Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Transit Agencies Need to Focus on Transit-Dependent Riders
LOS ANGELES, California, May 8 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by transportation policy analyst Jay Derr and Baruch Feigenbaum, senior managing director of transportation policy:
* * *
Transit agencies need to focus on transit-dependent riders
Transit-dependent riders should be recognized as the core customer group for most transit agencies.
*
For decades, transit planners have divided their ridership into two groups: transit-dependent and transit-choice. Transit-dependent riders rely on transit because they don't really have other transportation options, and transit-choice
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, May 8 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by transportation policy analyst Jay Derr and Baruch Feigenbaum, senior managing director of transportation policy:
* * *
Transit agencies need to focus on transit-dependent riders
Transit-dependent riders should be recognized as the core customer group for most transit agencies.
*
For decades, transit planners have divided their ridership into two groups: transit-dependent and transit-choice. Transit-dependent riders rely on transit because they don't really have other transportation options, and transit-choiceriders use it because it serves them better than driving or other modes that they could switch to if they wanted.
Given that many transit-dependent riders cannot easily access employment, shopping, or a doctor's appointment, they should be the first priority for transit agencies. Further, transit-dependent riders are more likely to use transit every day, multiple times a day, while many choice riders are occasional users.
Unfortunately, agencies often prioritize transit-choice riders who are more likely to pay full fare and are more politically powerful (because they tend to be wealthier and more likely to vote). That's not to say transit agencies shouldn't try to serve choice customers; rather, dependent riders should be recognized as the core customer group for most transit agencies.
The good news is that there are many ways for transit agencies to better serve dependent riders.
The first focus for agencies is on network design, service hours, and headway. Rather than radial networks feeding all trips into and out of downtown, crosstown routes that intersect at frequent service nodes serve dependent riders better. Reverse-commute service, with bidirectional service at peak, opens suburban jobs to transit-dependent workers who can currently only get there in one direction. What is required is a region-wide grid, rather than a radial system focused on downtown. And that grid will be much larger (in route-miles) than any affordable rail system. Hence, the grid structure depends on buses.
When transit service is focused largely on the peak, it fails the transit-dependent workforce that rides largely off-peak. Hospitality, retail, and transportation workers are frequently employed outside conventional office hours. Frequency at peak is not the right metric for these riders.
But headways and on-time performance are also important. A bus scheduled to arrive every 15 minutes but is regularly late, or only arrives every 25 minutes, is failing the rider who needs to be on time for work or an appointment.
Rider surveys have shown that it is not just the wait time between vehicles that's so important, but also the perception of that time. Real-time arrival information, which shows riders on their phones or at the stop when the next bus will arrive, helps.
Technology has a role to play as well. Transit-signal priority lets approaching buses hold green lights or shorten red lights at intersections; and dedicated bus lanes (in corridors with 20 or more buses per hour) give buses their own lane to circumvent car traffic. Together, these tools keep service on time and consistent.
In 2015, Houston's Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) replaced a peak-oriented network with a high-frequency grid without increasing operating costs and saw a 13% rise in Saturday ridership and a 34% rise on Sundays. Better still, Houston's METRO ridership recovered faster after COVID than any other U.S. metro area. By February 2024, METRO's local bus ridership was back to 95% of its pre-COVID level. Network redesigns like this can be politically difficult, because route changes can galvanize opposition from current riders, but the Houston case shows that the planning template exists and can work--even following major disruptions.
The second focus for a modern transit agency should be reliable and consistent funding. Transit systems currently charge fares that are too low for those who are able to pay, and the resulting revenue gap forces service cuts that hurt dependent riders more than fare increases would. San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) raised fares by 5.5% for an additional $30 million per year to put towards transit services. BART still has a structural deficit, but the alternative to raising fares is cutting service. U.S. farebox recovery ratios (fare revenue divided by operating expenses) are low across modes, as shown in Table 1.
* * *
Table 1: Farebox Recovery by Mode
Mode ... Farebox Recovery
Commuter Bus ... 27%
Heavy Rail ... 18%
Commuter Rail ... 17%
Light Rail ... 9%
Bus ... 8%
Source: "Transit Passenger Fares - 2024," Department of Transportation, transportation.gov. (Accessed May 1, 2026)
* * *
Table 1 shows that transit agencies are not making enough at the farebox to cover even operating costs. This leads agencies to depend on subsidies that are politically vulnerable, including federal dollars that were given as a temporary response to the COVID-19 pandemic and have now expired. Without these subsidies, agencies face tough choices; the riders who are dependent on these systems are hurt most. Offering means-tested vouchers to allow discounted rates for transit-dependent riders and pricing fares at market rate for choice-riders will help increase farebox recovery across agencies and modes.
That's only the first step. Agencies also should look to other sources of revenue to help pay for transit services. Bus exteriors, shelters, station naming rights, and digital displays inside vehicles can be monetized through private vendors at minimal cost to the agency. In 2020, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) signed a 10-year, $336 million advertising concession contract with OUTFRONT Media, averaging $33.6 million per year in guaranteed revenue. Likewise, New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) forecast $175 million in ad revenue in 2025. These revenue streams do not fully cover transit operating costs, but they help bridge the gap.
The reforms detailed here don't require federal action, new taxing authority, or unprecedented funding levels. Houston redesigned its network without raising operating costs. WMATA and the MTA are already turning station displays and bus exteriors into revenue streams through partnerships. Different agencies have implemented means-tested fare programs to help the truly low-income use the transit they rely on to get to their job. But the strongest reform package includes all of those elements, and agencies ought to take a blank-slate approach to evaluating their existing networks to ensure they adequately serve transit-dependent riders.
* * *
Jay Derr is a transportation policy analyst at the Reason Foundation.
Baruch Feigenbaum is senior managing director of transportation policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/transit-agencies-need-to-focus-on-transit-dependent-riders/
Mass. Supreme Judicial Court Hears Arguments on Religious Statues in FFRF Case
MADISON, Wisconsin, May 8 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on May 6, 2026:
* * *
Mass. Supreme Judicial Court hears arguments on religious statues in FFRF case
More than a dozen Quincy, Mass., residents with diverse religious beliefs asked the state's highest court today to uphold a ruling that blocked the mayor's plan to install two large religious statues at the entrance of the city's new public safety building.
The plaintiffs argue that installing the 10-foot-tall statues -- which depict the Catholic iconography of St. Michael the Archangel and St.
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, May 8 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on May 6, 2026:
* * *
Mass. Supreme Judicial Court hears arguments on religious statues in FFRF case
More than a dozen Quincy, Mass., residents with diverse religious beliefs asked the state's highest court today to uphold a ruling that blocked the mayor's plan to install two large religious statues at the entrance of the city's new public safety building.
The plaintiffs argue that installing the 10-foot-tall statues -- which depict the Catholic iconography of St. Michael the Archangel and St.Florian -- as the sole adornments on the building's facade would undermine religious pluralism in Quincy and violate the Massachusetts Constitution's longstanding requirement that the government remain neutral in matters of religion. Today's hearing follows an October 2025 ruling by a Norfolk Superior Court judge, which held that the city's planned religious display would likely violate Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and temporarily enjoined the city from proceeding with the installation. The city appealed that ruling to the Supreme Judicial Court.
"I am here as an American, and as a Christian," said Conevery Bolton Valencius, a resident of Quincy for more than 20 years and plaintiff in the case. "My faith is at the center of my life. If the government lifts up one religion over others, then no one's faith is safe. All of us deserve the freedom to follow where our faith leads -- or to have no faith at all. Installing statues of saints at the entrance to a prominent government building signals a preference that threatens my religious liberty. I want statues like these at my church, not looming over the doors of our new public safety building."
"I am deeply troubled by the city's plans to install two large Catholic icons on a government building," said Claire Fitzmaurice, a resident of Quincy and a plaintiff. "To me, these statues are clearly religious. The winged figure of St. Michael the Archangel is even depicted stomping on the head of a demon! As an active member of my Unitarian Universalist church, one of my central religious principles is religious pluralism. These 10-foot-tall statues at the entrance to our public safety building violate that principle by literally elevating one faith above all others. This sends a clear signal that those who hold different religious beliefs are second-class citizens in Quincy. No city should send that message -- especially when providing essential services."
Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights guarantees that "all religious sects and denominations ... shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law." The Supreme Judicial Court's 1979 ruling in Colo v. Treasurer and Receiver General set forth a careful balancing test to analyze government actions challenged under Article 3. Plaintiffs in this case argue that the planned installation fails this test, and the Superior Court agreed that they were likely to succeed in this argument.
"The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights demands that our government remain neutral in matters of religion," said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. "This neutrality is precisely what allows the richly varied beliefs of our clients and others -- including deeply held Christian beliefs -- to flourish in cities like Quincy and across the Commonwealth. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court established the legal test to analyze Article 3 claims nearly 50 years ago, and for good reason, that test remains good law. Under that test, installing these statues as the sole adornment on a government building, especially one intended to provide essential services to all residents, violates our state Constitution."
The plaintiffs in Fitzmaurice v. City of Quincy filed their lawsuit in May 2025 after local media revealed Mayor Thomas P. Koch's plan to install the statues, which had been commissioned in secret nearly a year and a half earlier. The estimated cost to taxpayers is at least $850,000. None of these details had previously been disclosed either to the public or to the full Quincy City Council. Despite significant opposition from constituents -- including an online petition with over 1,600 signatures and a statement from 19 local faith leaders -- the mayor pressed forward with his plan.
In October, the Norfolk Superior Court denied the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the planned installation. Rejecting arguments that the St. Michael and St. Florian statues are secular, the court held that "the depiction of the statues, their association with one religion, and the various reactions of community members, City Council members and faith leaders demonstrate plaintiffs will likely be able to show that the statues convey to the public observing them the implicit government support for the religious doctrine and adherents of Catholic/Christian faith, and as a result, the subordination of other religions."
The plaintiffs are represented by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Cloherty & Steinberg LLP.
Find more information about Fitzmaurice et al. v. City of Quincy here (https://www.aclum.org/cases/fitzmaurice-et-al-v-city-quincy/).
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with over 41,000 members nationwide, including more than 800 members in Massachusetts. FFRF's purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between church and state, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/mass-supreme-judicial-court-hears-arguments-on-religious-statues-in-ffrf-case/
[Category: Religion]
Foundation for Government Accountability: Governor Hobbs Blocks Tax Relief for Arizona Workers, Then Walks Away From Negotiations
NAPLES, Florida, May 8 -- The Foundation for Government Accountability posted the following news release:
* * *
Governor Hobbs Blocks Tax Relief for Arizona Workers, Then Walks Away From Negotiations
FGA calls on governor to return to negotiating table, pass needed welfare reform and tax cuts
*
PHOENIX, AZ -- With Arizona's fiscal year set to begin June 30 and no approved budget in place, the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) is calling on Governor Katie Hobbs to return to negotiations and stop blocking tax relief for Arizona workers.
The budget Governor Hobbs vetoed would have
... Show Full Article
NAPLES, Florida, May 8 -- The Foundation for Government Accountability posted the following news release:
* * *
Governor Hobbs Blocks Tax Relief for Arizona Workers, Then Walks Away From Negotiations
FGA calls on governor to return to negotiating table, pass needed welfare reform and tax cuts
*
PHOENIX, AZ -- With Arizona's fiscal year set to begin June 30 and no approved budget in place, the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) is calling on Governor Katie Hobbs to return to negotiations and stop blocking tax relief for Arizona workers.
The budget Governor Hobbs vetoed would haveallowed tipped workers and those earning overtime pay to keep more of the money they earn; strengthened the safety net for the truly needy; and protected taxpayers from fraud, waste, and abuse in the state's welfare programs.
The core reforms in the vetoed budget have overwhelming bipartisan support from Arizona voters, according to recent polling, and would have delivered more than $1.45 billion in tax relief for working families. Despite this, Governor Hobbs vetoed the package and left negotiations entirely.
"Arizonans work hard for their money--they shouldn't have to fight their own governor to keep more of it," said Mimi Greene, State Government Affairs Director for FGA. "The message from Arizona voters was clear: Protect taxpayers, reward work, and make sure government programs serve the people they were designed to help. Governor Hobbs isn't just walking away from lawmakers. She's walking away from Arizona workers who expected action and accountability. It's time to come back to the table."
* * *
The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) is a non-profit think tank that promotes public policy solutions in all 50 states to create opportunities for every American to experience the American Dream. To learn more, visit TheFGA.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://thefga.org/press/governor-hobbs-blocks-tax-relief-for-arizona-workers-then-walks-away-from-negotiations/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: AI Will Change the Labor Landscape
DETROIT, Michigan, May 8 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by political theorist Jake Scott:
* * *
AI Will Change the Labor Landscape
A court case raises the stakes in China.
*
A particular legal case from China has also caught the interest and attention of many commentators in the West for its potential future significance. In a major landmark decision, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court upheld a ruling, reached after three years, that a company had unlawfully transferred the risks and costs of technological change onto an employee, in violation
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, May 8 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by political theorist Jake Scott:
* * *
AI Will Change the Labor Landscape
A court case raises the stakes in China.
*
A particular legal case from China has also caught the interest and attention of many commentators in the West for its potential future significance. In a major landmark decision, the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court upheld a ruling, reached after three years, that a company had unlawfully transferred the risks and costs of technological change onto an employee, in violationof China's Labor Contract Law. In other words, the Court ruled that the company illegally fired one of their employees for automating his role through AI.
When a quality assurance supervisor at a Hangzhou tech firm, referred to semi-anonymously ("Zhou"), was employed to verify the accuracy of outputs generated by AI large language models (LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Claude, etc.), he likely thought nothing of it. Indeed, there is an emerging industry that contracts individuals to check, approve, and refine the output of LLMs, such as DataAnnotation who task their contractors with providing live feedback as well as providing the second L--language--for the Model. Some have joked that these folks are training their replacements.
The Chinese Court ruled that it was decidedly not a joke. After Zhou had sufficiently trained the AI model, his company automated his role, and then reassigned him to a lower-level position with a 40% pay cut. He refused--which I think we can all understand--after which the company terminated him, citing AI displacement and reduced staffing needs. That was in 2023, and, after three years, the case has finally been settled--at a deliberately timed moment.
The case was published by the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court amongst a set of other "typical examples" of cases "protecting the rights of AI enterprises and workers" in the lead-up to International Workers' Day on May 1st.
The case is not unique in its circumstances, but what was particularly at question here was whether AI-driven job replacement, rather than a naturally occurring adoption of technology, constituted a "major change in objective circumstances," which is specified under China's Labour Contract Law. The precedents set for "major changes" include "significant events like the company's relocation or mergers," while the Court also ruled that "the company had failed to demonstrate that the contract had become impossible to perform."
The timing of the ruling was, evidently, political as much as anything else; in a nation with a State-official ideology, the Courts are hardly independent as much as in the West, and the assumption here is that the Chinese Communist Party is attempting to send a message that it is prioritizing labor market stability in the global AI adoption race (perhaps tacitly acknowledging the potential problem of a large wave of unemployment). Nations are grappling with the impact of widespread AI adoption on their populations, but this has grabbed global attention for its potential impact on labor relations.
In China, the commentary has been sympathetic to the ruling and to Zhou. "Technological progress," said lawyer Wang Zuyang to the state-run publication Xinhua, "may be irreversible, but it cannot exist outside a legal framework." The ruling itself built on a case from December 2025 which argued that a data-mapping employee could not be reasonably replaced by an AI program.
The ruling is certainly significant for at least one reason: China's AI industry topped 1.2 trillion yuan in 2025 (roughly $176 billion), and, as pointed out on China.org, "by 2030, the penetration rate of next-generation intelligent terminals and agents in China is expected to exceed 90%." The value of the AI industry has raised concerns about the replacement of workers, and it seems that the ruling is an attempt to respect existing Chinese law while making a political statement.
Such stories always make me think of the Luddites. Between 1811 and 1817, in a wave of protests that came to be named after the (mythical) figure of Ned Ludd, many workers smashed the mechanized looms and knitting frames that were seen to be replacing them. The Luddites were not motivated by any particular ideology. They were not conservatives seeking to prevent the tides of progress, nor were they socialists who believed their labor was being appropriated. Instead, they were simply artisans who feared that the introduction of machines would remove the craft that went into their products, while simultaneously making themselves redundant, because anybody could be trained to use the machine. The skilled middle classes of their time, the Luddites have since been maligned as selfish and impudent.
Such a pattern has repeated itself since. Michael Sandel, in Democracy's Discontent, traced the emergence of the American labor movements as the political extension of the developments that saw the decline of the cottage industry and self-reliant men and women of the 19th century as a threat to the republican virtues of early America, as a self-governing people.
The responses that the AI revolution will excite are still emerging: Will it be a Luddite-esque rage of the disappearing skills, or a counter-revolution that explicitly bans the use of AI? Will it really matter, if the singularity occurs? All we can say for certain is that the case of Zhou in China has already started sending ripples across the world. Futurism has drawn a conclusion of binary simplification on the outcome, claiming that China is "gear[ing] up to protect workers" while "laborers remain largely on their own in much of the Western world."
Schumpeter called capitalism "creative destruction." The rise and fall of industries is inevitable. In Britain, perhaps one of the most famous examples is Argos, a retailer that heralded the end of catalogue-shopping through its strategic placement of warehouses with retail fronts in towns across the country, only to be gutted by Amazon and next-day delivery. The way in which AI will displace other industries needs to be managed--but is it the State's place to manage it? China seems to think so; it will be interesting to see what other nations think.
* * *
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/ai-will-change-the-labor-landscape/
FFRF Counters False National Day of Prayer Event Claim That America is a 'Praying Nation'
MADISON, Wisconsin, May 8 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on May 7, 2026:
* * *
FFRF counters false National Day of Prayer event claim that America is a 'praying nation'
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is criticizing the ignorant and inaccurate comments made today during the National Day of Prayer observance at the U.S. Capitol falsely portraying the United States as a nation based on "God."
During the event, House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed the rights of Americans come from "God Himself," described the Declaration of Independence as "our national
... Show Full Article
MADISON, Wisconsin, May 8 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release on May 7, 2026:
* * *
FFRF counters false National Day of Prayer event claim that America is a 'praying nation'
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is criticizing the ignorant and inaccurate comments made today during the National Day of Prayer observance at the U.S. Capitol falsely portraying the United States as a nation based on "God."
During the event, House Speaker Mike Johnson claimed the rights of Americans come from "God Himself," described the Declaration of Independence as "our nationalstatement of faith" and insisted that "we are a praying nation." Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner similarly declared: "Prayer is very powerful because Almighty God is powerful. That truth has gotten our great nation through mountaintops and valleys for the past 250 years. Our Founding Fathers were men of faith who understood that God is the cornerstone of our republic."
Whether or not the framers of the Constitution were "men of faith" is irrelevant, says FFRF, because they adopted a Constitution deliberately containing no reference to a deity, much less Christianity or Jesus. The only reference to religion in the Constitution's original text is the prohibition on religious tests for public office. The First Amendment further guarantees that government must remain neutral on matters of religion.
FFRF notes that the National Day of Prayer is a Cold War-era relic that Congress adopted in 1952 at the behest of evangelist Bill Graham. Government-sponsored prayer not only violates our core principle of state/church separation but marginalizes the growing number of nonreligious Americans, sending the inappropriate message that true Americans must be religious.
FFRF further rejects the claim that prayer is what carried the nation through its greatest challenges.
"Prayer did not abolish slavery, secure women's rights, defeat segregation or expand civil liberties," FFRF Co-President Dan Barker points out. "Human beings did that through activism, reason, democratic institutions and constitutional protections. Progress has come from people taking action, not from politicians crediting supernatural intervention."
FFRF warns that Christian nationalist revisionism poses a direct threat to both religious freedom and secular democracy.
"We will continue fighting these myths in the courts, in statehouses, in Congress and in the public square," Barker says. "The United States does not belong to one religion, and no amount of Christian nationalist disinformation can change the secular foundation of our Constitution."
FFRF will persistently defend the right of every American -- believer or nonbeliever -- to be free from government-dictated prayer and religion and from any other efforts to turn this country into a "Christian nation."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With about 42,000 members, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-counters-false-national-day-of-prayer-event-claim-that-america-is-a-praying-nation/
[Category: Religion]
Canada's proposed regulatory changes are a slap in the face to nature
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, May 8 -- The David Suzuki Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Canada's proposed regulatory changes are a slap in the face to nature
Changes include exemptions to the Species at Risk Act, Impact Assessment Act
*
The federal government today announced plans to "simplify and accelerate" Canada's regulatory process, implicating environmental protections.
The proposals would exempt an unspecified suite of "major projects" from various federal environmental review requirements, including assessments under the Impact Assessment Act and the jeopardy
... Show Full Article
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, May 8 -- The David Suzuki Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Canada's proposed regulatory changes are a slap in the face to nature
Changes include exemptions to the Species at Risk Act, Impact Assessment Act
*
The federal government today announced plans to "simplify and accelerate" Canada's regulatory process, implicating environmental protections.
The proposals would exempt an unspecified suite of "major projects" from various federal environmental review requirements, including assessments under the Impact Assessment Act and the jeopardytest under the Species at Risk Act. Currently, the jeopardy test requires proponents seeking permits to operate in the habitat of at-risk species to undergo assessments to determine whether their activities would jeopardize survival or recovery. The Impact Assessment Act requires assessment of the cumulative social and ecological impacts of proposed major projects.
The government is also proposing new legislation to create "Federal Economic Zones" within which project reviews would not be required. The federal government provides no clear, transparent or evidence-based criteria for identifying these economic zones, nor does it provide any mechanisms for ensuring environmental safeguards within them.
In response to proposed exemptions to the Species at Risk Act, Rachel Plotkin, boreal project manager, David Suzuki Foundation, said:
"Policies and laws intended to safeguard the environment have been continually dismantled during Prime Minister Mark Carney's tenure, undermining the government's commitment to protect and restore nature. The legislative and regulatory changes announced today follow that trend. Weakening protections for at-risk species during a biodiversity crisis is not in the national interest. Wildlife populations have plunged by two-thirds globally since 1970, and more species are designated for protection under Canada's Species at Risk Act each year in Canada than removed. We are not opposed to streamlining processes. But improving regulatory expediency shouldn't come at the cost of healthy ecosystems."
In response to removing review requirements for pipelines and energy infrastructure, Thomas Green, senior manager, climate solutions, David Suzuki Foundation, said:
"This government is proposing to weaken or eliminate safeguards that are key to protecting health and the natural ecosystems that people in Canada cherish. It's pursuing an agenda crafted by oil and gas interests to gut our laws and run roughshod over community and local interests, even if much of the profits will flow to shareholders outside of Canada while taxpayers will be left to clean up environmental damages."
- 30 -
For more information or interviews, please contact:
Brandon Wei, bwei@davidsuzuki.org, 604-732-4228 x333
***
Original text here: https://davidsuzuki.org/press/canadas-proposed-regulatory-changes-are-a-slap-in-the-face-to-nature/
ABC Is Right: There Is No First Amendment Exception for the Airwaves, Says ITIF
WASHINGTON, May 8 [Category: Computer Technology]-- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation posted the following statement:
* * *
ABC Is Right: There Is No First Amendment Exception for the Airwaves, Says ITIF
Following ABC's Petition for Declaratory Ruling regarding the FCC's Equal Opportunity Rule, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank for science and technology policy, released the following statement from Joe Kane, ITIF's director of broadband and spectrum policy:
"ABC is right to call out the fundamental incompatibility between
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 8 [Category: Computer Technology]-- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation posted the following statement:
* * *
ABC Is Right: There Is No First Amendment Exception for the Airwaves, Says ITIF
Following ABC's Petition for Declaratory Ruling regarding the FCC's Equal Opportunity Rule, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank for science and technology policy, released the following statement from Joe Kane, ITIF's director of broadband and spectrum policy:
"ABC is right to call out the fundamental incompatibility betweenthe First Amendment and the FCC's attempts to regulate broadcast content.
"The rules the FCC is invoking to target broadcasters rest on an outdated understanding of spectrum scarcity that economic and technical realities have long since shown to be faulty.
"It is time for the FCC to recognize there is no First Amendment exception for the airwaves. And if the FCC will not, the Supreme Court should."
***
Original text here: https://itif.org/publications/publications/2026/05/08/abc-is-right-there-is-no-first-amendment-exception-for-the-airwaves-says-itif/
