the substance dextromethorphan, commonly known as DXM, to anyone under age 18 without a valid doctor’s prescription. More than 120 over-the-counter products contain DXM. Similar legislation went into effect in Tennessee, while a new Virginia law requires health insurers to cover at least two brand-name and two generic abuse-deterrent opioid analgesic drug products.
Another new Garden State law requires pharmacies to give consumers information on how to safely dispose of unused prescription meds, and specifically on the availability of drug take-back programs sponsored by local, state or federal government agencies. Meanwhile, a new Nevada law requires doctors who prescribe certain medications to get training on how to use the Silver State’s prescription drug database. Use of the database – which is intended to stop patients from obtaining prescriptions for powerful narcotics from numerous doctors – has previously been voluntary. And Montana will now require pharmacists and drug retailers to log the sale of cold and allergy products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine – which can also be used to make methamphetamine - into a national electronic reporting system.
Public health is also the issue in Hawaii, which became the first state to raise its legal smoking age to 21. The new law also applies to the use of electronic cigarettes and tobacco vaping products. Montana also now bars the sale of electronic tobacco products to those under 18. The Treasure State now also imposes a $5 fee on retailers who wish to sell vaping gear.
Thousands of miles east in Connecticut, a new measure mandates that consumers obtaining drugs sold only as generics also receive the manufacturer’s name and website and a toll-free telephone number for MedWatch, the federal government’s drug safety and reporting program. In New York, a new law makes the Empire State the first to make pregnancy a qualifying event for changing or enrolling in the state health care exchange at any time. And at work, employers are now required to make available reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers dealing with medical conditions related to their condition. And for new moms, New York also enacted the “Breast-feeding Mothers Bill of Rights,” which allows breast-feeding women to take reasonable unpaid breaks at work to pump breast milk for up to three years following childbirth.
Back out west most new public buildings in California must now have automated external defibrillators on the premises, while health insurers must maintain and regularly update a website containing an accurate database of their health care providers. That information must be updated every week and include notice of which providers speak languages other than English. Meanwhile, in Oregon employers will be required to offer workers up to 40 hours of annual sick leave. The Beaver State is the fifth to mandate paid sick leave for workers. Also in Oregon, health insurers must now also cover telemedicine services and offer birth control coverage for at least one full year to avoid patients from falling into a coverage gap. And both California and Oregon now allow women to obtain birth control over-the-counter without a doctor’s prescription.
Employers have new rules as well. Fifteen states saw their minimum wage go up on Jan. 1, either via the implementation of new laws or previously-adopted automatic annual increases. In California, cheerleaders for professional sports teams are now considered employees of their teams rather than independent contractors, meaning they must be paid the minimum wage and receive workers compensation and other benefits. And New York and California adopted measures barring employers from paying women less than men for similar work unless there are also other specific differences in qualifications, education, experience and expertise.
Pets will also enjoy a few more protections in 2016. A new Tennessee statute launches the nation's first statewide online registry of animal abusers, which will feature any Volunteer State resident convicted of mistreating animals. And leaving a cat or dog locked in a hot car until they die in Illinois will now be a Class A misdemeanor punishable by a $2,500 fine and up to a year in jail. Further offenses turn into a felony that could result in someone being sent to jail for up to three years and undergoing a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. And a new California law imposes steep fines on marijuana growers who dump chemicals into waterways, causing the deaths of wild animals. California also enhanced bans on the sale or possession of elephant ivory or rhinoceros horns.
Not every bill of great import took effect as New Year’s Eve wound down. One of the most controversial measures in the nation from 2015 – a California measure that allows doctors to prescribe terminally ill patients drugs to help themselves end their own lives – can’t go into effect until 90 days after a special session on health care adjourns. That adjournment is expected later this month. Another highly controversial California measure - SB 277, which requires all children attending public and private schools to be fully vaccinated unless they have a medical exemption – technically went into effect on Jan 1. But a provision within the law allows parents who request it to delay those vaccinations until July 1. Both measures drew angry opposition that garnered national attention and afterward spurred efforts to get initiatives to overturn them placed on the November ballot. All of those efforts failed, as did a drive to recall California Sen. Richard Pan (D), SB 277’s main author.
As noted, this is hardly a comprehensive rundown of the numerous new laws that have recently gone into effect, or will soon do so. To review more legislative action from throughout the very busy 2015 year, please visit the SNCJ archives at http://bit.ly/1BY0k54.
Follow Rich on Twitter at @WordsmithRich
Far below the radar of the fiercely fought presidential race, Republicans and Democrats are competing for control of legislative chambers in 13 battleground states. Democrats suffered severe losses in the statehouses during the last two midterm elections, but surveys and analysts give them an advantage in 2016.
“This is shaping up as an opportunity year for Democrats,” says Tim Storey, who analyzes politics for the National Conference of State Legislatures. The opportunity exists in part because in the last two midterm elections Republicans won a slew of marginal congressional and legislative seats. These seats are at risk in a presidential year when the electorate contains a higher proportion of young and minority voters who tend to favor Democrats.
Republican legislative candidates have done spectacularly during the Obama years, winning a net of 816 seats. The GOP controls 67 of 98 partisan legislative chambers. Republicans have a majority in both chambers in 30 states; Democrats in only 12 with control split in seven states. (Nebraska has a unicameral, non-partisan chamber.) Republicans have 31 governors, the Democrats 18. Alaska’s governor is an independent.
Democratic legislative candidates could benefit from a Hillary Clinton victory. In the half-century since the Supreme Court mandated legislative redistricting on the basis of “one man, one vote,” the party winning the White House has gained an average of 129 state legislative seats.
Democratic chances appear bright in states with large numbers of Latinos, many of whom have been alienated by Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s proposals to deport unauthorized immigrants and build a wall between the United States and Mexico. An August poll by Fox News Latino showed Clinton leading Trump 66 to 20 percent among Latinos. Republicans have received a steadily declining percentage of the Latino vote in recent presidential elections. George W. Bush received 40 percent in 2004, John McCain 31 percent in 2008 and Mitt Romney 27 per cent in 2012.
Latinos may hold the key to the presidential outcome in the swing states of Colorado, Florida and Nevada, in which they comprise from 14 to 18 percent of the eligible voters. In Colorado and Nevada, they could also decide control of the state senates, which Republicans control by a single seat in both states. Republicans also have a one-seat edge in the Washington Senate, where Latinos are 6.7 percent of the electorate. Republicans control the Senate in West Virginia by two seats, while Democrats have a two-seat edge in the Iowa Senate. The percentage of eligible Latino voters in these two states is negligible.
Latino turnout is a question mark. In recent elections 40 percent of eligible Latinos cast ballots compared to 60 percent of whites and African Americans. Many analysts expect a greater Latino turnout in 2016 because of negative reaction to Trump.
Another question is whether Latino resentment of Trump will cause long-term harm to the GOP. In 1994, running for re-election, California Gov. Pete Wilson (R) backed an initiative (Proposition 187) that would have denied health and education benefits to unauthorized immigrants. The initiative won, although most of it was voided by the courts. Wilson won, too, but the percentage of Latinos voting Democratic in the Golden State increased and has remained high ever since.
Latino eligible voters in California now number nearly 7 million, the most of any state, with 62 percent registered Democratic and only 17 percent Republican. California has been dependably Democratic in presidential elections since 1992, but Latinos could make a difference in state elections as Democrats seek to regain the legislative super-majority they lost in the 2014 midterm election.
Beyond the five states listed above — Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, Washington and West Virginia — where the margin of senate control is one or two votes, Storey lists 13 other chambers that could change hands. Democrats believe they have a chance to win the state senates in Wisconsin, where Republicans hold a 19-14 margin; Arizona, where the GOP margin is 18-12; Maine, where the margin is 20-15; and New Hampshire, where the margin is 13-9. Republicans are targeting the New Mexico Senate, which Democrats control by a 24-17 margin.
The New York Senate, which has bounced back and forth the last few years, is a target for both parties. Democrats hold a 32-31 majority but the chamber is run by a coalition of maverick Democrats aligned with the Republicans.
In the houses and assemblies Democrats hope to win Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. Democrats are defending slender majorities in Colorado, Kentucky and Washington. The Kentucky House is of particular interest because it’s a lake in a Republican sea, the lone chamber in the South still controlled by Democrats.
Incumbent governors have won 34 of 37 contested elections in presidential years since 1992. The only incumbent governor in obvious danger this year is North Carolina Republican Pat McCrory, who trails Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper, according to an average of polls by RealClearPolitics. In Montana, Republican challenger Greg Gianforte is given an outside chance against Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock, who is leading in the polls.
Six of the dozen elections for governor this year are competitive. The Cook Political Report rates as toss-ups Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington, and Vermont, all states with Democratic governors not seeking re-election. Two states with Republican governors are rated as tossups by Cook: North Carolina and Indiana, where the governorship is open because Gov. Mike Pence is the GOP vice presidential nominee.
In the presidential race, the RealClearPolitics poll average gives Clinton a narrow lead over Trump in the popular vote and a larger lead in the all-important Electoral College, in which 270 electoral votes are required for victory. The RCP tally gives Clinton 209 electoral votes, Trump 154 and puts 175 in the toss-up category.
Republicans control Congress and are expected to hold the House by a reduced margin, according to RCP poll averages. The Cook Political Report predicts Democrats will gain 10 to 15 seats, short of the 30 they need to control the House.
It’s a different story in the Senate, where only 10 Democrats are up for re-election compared to 24 Republicans. Republicans would be running uphill even if Trump were not the nominee; President Obama in 2012 carried seven of the 24 Republican states and all the Democratic states. In states with a Republican senator the RCP polling average puts the Democratic candidate well ahead in Illinois and Wisconsin and competitive in seven other states: Arizona, Florida, Indiana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Nevada, where Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is retiring, is the only Democratic-held seat where the RCP average gives the Republican candidate an even chance.
The Democrats need four seats to control the Senate if Clinton wins, five if she doesn’t. The latest RCP average shows Democrats gaining four Senate seats, which would produce a 50-50 tie and give the vice president the tie-breaking vote.
Statistician Nate Silver gives Clinton a 60 percent chance of winning but warns there is a high degree of uncertainty because 20 percent of voters say they are undecided or will vote for a third-party candidate. “High numbers of undecided and third-party voters are associated with higher volatility and larger polling errors,” Silver wrote on his FiveThirtyEight blog.
With both Trump and Clinton distrusted by a majority of voters, ticket splitting, once commonplace but rare in the present partisan era, could make a comeback. “This election is ready-made for ticket splitting,” says Stuart K. Spencer, a California political consultant who advised Ronald Reagan. In Storey’s view, however, this election is less about classic ticket-splitting than anxiety about Trump. Some Republicans may reject Trump but vote for every other GOP candidate on the ballot, he said.
Voter turnout is a mystery. Negative campaigns often depress turnout but Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report thinks turnout could be high because of “hatred” on both sides of the other party’s presidential candidate. Trump’s base — white, working-class voters with less than a college education — is usually a low-turnout segment of the electorate, but a recent CNN poll found slightly more enthusiasm among Trump supporters than their Clinton counterparts. Voter enthusiasm can be a barometer of turnout.
Get-out-the-vote efforts often make a difference in close elections, and Democrats have an organizational advantage. Clinton has 291 offices in 15 battleground states and Trump only 88, according to a tabulation by PBS NewsHour.
All in all, according to the polls and pundits, opportunities abound for the Democrats from the White House to the statehouses. It remains to be seen if these opportunities can be converted into victories on Election Day.
93 percent of CEOs believe business should have a positive impact on society, according to a new survey. The Global Leadership Survey by YPO shows the changing attitudes of business leaders, who increasingly feel responsible for tackling climate change and supporting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals through CSR programs. We were there for the report’s launch at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos.
The Global Leadership Survey identifies the priorities of CEOs and the next generation of business leaders. Between 23 December and 4 January, YPO polled more than 4,000 senior executives in 110 countries. More than 2,200 are chief executives and nearly 2,000 are younger than 31. The survey was carried out by YPO, which is a collection of more than 27,000 chief executives in 130 countries who run businesses which turnover $9 trillion every year and employ 22 million people.
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) considerations have gained traction in recent years, and the survey confirms the trend. Key findings include:
• 93 percent of CEOs and the younger generation believe business should have a positive impact on society beyond pursuing profits and wealth.• 93 percent said purpose drives how they run their company.• 74 percent of CEOs say they have changed their perspective on the role of leadership in the past five years—they now believe that businesses should play a stronger role in society.• CEOs and younger leaders both picked climate change as their top area of concern related to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Other top choices were education, poverty, peace and the availability of work opportunities.• Young people are the most concerned about the environment—55 percent of young leaders said they are acting to reduce their company’s environmental impact, compared to 37 percent of current CEOs.• 67 percent said society as whole is a “very important” or “extremely important” stakeholder of a business, and 66 percent said the same of the planet.
The report was launched in front of a packed audience at the Hilton Hotel in Davos on Friday 25 January. Its authors said the report is clear evidence of a change in thinking of the current and next generation of business leaders.
The report notes, “Business leaders, and society in general are moving from considering a business’ interest completely focused on its traditional shareholders to having a significant impact on more stakeholders, including society as a whole. Chief executives are working to ensure that their businesses make a positive impact.”
The motivations for this shift are not purely altruistic. In addition to mitigating risk of compliance failures or reputational damage, businesses have noticed that prospective customers, investors and employees are more likely to buy from, invest in and work for ethical companies. As the survey shows, more companies are realizing that ‘good profit’ is possible: greater investment in CSR and placing purpose at the heart of their business strategy will lead to more profitability and sustainability in the future.
Maurice Ostro, Vice-Chair of YPO, said the report’s findings have been confirmed by other reports and conversations during this week’s WEF summit. “Here in Davos 2019, we have had multiple reports that make it very clear that the purpose agenda is important, that business needs to be a force for good,” he said. “Our challenge is how do we do that in a collaborative manner so that governments, NGOs and corporates work together to be an effective force for good.”
1. Check out another post from this year’s World Economic Forum at Davos.
2. Read our eBook on Ethical Expectations to understand what’s driving the trend toward impact investing.
3. Share this blog with your colleagues and connections to keep the conversation going.
It’s easy to take certain types of content at face value and quickly dismiss them as something that does not have direct implication for your organization. One example is patent content. Unless you’re focused on ensuring your R&D budgets are allocated in truly unique areas, you may ask yourself, “why would patent research have any value for my company?”
As with any area of content, it’s not just about the information. It’s about the context the content provides, as well as how you can expand it into insights for other critical areas of your business. What does it tell you about competitors, global expansion and market growth? Patent content shines a light on key data that can help you craft a winning strategy for your organization in many areas.
According to a Washington Post article on patents as an indicator of innovation, it’s not enough to merely look at patents per company. If you look at this one data point only, you’re inaccurately weighting your findings toward larger, global companies. Giants like IBM and Samsung top the list. But, if you start to dig a little deeper and apply other metrics like patent citations – how often a patent has been cited by others – you get a better, more contextual picture of where true innovation lies. Think of heavily cited patents as the innovation world’s equivalent of the first Google search results – they’re what people see when they want to innovate.
Robust patent content also allows you to take a peek behind the strategic curtain. If you look beyond the number of patents and into factors like geographic concentration, industries and technologies, you start to build a picture of where your competitors may be expanding. You can get a sense of where their focus lies. Is it in emerging markets? A new product line? A new customer channel? All of these things can become more apparent by assessing patent content in a deeper way.
If you’re interested in a potential alliance, new hire or partnership, understanding as much as you can about the individual is critical. Patent content also helps in this area as well. You can understand who contributed to or owns a patent, and what their alliances, associations and sponsorships are as a result of it. It helps to give a fuller picture of people you may want your organization to develop a relationship with immediately or over time.
Patent content provides a deep dive into areas critical for your company’s long-term business strategy. From understanding people to identifying growth opportunities for your own organization, don’t overlook the value of patent content and be sure to work with a content solution that connects you to it.
Patent is just one example of applying content to your business strategy, check out Nexis® for more solutions and resources on content.
Today’s consultants are pressed to be more than an advisor from a distance. They are being asked to play an integral role in the critical business decisions of today’s leading companies. You need to do more than share information – you need to turn that information into insights that are steeped in research, strategy and a global point of view.
Are you prepared to step up and partner with leadership to drive real change? There are challenges to becoming an integrated, integral part of the core team. Here, we outline a few and offer a tip sheet for overcoming them. Once you understand what you need to remove from your path, you can easily adapt our tricks for transforming into the consultant every client counts on.
With information immediately accessible, today’s consultants have smarter, more informed clients than ever before. This can be a blessing and curse. It pushes you to perform and stretch professional skills, but it also tasks consultants with the need to be prepared to respond to what clients know (or think they know) and what they want to do with this knowledge.
This means you have to be more informed, more current, and more thoughtful than ever before. Are you confident that you’re up to date on the trends, patterns, context and details of what and who impacts your clients? This is where technology can play a key role. Are you using solutions that accelerate this knowledge, making you more efficient and knowledgeable?
According to recent studies, one of the top ten issues plaguing global consultancy firms today is attracting and retaining new business. A recent study by Hinge Marketing stated that “this concern tops the list at 79%, and it is a key point: while new business is the overriding priority of every industry we studied, it tops the list by a slightly higher percentage for management consulting firms.”
How do you attract and retain business? How are you differentiating yourself from competitive firms? According to a 2018 study conducted by Hinge Marketing on high-growth professional services firms, among the many challenges facing their businesses is commoditization of services, among other factors. And, the number one answer in combating these challenges? “Do more research on the needs of our target clients,” coming in at more than 56 percent. Are you leveraging research as a tool for understanding who you’re targeting, what they need and how to best help them grow?
To do more than share information, you need tools to aggregate, analyze and organize the content you’re using. Do you have these in place? Are you receiving near real-time updates on the companies, issues and topics that matter? Do you have alerts in place so that you and your teams are efficiently informed? Do you leverage mobile functionality so that you’re up to date no matter where you are? If you answered no to any of these questions, assessing your technology strategy is necessary.
Now that we’ve identified just a few of the challenges you’re probably facing as a consultant, be sure to download our tip sheet. It will help you move past them toward real results.
Check out these solutions and resources developed specifically for consultants:
1. Research for Consultants
2. Consulting Buyer's Guide
3. Consulting Tips and Tricks Sheet
Twenty-nine states have laws setting minimum wage rates above the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour. Washington’s rate, at $9.47, is the highest. Fourteen states have minimum wages that are the same as the federal rate. Only Georgia and Wyoming have state minimum wage rates below the federal minimum, while five states have no minimum wage laws, but the federal rate applies in all seven of those states.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, National Conference of State Legislatures,
Highest minimum wage rates: Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, Vermont, California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island
Lowest minimum wage rates: Wyoming, Georgia
No minimum wage law: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina
Sixteen states led by California sued President Donald Trump on President’s Day, alleging that his proclamation of a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexican border was unconstitutional.
Trump proclaimed the emergency a week earlier after expressing frustration with Congress for providing only a small fraction of the $5.7 billion he sought for building 230 miles of his long-promised wall on the U.S. southern border. The action was widely denounced as unlawful by Democrats and 10 Republican U.S. senators.
“He is usurping congressional authority,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
The lawsuit, California et al. v. Trump et al., filed in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, said the plaintiff states were suing “to protect their residents, natural resources, and economic interests from President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.”
“Contrary to the will of Congress, the president has used the pretext of a manufactured ‘crisis’ of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border,” the lawsuit said.
Joining California in the lawsuit were Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia.
The suit was filed by the attorneys general of these states. All have Democratic governors except Maryland, whose Republican governor, Larry Hogan, has often taken a bipartisan approach. Democrats also control both chambers of the legislature in these states except for Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia.
Of these states, only California and New Mexico share a border with Mexico, and it’s not certain any of the new fencing sought by Trump will be built in either of these two states. The White House legal team is expected to contend that the states would suffer no specific harm from construction of the wall and therefore lack standing to sue.
Anticipating this argument, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra told the New York Times that the plaintiff states have standing because their residents could “lose funding that they paid for with their tax dollars, money that was destined for drug interdiction or for the Department of Defense for military men and women and military installations.”
In a statement accompanying the lawsuit, Becerra described Trump’s action as “unilaterally robbing taxpayer funds lawfully set aside by Congress.”
The lawsuit by the states is part of a two-pronged attack on Trump’s emergency declaration. The other prong is a congressional resolution of disapproval that Democrats will soon introduce. The resolution is assured passage in the Democratic-controlled House and could pass the GOP-controlled Senate, where 10 Republican senators have spoken out against the declaration.
If this happens, Trump will veto the resolution, said Stephen Miller, a White House aide. It would be Trump’s first veto. Democrats acknowledge it would be difficult to muster the two-thirds majority necessary for a veto override.
That would leave the decision to the courts. In addition to the lawsuit filed by the states, legal actions aimed at overturning the declaration are expected by various advocacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union. The advocacy group Public Citizen filed the first such lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Washington on behalf of three Texas landowners and an environmental group.
Proclamations of national emergencies are not rare. Fifty-nine have been declared by presidents under the National Emergency Act of 1976, and 31 of them remain in effect today, going back to an emergency declaration by President Jimmy Carter after U.S. hostages were held captive in the American embassy in Iran.
Most existing emergencies involve foreign countries or foreign nationals. The Trump declaration is the only one to come after Congress passed legislation rejecting a presidential budget request.
“This is plainly a power grab by a disappointed president who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer in a joint statement.
The lawsuit filed by the states is part of a persistent pattern of conflict between Democratic-controlled states and the Trump administration. California alone has filed 46 lawsuits against the Trump administration with mixed results.
Trump won an important victory on Feb. 11, ironically in the often liberal U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the president has frequently denounced. The administration plans to rebuild some sections of existing fencing near San Diego without making an environmental assessment. California challenged this, but the court said that the administration has the authority to waive environmental regulations.
This decision could set a precedent for other sensitive environmental considerations involving the border wall.
The courts are not the only arena in which the Trump administration and states have clashed.
Days before Trump’s emergency declaration, the newly installed Democratic governor of New Mexico, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, withdrew most of her state’s National Guard troops from a contingent of 2,300 National Guard forces dispatched to the border by Trump last April. (Trump subsequently sent 5,200 regular U.S. troops to the border just before the midterm elections; about half have been withdrawn.)
Disputing Trump’s claims of a national security crisis. Lujan Grisham said that border towns in New Mexico are among the safest communities in the country. She said she wanted no part of Trump’s “charade of border fearmongering by misusing our diligent National Guard troops.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom, the new Democratic governor of California, followed suit. He withdrew 260 of his state’s 360 National Guard troops on the border. Lujan Grisham is withdrawing all but a dozen of 118 troops. Those that remain are needed to process amnesty requests, she said.
The conflict over the border wall, like so much else in the debate over illegal immigration, is clouded in political semantics. Pelosi has called Trump’s proposed wall “immoral,” but walls, fencing and various barriers already cover one-third of the 1,954-mile-long border between the United States and Mexico.
Some construction began under President Bill Clinton in the early 1990s. President George W. Bush increased the effort in 2006 and President Barack Obama added 130 miles of wall, most of it during his first year in office. Many Democrats, including Sen. Schumer, supported this effort.
Although the information is shrugged off by Trump, data compiled by his administration raises questions about the value of any additional wall construction. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data shows that unlawful entry of persons from Mexico is at a 45-year low. Dangerous drugs are still a major problem, but CBP data shows that the vast majority of them come through legal ports of entry. Democrats and Republicans generally agree on the need for improved high tech interdiction at these points of entry, although this agreement is pretty much drowned out by the barrage of insults exchanged between Trump and his detractors.
In the legal battle ahead Trump may be haunted by his own words; “I could do the wall over a longer period of time. I didn’t need to do this,” he told reporters gathered in the White House Rose Garden, shortly before he declared the emergency. “But I’d rather do it much faster.”
But these words may not matter. Congress, in passing the National Emergency Act, defined no standards that a president must meet in declaring an emergency. Writing in the Washington Post, attorney Elizabeth Goitein of the liberal Brennan Center for Justice, observed that this Supreme Court has shown “a willingness to defer to Trump on claims of national security.”
However the legal battle is resolved, the sad truth about the emergency declaration is that it’s unnecessary except as a way for Trump to demonstrate that he is keeping a campaign promise.
The administration intends to spend wall construction money in sequence, starting with the $1.375 billion Congress appropriated. It would then tap three additional pots of money: $600 million from a Treasury Department asset forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion from a Department of Defense anti-drug fund and $3.6 billion in military construction funds that Trump would re-direct to the wall.
Trump can legally do all of this except divert the last $3.6 billion without an emergency declaration. The lawsuits are likely to take until 2020 to resolve. So even if Trump wins in the courts, he in all probability will not have diverted the $3.6 billion in military spending by the time his term ends.
And that presumably would be the end of the matter. Unless, of course, Donald Trump is re-elected.
Health care will be a major issue in statehouses this year, from the stability of the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid to state single-payer and prescription drug price proposals. Join us on March 5 as SNCJ Managing Editor Rich Ehisen welcomes two of California’s most respected health care voices - former California Health and Human Services Secretary Diana Dooley and Dr. Micah Weinberg, President of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute - for a discussion of these issues and more during our 2019 Hot Topic Webinar Series: Health Care. Register here to reserve your spot.
As a prospect researcher, your organization depends on your findings to inform fundraising efforts. But how do you know if your chosen prospect and donor research tool has everything you need and isn't leaving anything on the table?
After all, outdated, inaccurate or incomplete prospect information can leave you at risk for lost money, time and even relationships.
Consider these 5 questions as you approach your donor research this summer.
1. Do your fundraising communications miss their mark due to high email bounce rates, returned mail or other inaccurate or missing information?
Take advantage of data validation services to cleanse and append your prospect database with up-to-date home and business mailing addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses, as well as marital status and other data related to giving potential.
2. Do you feel you have adequate time and human resources to devote to comprehensive donor research?
Your prospect research platform needs to be able to aggregate premium and web news, public records, company and executive information and wealth indicators to conduct in-depth prospect research more efficiently.
3. Can you easily create targeted prospecting lists and generate in-depth profiles of individual and corporate donors?
You should have a tool that allows you to select specific search criteria- such as high wealth zip codes or giving histories- to supplement your current donor database and improve fundraising effectiveness.
4. Do your current tools allow you to conduct thorough donor screening that quickly reveals potential risk factors such as criminal activity, financial instability, conflicts of interest and negative press?
It's important to have a tool that provides access to critical public records and legal data, as well as alerts for breaking news about key donors or your organization, to mitigate risk more effectively.
5. Do you currently depend on multiple tools to stay informed of news or changes affecting prospective or current donors to identify opportunities and risks that could impact your organization?
On average, alumni give more than 25 percent of charitable donations that universities receive annually. As a result, you need to nurture alumni relationships on an ongoing basis.There a great tools available to receive timely email notifications—on the schedule of your choosing— when alumni or donors appear in the news. Mentions of career changes or special achievements represent great, organic opportunities for your development team reach out to alumni and donors in a positive way.
Did you find yourself saying no to one or more of these questions? Then check out the Prospect Research Buyer's Guide Below. This guide will show you what you need to know before selecting a prospect research platform and help you mitigate the risk of your current one.
For more ways to conduct thorough prospect research with ease using a comprehensive set of news, company and public records data, all in one place check out
And vist Nexis® for Development Professionals online!
In 2014 eight state legislatures considered -- and four enacted -- measures allowing patients to legally obtain experimental drugs that haven’t yet received FDA approval, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Voters in a fifth state, Arizona, approved a “right-to-try” ballot measure last year. This year 36 states have already filed or introduced right-to-try bills, three of which have been enacted.
Source: National Conference of State Legislatures
Key:
Enacted right-to-try bills in 2014: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri
Enacted right-to-try bills this year: Arkansas, South Dakota, Wyoming
Right-to-try bills with governor: Utah, Virginia, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota and Mississippi
Pending right-to-try bills this year: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia
Even though teams are becoming more spread apart due to the growing global landscape, it’s more of a requirement that teams collaborate for the best results. As a researcher, what does this mean for you? No matter what your industry, the days of working in silos and relying solely on your own brainpower or technology solutions are over. Today is about collaborative insights, 360-degree information and sharable data that anyone can use.
LexisNexis Executive Vice President of Strategy and Business Development Ritu Khanna recently identified key trends impacting how researchers work together:
1. The Proliferation of Web and Social Content
The rise in online content means that information is becoming more and more democratized. Getting to the numbers, facts and content doesn’t rely on subscription services, proprietary tools or business partners. Anyone can find anything. But this poses its own challenges. Just because you can find something, is it the right thing? Is it accurate? Complete? Unbiased? A good use of time?
As you consider how your teams handle web and social content, think about collaborating in smart ways. First, make sure you have a tool that allows you to share, comment on and organize what you’ve found. LexisNexis’s upgraded Nexis solution is built for just that – agile sharing and commenting so teams know where everyone is in the review process and what everyone is thinking. It’s the most efficient way to keep up with the pace of online content. Secondly, be sure you’re using a content solution that is trusted and vetted. Get access to content sources that are continually updated and curated by editorial experts you can trust.
2. Customers Value Insights Over Information
Be sure you’re developing deep insights that move business forward by leveraging the opinions and points of view of your entire team. Nexis allows you to search and share with anyone, anywhere. This means that even if your team members are on the go or not immediately available, you can still benefit from what they have to offer. You can save documents with annotations and highlights to a folder and then share the folder with your co-workers. They can then annotate and highlight the documents. It’s never been simpler to build holistic insights.
3. An Increase in Visualization, Analytics and Collaboration Tools
The good news is that new tools are emerging to help you deliver the collaboration customers expect, and now Nexis is one of them. By starting with Nexis, you can ensure you’re sharing, editing and working together as effectively as possible, without ever leaving Nexis. Once you’ve uncovered your insights, be sure you develop them in reports that are easy to digest no matter the skill level of the people reviewing them. There are design tools available that create engaging, streamlined and highly visual reports and infographics. By using these programs, you’ll not only have a more engaged audience, you’ll more easily prove the value real research provides. A few free or inexpensive options to consider are canva.com, piktochart.com, visme.com and Google Charts.
Nexis Fosters Collaboration with New Solutions
If you’re ready to work together for improved outcomes, Nexis can help you and your team get there. Nexis, and our newest upgrades to the solution researchers trust, helps you collaborate, search and share on your terms. It’s the tool designed to go beyond being a reference tool toward being a decision tool.
If you’re ready to change how you research and work together, check out these solutions and resources developed specifically for enhancing your research efforts.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), popularly known as Obamacare, has entered a new enrollment season with advocates singing its praises. This is understandable. In five and a half years of existence, the landmark law has survived two narrow Supreme Court rulings, a disastrous website rollout and redundant calls for repeal from Republicans, including the current GOP presidential candidates.
Largely because of the ACA, the number of Americans without health insurance has dropped to historically low levels, according to the Census Bureau. Nearly 90 percent of Americans now have health insurance. Administration officials claim the ACA has become a permanent feature of the nation’s social safety net, even as Republicans in Congress are trying to eviscerate it.
Boosters and critics give selective evaluations. Opponents belittle the subsidized health insurance plans offered on-line by the ACA by pointing out that a majority of those who sign up for policies fail to qualify and are instead enrolled in Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor and disabled. ACA supporters often cite the number of applicants for coverage rather than the smaller number who purchase policies. In 2015, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 11.7 million signed up for coverage on ACA marketplaces and 9.9 million were enrolled as of September.
A RAND study last May provided a useful overview of what the Affordable Care Act has accomplished. The study estimated that 22.8 million Americans received coverage while 5.9 million lost coverage for a net of 16.9 million newly insured. The largest number of the newly enrolled were in employer-sponsored health plans (9.6 million) followed by Medicaid (6.5) million) and ACA on-line marketplaces (4.1 million.) Another 6.7 million were enrolled in a variety of individual plans.
RAND found that the ACA made no difference in the source of health care for 125 million Americans, about 80 percent of the nonelderly population, a majority of whom hold a negative view of the law. Gallup reported this month that 52 percent of Americans oppose the ACA while only 44 percent approve of it.
It’s another story for those on the economic margins, for whom the ACA fulfills a basic need. More than 80 percent of those covered for health insurance under the ACA are happy with their plans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey. This is true everywhere even though the percentage of those covered varies from state to state. According to Census Bureau data, the percentage of those without health insurance in 2014 ranged from 3.3 percent in Massachusetts to 19.1 percent in Texas. Massachusetts pioneered state health insurance that became the basis for the ACA, while Texas is one of a score of states that has declined to expand Medicaid.
The intent of Congress when it passed the ACA in 2010 was to expand Medicaid to anyone with income up to 138 percent above the poverty line. But the Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of the law left decisions on Medicaid expansion to the states. Eighteen Republican governors rejected expansion on grounds that Medicaid would eventually become too expensive for the states. In Missouri and Virginia, GOP-controlled legislatures have prevented Democratic governors from extending Medicaid.
Expansion has made a difference. In states that expanded Medicaid the average rate of those without health insurance is 9.8 percent; in states that did not it is 13.5 percent. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 3.1 million Americans in the non-expansion states are in a “coverage gap:” They can’t afford to buy health insurance but make too much to qualify for Medicaid.
Medicaid aside, this is a testing time for Obamacare on several fronts.
The most immediate threat is a House-passed budget reconciliation bill that would remove requirements that Americans have health insurance and that large employers offer an insurance plan. The bill would also eliminate the excise tax on high-cost employer insurance policies, often called “Cadillac plans,” as well as a tax on medical devices. The tax on the Cadillac plans, which raise $87 billion in revenue, has been called by President Obama’s economic adviser Jason Furman “perhaps the single biggest leverage we have on health costs in the private sector.”
The fate of the bill, which the Senate is scheduled to take up after Thanksgiving, is uncertain. Some liberal senators think the House bill goes too far in the changes it would make to the ACA; some conservative senators think it does not go far enough. In its current form, the measure would face a likely presidential veto.
Obamacare meanwhile is reeling from the collapse of 12 of the 23 nonprofit cooperatives created by the ACA to increase competition. As Robert Pear of The New York Times put it: “The financial failure of more than half the nonprofit health insurance companies created under the Affordable Care Act has handed Republicans a new weapon in their campaign against the health law, thrown the Obama administration on the defensive once again and left more than a half-million consumers in the cold.”
Another Pear story reported that some of those who have purchased policies through the ACA are “feeling nearly as vulnerable as they were before they had coverage” because of high deductibles, $3,000 or more in many states. These come atop premium increases. The Department of Health and Human Services predicts that premiums for the most popular “silver” plan will rise 7.5 percent in 2016 in the 37 states using the federal Obamacare exchange. Premiums will decline in a few states, notably Indiana, but will increase 37 per cent in Oklahoma and more than 25 percent in Alaska, Montana and New Mexico.
Premiums have also increased by double digits in some of the 13 states that operate their own exchanges. In Minnesota, officials approved increases averaging 49 percent for the market’s largest insurer. In Hawaii the insurance commissioner approved 27 percent to 34 percent hikes for the two insurers in the market. In contrast, rates will rise only 4 percent in California, one of the few states that actively negotiates prices.
Experts say that the combination of premium increases and high deductibles could prompt people to opt-out of coverage and pay the federal tax penalty, often called a mandate, imposed on those without health insurance. In 2015 those who did not buy insurance were required to pay a $325 tax penalty or 2 percent of their income, whichever was greater. In 2016 this fine will rise to either $695 or 2.5 percent of taxable income.
The ACA is also involved in the tangled debate about economic inequality. Writing in The New York Times, economist Tyler Cowen praised the ACA for reducing the number of uninsured at relatively low cost but said the law had exacerbated inequality. Cowen said the “losers” from Obamacare were those making 250 percent above the poverty line, an annual income of about $30,000. Individuals in the $30,000-$35,000 income bracket in most cases do not qualify for tax-credit subsidies but may not have enough money to purchase health insurance.
Viewed through a non-partisan lens, Obamacare has accomplished much while falling short of its lofty goal of providing affordable health care for most U.S. citizens. Some 32 million Americans still lack health insurance, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. Seven million of these are unauthorized immigrants who are not covered by Obamacare (California has begun a limited program to help some of these immigrants.) Of the rest, according to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell, about 10.5 million would qualify for subsidized policies under Obamacare.
Burwell acknowledges that the pace of ACA sign-ups is likely to decrease in the current enrollment period, which began Nov. 1 and lasts until Jan. 31, 2016. In a recent speech she said that many of the uninsured are younger, live in underserved communities and have less than $100 in savings.
“People are worried about fitting premiums into their budget,” Burwell said. “Almost 60 percent of people who are uninsured are either confused about how the tax credits work or don’t know they are available.”
Obamacare is ill-served by supporters who fail to recognize the imperfections of the law. The ACA is ripe for deft reforms, assuming it survives the meat-ax of the pending budget reconciliation bill. Proposals have been advanced to broaden the ACA’s funding base, increase and extend subsidies or convert them to tax credits and revise (or eliminate) the tax penalty for those who don’t sign up for health insurance. Such proposals, many of which would require a tax increase, are unlikely to make headway in an election year. But something will have to be done in 2016 to repair the ACA, especially if United HealthGroup, the nation's largest health insurer, follows through on its announcement Thursday that it will cut back on policies offered on the federal exchange.
The fundamental obstacle to fixing the Affordable Care Act is that it is a partisan accomplishment, passed on a party line vote by Democrats and opposed almost entirely by Republicans. Reform won’t come until Democrats admit that changes are necessary and Republicans acknowledge that the ACA is here to stay.