Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Public pension reform does not increase inequality
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 10 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:
* * *
Public pension reform does not increase inequality
By Mariana Trujillo, Managing Director; Rod Crane, Senior Fellow, and Thuy Nguyen, Data Scientist
A widely cited 2024 study by the National Conference of Public Employee Retirement Systems, "The Hidden Costs of Pension Reform: Rising Income Inequality, Lagging Economic Growth," argues that the national shift from defined benefit pensions to flexible 401(k) plans and other defined contribution retirement systems has exacerbated income inequality
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 10 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:
* * *
Public pension reform does not increase inequality
By Mariana Trujillo, Managing Director; Rod Crane, Senior Fellow, and Thuy Nguyen, Data Scientist
A widely cited 2024 study by the National Conference of Public Employee Retirement Systems, "The Hidden Costs of Pension Reform: Rising Income Inequality, Lagging Economic Growth," argues that the national shift from defined benefit pensions to flexible 401(k) plans and other defined contribution retirement systems has exacerbated income inequalityand slowed economic growth in America. While this isn't a recent study, it's important to examine it because its methodology is odd and riddled with unproven assumptions. The results lack significance.
The study does not evaluate individual companies, municipalities, or retirement systems that implemented changes to their retirement benefits. Instead, it investigates the impact of the national shift to defined contribution plans on inequality by merely identifying a correlation between income inequality and the percentage of American workers in a defined benefit plan. Then, to evaluate the impact of pension reforms in the public sector, the researchers inappropriately correlate the average inequality ratio in a state over 21 years with the mere number of bills that reformed public employee retirement benefits in each state during the period, without accounting for the timing or magnitude of those reforms.
In reality, the pension reforms that the study claims are detrimental to employees often lead to better benefits and retirement security, while ensuring the sustainability of retirement systems. These reforms also prevent pension debt from crowding out essential public services during economic downturnsensuring that state and local governments can continue to serve their communities.
We explain below why the study's methodology and assumptions are flawed and fail to support its claims. Ultimately, policymakers must continue to address the critical need to improve the design and funding of retirement programs for public employees and taxpayers. This process increases, rather than decreases, equity and economic growth.
The problem with broad correlations
In the past, defined benefit (DB) pensions were commonly offered to employees in both the private and public sectors, but most private employers have transitioned to defined contribution (DC) plans in recent decades. This shift occurred because macroeconomic changes and increases in corporate financial disclosures revealed the true riskiness of providing DB pensions. Economic and technological developments also made the American workforce more mobile and dynamic, creating a greater need for portable retirement savings.
The shift to DC is lagging in the public sector, but in the private sector, both employees and employers have benefited from portable, flexible retirement benefits, which have helped to increase retirement security in America. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics survey data from 2025, among private-sector workers, 14% had access to a DB pension and 70% had access to a DC plan. Among state and local government workers, by contrast, 86% had access to a DB and 36% had access to a DC.
To investigate the impact of the shift to DCs in the public and private sectors on nationwide economic inequality, the NCPERS paper simply correlates the share of American workers in a DB plan with the ratio of the incomes of the top and bottom earners. In other words, as DB participation declined over time, the authors tested whether income inequality had risen in parallel. The result is predictable: There is, of course, a strong correlation. This is to be expected, as it is well known that in the past century, America experienced both a shift to DCs and a rise in economic inequality.
This methodology misattributes these two broad social trends occurring simultaneously as though they are linkedand boldly, the authors claim this is sufficient evidence to prove they are causally connected, as if a correlation between variables were enough to prove one caused the other.
The weakness of this approach can be illustrated with a hypothetical example: Over the past few decades, union membership has fallen sharply in the U.S., while median income has risen annually. Running a broad correlation between these two trends yields highly statistically significant results: a negative correlation coefficient of -0.8, indicating a strong inverse relationship between the variables, and an R-squared of 0.64, allegedly demonstrating that the decline in unionized private-sector workers "explains" 64% of the variance in median income.
Yet, it would be absurd to conclude that declining union membership caused incomes to rise in America, or that it wasn't the other way aroundincome growth leading to a decline in union membership. Both variables are influenced by many other socioeconomic dynamics, which broad correlations like this example simply cannot capture. The same is true for the NCPERS analysis of the decline of DB plans in America and its relationship to income inequality.
Simplistic correlations on a national scale don't mean much. At best, they are a starting point for further investigation, not a sufficient basis for asserting a meaningful relationship, let alone causation, and certainly not a justification for policy action.
Wrong variables and loaded assumptions
Another simplistic correlation run in this study attempts to isolate the impacts of public-sector pension changes on state-level inequality. The authors collapse 21 years of state income-inequality datameasured as the top-to-bottom quintile income ratiointo a single value, without explaining how observations across years are combined. They then relate this value to the total number of "negative pension changes" enacted in that state over the same period and assess the strength of the relationship.
Unfortunately, we cannot fully assess the strength of this and other correlations in the study because basic statistical measures, such as p-values or R2, were not disclosed.
Even with proper statistical reporting, the study's design has serious, insurmountable methodological concerns. First, by combining two decades of data into a single inequality measure, the study discards all information about the timing or sequencing of events. A state that enacted reforms in 2006 is treated no differently from one that enacted them in 2019, even though the potential effects of these reforms on inequality would unfold differently. This methodology makes it impossible to capture whether increased inequality tends to precede, coincide with, or follow pension reform.
Further, by combining 21 years of income inequality data into a single variable, trends are erased. A state in which inequality is rising following pension reforms could be indistinguishable from a state where inequality remained flat or declined, simply because it started from a lower baselineerasing the literal thing the study is attempting to measure.
Moreover, the study never considers that causality could plausibly run in the opposite direction. If state-wide income inequality and public employee pension reforms are correlated, could it be that inequality leads to reform? States already facing fiscal stresswhich could manifest in high inequalitymay be the most likely to enact pension reforms. This reverse causation is left unaddressed.
On the other hand, the variable representing pension reform is simply the number of bills approved in each state. This introduces many more insurmountable problems.
First, by using the number of pension changes as the key explanatory variable, the analysis treats all reforms as equal in size and scope. For example, minor reforms, such as Arkansas's 2017 adjustment from an automatic 3% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) increase to a Consumer Price Index (CPI)-based COLA with a 3% cap, are treated the same as major reforms, like Oklahoma's complete transition from a DB to a DC system.
Reforms are not evaluated by their final impact on public employee benefits, but rather by the number of approved bills. A meaningful investigation into the impact of pension reform on inequality demands accounting for the magnitude of changes. Without this granularity, the findings of this analysis become even less informative.
Second, it assumes all reforms to pension benefits are inherently detrimental to employees/new hires, labeling all changes as "negative pension changes." This is inaccurate for the following reasons:
1. The "negative pension reforms" include bills mandating increased contributions to new-hired employees. However, the increased employee contributions in the list could have been implemented in response to or in conjunction with pension benefit increases. Therefore, employees could have ended up with a better retirement benefit, but given these changes motivated reform to the system, they are nevertheless accounted as "negative reforms" in the paper.
2. Even the reforms that were not associated with pension enhancements were still done to ensure funding and retirement security. Rather than "harming" employees, these adjustments protect against underfunding that could lead to benefit cuts such as COLA reductionsa trade-off between marginally higher contributions and better retirement security.
3. Even in instances where pension reforms decreased retirement benefits offered to newly hired public employees, it is not appropriate to assume that they reduced total compensation. Pensions are only one facet of employee compensation. Any eventual reductions in retirement benefits could necessitate salary increases, which would merely shift total compensation towards salaries and away from pensions, a shift that data shows employees prefer.
Although raises are not typically part of the pension reform, hiring managers may increase salaries or make other job aspects more attractive (such as hours or vacation time) if they encounter significant difficulties in hiring employees following pension reforms. Assuming that a reduction in retirement benefits offered to new hires necessarily means they receive lower total compensation is inappropriate and neglects basic economic principles.
Pension reform promotes equity
Pension reforms have a myriad of shapes and outcomes. Well-designed reforms can enhance equityboth within the public workforce and across the taxpayers who fund these systems.
In general, traditional DB plans tend to disproportionately benefit long-tenured employees while significantly disadvantaging the majority of public workers, who leave before vesting in meaningful pension benefits.
Reason Foundation's actuarial review of 12 public pension systems shows that only about 38% of new hires remain in their jobs long enough to vest in meaningful retirement benefitsa staggering mismatch between system design and workforce realities. This means that the majority, 62%, leave before the vesting threshold and must forgo the contributions made by their employer.
Reformed systems can eliminate this disparity, ensuring that each year of service results in meaningful, vested retirement savings.
Equity considerations extend beyond the workforce. In underfunded DB systems, current taxpayers are often burdened with funding public employee benefits promised decades ago for services they are not personally benefiting from. Pension reforms to DB systems can better align costs with the period in which public services are provided, preventing the intergenerational transfer of pension costs and ensuring that today's workers and taxpayers are not forced to finance yesterday's promises.
According to Reason Foundation's Annual Pension Solvency and Performance Report, in fiscal year 2024, 55% of public pension contributions were consumed by amortization paymentsthat is, costs tied to inadequate past contributions rather than funding benefits being earned today. Well-structured pension reform can reduce this burden by introducing risk-sharing mechanisms and dynamic contribution policies that keep plans properly funded in real time. These measures allow governments to provide the same level of retirement security at a lower long-term cost to both employees and taxpayers.
In this way, pension reform can dismantle inequitable structures embedded in legacy systems, broaden retirement security, protect public services, and distribute fiscal responsibility more justly across generations.
The NCPERS study relies on broad correlations, inadequate variables, and untested assumptions, leading to a perspective that does not reflect the realities of pension reform. By characterizing all reforms as uniformly harmful and overlooking both their timing and scope, the analysis fails to capture a meaningful relationship between pension reform and inequality.
In practice, well-structured reforms strengthen income equality: They broaden access to retirement savings for a mobile workforce, align costs with the services that generate them, and reduce the intergenerational inequities created by decades of underfunding. Well-designed pension reform is essential to safeguarding public services, protecting taxpayers, strengthening government credit quality, and ensuring sustainable retirement security for future public employees.
* * *
Mariana Trujillo is managing director of government finance at Reason Foundation.
Rod Crane is a senior fellow at Reason Foundation's Pension Integrity Project.
Thuy Nguyen is a Data Scientist at Reason Foundation, where she works cross-functionally with the Pension Integrity Project, government finance, and transportation teams.
***
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/pension-reform-does-not-increase-inequality/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Bear Looks East
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 10 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Jan. 9, 2026:
* * *
The Bear Looks East
Russia's economic realignment leaves Europe in the cold.
By Jake Scott
As the eyes of the world watch negotiations over Kiev's future, and the "special military operation" that was intended to last ten days nears the end of its fourth year, Russia is carefully deepening its economic ties outside of the West's sphere of influence.
In this sense, the deal signed between the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and IndonesiaSoutheast Asia's largest
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 10 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary on Jan. 9, 2026:
* * *
The Bear Looks East
Russia's economic realignment leaves Europe in the cold.
By Jake Scott
As the eyes of the world watch negotiations over Kiev's future, and the "special military operation" that was intended to last ten days nears the end of its fourth year, Russia is carefully deepening its economic ties outside of the West's sphere of influence.
In this sense, the deal signed between the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and IndonesiaSoutheast Asia's largesteconomy, and the world's 17th largest ($1.4 trillion) on December 22nd is emblematic of an ongoing structural realignment pursued by Russia in the last year. Reached after two years of negotiations, the EAEU-Indonesia Free Trade Agreement (FTA) suits each nation's economic interests well: Indonesia's main exports are palm oil, coconut oil, coffee, and cocoaproducts either heavily sanctioned by the West, or strictly regulated (like palm oil); while exports from the EAEU are coal, potassium fertilizer, wheat, and ferro-alloyscommodities necessary to support a still mostly agrarian economy.
But the FTA matters even more so because of what it signals: an attempt by Russia to turn away permanently from Europe and the West as its main trading partners.
European nations have relied on a steady supply of Russian gas for their energy, allowing the European Union quietly to outsource its energy demands and offset the requirements of a "net-zero" economy. Given the war in Ukraine, however, diplomatic pressure has forced the bloc's hand to end all imports of Russian gas by the fall of 2027. A statement from the European Council made it clear that the move was intended to "end dependency on Russian energy following Russia's weaponisation of gas supplies with significant effects on the European energy market."
The impact on Europe's economies may well be significant, as it will force the bloc to consider alternative, almost certainly more expensive, sources of energy. But the most interesting consequence of this move is that it is accelerating a process that has long been underway: deepening Russia's ties to nations that are increasingly ambivalent toward, and even hostile to, the West.
The sanctions imposed following the invasion of February 2022 were intended, as all sanctions are, to weaken the Russian economy and force it to consider withdrawing from the region, avoiding a protracted war and increasing domestic pressure on Vladimir Putin. Almost all of the intended results backfired, at least in the short term: a debate hosted by Brookings in early 2024 asked why the Russian economy had proved more resilient than first expected; a war economy buoyed domestic production, with "the International Monetary Fund estimat[ing] that Russia's gross domestic product actually increased by 3.6% in 2024a higher growth rate than the United States and many other Western economiesdue to massive war spending"; and Putin remains firmly in power, despite growing unrest and a number of failed terrorist attacks.
But regardless of the domestic impacts of sanctions, part of the reason they work (or are presumed to work) is that they are seen as a temporary interruption to a nation's relationship with its major trading partners. Russia, on the other hand, seems to be taking these sanctions as a system change in its global standing; indeed, in mid-2024, Reuters reported that Russia was preparing for the West's sanctions to last "decades." Key to this (planned) resilience is the EAEU.
The EAEU began life as a post-Soviet trading bloc, facilitating trade whilst encouraging closer alignment between the federation members. This is a well-trod path: it was the explicit realpolitik idea behind Prussia's Zollverein in the mid-19th century, and it was a founding principle of the EU. But now, the EAEU is pivoting to act as a facilitator to developing states, but principally those in Southeast Asia and South Asia. The deal with Indonesia is, therefore, merely the latest in a string of such moves in attempts to court what can be termed "non-aligned developing states."
Vietnam, for example, is pursuing deeper relations with Russia over its food exports, principally tuna and other saltwater fish, which dovetails neatly with the Indonesian FTA, whilst avoiding conflicts of interest with Vietnam's US-focused "tiger economy" strategy. This is a trading relationship that is already resilient and reliable: as reported by VietnamPlus, "bilateral trade grew strongly in 2024, reaching $4.6 billion, up 26% from the previous year. In the first eight months of 2025, trade volume rose to $3.3 billion, an increase of 5% year-on-year. Key projects are underway in energy, science, and technology."
Likewise, Russia's ongoing courting of Narendra Modi's India, and the shared goal of increasing the value of their trade to $100 billion by 2030, is an attempt to deepen relations with states that are increasingly looking away from the West for economic opportunities and international leadership. In early December 2025, India hinted at intentions to reduce its trade deficit with Russia, an ambition which only suits the federation's strategy of adapting to the impact of sanctions rather than evading them altogether. The key plank of this shared ambition, it seems, is a replication of the Indonesia FTA: a free-trade zone between the EAEU and India.
Russia is no longer trying to "wait out" Western pressure, but actively constructing a parallel economic geography in which Europe is peripheral, and the US is no longer considered hostile. 2025 marks a consolidation phase in this strategy, with fewer symbolic gestures and more legally embedded, long-term arrangements that could permanently alter the EU-Russia relationshipand not to the EU's benefit.
* * *
Dr Jake Scott is a political theorist specialising in populism and its relationship to political constitutionality. He has taught at multiple British universities and produced research reports for several think tanks.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-bear-looks-east/
Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation: Pancreatic Cancer Research Leads to Treatment for Neurological Disease
NEW YORK, Jan. 10 (TNSjou) -- The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Pancreatic cancer research leads to treatment for neurological disease
In 2021, Damon Runyon scientists Michael E. Pacold, MD, PhD, Robert S. Banh, PhD, and their colleagues at New York University Langone Health discovered how the enzyme CoQ10 is made, a synthesis pathway that scientists had been seeking for over two decades. CoQ10 is crucial for energy production in cells (which is why it is popular as a dietary supplement, though evidence of the health benefits is scant). How
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, Jan. 10 (TNSjou) -- The Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Pancreatic cancer research leads to treatment for neurological disease
In 2021, Damon Runyon scientists Michael E. Pacold, MD, PhD, Robert S. Banh, PhD, and their colleagues at New York University Langone Health discovered how the enzyme CoQ10 is made, a synthesis pathway that scientists had been seeking for over two decades. CoQ10 is crucial for energy production in cells (which is why it is popular as a dietary supplement, though evidence of the health benefits is scant). HowCoQ10 is made, in short: an enzyme called HPDL makes a metabolite called 4-HMA that is converted into 4-HB and finally into CoQ10. The discovery of this pathway provided a crucial link between two separate findings: one, that pancreatic cancer cells overproduce HPDL, and two, that CoQ10 fuels tumor growth. Targeting this pathway, in other words, could be a means of curbing pancreatic cancer.
At the time, Dr. Pacold and Dr. Banh knew their findings may have broader implications, shedding light on neurological diseases caused by HPDL deficiencies in addition to cancers related to HPDL overproduction. Years later, the impact of their discovery is even greater than they imagined. As the result of a medical intervention that arose from their research, a pediatric patient who could not walk more than twenty meters was able to circle Central Park on foot.
This patient had a rare, sometimes lethal, neurodevelopmental disease called mitochondrial encephalopathy, caused by a mutation in the HPDL gene. The lab modeled this disease in mice by knocking out HPDL, and found that administering 4-HMA or 4-HB controlled symptoms and allowed the mice live much longer. (Consider a chef who wants to make bread but is missing flour: providing him with dough would solve the issue.) The team then administered 4-HB in a first-in-human trial. The patient, described above, improved remarkably.
Larger trials are needed, of course, to confirm clinical benefit. But the team is hopeful that "early treatment with 4-HMA or 4-HB, enabled by newborn screening tests to detect errors in CoQ10 synthesis, will maximize the therapeutic benefits of treatment."
All of this started with a simple question posed by Dr. Pacold in his Damon Runyon award application: how pancreatic cancer cells use oxygen. That investigation led to the groundbreaking discovery of the CoQ10 pathway, and, ultimately, to a life-changing treatment option.
"The benefits of high-risk, high-reward, fundamental Damon Runyon-funded research are substantial, often in the most unexpected ways," says Dr. Pacold.
This research was published in Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09246-x.epdf?sharing_token=GhCED1na5av4c5Sz37S9YdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M8Lm94S_WzEdpItu2oGjFu9lasVNym2Jr1gldKCEPhfaWyVTWnHbfqaaTfjfm2O-GjZWLJHNRLeue3Pam9IQYdg7t-4o0jfGy5MydrFB6PPFJMfgxBaaTaPXbPAXlAAgk%3D).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.damonrunyon.org/discovery/pancreatic-cancer-research-leads-treatment-neurological-disease
Two Additional Heavy Equipment Operators Targeted By Operating Engineers Union Bosses File Federal Charges
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Jan. 9 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Two Additional Heavy Equipment Operators Targeted By Operating Engineers Union Bosses File Federal Charges
*
Workers face unlawful IUOE union bosses' retaliation measures for remaining employed with nonunion contractor
Lawrenceville, GA (January 9, 2026) - Two more employees of Dennis Taylor & Co., John Stroh and David Johnson, have filed federal charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local
... Show Full Article
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Jan. 9 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Two Additional Heavy Equipment Operators Targeted By Operating Engineers Union Bosses File Federal Charges
*
Workers face unlawful IUOE union bosses' retaliation measures for remaining employed with nonunion contractor
Lawrenceville, GA (January 9, 2026) - Two more employees of Dennis Taylor & Co., John Stroh and David Johnson, have filed federal charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local926. They now join their coworkers Michael Mitchem, Billy Johnson, and Chris Oaks who filed similar charges in September 2025 stating that IUOE union officials subjected them to illegal post-resignation discipline after the employees legally resigned their union memberships.
The workers' charges were filed at the NLRB with free legal aid from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys. The NLRB is the federal agency responsible for enforcing the National Labor Relations Act and adjudicating disputes between employers, unions, and individual employees.
After Stroh and Johnson had resigned their memberships so they could continue working, IUOE union officials sent both workers a letter threatening them with fines for simply going to work with an employer that had been part of a "hiring hall" arrangement with the IUOE in the past.
The employees resigned their union membership after Dennis Taylor & Co. ended an arrangement requiring it to employ workers through an IUOE hiring hall. Legally, union-run hiring halls are supposed to be accessible to both union members and nonmembers seeking employment with employers that chose to make use of hiring halls to fill open roles. However, there is a long history of union officials using hiring halls to discriminate against nonmembers and coerce workers into formal union membership in order to attain employment.
IUOE union officials are allegedly pursuing illegal internal disciplinary measures against resigned former members months and years after they cut their ties with the union. Longstanding law says workers cannot face discipline for actions that occur after a worker has resigned from union membership.
Union bosses have a history of retaliating against workers with ruinous "disciplinary" fines, frequently for thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. In one recent case, Foundation staff attorneys successfully defended an Indiana electrician against an attempt by IBEW bosses to illegally levy a $1.3 million fine.
"It is unfortunate that it is necessary for more workers to file federal charges to defend themselves against IUOE union bosses' thuggish intimidation tactics," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "They now join a growing number of their colleagues who are standing up to IUOE union officials' illegal persecution.
"Like the vast majority of American workers, these employees simply want to work without any union affiliations, and it is outrageous that IUOE bosses are attempting to retaliate against them for making that simple choice," added Mix.
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Print Share
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
Posted on Jan 9, 2026 in News Releases
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/georgia-dennis-taylor-co-iuoe-01092026/
The 2026 Election Hangs Over the 2026 Legislative Session
ATLANTA, Georgia, Jan. 8 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
The 2026 Election Hangs Over the 2026 Legislative Session
*
The 2026 legislative session marks both an endpoint and the eventual transition to come. As with the 2018 session before it, the final year of the legislative cycle and a term-limited governor will bring the prevailing political order to a close, ultimately altering the proceedings and priorities of the legislature.
An open seat at the top also typically creates additional opportunities down ballot, as statewide officials, state
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, Jan. 8 -- The Georgia Public Policy Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
The 2026 Election Hangs Over the 2026 Legislative Session
*
The 2026 legislative session marks both an endpoint and the eventual transition to come. As with the 2018 session before it, the final year of the legislative cycle and a term-limited governor will bring the prevailing political order to a close, ultimately altering the proceedings and priorities of the legislature.
An open seat at the top also typically creates additional opportunities down ballot, as statewide officials, statelegislators and members of Congress jockey for higher office.
Tensions between the House and Senate, a permanent fixture in Georgia politics even in years without an election, unfold more routinely in public.
"If we're going to take off every other year for people to run for office, then maybe we just ought to not have a session during an election year," then-House Speaker David Ralston said ahead of the 2018 session.
As in 2018, we enter the session with a lieutenant governor who has announced his candidacy for governor. Whereas in 2018, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle faced off against Secretary of State Brian Kemp and State Senator Hunter Hill, among others, in the Republican primary, this election will feature Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, Attorney General Chris Carr and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
Eight years ago the Democratic primary for governor featured two former members of the Georgia House in Stacey Abrams and Stacey Evans; it's a much more crowded field this time. Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, former DeKalb County CEO Mike Thurmond, former State Senator Jason Esteves, State Rep. Ruwa Romman, State Rep. Derrick Jackson and Geoff Duncan, the former Lieutenant Governor of Georgia as a Republican, are among the candidates announced so far.
The classic maxim of Georgia politics in an election year is "expect a short session so legislators can get out and start raising money." This is because they are prohibited from raising money during the legislative session.
However, one key difference between now and 2018 is the creation of leadership committees, which enable the governor, lieutenant governor and caucus leaders in both chambers to raise money during the traditional blackout period for fundraising.
Even if there is a certain sense of normalcy within this widespread turnover, much has changed in the state since then. For starters, almost 700,000 new residents have moved to Georgia in the past eight years, a period which also includes the social and economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The state budget that came out of the 2018 session was a then-record $26.2 billion. By comparison, Georgia is currently operating under a $37.7 billion state budget.
Despite the state's fiscal health, it's obvious that voters aren't feeling as good when it comes to the cost of living. As such, affordability is already a primary theme of this session (and political campaigns) in a way it wasn't in 2018.
When Georgians went to the polls in November 2018 to decide between Brian Kemp and Stacey Abrams for governor, Americans' confidence in the economy was roughly 60 points higher than it is today, according to the Gallup Economic Confidence Index.
Legislators have already started working on ways to cut income taxes, property taxes and costly regulations; bills to address additional economic issues like the cost of housing and monthly energy bills could follow.
The Georgia Senate Special Committee on Eliminating Georgia's Income Tax recently completed their work, with resulting legislation to lower the state's income tax rate anticipated shortly. House Speaker Jon Burns has stated his chamber will examine ways to eliminate property taxes on homesteads.
The revenue offsets legislators will have to determine for those two priorities are consequential and will have wide-ranging policy implications. It's a good time to remember that - as our former chairman and CEO, the late Rogers Wade, used to say - while good policy makes good politics, the reverse is not always true.
***
Original text here: https://www.georgiapolicy.org/news/the-2026-election-hangs-over-the-2026-legislative-session/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Cannabusiness lawsuit highlights need for Congress to clarify federal treatment of marijuana
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 8 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Jan. 7, 2026:
* * *
Cannabusiness lawsuit highlights need for Congress to clarify federal treatment of marijuana
Without reform, lawsuits like this may force federal courts toward decisions that destabilize existing state markets or that effectively go around Congress.
By Geoffrey Lawrence, Research Director
A chain of Michigan marijuana retailers is exploiting the federal marijuana ban to attempt to void its contract obligations with a supplier. A supplier alleges that it failed to pay for marijuana
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 8 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Jan. 7, 2026:
* * *
Cannabusiness lawsuit highlights need for Congress to clarify federal treatment of marijuana
Without reform, lawsuits like this may force federal courts toward decisions that destabilize existing state markets or that effectively go around Congress.
By Geoffrey Lawrence, Research Director
A chain of Michigan marijuana retailers is exploiting the federal marijuana ban to attempt to void its contract obligations with a supplier. A supplier alleges that it failed to pay for marijuanathe retailer had contractually agreed to buy, and the retail chain says courts can't enforce a contract involving illegal activity. If successful, this argument could massively disrupt state-regulated marijuana markets. It's another example of why Congress needs to resolve this discrepancy in federal and state marijuana laws.
Cura MI, a Michigan subsidiary of Massachusetts-based Curaleaf Holdings, signed a contract in 2020 agreeing to purchase the 2020 and 2021 harvests of its local supplier and cultivator, Hello Farms. Cura MI accepted roughly 53,000 pounds of this marijuana, but now says it doesn't have to pay its supplier because federal courts can't enforce a contract that involves illegal activity.
By early 2021, Cura MI was already allegedly failing to make payments, and Hello Farms sued Cura MI in a Michigan court, hoping to collect roughly $32 million that the retailer had agreed to pay. Michigan's marijuana laws make clear that contracts between licensed marijuana businesses are enforceable in Michigan (see MCL SS 333.27960 ). So, an observer might assume that none of this is a federal matter. However, because Cura MI is owned by a Massachusetts-based parent company, Curaleaf Holdings was able to petition in March 2021 to remove the proceeding to federal court because the dispute is between residents of different states.
Once in federal district court, Curaleaf ultimately argued the court could not enforce contract provisions involving marijuana because trafficking in marijuana is a federal crime. Many U.S. Supreme Court rulings have held that courts cannot use their equitable powers to facilitate criminal activity, so litigants ultimately have no legal recourse to enforce contracts involving illegal acts.
But U.S. District Judge Matthew Leitman developed a novel interpretation of Supreme Court precedent by pointing to prior U.S. Supreme Court rulings, such as McMullen v. Hoffman and Continental Wallpaper v. Voight & Sons, in which the illegality defense hinged on the action being contrary to public policy. In both cases, the Supreme Court ruled the disputes involved illegal contracts and therefore courts could not lend their assistance, but the language used in these rulings said things like, "In such cases, the aid of the court is denied not for the benefit of the defendant, but because public policy demands that it should be denied...."
Leitman interpreted these rulings to mean the intent of public policy may be the more appropriate lens through which to view a contract dispute than per se illegality, and public policy regarding marijuana is ambiguous. In particular, although Congress declared marijuana commerce criminal in passing the Controlled Substances Act, it has also protected state medical marijuana markets from federal intervention through the budget process. In every year since 2014, the Rohrabacher-Farr amendments to federal appropriations legislation have prohibited the U.S. Justice Department from using any resources to prosecute medical marijuana companies in compliance with state law.
During 2020, all of Hello Farms' marijuana was grown under a medical license, and the cultivator remained in compliance with state regulations, so Leitman's so-called "public-policy doctrine" implied the contract could be enforceable even under federal law. However, Leitman acknowledged that, "[U]nder a straightforward application of the... [Controlled Substances Act]... there's a very serious argument to be made that this contract is not enforceable."
Leitman's legal analysis was critical to establishing whether the court held the authority to intervene in the Curaleaf case, and it ultimately allowed a federal jury to render a decision in 2025 holding Curaleaf in breach of contract and awarded $32 million in damages in Hello Farms.
This isn't the first time a federal court has interpreted the Rohrabacher-Farr amendments as a Congressional acknowledgment of legitimacy of state-regulated marijuana markets. In 2022, the First Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Maine's in-state residency requirements for cannabis licensure by pointing, in part, to these provisions. The judges there concluded that Congress had expressly recognized a market for marijuana through the amendments, and therefore it alone held the power to regulate interstate commerce within that market.
However, Leitman's novel ruling is not settled. In November 2025, Curaleaf appealed the district court's decision to the Sixth Circuit, arguing, "Under black-letter law, this contract to violate federal law is void and unenforceable, and both parties should have known it." Whether the Sixth Circuit (and, perhaps, eventually the Supreme Court) accepts Leitman's creative rationale or applies the law strictly could have a massive impact on state-regulated marijuana markets.
As legal cannabis markets have matured, consolidation has resulted in a few large companies holding licenses across numerous states and becoming dominant buyers and sellers of marijuana. If these multi-state operators can abandon their financial commitments to local operators and to each other by removing any claim to federal court and then claiming illegality, then a large share of contractual arrangements would ultimately become unenforceable. Licensed marijuana businesses would then be forced to rely solely on the goodwill of their counterparty to any exchange, exactly as occurs in purely illicit markets.
Marijuana licensees that also issue securities traded on public markets, like Curaleaf, may face additional complications arising from a need to disclose in their filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or foreign regulatory agencies that all of their contractual rights are also unenforceable. That might force them to impair key assets like accounts receivable or leasehold improvements to remain in compliance with legal and accounting standards.
The progression of this case highlights the urgent need for Congress to clarify its position on marijuana. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in 2021 in response to the Court's denial of a writ of certiorari relating to a marijuana case: "The federal government's current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana." His observation presciently preceded federal courts' development of rationales for intervening in marijuana cases.
Particularly in the wake of President Donald Trump's recent order for the attorney general to move marijuana to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act, the momentum has shifted for Congress to at least clarify its recognition of state laws so courts have clearer guidance. Proposals such as the STATES Act 2.0 or the States Reform Act would do so by federally legalizing any marijuana products grown in compliance with state law.
Failure to clarify this issue could force federal courts to render decisions that are either massively destabilizing for existing state markets or that effectively go around Congress to enshrine those markets.
***
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/cannabusiness-lawsuit-highlights-need-for-congress-to-clarify-federal-treatment-of-marijuana/
Ethical Concerns Leads Scientific Journal to Retract Glyphosate Safety Study
OAKLAND, California, Jan. 8 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Ethical Concerns Leads Scientific Journal to Retract Glyphosate Safety Study
*
Media Contact: Ryon Harms, ryon@asyousow.org, (310) 730-9407
EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA - January 8, 2026 - A prominent scientific journal recently retracted a landmark study claiming that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, is safe for human health. There remains substantial research and evidence linking glyphosate to cancer exists across a range of studies.
Since Bayer acquired Monsanto (the manufacturer
... Show Full Article
OAKLAND, California, Jan. 8 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Ethical Concerns Leads Scientific Journal to Retract Glyphosate Safety Study
*
Media Contact: Ryon Harms, ryon@asyousow.org, (310) 730-9407
EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA - January 8, 2026 - A prominent scientific journal recently retracted a landmark study claiming that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, is safe for human health. There remains substantial research and evidence linking glyphosate to cancer exists across a range of studies.
Since Bayer acquired Monsanto (the manufacturerof Roundup) in 2018, over 177,000 lawsuits have been filed related to glyphosate; Monsanto recently paid $2.1 billion in damages in a case that connected the plaintiff's non-Hodkin's lymphoma to glyphosate exposure.
The retraction of the widely cited paper on glyphosate safety occurred based on a recommendation by two Harvard scientists urging the Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology journal to re-examine the study. After reviewing the study, the journal's editor in chief stated that the article was being retracted due to "serious ethical concerns" after discovering that Monsanto's scientists played a major role in developing and influencing the study.
"For years, shareholders have raised concerns to large food companies about the risks from their reliance on pesticides harmful to human health," said Cailin Dendas, Senior Environmental Health Coordinator at As You Sow. "Companies that fail to address these issues are exposing shareholders to avoidable and growing risk, while farmworkers and fenceline communities continue getting sick."
As You Sow evaluates major food companies' efforts to minimize or eliminate their reliance on harmful pesticides through its Pesticides in the Pantry and From the Ground Up reports, finding that reliance on harmful pesticides remains the norm for most large food companies.
Nate Powell-Palm, Montana Grain Farmer said "With this news I'm grateful that so many farmers before me invested in learning how to produce high yielding organic crops. As inputs like glyphosate and synthetic fertilizers rob American farmers of their profits, we have a ready-made solution to meet the demand for good food while ensuring a strong farmer livelihood organic farming."
As You Sow is the nation's leading shareholder representative, with a 30+ year track record promoting environmental and social corporate responsibility. As You Sow addresses a range of issues that affect shareholder value including climate change, ocean plastics, toxins in the food system, biodiversity, racial justice, and workplace diversity. See As You Sow 's shareholder resolution tracker.
***
Original text here: https://www.asyousow.org/press-releases/2026/1/8/ethical-concerns-leads-scientific-journal-to-retract-glyphosate-safety-study
