Public Policy & NGOs
Here's a look at documents from public policy and non-governmental organizations
Featured Stories
VFW Honors 251 Years of Army Service and Sacrifice
KANSAS CITY, Missouri, June 13 -- The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., a veterans service organization, issued the following news release:
* * *
VFW Honors 251 Years of Army Service and Sacrifice
* Dedication remains the foundation of our national defense and global stability
-
The more than 1.3 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and its Auxiliary proudly join a grateful nation in saluting and congratulating the United States Army on its 251 years of service and sacrifice to our nation. Since its founding on June 14, 1775, those who serve in the Army have stood strong
... Show Full Article
KANSAS CITY, Missouri, June 13 -- The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., a veterans service organization, issued the following news release:
* * *
VFW Honors 251 Years of Army Service and Sacrifice
* Dedication remains the foundation of our national defense and global stability
-
The more than 1.3 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and its Auxiliary proudly join a grateful nation in saluting and congratulating the United States Army on its 251 years of service and sacrifice to our nation. Since its founding on June 14, 1775, those who serve in the Army have stood strongas the foundation of our nation's defense, embodying the highest standards of courage, resilience and professional excellence.
From the first battlefields of the Revolutionary War to the complex modern deployments across the globe today, America's soldiers have selflessly answered the call to serve for more than two and a half centuries. Their impact in shaping our nation's history and securing its future cannot be overstated.
As we mark the Army's birthday, the VFW salutes every soldier, past, present and future, for their commitment and profound sacrifices. The security and freedoms we enjoy at home are built upon their readiness and willingness to stand in harm's way. For this we owe our soldiers and their families our deepest gratitude.
On behalf of the more than 1.3 million members of the VFW and its Auxiliary, happy 251st birthday, soldiers. "This We'll Defend!"
* * *
Original text here: https://www.vfw.org/media-and-events/latest-releases/archives/2026/6/vfw-honors-251-years-of-army-service-and-sacrifice
[Category: National Defense]
Progress Michigan: Poll - Michiganders Support Funding Water Infrastructure With Royalty on Bottled Water Companies
LANSING, Michigan, June 13 -- Progress Michigan, an organization that says it holds public officials and government accountable and assist in the promotion of progressive ideas, issued the following news release on June 12, 2026:
* * *
Poll: Michiganders Support Funding Water Infrastructure with Royalty on Bottled Water Companies
A strong majority supports charging bottled water companies a 25-cent royalty per gallon of water extracted from Michigan sources
-
Recent polling conducted by Progress Michigan in partnership with Public Policy Polling shows that a strong majority of Michiganders
... Show Full Article
LANSING, Michigan, June 13 -- Progress Michigan, an organization that says it holds public officials and government accountable and assist in the promotion of progressive ideas, issued the following news release on June 12, 2026:
* * *
Poll: Michiganders Support Funding Water Infrastructure with Royalty on Bottled Water Companies
A strong majority supports charging bottled water companies a 25-cent royalty per gallon of water extracted from Michigan sources
-
Recent polling conducted by Progress Michigan in partnership with Public Policy Polling shows that a strong majority of Michiganderswould support a new bill package, the Michigan Water Trust Fund Act (SB 950 & 951), that would charge a royalty to bottled water companies to fund measures such as upgrading drinking water systems, providing resources for septic system maintenance, and helping residents with water affordability. The royalty would generate approximately $300 million each year.
"Companies that extract, bottle, and sell water should pay what they owe from profiting off Michigan's water resources," said Justin Mendoza, executive director of Progress Michigan. "Our aging water infrastructure is under immense pressure as a result of underfunding and increasing extreme weather events, like the flooding we experienced this spring. If we can create a fund, paid for by royalties from bottled water companies, we can ensure a stable source of funding for our most urgent water-related needs without raising water rates for Michigan families."
In concert with Progress Michigan, Public Policy Polling interviewed 687 Michigan voters from May 21-22, 2026 by phone and text. Margin of error for this poll is +/-3.7 percent.
* * *
Michigan lawmakers are considering a new law that would charge bottled water companies a 25-cent royalty for every gallon of water they extract from Michigan water sources. The money raised would fund upgrades to drinking water systems, provide resources for septic system maintenance, and help residents with water affordability. Would you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose a new royalty charged to bottled water companies to fund water infrastructure improvements and affordability measures?
[View chart in the link at bottom.]
* * *
Original text here: https://progressmichigan.org/2026/06/new-poll-michiganders-support-funding-water-infrastructure-with-royalty-on-bottled-water-companies/
[Category: Political]
National Convening Unites Attorneys and Advocates to Discuss Improved Accountability for Misconduct in Face of Expanding Immigration Enforcement Raids
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release:
* * *
National Convening Unites Attorneys and Advocates to Discuss Improved Accountability for Misconduct in Face of Expanding Immigration Enforcement Raids
Federal Tort Claims Act Highlighted as Civil Rights Accountability Tool
-
Chicago - Over 100 attorneys and advocates representing over 60 organizations from around the country united in Chicago this week for a national
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release:
* * *
National Convening Unites Attorneys and Advocates to Discuss Improved Accountability for Misconduct in Face of Expanding Immigration Enforcement Raids
Federal Tort Claims Act Highlighted as Civil Rights Accountability Tool
-
Chicago - Over 100 attorneys and advocates representing over 60 organizations from around the country united in Chicago this week for a nationalconvening aimed at training and empowering lawyers to use the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to hold federal law enforcement officers accountable for misconduct and abuse. Attendees examined emerging issues in FTCA litigation, shared lessons from ongoing and past cases, explored strategies for documenting harm and building claims, and discussed opportunities to strengthen networks of practitioners working to advance accountability.
The convening, hosted by Democracy Forward and UnidosUS, alongside partners the Institute for Justice, The Chicago Project, MacArthur Justice Center, and the National Immigrant Justice Center, focused on how ongoing expansions of immigration enforcement have increased the importance of using the FTCA to seek accountability when the misconduct occurs.
Democracy Forward and UnidosUS recently launched a new national initiative to expand the use of the FTCA as a tool to pursue accountability for federal misconduct, particularly in the context of immigration enforcement and protest-related abuses. Democracy Forward has built significant infrastructure to support this effort, including a comprehensive FTCA litigation toolkit, a growing national attorney network and listserv, referral and intake pathways for potential claims, and training materials designed to support advocates and practitioners nationwide.
"We know that accountability is important and are committed to working alongside people across the nation to ensure victims of unlawful federal enforcement activity are compensated and that bad actors are exposed. From teargassing children to pulling citizens from through car windows to brutalizing peaceful protestors, at a time when the Trump-Vance administration has escalated unlawful enforcement actions that are causing serious harm to people and communities across the country, it was incredible to see the robust organizations and people together to pursue accountability against federal misconduct," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "The Federal Tort Claims Act can be an incredibly powerful civil rights accountability tool. This convening is just the beginning of what will be a coordinated network of attorneys representing people harmed by federal officers' actions at the administrative claim stage and in federal litigation, and Democracy Forward is honored to offer training, research, litigation guidance, screening tools, and ongoing technical support to make sure partners have the tools they need to hold government accountable."
The two-day convening included expert panels, strategic discussions, and opportunities for attorneys and advocates to strengthen collaboration across the growing national network of practitioners. Participants also previewed the litigation toolkit, coordinated attorney network, and expanded referral pathways for individuals seeking accountability and justice.
The FTCA was effectively used during the Trump-Pence administration as officials went to drastic measures to separate and harm immigrant families. The law requires an administrative claim be made -- and typically a six-month waiting period -- before someone can file an FTCA lawsuit. Democracy Forward and its partners have already filed a number of claims against some of the Trump-Vance administration's more egregious actions, laying the groundwork for future litigation.
More information about Democracy Forward's new FTCA practice can be found here (https://democracyforward.org/ftca-accountability-project/).
* * *
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/national-convening-unites-attorneys-and-advocates-to-discuss-improved-accountability-for-misconduct-in-face-of-expanding-immigration-enforcement-raids/
[Category: Political]
Democracy Forward: Federal Court Blocks Trump-Vance Administration's $1.776 Billion Slush Fund While the Case Continues
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on June 12, 2026:
* * *
Federal Court Blocks Trump-Vance Administration's $1.776 Billion Slush Fund While the Case Continues
Court Grants Preliminary Injunction, Halts Funds While Litigation Proceeds
-
Alexandria, Va. -- A federal court today granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking the Trump-Vance administration from implementing its $1.776 billion
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release on June 12, 2026:
* * *
Federal Court Blocks Trump-Vance Administration's $1.776 Billion Slush Fund While the Case Continues
Court Grants Preliminary Injunction, Halts Funds While Litigation Proceeds
-
Alexandria, Va. -- A federal court today granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking the Trump-Vance administration from implementing its $1.776 billionso-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" while litigation challenging the program moves forward.
The plaintiffs include former career federal prosecutor Andrew Floyd, Professor Jonathan Caravello, the City of New Haven, the National Abortion Federation, and Common Cause. Plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward.
The court's order halts the Trump-Vance administration's slush fund while the case proceeds on the merits.
The ruling also comes after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to provide evidence supporting its unsworn representations that the slush fund was"not going forward," despite plaintiffs' repeated communications seeking confirmation regarding the status of the program, including whether any funds had been transferred, claims processed, or members appointed. The court's decision ensures that the administration cannot proceed with the slush fund, finding that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
The lawsuit challenges the creation of a taxpayer-funded compensation program designed to provide benefits to individuals who claim they were harmed by actions of Democratic administrations. Plaintiffs argue the fund violates the First Amendment, equal protection principles, separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act, and constitutional restrictions governing federal spending.
In granting preliminary relief, the court concluded that plaintiffs satisfied the standard for a preliminary injunction and that maintaining the status quo was warranted.
"I'm heartened that the injunction continues to prevent $1.776 billion in taxpayer money from being used to pay off those who attacked our democracy. I will continue this litigation to ensure that this unconstitutional fund does not erase the accountability imposed by judges and impartial jurors--and the hard-earned work of the victims, witnesses, law enforcement officers, and prosecutors who delivered it," said Andrew Floyd.
"While this win acts as a defense against a blatant violation of our legal code, the structures that direct the flow of U.S. taxpayer money into violence both domestic and abroad still stand," said Professor Jonathan Caravello. "The courts are sites of political struggle. The question we must ask ourselves now is 'How can we, the people, build power in the aftermath of this legal ruling?'"
"Today's ruling affirms what New Haveners and Americans across the country recognized from the moment the Trump administration announced its so-called 'Anti-Weaponization Fund': that this is an improper, illegal and unconstitutional use of federal taxpayer dollars created to reward President Trump's political allies and advance President Trump's personal political interests and that it should not be allowed to proceed. We have a lot of challenges to address in our cities, states and country, and our taxpayer dollars should be spent on critical priorities that benefit all Americans - not a political slush fund that rewards the select few," said New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker. "As a city, we will continue to stand up for our residents and that our federal government adheres to the rule of law."
"Today's ruling is a victory for abortion providers, their patients, and everyone who believes the federal government should not be in the business of rewarding extremists. This slush fund was never about justice - it was a taxpayer-funded payday for people who blockaded abortion clinics, assaulted healthcare workers, and terrorized patients seeking abortion care," said Brittany Fonteno, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation. "As targeted attacks against abortion clinics and patients continue, we need to ensure federal laws like the FACE Act are fully enforced and that violators are held accountable for their violence and disruptions."
"The Trump administration cannot be trusted with the public's money," said Omar Noureldin, Common Cause's Senior Vice President for Policy and Litigation. "Today's ruling is a massive win, ensuring hard-earned tax dollars stay out of the hands of the President's cronies and people who violently assaulted law enforcement on January 6 while we're securing justice for American taxpayers in court. We've successfully locked the President's personal slush fund for now, and we'll keep the pressure on until it's shut down for good."
"This ruling is a significant victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and people in America," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "The court recognized the serious legal concerns raised by the Trump-Vance administration's attempt to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded compensation program operating outside the constitutional safeguards that govern public spending. Despite the administration's shifting explanations about the future of the slush fund, the court's order ensures that taxpayer dollars cannot be distributed through this unlawful scheme while the courts fully consider the serious constitutional issues at stake. We look forward to continuing this challenge on behalf of our clients."
The so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund was created following the private agreement in President Trump's lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Under the program, nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds would be transferred to a newly created entity empowered to receive and adjudicate claims with minimal transparency, limited oversight, and no meaningful judicial review.
The case is Andrew Floyd et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al., and the legal team at Democracy Forward includes Pooja Boisture, Jyoti Jasrasaria, Aman George, Ayesha Khan, Robin Thurston, and Skye Perryman.
Find the written order here (https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/189115193387.pdf).
* * *
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/federal-court-blocks-trump-vance-administrations-1-776-billion-slush-fund-while-the-case-continues/
[Category: Political]
CAIR-NJ Urges Montclair School District to Rescind Guidance on IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release:
* * *
CAIR-NJ Urges Montclair School District to Rescind Guidance on IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
The New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-NJ), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, urged the Montclair Board of Education to rescind recent guidance regarding educators' responsibilities to adhere to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which falsely conflates criticism of Israel's human
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release:
* * *
CAIR-NJ Urges Montclair School District to Rescind Guidance on IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
The New Jersey chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-NJ), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, urged the Montclair Board of Education to rescind recent guidance regarding educators' responsibilities to adhere to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which falsely conflates criticism of Israel's humanrights abuses and genocide with antisemitism.
On June 2, 2026, attorney Mr. David Nash, on behalf of the New Jersey Principals and Superintendents Association (NJPSA), delivered guidance to Montclair Public Schools faculty on what constitutes hostility or harassment in classrooms. In it, he claimed New Jersey Schools are bound by the IHRA definition of antisemitism, citing a 2019 Executive Order by President Trump.
CAIR-NJ wrote a letter to Montclair Public Schools Superintendent highlighting New Jersey's repeated refusal to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, the unconstitutionality of this attempt to impose restrictions on students' and teachers' First Amendment rights, and called for the district to take corrective measures.
SEE: CAIR-NJ Letter to Montclair School District (https://cair-nj.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/CAIR-NJ-Letter-to-Superintendent-Re_-IHRA-Definition-1.pdf)
In a statement, CAIR-NJ Public Affairs Director Naureen Akhter said:
"It is absolutely chilling to free speech for a school district to characterize critique of Israel as antisemitic. Drawing historical comparisons between the actions of Israel, particularly in Gaza, to that of other genocidal regimes is valid political discourse. The training goes further to say 'claiming the state of Israel is a racist endeavor' is an example of antisemitism. Israel's very own 'Nation-State Law' restricts the rights of its Arab citizens - limiting discourse around this does nothing to address antisemitism.
"This training, by reinforcing the IHRA definition, violates New Jersey standards for discrimination and infringes on students' and teachers' constitutional rights. The school district should clarify Trump's Executive Order is just that - a non legally binding recommendation for his executive agencies - and stay firm in its commitment to free expression and student safety."
Last year, CAIR and CAIR Action, its advocacy affiliate, released a factsheet, called "Voices of Resistance Against the IHRA Definition and the Antisemitism Awareness Act." That publication documents how the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism is being weaponized across the country to silence advocacy against genocide and for Palestinian human rights.
* * *
CAIR's mission is to protect civil rights, enhance understanding of Islam, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-nj-urges-montclair-school-district-to-rescind-guidance-on-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/
[Category: Sociological]
CAIR-MI Welcomes Court's Second Ruling Rejecting Claims Against CAIR-MI and Lead Staff Attorney
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release on June 12, 2026:
* * *
CAIR-MI Welcomes Court's Second Ruling Rejecting Claims Against CAIR-MI and Lead Staff Attorney
The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI) today welcomed a Wayne County Circuit Court ruling that, for the second time, rejected claims brought against CAIR-MI and its Lead Staff Attorney, Amy V. Doukoure, Esq., in connection with CAIR-MI's lawful advocacy and representation of a local business owner.
The lawsuit arose after CAIR-MI represented
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations posted the following news release on June 12, 2026:
* * *
CAIR-MI Welcomes Court's Second Ruling Rejecting Claims Against CAIR-MI and Lead Staff Attorney
The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MI) today welcomed a Wayne County Circuit Court ruling that, for the second time, rejected claims brought against CAIR-MI and its Lead Staff Attorney, Amy V. Doukoure, Esq., in connection with CAIR-MI's lawful advocacy and representation of a local business owner.
The lawsuit arose after CAIR-MI representedGarden City Collision and its owner, who had reportedly been subjected to repeated police complaints by a neighbor. In its latest ruling, the Court denied the plaintiff's attempt to revive claims for defamation and abuse of process against CAIR-MI and Doukoure, finding that the proposed amended claims remained legally futile. The Court held that statements made to police are absolutely privileged, that statements made during public commentary before the Garden City Council were protected opinion or rhetorical commentary, and that the abuse-of-process theory remained legally insufficient.
SEE ORDER (https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Certify.pdf).
"We welcome the Court's decision recognizing that civil rights advocates and attorneys cannot be sued simply for doing their jobs," said Dawud Walid, Executive Director of CAIR-MI. "When business owners, families, workers, students, or community members come to CAIR-MI because they believe they are being targeted or treated unfairly, our responsibility is to advocate within the bounds of the law. This ruling affirms that lawful advocacy cannot be turned into retaliation."
Amy V. Doukoure, Esq., Lead Staff Attorney at CAIR-MI said:
"This case should never have been used as a vehicle to punish protected advocacy. From the beginning, it appeared to be brought solely as an attempt to chill CAIR-MI's advocacy and target our organization for diligently fulfilling its duty to represent a community member who sought our help. The Court has now twice rejected attempts to impose liability on CAIR-MI and me for conduct tied to lawful representation, public advocacy, and reporting concerns to appropriate authorities. This dismissal sends a clear message: CAIR-MI's strong and effective advocacy cannot be stopped simply because someone is unhappy with its impact. We are grateful that the Court recognized the legal protections that apply in these circumstances."
CAIR-MI said the ruling is significant because civil rights organizations and attorneys must be able to represent clients, communicate with public officials, and report concerns to law enforcement without fear that those actions will be reframed as defamation or abuse of process. The organization emphasized that such lawsuits risk chilling protected speech, legal advocacy, and access to representation for marginalized communities and small business owners.
CAIR-MI will continue defending the rights of Michigan residents and businesses facing discrimination, harassment, unequal treatment, and government overreach.
* * *
CAIR's mission is to protect civil rights, enhance understanding of Islam, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cair.com/press_releases/cair-mi-welcomes-courts-second-ruling-rejecting-claims-against-cair-mi-and-lead-staff-attorney/
[Category: Sociological]
Americans for Tax Reform: AICOA Rears Its Ugly Head Again
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- Americans for Tax Reform posted the following commentary on June 12, 2026, by James Erwin:
* * *
AICOA rears its ugly head again
"America innovates, China imitates, Europe regulates."
So said France's deeply unpopular President Emmanuel Macron last year. With Europe's economy lagging ours for nearly two decades - from a higher GDP than the United States in 2008 to only 67% of U.S. GDP today - one would think American politicians would not look to emulate the European regulatory regime that has left them so far behind.
Unfortunately, Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 13 -- Americans for Tax Reform posted the following commentary on June 12, 2026, by James Erwin:
* * *
AICOA rears its ugly head again
"America innovates, China imitates, Europe regulates."
So said France's deeply unpopular President Emmanuel Macron last year. With Europe's economy lagging ours for nearly two decades - from a higher GDP than the United States in 2008 to only 67% of U.S. GDP today - one would think American politicians would not look to emulate the European regulatory regime that has left them so far behind.
Unfortunately, Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) andChuck Grassley (R-Iowa) have just reintroduced the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which would import European-style tech regulation to the U.S. This bill has long been a terrible idea that threatens our prosperity, and if passed would also jettison a 50-year legacy of conservative antitrust victories.
Since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and especially since the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, government lawyers could arbitrarily decide which companies were too big. The public interest demanded that the U.S. government break up "trusts" that were monopolizing markets to raise prices. Regardless of whether it was actually true that the likes of Standard Oil, which found innovative ways to deliver more petroleum products to market more cheaply, were conspiring to immiserate their customers mattered little.
But this created a paradox. What if a company like Google simply developed the best search engine and despite having competitors completely dominated the search engine market because they offered their product for free and virtually all consumers chose to use it? What if they were forced to start charging for Google searches to avoid accusations of underselling competitors? Breaking up Google search into smaller regional companies would not serve the public interest.
While this hypothetical is contemporary, the paradox was recognized by Judge Robert Bork in his seminal 1978 book The Antitrust Paradox. Bork worked out that the only way to apply the provisions of the Sherman and Clayton Acts in a manner that did not harm consumers while providing businesses with clear, stable, and fair standards was what he called the consumer welfare standard. If monopolists harmed consumers through higher prices or lower quality, they could be broken up. If not, judges should defer to the wisdom of the consumer in choosing his vendors. The book was a hit in legal circles and informed the 1979 Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. decision that made the consumer welfare standard binding precedent.
Though never elevated to the Supreme Court, Bork nonetheless left a legacy through his influential writings that have governed antitrust enforcement for the past five decades. Some companies do become monopolies by successfully absorbing all their competitors. With no competition, they can jack up prices, harming consumers. This is where government action is legitimate to restore consumer choice.
Of course, monopolies rarely last for very long. Unless protected by government mandate, the high prices enabled by market consolidation creates an incentive to develop new ways of getting products to consumers at lower cost. The higher the price, the more competitors stand to profit by charging slightly less or improving quality at the same price. Uber disrupting taxi cartels is an example of this. Nonetheless, the consumer welfare standard has generally served the public and the private sector well since the 1980s, and is consistent with landmark antitrust laws from the early 20th Century.
Klobuchar and Grassley would privilege the vicissitudes of government lawyers over consumer choice. AICOA overturns the consumer welfare standard in the digital sphere. It is essentially an antitrust bill of attainder: if your company grows beyond a certain market cap with more than 50 million monthly users, you are eligible for break-up. It singles out the biggest social media platforms and threatens them with destruction - unless, of course they cooperate with government in what kind of content they allow, who gets an account, and other censorious initiatives the Biden administration pursued.
Conservatives have legitimate concerns over Big Tech's targeting of conservative speech and the creeping influence of non-economic issues in the business decisions of America's largest companies. In reaction to this problem, a few Republicans have co-sponsored the Klobuchar bill with the hope that it will help reduce discrimination against conservative voices online.
In reality, the bill would worsen these issues by forcing targeted companies into a "mother-may-I" relationship with the federal government. The institutional Left is in universal agreement about the effects the bill will have. The Center for American Progress endorsed the bill on the grounds that it will spur "much needed improvements in content moderation and technologies."
Whatever so-called "improvements" that the left has in mind for content moderation will certainly not work out in favor of conservatives' free speech. If conservatives are unhappy with the status quo, just imagine Big Tech targeting conservative speech on behalf of Biden bureaucrats.
AICOA would push the U.S. towards a European-style approach, where the government picks economic winners and losers and targets politically disfavored companies with frivolous lawsuits. The European Digital Markets Act is part of the reason they are unable to keep up with American innovation or Chinese emulation. Importing DMA-style regulation and antitrust to the United States would surrender our prosperity and global competitiveness while worsening user experience and abandoning one of the great victories of the conservative legal movement to stick to big tech. Bureaucrats win, consumers lose.
For policy and political reasons alike, it seems foolish for Republicans to help Democrats ram through such a sweeping regulatory bill as the midterms approach. Pocketbook issues like generation-high inflation and skyrocketing gas prices are top of mind for American families. Maybe they should focus on getting government out of the way to lower costs before the midterms instead.
* * *
Original text here: https://atr.org/aicoa-rears-its-ugly-head-again/
[Category: Political]
