ReportWire

Tag: Legislation

  • Canadian mining company starts arbitration in case of closed copper mine in Panama

    Canadian mining company starts arbitration in case of closed copper mine in Panama

    [ad_1]

    PANAMA CITY — Canada’s First Quantum Minerals Ltd. announced Friday it has requested arbitration proceedings to fight a Panamanian decision to halt a major open-pit copper mine concession in Panama or obtain damages.

    First Quantum said one arbitration was requested under the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement. It has also started proceedings before the International Court of Arbitration, which would meet in Miami, Florida, the company said in a statement.

    In a historic ruling on Tuesday, Panama’s Supreme Court declared that legislation granting the mine a 20-year concession was unconstitutional. That decision was celebrated by thousands of Panamanians activists who had argued the project would damage a forested coastal area and threaten water supplies.

    First Quantum said it requested arbitration from the international panel on Wednesday and that it had initiated proceedings under the free trade agreement even before the court ruling. It did not say what remedy or damages it was seeking, but did say it was open to talks.

    First Quantum’s subsidiary, Cobre Panama, “reiterates that transparency and compliance with the law has always been fundamental for the development of its operations and remains open to constructive dialogue in order to reach consensus,” the company said.

    The mine, which would be closed by the court ruling, has been an important economic engine for the country since the mine began large-scale production in 2019.

    But moves this year to grant the company the 20-year concession triggered massive protests that paralyzed the Central American nation for over a month, mobilizing a broad swath of society, including Indigenous communities, who said the mine was destroying key ecosystems.

    The company has said the mine generates 40,000 jobs, including 7,000 direct jobs, and that it contributes the equivalent of 5% of Panama’s GDP.

    The firm said it would take time to properly close the mine.

    “The Court’s decision does not take into account a planned and managed closure scenario, in which key environmental measures are required to be implemented to maintain the environmental safety of the site during this process,” including water treatment and the storage of mine tailings.

    Panama two weeks ago received an initial payment of $567 million from First Quantum under the new contract that was finalized in October. Due to the legal dispute, the amount went directly to a restricted account.

    The contract also stipulated that Panama would receive at least $375 million annually from the mining company, an amount that critics considered meager.

    Cobre Panama published a scathing statement on Wednesday saying the Supreme Court decision will likely have a negative economic impact and warned that lack of maintenance of drainage systems in the mines could have “catastrophic consequences.”

    The move also “puts at risk” all of Panama’s other business contracts, the company said.

    ____

    Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Montana’s first-in-the-nation ban on TikTok blocked by judge who says it’s unconstitutional

    Montana’s first-in-the-nation ban on TikTok blocked by judge who says it’s unconstitutional

    [ad_1]

    HELENA, Mont. — Montana’s first-in-the-nation law banning the video-sharing app TikTok in the state was blocked Thursday, one month before it was set to take effect, by a federal judge who called the measure unconstitutional.

    The ruling delivered a temporary win for the social media company that has argued Montana’s Republican-controlled Legislature went “completely overboard” in trying to regulate the app. A final ruling will come at a later date after the legal challenge moves through the courts.

    U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy said the ban “oversteps state power and infringes on the Constitutional right of users and businesses” while singling out the state for its fixation on purported Chinese influence.

    “Despite the state’s attempt to defend (the law) as a consumer protection bill, the current record leaves little doubt that Montana’s legislature and Attorney General were more interested in targeting China’s ostensible role in TikTok than with protecting Montana consumers,” Molloy wrote Thursday in granting the preliminary injunction. “This is especially apparent in that the same legislature enacted an entirely separate law that purports to broadly protect consumers’ digital data and privacy.”

    Montana lawmakers in May made the state the first in the U.S. to pass a complete ban on the app based on the argument that the Chinese government could gain access to user information from TikTok, whose parent company, ByteDance, is based in Beijing.

    The ban, which was scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, was first brought before the Montana Legislature a few weeks after a Chinese spy balloon flew over the state.

    It would prohibit downloads of TikTok in the state and fine any “entity” — an app store or TikTok — $10,000 per day for each time someone “is offered the ability” to access or download the app. There would not be penalties for users.

    TikTok spokesperson Jamal Brown issued a statement saying the company was pleased that “the judge rejected this unconstitutional law and hundreds of thousands of Montanans can continue to express themselves, earn a living, and find community on TikTok.”

    A spokeswoman for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, also a Republican, tried to downplay the significance of the ruling in a statement.

    “The judge indicated several times that the analysis could change as the case proceeds,” said Emily Cantrell, spokeswoman for Knudsen. “We look forward to presenting the complete legal argument to defend the law that protects Montanans from the Chinese Communist Party obtaining and using their data.”

    Western governments have expressed worries that the popular social media platform could put sensitive data in the hands of the Chinese government or be used as a tool to spread misinformation. Chinese law allows the government to order companies to help it gather intelligence.

    More than half of U.S. states and the federal government have banned TikTok on official devices. The company has called the bans “political theatre” and says further restrictions are unnecessary due to the efforts it is taking to protect U.S. data by storing it on Oracle servers. The company has said it has not received any requests for U.S. user data from the Chinese government and would not provide any if it were asked.

    “The extent to which China controls TikTok, and has access to its users’ data, forms the heart of this controversy,” the judge wrote.

    Attorneys for TikTok and the content creators argued on Oct. 12 that the state had gone too far in trying to regulate TikTok and is essentially trying to implement its own foreign policy over unproven concerns that TikTok might share user data with the Chinese government.

    TikTok has said in court filings that Montana could have limited the kinds of data TikTok could collect from its users rather than enacting a complete ban. Meanwhile, the content creators said the ban violates free speech rights and could cause economic harm for their businesses.

    Christian Corrigan, the state’s solicitor general, argued Montana’s law was less a statement of foreign policy and instead addresses “serious, widespread concerns about data privacy.”

    The state hasn’t offered any evidence of TikTok’s “allegedly harmful data practices,” Molloy wrote.

    Molloy noted during the hearing that TikTok users consent to the company’s data collection policies and that Knudsen — whose office drafted the legislation — could air public service announcements warning people about the data TikTok collects.

    The American Civil Liberties Union, its Montana chapter and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital privacy rights advocacy group, have submitted an amicus brief in support of the challenge. Meanwhile, 18 attorneys generals from mostly Republican-led states are backing Montana and asking the judge to let the law be implemented. Even if that happens, cybersecurity experts have said it could be challenging to enforce.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Haleluya Hadero contributed from New York.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Panama’s high court declared a mining contract unconstitutional. Here’s what’s happening next

    Panama’s high court declared a mining contract unconstitutional. Here’s what’s happening next

    [ad_1]

    PANAMA CITY — In a historic ruling, Panama’s Supreme Court this week declared that legislation granting a Canadian copper mine a 20-year concession was unconstitutional, a decision celebrated by thousands of Panamanians activists who had argued the project would damage a forested coastal area and threaten water supplies.

    The mine, which will now close, has been an important economic engine for the country. But it also triggered massive protests that paralyzed the Central American nation for over a month, mobilizing a broad swath of Panamanian society, including Indigenous communities, who said the mine was destroying key ecosystems they depend on.

    In the unanimous decision Tuesday, the high court highlighted those environmental and human rights concerns, and ruled the contract violated 25 articles of Panama’s constitution. Those include the right to live in a pollution-free environment, the obligation of the state to protect the health of minors and its commitment to promote the economic and political engagement of Indigenous and rural communities.

    The ruling would lead to the closure of Minera Panama, the local subsidiary of Canada’s First Quantum Minerals and the largest open-pit copper mine in Central America, according to jurists and environmental activists.

    The court said the government should no longer recognize the existence of the mine’s concession and Panama’s President Laurentino Cortizo said “the transition process for an orderly and safe closure of the mine will begin.”

    Analysts say it appears highly unlikely that Panama’s government and the mining company will pursue a new agreement based on the resounding rejection by Panamanians.

    “There are sectors in the country that would like a new contract, but the population itself does not want more open-pit mining, the message was clear,” said Rolando Gordón, dean of the economics faculty at the state-run University of Panama. “What remains now is to reach an agreement to close the mine.”

    Analysts say the mining company is free to pursue international arbitration to seek compensation for the closure based on commercial treaties signed between Panama and Canada. Before the ruling, the company said it had the right to take steps to protect its investment.

    With the ruling, the Panamanian government and the mining company are headed for arbitration at the World Bank’s international center for arbitration of investment disputes, in Washington, said Rodrigo Noriega, a Panamanian jurist.

    Marta Cornejo, one of the plaintiffs, said “we are not afraid of any arbitration claim” and that they are “capable of proving that the corrupt tried to sell our nation and that a transnational company went ahead, knowing that it violated all constitutional norms.”

    In a statement after the verdict, the mining company said it had “operated consistently with transparency and strict adherence to Panamanian legislation.” It emphasized that the contract was the result of “a long and transparent negotiation process, with the objective of promoting mutual economic benefits, guaranteeing the protection of the environment.”

    Cortizo, who had defended the contract arguing it would keep 9,387 direct jobs, more than what the mine reports, said that the closing of the mine must take place in a “responsible and participative” manner due to the impact it would have.

    The company has said the mine generates 40,000 jobs, including 7,000 direct jobs, and that it contributes the equivalent of 5% of Panama’s GDP.

    The court verdict and the eventual closure of the mine prompted more protests, this time by mine workers.

    “We will not allow our jobs, which are the livelihood of our families, to be put at risk,” the Union of Panamanian Mining Workers said in a statement.

    Panama two weeks ago received a first payment of $567 million from First Quantum, as stipulated in their contract. Due to the legal dispute, the amount went directly to a restricted account.

    The contract also stipulated that Panama would receive at least $375 million annually from the mining company, an amount that critics considered meager.

    Minera Panama published a scathing statement on Wednesday saying the Supreme Court decision will likely have a negative economic impact and warned that lack of maintenance of drainage systems in the mines could have “catastrophic consequences.” The move, the company said, “puts at risk” all of Panama’s other business contracts.

    What seems to be clear is that the closure will negatively impact the country’s public coffers, said Gordón of University of Panama.

    The government “had hoped that with that contract it would plug some holes in the nation’s budget, which it will not be able to do now,” Gordón said. “The situation of public finances is still reeling from five weeks of semi-paralysis in the country due to the protests.”

    ____

    Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Michigan to join state-level effort to regulate AI political ads as federal legislation is pending

    Michigan to join state-level effort to regulate AI political ads as federal legislation is pending

    [ad_1]

    LANSING, Mich. — Michigan is joining an effort to curb deceptive uses of artificial intelligence and manipulated media through state-level policies as Congress and the Federal Elections Commission continue to debate more sweeping regulations ahead of the 2024 elections.

    Campaigns on the state and federal level will be required to clearly say which political advertisements airing in Michigan were created using artificial intelligence under legislation expected to be signed in the coming days by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat. It also would prohibit use of AI-generated deepfakes within 90 days of an election without a separate disclosure identifying the media as manipulated.

    Deepfakes are fake media that misrepresent someone as doing or saying something they didn’t. They’re created using generative artificial intelligence, a type of AI that can create convincing images, videos or audio clips in seconds.

    There are increasing concerns that generative AI will be used in the 2024 presidential race to mislead voters, impersonate candidates and undermine elections on a scale and at a speed not yet seen.

    Candidates and committees in the race already are experimenting with the rapidly advancing technology, which in recent years has become cheaper, faster and easier for the public to use.

    The Republican National Committee in April released an entirely AI-generated ad meant to show the future of the United States if President Joe Biden is reelected. Disclosing in small print that it was made with AI, it featured fake but realistic photos showing boarded-up storefronts, armored military patrols in the streets, and huge increases in immigration creating panic.

    In July, Never Back Down, a super PAC supporting Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, used an AI voice cloning tool to imitate former President Donald Trump’s voice, making it seem like he narrated a social media post he made despite never saying the statement aloud.

    Experts say these are just glimpses of what could ensue if campaigns or outside actors decide to use AI deepfakes in more malicious ways.

    So far, states including California, Minnesota, Texas and Washington have passed laws regulating deepfakes in political advertising. Similar legislation has been introduced in Illinois, New Jersey and New York, according to the nonprofit advocacy group Public Citizen.

    Under Michigan’s legislation, any person, committee or other entity that distributes an advertisement for a candidate would be required to clearly state if it uses generative AI. The disclosure would need to be in the same font size as the majority of the text in print ads, and would need to appear “for at least four seconds in letters that are as large as the majority of any text” in television ads, according to a legislative analysis from the state House Fiscal Agency.

    Deepfakes used within 90 days of the election would require a separate disclaimer informing the viewer that the content is manipulated to depict speech or conduct that did not occur. If the media is a video, the disclaimer would need to be clearly visible and appear throughout the video’s entirety.

    Campaigns could face a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both for the first violation of the proposed laws. The attorney general or the candidate harmed by the deceptive media could apply to the appropriate circuit court for relief.

    Federal lawmakers on both sides have stressed the importance of legislating deepfakes in political advertising, and held meetings to discuss it, but Congress has not yet passed anything.

    A recent bipartisan Senate bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and others, would ban “materially deceptive” deepfakes relating to federal candidates, with exceptions for parody and satire.

    Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson flew to Washington, D.C. in early November to participate in a bipartisan discussion on AI and elections and called on senators to pass Klobuchar and Hawley’s federal Deceptive AI Act. Benson said she also encouraged senators to return home and lobby their state lawmakers to pass similar legislation that makes sense for their states.

    Federal law is limited in its ability to regulate AI at the state and local levels, Benson said in an interview, adding that states also need federal funds to tackle the challenges posed by AI.

    “All of this is made real if the federal government gave us money to hire someone to just handle AI in our states, and similarly educate voters about how to spot deepfakes and what to do when you find them,” Benson said. “That solves a lot of the problems. We can’t do it on our own.”

    In August, the Federal Election Commission took a procedural step toward potentially regulating AI-generated deepfakes in political ads under its existing rules against “fraudulent misrepresentation.” Though the commission held a public comment period on the petition, brought by Public Citizen, it hasn’t yet made any ruling.

    Social media companies also have announced some guidelines meant to mitigate the spread of harmful deepfakes. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, announced earlier this month that it will require political ads running on the platforms to disclose if they were created using AI. Google unveiled a similar AI labeling policy in September for political ads that play on YouTube or other Google platforms.

    ___

    The story has been updated to remove Kentucky from states where similar legislation has been introduced. Kentucky’s legislation is a bill request and has not been officially introduced yet.

    ___

    Swenson reported from New York. Associated Press writer Christina A. Cassidy contributed from Washington.

    ___

    The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Michigan to join state-level effort to regulate AI political ads

    Michigan to join state-level effort to regulate AI political ads

    [ad_1]

    LANSING, Mich. — Michigan is joining an effort to curb deceptive uses of artificial intelligence and manipulated media through state-level policies as Congress and the Federal Elections Commission continue to debate more sweeping regulations ahead of the 2024 elections.

    Campaigns on the state and federal level will be required to clearly say which political advertisements airing in Michigan were created using artificial intelligence under legislation expected to be signed in the coming days by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat. It also would prohibit use of AI-generated deepfakes within 90 days of an election without a separate disclosure identifying the media as manipulated.

    Deepfakes are fake media that misrepresent someone as doing or saying something they didn’t. They’re created using generative artificial intelligence, a type of AI that can create convincing images, videos or audio clips in seconds.

    There are increasing concerns that generative AI will be used in the 2024 presidential race to mislead voters, impersonate candidates and undermine elections on a scale and at a speed not yet seen.

    Candidates and committees in the race already are experimenting with the rapidly advancing technology, which can create convincing fake images, video and audio clips in seconds and in recent years has become cheaper, faster and easier for the public to use.

    The Republican National Committee in April released an entirely AI-generated ad meant to show the future of the United States if President Joe Biden is reelected. Disclosing in small print that it was made with AI, it featured fake but realistic photos showing boarded-up storefronts, armored military patrols in the streets, and huge increases in immigration creating panic.

    In July, Never Back Down, a super PAC supporting Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, used an AI voice cloning tool to imitate former President Donald Trump’s voice, making it seem like he narrated a social media post he made despite never saying the statement aloud.

    Experts say these are just glimpses of what could ensue if campaigns or outside actors decide to use AI deepfakes in more malicious ways.

    So far, states including California, Minnesota, Texas and Washington have passed laws regulating deepfakes in political advertising. Similar legislation has been introduced in Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey and New York, according to the nonprofit advocacy group Public Citizen.

    Under Michigan’s legislation, any person, committee or other entity that distributes an advertisement for a candidate would be required to clearly state if it uses generative AI. The disclosure would need to be in the same font size as the majority of the text in print ads, and would need to appear “for at least four seconds in letters that are as large as the majority of any text” in television ads, according to a legislative analysis from the state House Fiscal Agency.

    Deepfakes used within 90 days of the election would require a separate disclaimer informing the viewer that the content is manipulated to depict speech or conduct that did not occur. If the media is a video, the disclaimer would need to be clearly visible and appear throughout the video’s entirety.

    Campaigns could face a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both for the first violation of the proposed laws. The attorney general or the candidate harmed by the deceptive media could apply to the appropriate circuit court for relief.

    Federal lawmakers on both sides have stressed the importance of legislating deepfakes in political advertising, and held meetings to discuss it, but Congress has not yet passed anything.

    A recent bipartisan Senate bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and others, would ban “materially deceptive” deepfakes relating to federal candidates, with exceptions for parody and satire.

    Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson flew to Washington, D.C. in early November to participate in a bipartisan discussion on AI and elections and called on senators to pass Klobuchar and Hawley’s federal Deceptive AI Act. Benson said she also encouraged senators to return home and lobby their state lawmakers to pass similar legislation that makes sense for their states.

    Federal law is limited in its ability to regulate AI at the state and local levels, Benson said in an interview, adding that states also need federal funds to tackle the challenges posed by AI.

    “All of this is made real if the federal government gave us money to hire someone to just handle AI in our states, and similarly educate voters about how to spot deepfakes and what to do when you find them,” Benson said. “That solves a lot of the problems. We can’t do it on our own.”

    In August, the Federal Election Commission took a procedural step toward potentially regulating AI-generated deepfakes in political ads under its existing rules against “fraudulent misrepresentation.” Though the commission held a public comment period on the petition, brought by Public Citizen, it hasn’t yet made any ruling.

    Social media companies also have announced some guidelines meant to mitigate the spread of harmful deepfakes. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, announced earlier this month that it will require political ads running on the platforms to disclose if they were created using AI. Google unveiled a similar AI labeling policy in September for political ads that play on YouTube or other Google platforms.

    ___

    Swenson reported from New York. Associated Press writer Christina A. Cassidy contributed from Washington.

    ___

    The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Michigan to join state-level effort to regulate AI political ads as federal legislation pends

    Michigan to join state-level effort to regulate AI political ads as federal legislation pends

    [ad_1]

    LANSING, Mich. — Michigan is joining an effort to curb deceptive uses of artificial intelligence and manipulated media through state-level policies as Congress and the Federal Elections Commission continue to debate more sweeping regulations ahead of the 2024 elections.

    Campaigns on the state and federal level will be required to clearly say which political advertisements airing in Michigan were created using artificial intelligence under legislation expected to be signed in the coming days by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat. It also would prohibit use of AI-generated deepfakes within 90 days of an election without a separate disclosure identifying the media as manipulated.

    Deepfakes are fake media that misrepresent someone as doing or saying something they didn’t. They’re created using generative artificial intelligence, a type of AI that can create convincing images, videos or audio clips in seconds.

    There are increasing concerns that generative AI will be used in the 2024 presidential race to mislead voters, impersonate candidates and undermine elections on a scale and at a speed not yet seen.

    Candidates and committees in the race already are experimenting with the rapidly advancing technology, which can create convincing fake images, video and audio clips in seconds and in recent years has become cheaper, faster and easier for the public to use.

    The Republican National Committee in April released an entirely AI-generated ad meant to show the future of the United States if President Joe Biden is reelected. Disclosing in small print that it was made with AI, it featured fake but realistic photos showing boarded-up storefronts, armored military patrols in the streets, and huge increases in immigration creating panic.

    In July, Never Back Down, a super PAC supporting Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, used an AI voice cloning tool to imitate former President Donald Trump’s voice, making it seem like he narrated a social media post he made despite never saying the statement aloud.

    Experts say these are just glimpses of what could ensue if campaigns or outside actors decide to use AI deepfakes in more malicious ways.

    So far, states including California, Minnesota, Texas and Washington have passed laws regulating deepfakes in political advertising. Similar legislation has been introduced in Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey and New York, according to the nonprofit advocacy group Public Citizen.

    Under Michigan’s legislation, any person, committee or other entity that distributes an advertisement for a candidate would be required to clearly state if it uses generative AI. The disclosure would need to be in the same font size as the majority of the text in print ads, and would need to appear “for at least four seconds in letters that are as large as the majority of any text” in television ads, according to a legislative analysis from the state House Fiscal Agency.

    Deepfakes used within 90 days of the election would require a separate disclaimer informing the viewer that the content is manipulated to depict speech or conduct that did not occur. If the media is a video, the disclaimer would need to be clearly visible and appear throughout the video’s entirety.

    Campaigns could face a misdemeanor punishable by up to 93 days in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both for the first violation of the proposed laws. The attorney general or the candidate harmed by the deceptive media could apply to the appropriate circuit court for relief.

    Federal lawmakers on both sides have stressed the importance of legislating deepfakes in political advertising, and held meetings to discuss it, but Congress has not yet passed anything.

    A recent bipartisan Senate bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and others, would ban “materially deceptive” deepfakes relating to federal candidates, with exceptions for parody and satire.

    Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson flew to Washington, D.C. in early November to participate in a bipartisan discussion on AI and elections and called on senators to pass Klobuchar and Hawley’s federal Deceptive AI Act. Benson said she also encouraged senators to return home and lobby their state lawmakers to pass similar legislation that makes sense for their states.

    Federal law is limited in its ability to regulate AI at the state and local levels, Benson said in an interview, adding that states also need federal funds to tackle the challenges posed by AI.

    “All of this is made real if the federal government gave us money to hire someone to just handle AI in our states, and similarly educate voters about how to spot deepfakes and what to do when you find them,” Benson said. “That solves a lot of the problems. We can’t do it on our own.”

    In August, the Federal Election Commission took a procedural step toward potentially regulating AI-generated deepfakes in political ads under its existing rules against “fraudulent misrepresentation.” Though the commission held a public comment period on the petition, brought by Public Citizen, it hasn’t yet made any ruling.

    Social media companies also have announced some guidelines meant to mitigate the spread of harmful deepfakes. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, announced earlier this month that it will require political ads running on the platforms to disclose if they were created using AI. Google unveiled a similar AI labeling policy in September for political ads that play on YouTube or other Google platforms.

    ___

    Swenson reported from New York. Associated Press writer Christina A. Cassidy contributed from Washington.

    ___

    The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democratic lawmaker moves to force a vote this week on expelling Rep. George Santos from the House

    Democratic lawmaker moves to force a vote this week on expelling Rep. George Santos from the House

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A Democratic lawmaker moved Tuesday to force a vote this week on expelling Rep. George Santos from the House, calling it a necessary step if Republicans fail to take action in light of the recent ethics report that found Santos blatantly stole from his campaign and deceived donors.

    Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., brought back to the floor legislation he first introduced in February to force the expulsion vote. Republicans were successful in turning aside Garcia’s earlier effort, but now that the Ethics Committee has released its findings about Santos from its monthslong investigation, Garcia said it’s time to act.

    “Whatever it takes to get that vote this week, is what we’re doing,” Garcia said.

    Expelling Santos, a Republican from New York, would require support from at least two-thirds of House members voting. Garcia said he expects to reach that number easily, which would make Santos just the sixth member of the House to be removed by his colleagues, and only the third since the Civil War.

    Santos has rejected any suggestion he step down before an expulsion vote.

    “Expel me and set the precedent so we can see who the judge, jury and executioners in Congress are,” Santos said on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “The American people deserve to know!”

    Santos has survived two prior expulsion votes. The first occurred in May on Garcia’s resolution when the House, at the urging of then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, voted along party lines to refer the matter to the Ethics panel. The second vote occurred earlier this month when fellow New York Republicans sought to distance themselves from their scandal-plagued colleague and forced a vote.

    Many who voted against expulsion said it was important to wait on the Ethics panel to complete its investigation.

    “In modern times, it is House precedent that Representatives are only expelled after conviction of a felony,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., said in a prepared statement. “In the matter involving Rep. Santos, the Ethics Committee has now found and documented conduct that is as serious as that of Members who on prior occasions have been expelled following felony convictions.”

    Lofgren voted against expulsion earlier this month. She said precedents are important to follow, but “every precedent had a first time” and that now she would vote to expel.

    The Ethics panel’s report released Nov. 16 was unsparing in its criticism, concluding that Santos “sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit.”

    “He blatantly stole from his campaign. He deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to his campaign but were in fact payments for his personal benefit,” the report said.

    The Ethics Committee did not make any recommendations on how to deal with Santos, saying that doing so would involve a lengthy, trial-like process that would only give Santos more opportunity to delay accountability for his actions.

    Instead, the committee simply submitted its report to the House. Rep. Michael Guest, R-Miss., and the panel’s chairman, then followed up with his resolution to expel Santos. Guest called the evidence uncovered in the investigation “more than sufficient to warrant punishment and the most appropriate punishment, is expulsion.”

    But a vote on the Guest resolution has not yet been scheduled. House Speaker Mike Johnson said in Florida on Monday that he has spoken to Santos at some length over the Thanksgiving holiday and talked to him about his options, but it was not yet determined how the House would proceed.

    “Whether its our resolution or the Republican resolution that comes forward, it’s going to be bipartisan, I think it’s going to be overwhelming,” Garcia said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Georgia case over railroad’s use of eminent domain could have property law implications

    Georgia case over railroad’s use of eminent domain could have property law implications

    [ad_1]

    ATLANTA — It’s a fight over land in one of rural Georgia’s poorest areas, but it could have implications for property law across the state and nation.

    A hearing is scheduled to begin Monday to help determine whether a railroad can legally condemn property to build a rail line 4.5 miles (7.25 kilometers) long that would serve a rock quarry and possibly other industries.

    A hearing officer will take up to three days of testimony, making a recommendation to the five elected members of the Georgia Public Service Commission, who will ultimately decide.

    The line would be built by the Sandersville Railroad, which is owned by an influential Georgia family. It would connect to the CSX railroad at Sparta, allowing products to be shipped widely. Sparta is about 85 miles (135 kilometers) southeast of Atlanta.

    People in the rural neighborhood don’t want a train track passing through or near their property, in part because they think it would enable expansion at a quarry owned by Heidelberg Materials, a publicly traded German firm.

    Some residents already dislike the quarry because it generates noise, dust and truck traffic. Supporters say if the railroad is built, the quarry will move its operation farther from houses, trains will reduce trucks on roads and the railroad will build berms to shield residents.

    But owners say losing a 200-foot (60-meter) wide strip of property to the railroad would spoil land they treasure for its peace and quiet, hunting, fishing and family heritage.

    “Sandersville Railroad does not care about the destruction of my family’s property or our way of life,” Donald Garret Sr., one of the owners, said in written testimony in August. “They just care about their own plans for my property, which won’t serve the public, but will just help them expand their business and the quarry’s business.”

    Opponents have high-powered allies, including the Institute for Justice, which hopes to use the case to chip away at eminent domain, the government power to legally take private land while paying fair compensation.

    The Libertarian-leaning legal group was on the losing side of a landmark 2005 case allowing the city of New London, Connecticut, to take land from one private owner and transfer it to another private owner in the name of economic development. The decision set off a widespread reaction, including more than 20 states passing laws to restrict eminent domain.

    Railroads have long had the power of eminent domain, but Georgia law says such land seizures must be for “public use.” Opponents targeted the project by saying it would only benefit the quarry and doesn’t meet the definition of public use.

    “This is not a taking of necessity from private property owners to serve truly public interests and the public as a whole. Rather, this is a naked wealth transfer,” Daniel Kochan, a law professor at Virginia’s George Mason University, testified for opponents.

    The Sandersville Railroad says there are other users, including a company co-located with the quarry that blends gravel and asphalt for paving. Several companies have said they would truck products from the Sandersville area and load them onto the short line, noting they want access to CSX, but opponents question whether that business will materialize.

    The case matters because private entities need to condemn private land not only to build railroads, but also to build other facilities such as pipelines and electric transmission lines. There’s a particular need to build additional electric transmission lines in Georgia and other states to transmit electricity from new solar and wind generation.

    Sandersville Railroad President Ben Tarbutton III said in testimony that the Institute for Justice is engaged in “transparent efforts to change federal and state constitutional law regarding condemnation.”

    Others who live nearby, organized as the No Railroad In Our Community Coalition, are represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Janet Paige Smith, a leader of the group, testified the railroad would further burden a neighborhood with many Black retirees on fixed incomes.

    “We already suffer from traffic, air pollution, noise, debris, trash, and more from the Heidelberg Quarry, but this project would make everything worse,” Smith testified.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ohio voters just passed abortion protections. Whether they take effect is now up to the courts

    Ohio voters just passed abortion protections. Whether they take effect is now up to the courts

    [ad_1]

    COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio’s new constitutional projections for abortion access and other reproductive rights are supposed to take effect Dec. 7, a month after voters resoundingly passed them. That prospect seems increasingly uncertain.

    Existing abortion-related lawsuits are moving again through the courts now that voters have decided the issue, raising questions about how and when the amendment will be implemented.

    The amendment declared an individual’s right to “make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions” and passed with a strong 57% majority. It was the seventh straight victory in statewide votes for supporters of abortion access nationally since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned constitutional protections.

    But the amendment did not repeal any existing Ohio laws, providing an opening for Republican elected officials and anti-abortion groups to renew their efforts to halt, delay or significantly water it down.

    “A lot of that hard work of figuring out what state laws are inconsistent with the amendment and what state laws can remain, does tend to devolve to the courts,” said Laura Hermer, a professor of law at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, who studies access to health coverage and care in the U.S. “It’s difficult to imagine that the Legislature will say, ‘All right, you win. We’re going to repeal the heartbeat ban’ and so forth.”

    The state Legislature is controlled by Republicans whose leaders opposed the November ballot amendment, which was known as Issue 1. The Ohio Supreme Court also is controlled by Republicans, who have a 4-3 majority, and will be the final judge of constitutional questions. Several of the Republican justices have taken actions or made statements that have caused abortion rights organizations and ethics attorneys to question their objectivity on the subject.

    Minority Democrats in the Ohio House announced legislation two days after the election aimed at avoiding a piecemeal approach to implementing the amendment. Among other steps, they called for repealing the state’s ban on most abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected, which is around six weeks, and a 24-hour waiting period.

    “There are over 30 different restrictions in place,” said state Rep. Beth Liston, a physician and co-author of the Reproductive Care Act. “And I think that it is important that we don’t require citizens to go to court for every restriction, and, quite frankly, that we don’t let harm occur in the interim.”

    House Minority Leader Allison Russo was careful not to criticize the high court, which holds sway over the fate of those laws.

    “My hope is they will uphold the rule of law and the constitution,” she said.

    Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy last week ordered lawyers for the state and a group of abortion clinics to tell the court how they believe the measure’s passage has affected a case involving Ohio’s ban on most abortions once fetal cardiac activity is detected, which has been on hold since October 2022.

    A day after voters approved the amendment, U.S. District Judge Michael Barrett made a similar request of the parties in a long-running federal lawsuit challenging a set of state restrictions imposed on abortion providers’ operations. They included a requirement that clinics obtain agreements with a nearby hospital for emergency patient transfers, as well as a prohibition against public hospitals entering into those agreements.

    At least three other Ohio abortion laws also have been on hold in the courts.

    Passing legislation to bring Ohio law in line with the new constitutional amendment has been a non-starter with Republican lawmakers, who mostly opposed it and took extraordinary steps to defeat it.

    With a primary election in their GOP-heavy districts only months away, they are facing fierce pressure from anti-abortion groups to go in the other direction and either pass laws countering the amendment or using their supermajorities to strip courts of their power to interpret it.

    “The (Ohio) Constitution specifically says reigning in out-of-control courts is the legislators’ job,” the anti-abortion group Faith2Action argues in a recently released video. “So let’s call on the legislators to do their job, to use their constitutionally granted right to represent us and to keep pro-abortion judges from repealing Ohio laws based on an amendment that doesn’t even mention a single Ohio law.”

    The video argues that the “right to life” created in Ohio’s constitution is inalienable and that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade punted the abortion issue to “the people’s elected representatives.”

    But in his concurring opinion in that ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote that constitutional amendments were among the avenues for deciding the future of abortion access.

    “Moreover, the Constitution authorizes the creation of new rights — state and federal, statutory and constitutional,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But when it comes to creating new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the various processes of democratic self-government contemplated by the Constitution — state legislation, state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional amendments.”

    For now, Republican Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens has said legislation targeting the power of state courts will not be considered. GOP Senate President Matt Huffman has ruled out lawmakers pushing for an immediate repeal of Issue 1, as had once been suggested, saying nothing like that should be tried, at least in 2024.

    How Attorney General Dave Yost will proceed also is being closely watched.

    In a legal analysis of Issue 1 that the Republican published before the election, Yost said the amendment created a new standard for protecting abortion access that “goes beyond” the law of the land under Roe v. Wade.

    “That means that many Ohio laws would probably be invalidated … and others might be at risk to varying degrees,” he wrote.

    Hermer, the law professor, said that statement is convenient for lawyers fighting to implement the constitutional amendment but such an analysis isn’t legally binding for Yost.

    “He doesn’t necessarily have to stand down, but, of course, having already said that, it’s going to make it a bit more difficult to hold those sorts of positions,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Regulators and law enforcement crack down on crypto’s bad actors. Congress has yet to take action

    Regulators and law enforcement crack down on crypto’s bad actors. Congress has yet to take action

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — While the scandals in the cryptocurrency industry seem to never end, Washington policymakers appear to have little interest in pushing through legislation to codify the structure of the industry.

    The latest shoe to drop is Binance’s multibillion dollar settlement with U.S. authorities and the resignation of its CEO this week. Before that came the conviction of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried for stealing billions from customers and the implosion of smaller crypto companies that cost investors large sums of money.

    When cryptocurrencies collapsed and a number of companies failed last year, Congress considered multiple approaches for how to regulate the industry in the future. However, most of those efforts have gone nowhere, especially in this chaotic year that has been dominated by geopolitical tensions, inflation and the upcoming 2024 election.

    In fact, the appetite for new rules seems more diminished than ever.

    U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Tuesday that existing regulations already apply to cryptocurrency at a news conference announcing the $4 billion settlement with Binance: “I think today’s actions show that we are serious about enforcing strong regulations that are already in place to make sure that illegal transactions are not fostered by cryptocurrency entities,” she said.

    “In cases like this, where there are violations of a truly egregious nature,” she said “of course we want to make sure our tools stay up to date and are adjusted so that we can address emerging threats. We believe we have strong tools and we have been increasingly deploying them to counter this type of abuse.”

    And a group of more than 100 mostly Democratic lawmakers in October said the responsibility for preventing the use of crypto to finance terrorism belongs to the White House, calling for the Biden Administration to act.

    Changpeng Zhao, the CEO of Binance, pleaded guilty Wednesday to a felony related to his failure to prevent money laundering on the platform. Zhao stepped down and Binance admitted to violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and apparent violations of sanctions programs, including its failure to implement reporting programs for suspicious transactions.

    As part of the settlement agreement, the U.S. Treasury said Binance will be subject to five years of monitoring and “significant compliance undertakings, including to ensure Binance’s complete exit from the United States.” Binance is a Cayman Islands limited liability company.

    U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland called the settlement one of the largest corporate penalties in the nation’s history.

    Now the largest entities in crypto over the past couple of years — Binance, Coinbase and FTX — are either in severe legal trouble, under investigation or have collapsed altogether.

    Without Congress, federal regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission have stepped in to take their own enforcement actions against the industry, including the filing of lawsuits against Coinbase and Binance and Kraken, three of the biggest cryptocurrency exchanges. Kraken was charged by the SEC this week with operating its crypto trading platform as an unregistered securities exchange.

    Additionally, PayPal received a subpoena from the SEC related to its PayPal USD stablecoin, the company said in a filing with securities regulators this month. The firm says its cooperating with authorities.

    Some members of Congress have opposed the SEC’s actions on crypto, arguing that the SEC needs congressional approval to justify going after bad actors, or that crypto should be regulated more like a commodity, which would be under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. One or both of those arguments have been made by legislatures in both political parties.

    Sens. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and John Boozman, R-Ark., proposed last year to hand over the regulatory authority over cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and ether to the CFTC. Stabenow and Boozman lead the Senate Agriculture Committee, which has authority over that regulator.

    So while Congress has made proposals it has yet to act. Part of the reluctance to act stems from lawmakers’ inability to coalesce around what crypto is in the first place, and further, the opposition from some powerful members of Congress to crypto altogether.

    One of those members opposed is Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, chair of the Senate Banking Committee.

    Brown has been highly skeptical of cryptocurrencies as a concept and he’s been generally reluctant to put Congress’ blessing on them through legislation. He’s held several committee hearings over cryptocurrency issues, ranging from the negative impact on consumers to use of the currencies to fund illicit activities, but has not advanced any legislation out of his committee.

    “Americans continue to lose money every day in crypto scams and frauds,” Brown said in a statement after Bankman-Fried was convicted. “We need to crack down on abuses and can’t let the crypto industry write its own rulebook.”

    In the House, a bill that would put regulatory guardrails around stablecoins — cryptocurrencies that are supposed to be backed by hard assets like the U.S. dollar — passed out of the House Financial Services Committee this summer. But that bill has gotten zero interest from the White House and the Senate.

    Consumer advocates are skeptical about the need for new rules, or the usefulness of crypto itself.

    “The lawlessness if not criminal activities of crypto will continue and increase until all prosecutors, regulators and elected officials force the industry to act like all other law-abiding people and firms in the financial industry,” said Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, a nonprofit that works to “build a more secure financial system for all Americans,” according to its website.

    Whereas some analysts say the fraud trials, settlements and criminal charges signal a new era for crypto development.

    Yiannis Giokas, senior director of digital assets at Moody’s Analytics said the settlement agreement between U.S. Authorities and Binance “marks the end of an era.”

    “With digital currencies becoming more mainstream and institutional players entering the space, regulations and enforcement will become stricter to ensure compliance and consumer protection. Yesterday’s development marks the same inflection point that we saw earlier at the intersection of the .com and post-.com eras.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate looks to speed ahead on temporary funding to avert government shutdown through the holidays

    Senate looks to speed ahead on temporary funding to avert government shutdown through the holidays

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Senate was pushing toward a vote Wednesday night on a temporary government funding package as lawmakers sought to keep the holiday season free from any suspense over a government shutdown.

    Senators were trying to speed forward on the funding package one day after it passed the House on an overwhelming bipartisan vote. Passage would push a final confrontation on the government budget into the new year, when the House and Senate will be forced to confront — and somehow overcome — their considerable differences over what funding levels should be.

    In the meantime, both top Republicans and Democrats in the Senate appeared ready to avert a shutdown and pass the temporary funding patch well before government funding expires Saturday.

    “No drama, no delay, no government shutdown. That’s our goal,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a floor speech Wednesday morning.

    Negotiations on advancing the bill to a final vote in the chamber were held up for hours over a disagreement on how to proceed on a separate defense authorization bill, but senators reached an agreement to vote on the funding bill Wednesday night.

    “Everybody is really kind of ready to vote and fight another day,” Republican Whip John Thune, the No. 2 Republican, said earlier Wednesday.

    The spending package would keep government funding at current levels for roughly two more months while a long-term package is negotiated. It splits the deadlines for passing full-year appropriations bills into two dates: Jan. 19 for some federal agencies and Feb. 2 for others, creating two deadlines where there will be a risk of a partial government shutdown.

    The spending bill does not include the White House’s nearly $106 billion request for wartime aid for Israel and Ukraine, as well as humanitarian funding for Palestinians and other supplemental requests. Lawmakers are likely to turn their attention more fully to that request after the Thanksgiving holiday in hopes of negotiating a deal.

    Schumer called the stopgap funding plan “far from perfect,” but said he would support it because it averts a shutdown and “will do so without any of the cruel cuts or poison pills” that hardline conservatives wanted.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, who crafted the plan, has vowed that he will not support any further stopgap funding measures, known as continuing resolutions. He portrayed the temporary funding bill as setting the ground for a spending “fight” with the Senate next year.

    The new speaker, who told reporters this week that he counted himself among the “arch-conservatives” of the House, is pushing for deeper spending cuts. He wanted to avoid lawmakers being forced to consider a massive government funding package before the December holidays — a tactic that incenses conservatives in particular.

    But Johnson is also facing pushback from other hardline conservatives who wanted to leverage the prospect of a government shutdown to extract steep cuts and policy demands.

    Many of those conservatives were among a group of 19 Republicans who defied Johnson Wednesday to prevent floor consideration of an appropriations bill to fund several government agencies.

    GOP leaders called off the week’s work after the vote, sending lawmakers home early for Thanksgiving. It capped a period of intense bickering among lawmakers.

    “This place is a pressure cooker,” Johnson said Tuesday, noting that the House had been in Washington for 10 weeks straight.

    The House GOP’s inability to present a united front on funding legislation could undercut the Louisiana congressman’s ability to negotiate spending bills with the Senate.

    Republicans are demanding that Congress work out government funding through 12 separate bills, as the budgetary process requires, but House leadership has so far been forced to pull two of those bills from the floor, seen another rejected on a procedural vote and struggled to win support for others.

    When it returns in two weeks, Congress is expected to focus on the Biden administration’s requests for Ukraine and Israel funding. Republican senators have demanded that Congress pass immigration and border legislation alongside additional Ukraine aid, but a bipartisan Senate group working on a possible compromise has struggled to find consensus.

    Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell in a floor speech pledged that Republicans would continue to push for policy changes on the U.S. border with Mexico, saying it is “impossible to ignore the crisis at our southern border that’s erupted on Washington Democrats’ watch.”

    One idea floating among Republicans is directly tying Ukraine funding levels with decreases in the number of illegal border crossings. It showed how even longtime supporters of Ukraine’s defense against Russia are willing to hold up the funding to force Congress to tackle an issue that has flummoxed generations of lawmakers: U.S. border policy.

    Most Senate Republicans support the Ukraine funding, said Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., but he added, “It is secondary to securing our own border.”

    But the U.S. is already trimming some of the wartime aid packages it is sending Ukraine as funds run low, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said from San Francisco, where he accompanied President Joe Biden for a summit of Asia-Pacific leaders.

    He said the pot of money available for Ukraine is “withering away, and with it will be a deleterious effect on Ukraine’s ability to continue to defend itself.”

    Schumer said the Senate would try to move forward on both the funding and border legislation in the coming weeks, but warned it would require a compromise.

    “Both sides will have to give,” he said.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pennsylvania House passes ‘shield law’ to protect providers, out-of-staters seeking abortions

    Pennsylvania House passes ‘shield law’ to protect providers, out-of-staters seeking abortions

    [ad_1]

    HARRISBURG, Pa. — A bill seeking to protect those who travel to Pennsylvania to get abortions by barring public officials from cooperating with authorities in other states that criminalize the practice advanced Wednesday through the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives.

    The legislation passed 117-86. It now goes to the GOP-controlled state Senate, where it faces a chilly reception.

    The measure seeks to prevent public officials in Pennsylvania, where abortion is legal up to 24 weeks, from cooperating with authorities in other states who try to block their residents from coming to Pennsylvania to get an abortion.

    All but one Democrat voted for the bill, while 16 Republicans joined them.

    At least 16 states — the majority of Democrat-controlled states — have adopted laws seeking to protect abortion access since last year. Many of those laws have provisions that protect providers and the people who come from other states seeking an abortion. Though anti-abortion advocates have discussed cracking down on those who cross state lines for abortions, prosecutions of such cases have not been widespread.

    Democrats in Pennsylvania hailed the legislation for protecting women in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court ruling that overturned abortion rights.

    The bill’s primary sponsor, Democratic Rep. Mary Jo Daley of Montgomery County, said it was sending a clear message “that Pennsylvania will not be bullied by these states and their attempts to control other people’s bodies.”

    “I strongly believe that Pennsylvania must continue to pass policies that protect access to abortion and other critical reproductive health care services that people across our nation need and deserve,” she said.

    Republicans raised concerns with the constitutionality of the bill, saying the Legislature would overstep its bounds.

    Rep. Charity Grimm Krupa, R-Fayette, said that while proponents of the bill were trying to focus it on abortion rights to suit the political climate, it was an affront to the the clause in the U.S. Constitution stating states have to respect the judicial process of others.

    “Everybody in this room swore an oath to uphold the Constitution,” she said. “If you vote in the affirmative on this bill, regardless of your position on abortion, you are ignoring your oath. You’re throwing that oath in the trash can. I refuse to do that.”

    Planned Parenthood PA Advocates Executive Director Signe Espinoza thanked the Legislature for the step, saying the measure would protect patients from “other states enforcing their extremism within our borders.”

    “Everyone is entitled to make their own decisions about their health care, without fear of retribution or prosecution,” she said.

    Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has positioned himself as a defender of abortion rights. He recently severed decades-long ties with Real Alternatives, an organization that talked women out of having abortions.

    Rights to abortion factored heavily in the state’s recent Supreme Court race, and, nationally, have buoyed Democrats at the polls after the country’s highest court overturned Roe V. Wade last year.

    Some of Pennsylvania’s neighboring states have sought to protect access to abortion, but those from states where abortion rights have been curtailed have come to Pennsylvania at greater rates seeking services. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, centers in Allegheny County in Western Pennsylvania saw steep increases in appointments by women in West Virginia and Ohio, where voters recently approved an amendment to protect abortion access.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Maine’s yellow flag law invoked more than a dozen times after deadly shootings

    Maine’s yellow flag law invoked more than a dozen times after deadly shootings

    [ad_1]

    LEWISTON, Maine — A Maine law used to restrict access to guns during a mental health crisis has been invoked more than a dozen times since the killings of 18 people last month, and several people whose guns were temporarily removed referenced the name of the gunman responsible for the mass shooting.

    An updated list from the state shows weapons restriction orders were imposed at least 13 times under the yellow flag law since the Oct. 25 mass shootings in Lewiston, the deadliest in state history. That brings the total to 94 times since the law went into effect in July 2020.

    Four people either mentioned Lewiston gunman Robert Card’s name or said they would become the “next mass shooter,” according to the state’s list, which includes a brief synopsis of the circumstances in each case. On Friday, the law was invoked five times that day, according to the list.

    The updated figures were released Monday during a law enforcement training that focused on the yellow flag law, Shannon Moss, state police spokesperson, said Tuesday. Several hundred officers participated in the training.

    Eighteen people were killed and another 13 wounded when Card, an Army reservist, opened fire at a bowling alley and a bar.

    Tens of thousands of residents were ordered to shelter at home as hundreds of law officers participated in a manhunt that ended with the discovery of Card’s body two days later in nearby Lisbon. An autopsy concluded he died by suicide.

    Under Maine’s yellow flag law, a warning to police can trigger a process where an officer visits an individual and makes a judgment call on whether that person should be placed in temporary protective custody, triggering assessments that with a judge’s approval can lead to a 14-day weapons restriction. A full court hearing could lead to an extension of restrictions for up to a year.

    Police had received warnings about Card. Some family members and fellow reservists were concerned about his mental health and access to weapons. One reservist wrote in a text: “I believe he’s going to snap and do a mass shooting.”

    Deputies visited Card’s home in Bowdoin twice about a month before the mass shootings, but he didn’t come to the door. The sheriff said law enforcement didn’t have the legal authority to knock down the door.

    It’s unclear what happened after that, though the sheriff’s office canceled its statewide alert seeking help locating Card a week before the deadly rampage.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Poland’s newly elected parliament meets for the first time

    Poland’s newly elected parliament meets for the first time

    [ad_1]

    WARSAW, Poland — The Polish parliament is meeting for the first time on Monday after an election last month heralded a change of course for the Central European nation at a time of war across the border in Ukraine.

    Following a choreography determined by the constitution, President Andrzej Duda will address the ceremonial opening of the newly elected legislature. The lawmakers will take their oaths and elect a speaker.

    The outgoing prime minister, Mateusz Morawiecki. must resign with his government, though he is expected to remain as a caretaker premier, perhaps for weeks, because Duda has delayed the transition of power.

    The 460 lawmakers elected to the lower house of parliament, the Sejm, will gather at noon. The 100-seat Senate will follow with its first session later in the afternoon. Both bodies have been chosen for a four-year term.

    All of the lawmakers were chosen in an election on Oct. 15 collectively won by pro-EU parties ranging from conservatives to the left. They ran separately but promising to work together to restore democratic norms after eight years of rule by Law and Justice, a nationalist conservative party that was in conflict with the European Union.

    The party received more votes than any other single party but fell fell short of a majority with 194 seats. Still, Duda, an ally of Law and Justice, gave Morawiecki the first chance to form the government. The party has no coalition partner and its attempt to build a government is seen as doomed to fail. The attempt could delay Poland having a functioning government by up to four weeks.

    The willing coalition alliance, in contrast, holds a majority of 248 seats in the Sejm. The party leaders signed a coalition agreement and say they are ready to start governing. They say they aim to repair foreign alliances and will work to release billions of euros in EU funds that were frozen due to Law and Justice’s erosion of judicial independence.

    Their candidate for prime minister is the 66-year-old Donald Tusk, an experienced politician who held that position already from 2007-14 and then went on to be a top leader of the EU in the role of European Council president from 2014-19.

    The coalition’s candidate for speaker of the Sejm is Szymon Holownia, the leader of the Poland 2050 party and a rising star in Polish politics.

    Piotr Mueller, the Law and Justice government spokesman, acknowledged that it will be “extremely difficult” for Morawiecki to form a new government. But he told TVN24 that it was his duty to try after Duda entrusted him with the mission. If he fails, Tusk will be the next prime minister, Mueller said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Capitol rioter plans 2024 run as a Libertarian candidate in Arizona’s 8th congressional district

    Capitol rioter plans 2024 run as a Libertarian candidate in Arizona’s 8th congressional district

    [ad_1]

    One of the more recognizable figures in the U.S. Capitol riot apparently wants to run for Congress

    ByThe Associated Press

    November 12, 2023, 4:14 PM

    FILE – Supporters of President Donald Trump, including Jacob Chansley, right with fur hat, are confronted by U.S. Capitol Police officers outside the Senate Chamber inside the U.S. Capitol, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. Chansley, the spear-carrying rioter whose horned fur hat, bare chest and face paint made him one of the more recognizable figures in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol, apparently aspires to be a member of Congress. Online paperwork shows that Chansley filed a candidate statement of interest, Thursday, Nov. 9, 2023, indicating he wants to run as a Libertarian in the 2024 election for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District seat. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)

    The Associated Press

    PHOENIX — Jacob Chansley, the spear-carrying rioter whose horned fur hat, bare chest and face paint made him one of the more recognizable figures in the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, apparently aspires to be a member of Congress.

    Online paperwork shows the 35-year-old Chansley filed a candidate statement of interest Thursday, indicating he wants to run as a Libertarian in next year’s election for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District seat.

    U.S. Rep. Debbie Lesko, a 64-year-old Republican representing the district since 2018, announced last month that she won’t seek re-election. Her term officially ends in January 2025.

    Chansley pleaded guilty to a felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding in connection with the Capitol insurrection.

    He was sentenced to 41 months in prison in November 2021 and served about 27 months before being transferred to a Phoenix halfway house in March 2023. Chansely grew up in the greater Phoenix area.

    Chansley is among the more than 700 people who have been sentenced in relation to Capitol riot-related federal crimes. Authorities said Chansley was among the first rioters to enter the Capitol building and he acknowledged using a bullhorn to rouse the mob.

    Although he previously called himself the “QAnon Shaman,” Chansley has since disavowed the QAnon movement.

    He identified himself as Jacob Angeli-Chansley in the candidate statement of interest paperwork filed with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.

    The U.S. Constitution doesn’t prohibit felons from holding federal office. But Arizona law prohibits felons from voting until they have completed their sentence and had their civil rights restored.

    Emails sent to Chansley and his attorney seeking comment on his political intentions weren’t immediately returned Sunday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Joe Biden wants to complete his goals on civil rights, taxes, and social services if he’s reelected

    Joe Biden wants to complete his goals on civil rights, taxes, and social services if he’s reelected

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden has a simple reelection pitch to voters — let him “finish the job.”

    So what does that mean? What’s left for him to get done?

    Unlike Donald Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination who has been releasing videos and statements detailing his agenda, Biden hasn’t formally released his plans as part of his campaign.

    But his ambitions are no secret, and his goals for child care, community college and prescription drugs have been laid out in detail during the Democrat’s first term. He also has unfulfilled promises on civil rights, such as protecting access to the ballot box, preventing police misconduct and restoring the nationwide right to abortion. Banning firearms known as assault rifles remains a priority as well.

    The result is a second-term agenda that could look a lot like Biden’s first-term agenda, with some of the same political challenges. Almost none of this can get done without cooperation from Congress, and many of these goals already have been blocked or pared down because of opposition on Capitol Hill.

    Biden has achieved bipartisan victories on infrastructure projects and public funding for the domestic computer chip industry. But Democrats would need to win wide majorities in both the House and the Senate to clear a path for the rest of his plans.

    “We’re going to finish as much of the job as we can in the next year,” said Bruce Reed, Biden’s deputy chief of staff. “And finish the rest after that.”

    Biden’s campaign expressed confidence that the president’s agenda would stack up well against Republicans in next year’s election. Kevin Munoz, a spokesman, described the election as “a choice between fighting for the middle class or shilling for rich special interests” and he said ”it’s a contrast we are more than happy to make.”

    One other difference between Biden and Trump doesn’t fit neatly into policy white papers, but it’s core to their political foundation. Biden has made defending American democracy a cornerstone of his administration, while Trump tried to overturn his election loss in 2020.

    The result of the 2024 campaign could reshape not only government policy but the future of the country’s bedrock institutions.

    Biden’s plans are expensive and he doesn’t want to increase the deficit, so that means he’s looking to raise taxes on the wealthy.

    He already has succeeded in implementing a 15% minimum tax on companies with annual income exceeding $1 billion.

    Biden has proposed raising the top tax rate to 39.6%, the corporate tax rate to 28% and the stock buyback tax to 4%.

    He wants a minimum tax of 25% on the wealthiest Americans, a levy that would be applied not only to income but unrealized capital gains. The idea, which Biden called the “billionaire minimum income tax,” could prove difficult to put in place, not to mention extremely hard to push through Congress, given Republican opposition to higher taxes.

    Biden’s original signature plan was known as Build Back Better, a cornucopia of proposals that would have dramatically changed the role of the federal government in Americans’ lives.

    It was pared down because of resistance from Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat who is a key vote in the narrowly divided Senate and announced this past week that he will not seek reelection. The result was the Inflation Reduction Act, which included financial incentives for clean energy and limits on prescription drug costs, but not many other programs.

    Biden will want to bring back the ideas that were left on the cutting room floor. That includes making two years of community college tuition free, offering universal preschool and limiting the cost of child care to 7% of income for most families.

    He also wants to resuscitate the expanded child tax credit. The American Rescue Plan, the pandemic-era relief legislation, boosted the credit to $3,000 for children over six and $3,600 for children younger than age 6. The expansion lapsed after a year, returning the credit to $2,000 per child, when his original package stalled.

    More work is left on prescription drugs. The monthly cost of insulin was capped at $35 for Medicare recipients. Biden wants the same limit for all patients.

    The White House recently announced a new office dedicated to preventing gun violence. Biden also signed legislation that’s intended to help officials keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and other dangerous people.

    But Biden’s biggest goal, a ban on so-called assault weapons, remains out of reach because of Republican opposition. Such a ban was in place from 1994 to 2004, but it wasn’t extended after it expired. Although the proposal hasn’t been spelled out in detail, it would likely affect popular high-powered weapons such as the AR-15, which can shoot dozens of bullets at a fast pace.

    Another item on the wish list is universal background checks, which increase scrutiny of sales conducted through gun shows or other unlicensed avenues.

    Biden took office at a time of national upheaval over the role of racism in policing and the future of democracy. George Floyd, a Black man in Minneapolis, was murdered by a white police officer, and Trump tried to overturn Biden’s election victory, leading to the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol.

    Biden promised to address both of these issues through landmark legislation, but he came up short of his goals.

    On policing, bipartisan negotiations on Capitol Hill failed to reach a deal, particularly when it came to making it easier to sue over allegations of misconduct. So Biden instead crafted an executive order with input from activists and police. The final version changes rules for federal law enforcement, but it does little to alter how local departments do their jobs.

    He similarly issued an executive order on voting rights that aims to expand registration efforts. But Democratic legislation intended to solidify access to the ballot box failed to advance when some members of the party refused to sidestep Senate filibuster rules to pass it.

    Biden’s presidency was upended by the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed nationwide access to abortion. It’s proved to be a potential campaign issue for Democrats, but they have had less success in Congress. Biden said that if his party picks up more seats, he will push for legislation codifying the right to abortion.

    On Biden’s first day in office, he sent Congress his proposal for overhauling the country’s immigration system. The idea went nowhere.

    But the president would want to take another swing at the issue in a second term. It will prove an especially urgent topic as migrants continue crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and the country looks for the next generation of workers to achieve its economic goals.

    Biden wants to allow people who are in the United States illegally to apply for legal status and eventually citizenship. He also wants a smoother and expanded visa process, particularly for foreign graduates of American universities. These steps would be paired with additional resources for border enforcement.

    Biden is facing two wars on two continents, and the fallout from each conflict will shape a second term even if the fighting ends before that.

    The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been going on for almost two years, and Israel and Hamas began their latest clash about a month ago. Biden wants to send military support to Ukraine and Israel, something that he describes as “vital” to U.S. national security interests.

    “History has taught us when terrorists don’t pay a price for their terror, when dictators don’t pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos and death and more destruction,” he said in a recent Oval Office address.

    His plans will require challenging congressional negotiations. Some Republicans are resisting more assistance for Ukraine after Congress has already approved $113 billion in security, economic and humanitarian resistance.

    Both conflicts will likely require years of U.S. involvement. For example, Biden is looking for a new opportunity to push for a two-state solution in the Middle East, creating an independent Palestinian country alongside Israel.

    Fighting global warming is one of the areas where Biden has had the most success. The Inflation Reduction Act includes nearly $375 billion for climate change, much of it going toward financial incentives for electric cars, clean energy and other initiatives. Biden is also pushing stricter regulations on vehicles and power plants.

    But the U.S. is not yet on track to meet Biden’s ambitious target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, according to independent analysts. And there’s a lot of work ahead to ensure new programs reach their potential.

    One hurdle is red tape for energy projects. The White House argues that it’s too hard to build infrastructure such as transmission lines, but legislation to address the issue would likely require compromises with Republicans, who see an opportunity to grease the skids for additional fossil fuel development.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Public workers may receive reduced Social Security benefits. There’s growing support in Congress to change that

    Public workers may receive reduced Social Security benefits. There’s growing support in Congress to change that

    [ad_1]

    Araya Doheny | Getty Images

    When Dave Bernstein, 87, started working at the U.S. Postal Service in February 1970, he was making $2.35 an hour.

    To supplement his income, he also took on other work. Years later, Bernstein decided in 1992 to take a voluntary retirement.

    “We knew there was going to be a reduced pension because of the early out,” said Phyllis Bernstein, Dave’s wife, who is 84.

    But what came next was something the couple did not expect.

    While Dave was expecting a monthly Social Security check of around $800, it ended up being just about half that amount – around $415 – even though he had earned the required 40 credits to be fully insured by the program. The benefits were adjusted based on rules for workers who earn both pension and Social Security benefits.

    More from Personal Finance:
    Will Social Security be there for me when I retire?
    Medicare open enrollment may cut retirees’ health-care costs
    How much your Social Security check may be in 2024

    The couple, who reside in Tampa, Florida, have had a different retirement than they envisioned due to the lower income.

    Phyllis kept working until she was 82. They have also turned to family for financial support.

    Their lifestyle is frugal, with home-cooked meals and cars they kept for 20 years, or “until the wheels were falling off,” the couple jokes.

    But their limited resources have made traveling to Australia and New Zealand – Phyllis’ dream – out of reach.

    “When he retired, I was working,” Phyllis said. “We just couldn’t do the travel.”

    Today, Dave is pushing for the Social Security rules that reduced his benefits to be changed.

    His union, the American Postal Workers Union, has endorsed the Social Security Fairness Act, a bill proposed in Congress that would repeal Social Security rules known as the Windfall Elimination Provision, or WEP, and Government Pension Offset, or GPO, that reduce benefits for workers had positions where they did not pay Social Security taxes, also called non-covered earnings.

    The legislation has support from other organizations that represent public workers, including teachers, firefighters and police.

    The bill has overwhelming bipartisan support in the House of Representatives – 300 co-sponsors – at a time when that chamber has been politically divided. That support recently prompted House lawmakers to send a letter to leaders of the Ways and Means Committee to request a hearing.

    The Social Security Fairness Act has also been introduced in the Senate, with support from 49 leaders from both sides of the aisle.

    Yet some experts say just getting rid of the rules may not be the most effective way of making the system fairer.

    How the WEP, GPO rules work

    The WEP applies to how retirement or disability benefits are calculated if a worker earned a retirement or disability pension from an employer who did not withhold Social Security taxes and qualifies for Social Security from work in other jobs where they did pay taxes into the program.

    Social Security benefits are calculated using a worker’s average indexed monthly earnings, and then using a formula to calculate a worker’s basic benefit amount. For workers affected by the WEP, part of the replacement rate for the average indexed monthly earnings is brought down to 40% from 90%.

    The GPO, meanwhile, reduces benefits for spouses and widows or widowers of recipients of retirement or disability pensions from local, state or federal governments.

    It affects hundreds of thousands, if not millions of public employees that paid into Social Security and essentially are being penalized because they also happen to be public servants.

    Edward Kelly

    general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters

    Under the GPO, Social Security benefits are reduced by two-thirds of the government pension. If two-thirds of the government pension is more than the Social Security benefit, the Social Security benefit may be zero.

    The impact of the rules is far reaching, according to Edward Kelly, general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Many firefighters work in second jobs in the private sector as cab drivers, bar tenders or truck drivers, where they earn credits toward Social Security.

    “They steal their money, because they’re also public employees,” said Kelly, who describes his union members as “passionately angry” about the issue.

    “It affects hundreds of thousands, if not millions of public employees that paid into Social Security and essentially are being penalized because they also happen to be public servants, whether they are teachers, cops and, obviously, firefighters,” Kelly said.

    Why experts say another fix may be better

    The WEP and GPO rules were intended to make it so workers who pay Social Security taxes for their entire careers are treated the same as those who do not.

    But under those current rules, some beneficiaries receive lower benefits than they would have if they paid into Social Security for all of their careers, while others receive higher benefits, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.

    Yet repealing the WEP and GPO rules would result in Social Security benefits that are “overly generous” for non-covered workers, research has found.

    Part of what may create that advantage is that Social Security benefits are progressive, and therefore replace a larger share of income for lower earners. So someone who only has part of their salary history in Social Security may get a higher replacement rate without considering their pension income.

    Fully repealing the WEP and GPO rules may also come with higher costs at a time when the program facing a funding shortfall. The change would add an estimated $150 billion to the program’s costs in the next 10 years, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

    Another way of handling the disparity may be to create a proportional approach to income replacement. Instead of the WEP, workers’ benefits would be calculated based on all of their earnings and then adjusted to reflect the share of their careers that were in jobs covered by Social Security. A similar approach may be taken with the GPO.

    Certain bills on Capitol Hill propose a proportional approach.

    However, a proportional formula may not solve all the inequities in the current system, according to Emerson Sprick, senior economic analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center, which has prompted to think tank to work on refining its proposal.

    ‘Extremely complex’ to understand

    An important advantage to reforming the current formulas would be making it easier for workers to understand and plan for their retirements.

    “It is definitely extremely complex, and very hard for folks preparing for retirement or in retirement, to understand what it means for their benefits,” Sprick said.

    Social Security statements that provide retirement benefit estimates do not take these rules into account.

    Consequently, many workers find out their benefits are adjusted when they are about to retire.

    shapecharge | E+ | Getty Images

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • House Republicans look to pass two-step package to avoid partial government shutdown

    House Republicans look to pass two-step package to avoid partial government shutdown

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — House Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled his proposal on Saturday to avoid a partial government shutdown by extending government funding for some agencies and programs until Jan. 19 and continuing funding for others until Feb. 2.

    The approach is unusual for a stopgap spending bill. Usually, lawmakers extend funding until a certain date for all programs. Johnson decided to go with the combination approach, addressing concerns from GOP lawmakers seeking to avoid being presented with a massive spending bill just before the holidays.

    “This two-step continuing resolution is a necessary bill to place House Republicans in the best position to fight for conservative victories,” Johnson said in a statement after speaking with GOP lawmakers in an afternoon conference call. “The bill will stop the absurd holiday-season omnibus tradition of massive, loaded up spending bills introduced right before the Christmas recess.”

    The bill excludes funding requested by President Joe Biden for Israel, Ukraine and the U.S. border with Mexico. Johnson said separating Biden’s request for an emergency supplemental bill from the temporary, stopgap measure “places our conference in the best position to fight for fiscal responsibility, oversight over Ukraine aid, and meaningful policy changes at our Southern border.”

    Hardline conservatives, usually loathe to support temporary spending measures of any sort, had indicated they would give Johnson some leeway to pass legislation, known as a continuing resolution, or CR, to give Congress more time to negotiate a long-term agreement.

    But some were critical in their reactions following the conference call.

    “My opposition to the clean CR just announced by the Speaker to the @HouseGOP cannot be overstated,” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, tweeted on X. “Funding Pelosi level spending & policies for 75 days – for future ‘promises.’”

    The White House, meanwhile, panned the plan as “unserious,” unworkable and a threat to national security and domestic programs.

    “This proposal is just a recipe for more Republican chaos and more shutdowns—full stop,” said press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, pointing to opposition from members of both parties. “House Republicans need to stop wasting time on their own political divisions, do their jobs, and work in a bipartisan way to prevent a shutdown.”

    The federal government is operating under funding levels approved last year by a Democratic-led House and Senate. Facing a government shutdown when the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, Congress passed a 47-day continuing resolution, but the fallout was severe. Kevin McCarthy was booted from the speakership days later, and the House was effectively paralyzed for most of the month while Republicans tried to elect a replacement.

    Republicans eventually were unanimous in electing Johnson speaker, but his elevation has hardly eased the dynamic that led to McCarthy’s removal — a conference torn on policy as well as how much to spend on federal programs. This past week, Republicans had to pull two spending bills from the floor — one to fund transportation and housing programs and the other to fund the Treasury Department, Small Business Administration and other agencies — because they didn’t have the votes in their own party to push them through the House.

    A document explaining Johnson’s proposal to House Republicans, obtained by The Associated Press, said funding for four spending bills would be extended until Jan. 19. Veterans programs, and bills dealing with transportation, housing, agriculture and energy, would be part of that extension.

    Funding for the eight other spending bills, which include defense, the State Department, Homeland Security and other government agencies would be extended until Feb. 2.

    The document sent to GOP lawmakers and key staff states that Johnson inherited a budget mess. He took office less than three weeks ago and immediately began considering appropriations bills through regular order. Still, with just days remaining before a shutdown, a continuing resolution is now required.

    Underscoring the concerns about the possibility of a shutdown, the credit rating agency Moody’s Investors Service lowered its outlook on the U.S. government’s debt on Friday to “negative” from “stable,” citing the cost of rising interest rates and political polarization in Congress.

    House Republicans pointed to the national debt, now exceeding $33 trillion, for Moody’s decision. Analysts have warned that with interest rates heading higher, interest costs on the national debt will eat up a rising share of tax revenue.

    Johnson said in reaction to the Moody’s announcement that House Republicans are committed to working in a bipartisan fashion for fiscal restraint, beginning with the introduction of a debt commission.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Indiana legislator agrees to plead guilty to fraud in casino corruption scheme

    Former Indiana legislator agrees to plead guilty to fraud in casino corruption scheme

    [ad_1]

    INDIANAPOLIS — A former Indiana lawmaker has agreed to plead guilty to a federal charge alleging that he accepted promises of lucrative employment from a gaming company during his time in public office, federal prosecutors said Friday.

    Sean Eberhart, 57, agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, according to court documents filed Thursday. The offense is punishable by a maximum sentence of five years in prison, three years of supervised release following any imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.

    Eberhart’s attorney declined to comment when reached by phone Friday. A plea hearing had not been scheduled for Eberhart as of Friday afternoon, according to court records.

    The former Republican state representative represented central Indiana’s House District 57 for 16 years before leaving office in November 2022.

    He is accused of accepting compensation and the promise of future employment in exchange for favorable action in the General Assembly, prosecutors said.

    In late 2018, a company called Spectacle Entertainment sought to purchase two casinos and their accompanying state licenses located on Lake Michigan in Gary, Indiana, and relocate them to locations to downtown Gary and in western Indiana’s Vigo County, according to court documents.

    The purchases and relocating of casinos requires approval by the Legislature and governor, the U.S. Attorney’s office said in a press release. Multiple phone numbers listed online for Spectacle were disconnected as of Friday.

    A bill for the relocation was introduced and considered by the House Committee on Public Policy in 2019, which oversaw casinos and gaming in Indiana, and included a proposed “transfer fee.” Eberhart was a member of the House Committee on Public Policy, documents said.

    According to authorities, Eberhart used his position to advocate and vote for the successful passage of the bill on terms favorable to Spectacle, including the successful relocation approval, reducing the transfer fee from $100 million to $20 million and enacting tax incentives that would benefit Spectacle.

    In exchange, Eberhart accepted the promise of future employment at Spectacle, which included annual compensation of at least $350,000, authorities allege.

    Eberhart sent text messages regarding his efforts to secure legislation in favor of the company, saying he would “make it right for” the founder of Spectacle identified only in court documents as “Individual A.” The U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately respond when asked whether Individual A is also under investigation or will face charges.

    Other evidence obtained by investigators included call records, digital images of documents, “covert recordings of conversations with Eberhart,” and audio and video recordings and “other records of statements and actions in the Indiana legislature,” court documents said.

    Republican Speaker of the House Todd Huston said in a statement provided to The Associated Press that he is “beyond disappointed and extremely frustrated” in reaction the news of Eberhart’s alleged actions.

    “Any such conduct runs counter to our core values and everything our assembly stands for and strives to protect – a trusted, credible and transparent institution that’s responsible only to Hoosiers,” Huston said.

    Spectacle has been embattled by federal investigations before. In 2022, longtime casino executive John Keeler was sentenced along with a former Indiana state senator, Brent Waltz, for their role in the illegal funneling of gambling money into the lawmaker’s unsuccessful 2016 bid for congress.

    Keeler, who was a Republican legislator for 16 years in the 1980s and 1990s, was sentenced to two months in federal prison and fined $55,000. Spectacle, which was formed by a group led by Keeler and another longtime casino executive, was forced from ownership from two casino projects by the Indiana Gaming Commission following Keeler and Waltz’s indictments in 2020.

    Waltz, a Republican from Greenwood, was sentenced to 10 months in federal prison for helping route about $40,000 in illegal contributions to his campaign and making false statements to the FBI.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden’s team says progress on big public works projects may hinge on the outcome of the 2024 vote

    Biden’s team says progress on big public works projects may hinge on the outcome of the 2024 vote

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Biden administration has started 40,000 construction projects since the passage of major infrastructure legislation two years ago and is seeking to make the case that continued progress could depend on keeping Joe Biden in the White House after 2024.

    Biden has long emphasized the bipartisan appeal of the $1 trillion investment, with governors, mayors and county officials. His administration says getting that money out the door has required the hiring of 6,100 federal officials and meant a new degree of cooperation across governments that the outcome of next year’s presidential election could put at risk.

    White House infrastructure coordinator Mitch Landrieu said the occupant of the Oval Office increasingly matters. Some leading Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, opposed the law or now want to cut money for infrastructure services.

    “This whole thing could get thrown out of the window if somebody else was sitting over there and decides, ‘We don’t want to do it,’” Landrieu said in an interview.

    Projects being planned or already underway affect 4,500-plus communities in every state and the nation’s capital. That includes bringing access to free or discounted high-speech internet service to more than 21 million low-income households, making improvements to 135,800 miles of roads, repairing 7,800 bridges and providing nearly 3,000 low and zero-emission buses.

    There are almost 450 port and waterway projects and 190 to improve airport terminals.

    In the interview and during a subsequent briefing Thursday with reporters, Landrieu said officials hope to have much of the work completed within the next three years to seven years. He said 90% of the money is being spent by governors and mayors, and that nearly all officials had accepted funding regardless of political party.

    Landrieu said it was “the most massive transformation in public infrastructure rebuild that we’ve seen in the history of the country.” He cited the cleanup of the Great Lakes, the modernization of Pennsylvania’s Montgomery Locks and Dam, and the upgrade of Terminal E at Boston’s Logan International Airport.

    Landrieu was careful not to comment on the presidential race. A federal law known as the Hatch Act restricts partisan political activity by federal employees.

    Still, as an example of the political implications, Landrieu pointed to Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, who was reelected Tuesday in an increasingly Republican state and during his victory speech mentioned the federal dollars revitalize the bridge linking Cincinnati and the northern part of his state.

    Landrieu’s warning gets at the election’s hidden stakes and whether the Biden administration can fulfill its economic ambitions long into the future. Consider the Baltimore rail tunnel he promoted on Monday and the Hudson Tunnel bringing rail passengers into New York City; both are scheduled to open in 2035.

    Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, has disparaged the infrastructure package and Republicans lawmakers who backed it. Biden has joked about Trump holding “infrastructure week” events during his presidency but never managing to sign an infrastructure law.

    “This is something that all of us experience every day,” White House chief of staff Jeff Zients said. “We go to the airport, get on Amtrak, hear about lead pipes in communities … kids going to McDonalds parking lots to get internet access.”

    Biden argues that the public works projects and other legislative accomplishments show how Washington can improve the daily lives of people in the United States. Like Trump, however, many other Republicans vying for their party’s 2024 presidential nomination say the White House’s policies have actually hurt the economy.

    “I’m going to take all the executive orders, the regulations, everything involving Bidenomics, I’m going to rip it up and I’m going to throw it in the trash can where it belongs,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said Wednesday during the latest GOP primary debate.

    House Republicans have proposed cutting $1 billion from Amtrak passenger rail service and other transit money, arguing that federal deficit reduction and low taxes should take priority. But they pulled a transportation funding vote this week after some in the party opposed the rail cuts.

    Landrieu said projects already underway have helped spur about $615 billion in private sector manufacturing and clean energy investments nationwide. He said that and work being completed in coming years could help turn polls that suggest the public is not pleased with Biden’s handling of the economy.

    “It takes a long time for things to manifest themselves, and if people can’t physically see them, why would you expect them to?” he said.

    To sell the infrastructure program, the former New Orleans mayor said he’d visited 130 communities around the country and traveled 110,000 miles, including visiting an Alaska tribal community by boat. Biden and his Cabinet members had taken over 400 combined trips, Landrieu added.

    In the interview, Landrieu recalled bringing back staff over a holiday so they could call governors who had not applied for money to plug orphaned oil and natural gas wells.

    “You don’t buy this lottery ticket, you can’t win the lottery,” he recalled saying at the time.

    [ad_2]

    Source link