truthout--2020-11-26--Trump Rushes to Weaken Environmental and Worker Protections Before January 20

Six days after President Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection , the U.S. Department of Agriculture notified food safety groups that it was proposing a regulatory change to speed up chicken factory processing lines , a change that would allow companies to sell more birds .
An earlier USDA effort had broken down on concerns that it could lead to more worker injuries and make it harder to stop germs like salmonella .
Ordinarily , a change like this would take about two years to go through the cumbersome legal process of making new federal regulations .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates , who suspect the Trump administration wants to rush through this rule in its waning days .
Even as Trump and his allies officially refuse to concede the Nov. 3 election , the White House and federal agencies are hurrying to finish dozens of regulatory changes before Joe Biden is inaugurated on Jan. 20 .
The rules range from long-simmering administration priorities to last-minute scrambles and affect everything from creature comforts like showerheads and clothes washers to life-or-death issues like federal executions and international refugees .
They impact everyone from the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugmakers and tech startups , to the most vulnerable , such as families on food stamps , transgender people in homeless shelters , migrant workers and endangered species .
ProPublica is tracking those regulations as they move through the rule-making process .
Every administration does some version of last-minute rule-making , known as midnight regulations , especially with a change in parties .
It ’ s too soon to say how the Trump administration ’ s tally will stack up against predecessors .
But these final weeks are solidifying conservative policy objectives that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration to advance its own agenda , according to people who track rules developed by federal agencies .
“ The bottom line is the Trump administration is trying to get things published in the Federal Register , leaving the next administration to sort out the mess , ” said Matthew Kent , who tracks regulatory policy for left-leaning advocacy group Public Citizen .
“ There are some real roadblocks to Biden being able to wave a magic wand on these.
” In some instances the Trump administration is using shortcuts to get more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as taking less time to accept and review public feedback .
It ’ s a risky move .
On the one hand , officials want to finalize rules so that the next administration won ’ t be able to change them without going through the process all over again .
On the other , slapdash rules may contain errors , making them more vulnerable to getting struck down in court .
The Trump administration is on pace to finalize 36 major rules in its final three months , similar to the 35 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Daniel Perez , a policy analyst at the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center .
In 2017 , Republican lawmakers struck down more than a dozen Obama-era rules using a fast-track mechanism called the Congressional Review Act .
That weapon may be less available for Democrats to overturn Trump ’ s midnight regulations if Republicans keep control of the Senate , which will be determined by two Georgia runoffs .
Still , a few GOP defections could be enough to kill a rule with a simple majority .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopping things and saying on principle elections have consequences , let ’ s respect the voters ’ decision and not rush things through to tie the next guys ’ hands , ” said Susan Dudley , who led the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget at the end of the George W. Bush administration .
“ One concern is the rules are rushed so they didn ’ t have adequate analysis or public comment , and that ’ s what we ’ re seeing.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to requests for comment on which regulations it ’ s aiming to finish before Biden ’ s inauguration .
The Biden transition team also didn ’ t respond to questions about which of Trump ’ s parting salvos the new president would prioritize undoing .
Many of the last-minute changes would add to the heap of changes throughout the Trump administration to pare back Obama-era rules and loosen environmental and consumer protections , all in the name of shrinking the government ’ s role in the economy .
“ Our proposal today greatly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform efforts , which together have already amounted to the most aggressive effort to reform federal regulations of any administration , ” Brian Harrison , the chief of staff for the Department of Health and Human Services , said on a conference call with reporters the day after the election .
Harrison was unveiling a new proposal to automatically purge regulations that are more than 10 years old unless the agency decides to keep them .
For that proposal to become finalized before Jan. 20 would be an exceptionally fast turnaround .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The reason we ’ re doing this now is because , ” he said , “ we at the department are trying to go as fast as we can in hopes of finalizing the rule before the end of the first term.
” One proposal has raced through the process with little notice but unusual speed — and deadly consequences .
This rule could reintroduce firing squads and electrocutions for federal executions , giving the government more options for administering capital punishment as drugs used in lethal injections become unavailable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ August and accepted public comments for only 30 days , instead of the usual 60 .
The rule cleared White House review on Nov. 6 , meaning it could be finalized any day .
The Justice Department didn ’ t respond to a request for comment .
Once finalized , this rule might never be put into practice .
The Trump administration executed a federal prisoner in Indiana on Nov. 19 and plans five more executions before Jan. 20 , all with lethal injections .
After that , Biden has signaled he won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will push to eliminate capital punishment for federal crimes .
Other less dramatic-sounding rules could prove harder to unravel and have broader consequences .
In particular , the Environmental Protection Agency is on the cusp of finalizing several rules that would make it harder to justify pollution restrictions or lock in soot levels for at least five years .
The agency wants to keep the soot standard unchanged over the objections of independent scientific advisers and despite emerging evidence that links particulate pollution to additional coronavirus deaths .
An EPA spokesman declined to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ EPA continues to advance this administration ’ s commitment to meaningful environmental progress while moving forward with our regulatory reform agenda , ” the spokesman , James Hewitt , said .
While those rules have developed over years , others were launched later and officials are taking shortcuts to finish in time .
Reviews by the White House ’ s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs that normally take 90 days or more are now wrapping up in as few as five days .
The White House is close to completing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s record of restricting immigration and make the changes harder for the Biden administration to reverse .
The pending rules would make it more difficult to claim asylum by excluding people with criminal convictions ( even those that have been expunged ) , drastically shortening the application time and giving immigration judges more latitude to pick and choose what evidence to consider .
The departments of Justice and Homeland Security didn ’ t respond to requests for comment .
Some rules read like Trump ’ s stump speeches translated into policy legalese .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ loosen efficiency standards for showerheads and laundry machines , evoking Trump ’ s recurring bits about bathroom water pressure .
“ Do you ever get under a shower and no water comes out ?
” Trump said at an October rally in Nevada .
“ And me , I want that hair to be so beautiful.
” Notably , the trade group representing washer manufacturers actually opposes the administration ’ s proposal , saying it ’ s unnecessary because many machines already have short-cycle options .
The proposed rule is supported by small-government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Water and electric companies warn it could lead to higher consumption and waste .
The Energy Department didn ’ t respond to a request for comment .
The administration is also bucking business groups with proposals to restrict high-skilled immigration ; in October , the departments of Homeland Security and Labor unveiled regulations to raise wage and education requirements for H-1B visas , which are often used in the information-technology industry .
( The proposal drew opposition from the Small Business Administration , saying the higher costs would stifle innovation and growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale for skilled immigrants , the administration is pushing a different new rule to lower wages for “ low-skilled ” immigrant farmworkers .
A spokesperson for U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services ( part of DHS ) told ProPublica that “ Any delay in responding to an economic emergency and high unemployment in a way that protects American workers and ensures the H-1B program is administered consistent with statutory requirements could cause real harm to the U.S. economy.
” The Department of Labor didn ’ t respond to requests for comment .
Other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests .
A rule completed on Nov. 13 would restrict pension managers from considering social and environmental impacts ( known in the industry as ESG ) when choosing investments .
Another Labor Department rule would make it easier for companies like Uber to withhold benefits by classifying workers as independent contractors instead of full employees .
Both proposals had a truncated public comment period of only 30 days .
A spokesman said the agency considers all comments regardless of how long the period lasts and that the department is working to complete all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still might not be enough to finish some new rules that are just starting out now .
Still , these tactics have raised alarms about the USDA ’ s proposal to speed up chicken factories , even though a regulatory change like that would ordinarily take two years or more .
The USDA has not provided a timeline , and the proposal is not yet public while the White House reviews it .
An agency spokesman said the department is following the standard process .
The rules change has the support of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group , which argues that the timing is not political .
Spokesman Tom Super called the proposal “ the most deliberative and studied proposed rule that has ever been issued .
It spans three decades , four administrations — Republican and Democrat — countless scientific studies and various court cases.
” The USDA has been laying the groundwork for the rule change for years .
Even though safety concerns scuttled the USDA ’ s previous attempt to raise speeds from 140 birds per minute to 175 , in 2018 the agency started granting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permission to run faster .
The performance of those plants could equip the USDA to argue that the speed limit should go up in all of them .
Although the agency has not yet released its formal justification for the new proposal , officials have referenced a new study in the journal Poultry Science that concluded that inspectors in plants with faster speeds did not detect higher average levels of salmonella contamination .
The USDA funded the study through a no-bid contract worth up to $ 500,000 awarded in 2018 to Louis Anthony @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistician who consults for business interests such as the American Petroleum Institute and the American Chemistry Council , according to the Center for Investigative Reporting .
Cox declined to share data he secured exclusively from the USDA or to be interviewed for this article .
In emailed answers to written questions , he defended his methodology but acknowledged there ’ s room for further study .
Other evidence , however , suggests faster speeds could make chicken less safe to eat .
In a September article in the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-author found that USDA inspectors threw out record-low amounts of chicken when the agency let more plants speed up since May .
The authors called this “ a major threat to public health ” to the extent it suggests inspectors were failing to find contaminated carcasses ( rather than the birds having suddenly become much cleaner ) .
But the authors cautioned they ’ re not food safety experts and declined to comment further .
While the food safety issues are debated , there ’ s already clear evidence that running faster lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strain injuries like carpal tunnel and traumatic injuries like cuts and amputations .
But the USDA maintains that it is responsible only for food safety ; worker safety is the job of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration .
That ’ s exactly the kind of interagency dialogue that the White House is supposed to coordinate when planning new regulations — and the kind of process that could be shortchanged in the final months of an administration , according to the American Public Health Association ’ s Occupational Health and Safety Section .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the agency has weighed in on the USDA ’ s proposal .
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health , part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , has not yet commented on the proposal but plans to , a spokeswoman said .
“ This last-minute push for an ill-advised rule change could be deadly for essential workers in slaughterhouses , ” said Jessica Martinez , co-executive director of the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health , an advocacy group for safer working conditions .
Since many finalized Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden administration might be able to let some of them wither or die in litigation — especially where judges have blocked or struck down the regulations and the new Justice Department could decide not to appeal .
It will also have to wrestle with other changes the Trump administration is rushing to implement , using tactics other than rule-making .
The Trump administration is also pressing ahead with opening up more federal lands to oil and gas development , despite low prices , sluggish demand and complaints from environmental groups that drilling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parks .
Bids are starting at just $ 2 an acre for more than 445,000 acres of public land with leases for sale to energy companies through the Bureau of Land Management , according to data from EnergyNet.com .
The leases could expand dramatically as the BLM finalizes a plan to allow oil and gas drilling on an additional 6.8 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska , a habitat for bears , musk oxen , caribou and birds .
Spokespeople for the BLM didn ’ t respond to a request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department will open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge .
The agency is spending 30 days asking companies for bids , and then sales need another 30 days to take effect — just enough time to beat the clock before the inauguration .
An Interior Department spokesman said the agency is taking “ a significant step ” to implement Congress ’ direction in the 2017 Republican tax bill to start drilling in ANWR .
“ The department will continue to implement President Trump ’ s agenda to create more American jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , support domestic energy production and conserve our environment , ” the spokesman , Conner Swanson , said .
He didn ’ t say whether the leases would be done by Jan. 20 .
Leases that have not yet been issued would be easier for the Biden administration to drop , but even finalized leases could be withdrawn if officials decide they were improperly issued or too environmentally dangerous , according to Erik Grafe , an attorney with Earthjustice in Anchorage .
( Leaseholders might argue they deserve to be compensated . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued , companies need permits and authorizations before actually taking action on the ground , Grafe said .
Those steps would take more time and face legal challenges .
Earthjustice and other groups are already suing to block the Arctic drilling program as a whole .
“ We have been protecting this place forever , ” said Bernadette Demientieff , executive director of the Gwich ’ in steering committee representing indigenous hunting communities in northeast Alaska .
“ This fight is far from over , and we will do whatever it takes to @ @ @ @ @ @

Six days after President Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture notified food safety groups that it was proposing a regulatory change to speed up chicken factory processing lines, a change that would allow companies to sell more birds. An earlier USDA effort had broken down on concerns that it could lead to more worker injuries and make it harder to stop germs like salmonella.
Ordinarily, a change like this would take about two years to go through the cumbersome legal process of making new federal regulations. But the timing has alarmed food and worker safety advocates, who suspect the Trump administration wants to rush through this rule in its waning days.
Even as Trump and his allies officially refuse to concede the Nov. 3 election, the White House and federal agencies are hurrying to finish dozens of regulatory changes before Joe Biden is inaugurated on Jan. 20. The rules range from long-simmering administration priorities to last-minute scrambles and affect everything from creature comforts like showerheads and clothes washers to life-or-death issues like federal executions and international refugees. They impact everyone from the most powerful, such as oil drillers, drugmakers and tech startups, to the most vulnerable, such as families on food stamps, transgender people in homeless shelters, migrant workers and endangered species. ProPublica is tracking those regulations as they move through the rule-making process.
Every administration does some version of last-minute rule-making, known as midnight regulations, especially with a change in parties. It’s too soon to say how the Trump administration’s tally will stack up against predecessors. But these final weeks are solidifying conservative policy objectives that will make it harder for the Biden administration to advance its own agenda, according to people who track rules developed by federal agencies.
“The bottom line is the Trump administration is trying to get things published in the Federal Register, leaving the next administration to sort out the mess,” said Matthew Kent, who tracks regulatory policy for left-leaning advocacy group Public Citizen. “There are some real roadblocks to Biden being able to wave a magic wand on these.”
In some instances the Trump administration is using shortcuts to get more rules across the finish line, such as taking less time to accept and review public feedback. It’s a risky move. On the one hand, officials want to finalize rules so that the next administration won’t be able to change them without going through the process all over again. On the other, slapdash rules may contain errors, making them more vulnerable to getting struck down in court.
The Trump administration is on pace to finalize 36 major rules in its final three months, similar to the 35 to 40 notched by the previous four presidents, according to Daniel Perez, a policy analyst at the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. In 2017, Republican lawmakers struck down more than a dozen Obama-era rules using a fast-track mechanism called the Congressional Review Act. That weapon may be less available for Democrats to overturn Trump’s midnight regulations if Republicans keep control of the Senate, which will be determined by two Georgia runoffs. Still, a few GOP defections could be enough to kill a rule with a simple majority.
“This White House is not likely to be stopping things and saying on principle elections have consequences, let’s respect the voters’ decision and not rush things through to tie the next guys’ hands,” said Susan Dudley, who led the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget at the end of the George W. Bush administration. “One concern is the rules are rushed so they didn’t have adequate analysis or public comment, and that’s what we’re seeing.”
The Trump White House didn’t respond to requests for comment on which regulations it’s aiming to finish before Biden’s inauguration. The Biden transition team also didn’t respond to questions about which of Trump’s parting salvos the new president would prioritize undoing.
Many of the last-minute changes would add to the heap of changes throughout the Trump administration to pare back Obama-era rules and loosen environmental and consumer protections, all in the name of shrinking the government’s role in the economy. “Our proposal today greatly furthers the Trump administration’s regulatory reform efforts, which together have already amounted to the most aggressive effort to reform federal regulations of any administration,” Brian Harrison, the chief of staff for the Department of Health and Human Services, said on a conference call with reporters the day after the election. Harrison was unveiling a new proposal to automatically purge regulations that are more than 10 years old unless the agency decides to keep them.
For that proposal to become finalized before Jan. 20 would be an exceptionally fast turnaround. But Harrison left no doubt about that goal. “The reason we’re doing this now is because,” he said, “we at the department are trying to go as fast as we can in hopes of finalizing the rule before the end of the first term.”
Easier to Pollute, Harder to Immigrate
One proposal has raced through the process with little notice but unusual speed — and deadly consequences. This rule could reintroduce firing squads and electrocutions for federal executions, giving the government more options for administering capital punishment as drugs used in lethal injections become unavailable. The Justice Department surfaced the proposal in August and accepted public comments for only 30 days, instead of the usual 60. The rule cleared White House review on Nov. 6, meaning it could be finalized any day. The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Once finalized, this rule might never be put into practice. The Trump administration executed a federal prisoner in Indiana on Nov. 19 and plans five more executions before Jan. 20, all with lethal injections. After that, Biden has signaled he won’t allow any federal executions and will push to eliminate capital punishment for federal crimes.
Other less dramatic-sounding rules could prove harder to unravel and have broader consequences. In particular, the Environmental Protection Agency is on the cusp of finalizing several rules that would make it harder to justify pollution restrictions or lock in soot levels for at least five years. The agency wants to keep the soot standard unchanged over the objections of independent scientific advisers and despite emerging evidence that links particulate pollution to additional coronavirus deaths.
An EPA spokesman declined to comment on the timing of these rules. “EPA continues to advance this administration’s commitment to meaningful environmental progress while moving forward with our regulatory reform agenda,” the spokesman, James Hewitt, said.
While those rules have developed over years, others were launched later and officials are taking shortcuts to finish in time. Reviews by the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs that normally take 90 days or more are now wrapping up in as few as five days.
The White House is close to completing several rules that would extend Trump’s record of restricting immigration and make the changes harder for the Biden administration to reverse. The pending rules would make it more difficult to claim asylum by excluding people with criminal convictions (even those that have been expunged), drastically shortening the application time and giving immigration judges more latitude to pick and choose what evidence to consider. The departments of Justice and Homeland Security didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Some rules read like Trump’s stump speeches translated into policy legalese. The Department of Energy is racing to loosen efficiency standards for showerheads and laundry machines, evoking Trump’s recurring bits about bathroom water pressure. “Do you ever get under a shower and no water comes out?” Trump said at an October rally in Nevada. “And me, I want that hair to be so beautiful.”
Notably, the trade group representing washer manufacturers actually opposes the administration’s proposal, saying it’s unnecessary because many machines already have short-cycle options. The proposed rule is supported by small-government advocates such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Water and electric companies warn it could lead to higher consumption and waste. The Energy Department didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The administration is also bucking business groups with proposals to restrict high-skilled immigration; in October, the departments of Homeland Security and Labor unveiled regulations to raise wage and education requirements for H-1B visas, which are often used in the information-technology industry. (The proposal drew opposition from the Small Business Administration, saying the higher costs would stifle innovation and growth.) But while raising the wage scale for skilled immigrants, the administration is pushing a different new rule to lower wages for “low-skilled” immigrant farmworkers. A spokesperson for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (part of DHS) told ProPublica that “Any delay in responding to an economic emergency and high unemployment in a way that protects American workers and ensures the H-1B program is administered consistent with statutory requirements could cause real harm to the U.S. economy.” The Department of Labor didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Other rules are more clearly accommodating powerful business interests. A rule completed on Nov. 13 would restrict pension managers from considering social and environmental impacts (known in the industry as ESG) when choosing investments. Another Labor Department rule would make it easier for companies like Uber to withhold benefits by classifying workers as independent contractors instead of full employees. Both proposals had a truncated public comment period of only 30 days. A spokesman said the agency considers all comments regardless of how long the period lasts and that the department is working to complete all regulations on its agenda.
Chicken Plants on the Fast Track
Such shortcuts still might not be enough to finish some new rules that are just starting out now. Still, these tactics have raised alarms about the USDA’s proposal to speed up chicken factories, even though a regulatory change like that would ordinarily take two years or more. The USDA has not provided a timeline, and the proposal is not yet public while the White House reviews it. An agency spokesman said the department is following the standard process.
The rules change has the support of the National Chicken Council, an industry trade group, which argues that the timing is not political. Spokesman Tom Super called the proposal “the most deliberative and studied proposed rule that has ever been issued. It spans three decades, four administrations — Republican and Democrat — countless scientific studies and various court cases.”
The USDA has been laying the groundwork for the rule change for years. Even though safety concerns scuttled the USDA’s previous attempt to raise speeds from 140 birds per minute to 175, in 2018 the agency started granting one-off waivers to individual plants that sought permission to run faster.
The performance of those plants could equip the USDA to argue that the speed limit should go up in all of them. Although the agency has not yet released its formal justification for the new proposal, officials have referenced a new study in the journal Poultry Science that concluded that inspectors in plants with faster speeds did not detect higher average levels of salmonella contamination.
The USDA funded the study through a no-bid contract worth up to $500,000 awarded in 2018 to Louis Anthony “Tony” Cox Jr., a statistician who consults for business interests such as the American Petroleum Institute and the American Chemistry Council, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting.
Cox declined to share data he secured exclusively from the USDA or to be interviewed for this article. In emailed answers to written questions, he defended his methodology but acknowledged there’s room for further study.
Other evidence, however, suggests faster speeds could make chicken less safe to eat. In a September article in the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science, USDA researcher Jeremy Marchant-Forde and a co-author found that USDA inspectors threw out record-low amounts of chicken when the agency let more plants speed up since May. The authors called this “a major threat to public health” to the extent it suggests inspectors were failing to find contaminated carcasses (rather than the birds having suddenly become much cleaner). But the authors cautioned they’re not food safety experts and declined to comment further.
While the food safety issues are debated, there’s already clear evidence that running faster lines poses higher worker risks, both repetitive strain injuries like carpal tunnel and traumatic injuries like cuts and amputations. But the USDA maintains that it is responsible only for food safety; worker safety is the job of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
That’s exactly the kind of interagency dialogue that the White House is supposed to coordinate when planning new regulations — and the kind of process that could be shortchanged in the final months of an administration, according to the American Public Health Association’s Occupational Health and Safety Section. An OSHA spokeswoman declined to say whether the agency has weighed in on the USDA’s proposal. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has not yet commented on the proposal but plans to, a spokeswoman said.
“This last-minute push for an ill-advised rule change could be deadly for essential workers in slaughterhouses,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health, an advocacy group for safer working conditions.
Leasing Against the Clock
Since many finalized Trump rules are currently under court challenges, the Biden administration might be able to let some of them wither or die in litigation — especially where judges have blocked or struck down the regulations and the new Justice Department could decide not to appeal.
It will also have to wrestle with other changes the Trump administration is rushing to implement, using tactics other than rule-making.
The Trump administration is also pressing ahead with opening up more federal lands to oil and gas development, despite low prices, sluggish demand and complaints from environmental groups that drilling would encroach on wildlife habitats and national parks. Bids are starting at just $2 an acre for more than 445,000 acres of public land with leases for sale to energy companies through the Bureau of Land Management, according to data from EnergyNet.com.
The leases could expand dramatically as the BLM finalizes a plan to allow oil and gas drilling on an additional 6.8 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, a habitat for bears, musk oxen, caribou and birds. Spokespeople for the BLM didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Separately, the Interior Department will open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The agency is spending 30 days asking companies for bids, and then sales need another 30 days to take effect — just enough time to beat the clock before the inauguration.
An Interior Department spokesman said the agency is taking “a significant step” to implement Congress’ direction in the 2017 Republican tax bill to start drilling in ANWR. “The department will continue to implement President Trump’s agenda to create more American jobs, protect the safety of American workers, support domestic energy production and conserve our environment,” the spokesman, Conner Swanson, said. He didn’t say whether the leases would be done by Jan. 20.
Leases that have not yet been issued would be easier for the Biden administration to drop, but even finalized leases could be withdrawn if officials decide they were improperly issued or too environmentally dangerous, according to Erik Grafe, an attorney with Earthjustice in Anchorage. (Leaseholders might argue they deserve to be compensated.)
In addition, even once leases are issued, companies need permits and authorizations before actually taking action on the ground, Grafe said. Those steps would take more time and face legal challenges. Earthjustice and other groups are already suing to block the Arctic drilling program as a whole.
“We have been protecting this place forever,” said Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich’in steering committee representing indigenous hunting communities in northeast Alaska. “This fight is far from over, and we will do whatever it takes to defend our sacred homelands.”
Lydia DePillis, Dara Lind, Lisa Song, Jake Kincaid, Doris Burke, Annie Waldman and Zipporah Osei contributed reporting.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-11-26--SCOTUS Rules Against New York State’s COVID Limits on Large Religious Gatherings

Public health experts and other critics warned that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down late Wednesday night will lead to more coronavirus outbreaks and superspreader events , as the court decided that New York state can not place limits on religious gatherings to mitigate the spread of Covid-19 .
“ The court ’ s decision to put religious rights above all else , including public health , in the worst month of the worst health crisis of our lifetime is outrageous and dangerous , ” wrote Jodi Hicks , president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California , on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice John Roberts sided with the three more liberal justices , as he has in previous cases this year in which religious organizations in California and Nevada claimed that restrictions on their gatherings were a violation of religious liberty .
The case was the first in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett ’ s presence on the court was a deciding factor ; in the previous rulings , the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was part of the majority which decided restrictions on the gatherings should stand to protect public health .
The case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s restrictions , which hold that in areas designated “ red zones ” for coronavirus spread , no more than 10 people may attend a religious service , and that in “ orange zones ” no more than 25 people can attend .
The state ’ s color-coded zones have shifted as outbreaks are mitigated and the virus spreads to different areas .
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion , claiming that Cuomo ’ s restrictions violate the First Amendment right to free exercise of religious beliefs .
In the opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activities such as shopping , because various stores in red and orange zones have not been subject to the same restrictions as churches , synagogues , mosques , and other places of worship .
“ The governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers ‘ essential , ' ” wrote Gorsuch .
“ According to the governor , it may be unsafe to go to church , but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine , shop for a new bike , or spend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meridians .
Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience ?
” As New York State Solicitor General Barbara Underwood noted in a letter to the Supreme Court , events and venues which typically invite large gatherings have not been given any preferential treatment in red and orange zones .
Religious services “ tend to involve large numbers of people from different households arriving simultaneously ; congregating as an audience for an extended period of time to talk , sing , or chant ; and then leaving simultaneously — as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mingle in close proximity throughout , ” Underwood wrote .
“ Among other things , in both red and orange zones , casinos , bowling alleys , arcades , movie theaters , and fitness centers are closed completely.
” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent in the case , suggesting Gorsuch was disingenuous in expressing concern that Cuomo ’ s restrictions unfairly target religious gatherings .
“ Justice Gorsuch does not even try to square his examples with the conditions medical experts tell us facilitate the spread of Covid-19 : large groups of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in close proximity indoors for extended periods of time , ” Sotomayor wrote .
“ Unlike religious services , which ‘ have every one of those risk factors ’ …bike repair shops and liquor stores do not feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more at a time.
” Critics on social media also pointed out the error in Gorsuch ’ s reasoning .
“ You ’ d have to be deliberately distorting it to miss the point this badly , ” tweeted historian Kevin Kruse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I guess .
His legacy is marching on.
” A number of coronavirus outbreaks have been linked to religious gatherings .
In October , officials in Michigan reported that 5 % of the state ’ s outbreaks were tied to religious services where large groups gathered indoors .
Churches in Maine have been linked to at least two outbreaks , and this month officials in North Carolina have connected at least 213 Covid-19 cases and 12 deaths to religious gatherings .
The Supreme Court ’ s Wednesday ruling signals that “ people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asking , ‘ please just keep it small , ' ” tweeted New York-based physician Dr. Dara Kass .
“ Free religious exercise is one of our most treasured and jealously guarded constitutional rights , ” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent .
“ States may not discriminate against religious institutions , even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one .
But those principles are not at stake today .
”

Public health experts warned that the Supreme Court ruling would lead to more COVID outbreaks and superspreader events.
Public health experts and other critics warned that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling handed down late Wednesday night will lead to more coronavirus outbreaks and superspreader events, as the court decided that New York state cannot place limits on religious gatherings to mitigate the spread of Covid-19.
“The court’s decision to put religious rights above all else, including public health, in the worst month of the worst health crisis of our lifetime is outrageous and dangerous,” wrote Jodi Hicks, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, on Twitter.
In the 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three more liberal justices, as he has in previous cases this year in which religious organizations in California and Nevada claimed that restrictions on their gatherings were a violation of religious liberty. The case was the first in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s presence on the court was a deciding factor; in the previous rulings, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was part of the majority which decided restrictions on the gatherings should stand to protect public health.
The case involved New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s restrictions, which hold that in areas designated “red zones” for coronavirus spread, no more than 10 people may attend a religious service, and that in “orange zones” no more than 25 people can attend. The state’s color-coded zones have shifted as outbreaks are mitigated and the virus spreads to different areas.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, claiming that Cuomo’s restrictions violate the First Amendment right to free exercise of religious beliefs. In the opinion, Gorsuch claimed Cuomo unfairly favored secular activities such as shopping, because various stores in red and orange zones have not been subject to the same restrictions as churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship.
“The governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers ‘essential,'” wrote Gorsuch. “According to the governor, it may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine, shop for a new bike, or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?”
As New York State Solicitor General Barbara Underwood noted in a letter to the Supreme Court, events and venues which typically invite large gatherings have not been given any preferential treatment in red and orange zones.
Religious services “tend to involve large numbers of people from different households arriving simultaneously; congregating as an audience for an extended period of time to talk, sing, or chant; and then leaving simultaneously — as well as the possibility that participants will mingle in close proximity throughout,” Underwood wrote. “Among other things, in both red and orange zones, casinos, bowling alleys, arcades, movie theaters, and fitness centers are closed completely.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent in the case, suggesting Gorsuch was disingenuous in expressing concern that Cuomo’s restrictions unfairly target religious gatherings.
By 5-4 votes (with Justice Barrett in the majority and the Chief dissenting) #SCOTUS has enjoined NY’s limits on in-person religious services pending appeals by Catholic and Jewish houses of worship:https://t.co/3JCttByeDs Justice Sotomayor’s dissent gets right to the point: pic.twitter.com/5bJeCoCgFA — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) November 26, 2020
“Justice Gorsuch does not even try to square his examples with the conditions medical experts tell us facilitate the spread of Covid-19: large groups of people gathering, speaking, and singing in close proximity indoors for extended periods of time,” Sotomayor wrote. “Unlike religious services, which ‘have every one of those risk factors’…bike repair shops and liquor stores do not feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more at a time.”
Critics on social media also pointed out the error in Gorsuch’s reasoning.
True, when I buy a bike it typically involves a tightly packed room with a lot of singing, two hours of communal talking in a foreign language, followed by hugging & handshakes after the purchase is made https://t.co/zYWzqBCvEE — Adam Blickstein (@AdamBlickstein) November 26, 2020
Right, when I go get a bottle of wine, hundreds of other customers and I stay side-by-side in the same room for an hour, signing loudly and shaking hands, right before we crack open the wine and all try a little bit of it right then and there. Brilliant point. https://t.co/dC1SMQzRPd — Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) November 26, 2020
Cuomo also banned mass gatherings like concerts and comedy clubs, I believe. The distinction wasn’t secular/religious but clearly small/large. You’d have to be deliberately distorting it to miss the point this badly. That’s the Trump Court, I guess. His legacy is marching on. — Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) November 26, 2020
“You’d have to be deliberately distorting it to miss the point this badly,” tweeted historian Kevin Kruse. “That’s the Trump Court, I guess. His legacy is marching on.”
A number of coronavirus outbreaks have been linked to religious gatherings. In October, officials in Michigan reported that 5% of the state’s outbreaks were tied to religious services where large groups gathered indoors. Churches in Maine have been linked to at least two outbreaks, and this month officials in North Carolina have connected at least 213 Covid-19 cases and 12 deaths to religious gatherings.
The Supreme Court’s Wednesday ruling signals that “people can gather without restriction, despite us asking, ‘please just keep it small,'” tweeted New York-based physician Dr. Dara Kass.
Translation: selfish people can gather without restriction, despite us asking “please just keep it small”, propped up by a SCOTUS willing to use the cover of religious liberty to constrain a governor’s ability to protect his citizens. https://t.co/Ypbf3fFj5f — Dara Kass, MD (@darakass) November 26, 2020
“Free religious exercise is one of our most treasured and jealously guarded constitutional rights,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “States may not discriminate against religious institutions, even when faced with a crisis as deadly as this one. But those principles are not at stake today.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-11-27--Republican Senator Faces Insider-Trading Accusations Ahead of Georgia Runoff

David Perdue , one of two multimillionaire Georgia Republican senators facing insider-trading scrutiny ahead of runoff elections in January , traded hundreds of thousands of dollars in bank stock while passing pro-bank legislation on the Senate Banking Committee , financial disclosures show .
Between 2017 and 2020 , while on the committee , Perdue co-sponsored 14 bills that benefited the financial industry , including through deregulation and extended liability protection .
In that time he also accepted more than $ 1 million in political contributions from financial interests , federal filings show .
This spring Perdue , one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back against allegations of insider trading in advance of the coronavirus , claiming that outside advisers made the calls without his input .
A bombshell New York Times report on Wednesday has made clear that was a lie : This summer , Justice Department investigators found that Perdue had instructed one of his brokers to offload more than $ 1 million in a company after the CEO tipped off the senator in a personal email .
This news comes as Perdue faces a Jan. 5 runoff against Democratic rival Jon Ossoff , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the year .
The runoff , along with Georgia Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler ’ s runoff election held on the same day — Loeffler faces the Rev .
Raphael Warnock , a Democrat — will determine which party controls the Senate .
The latest stock news also creates a new context for assessing Perdue ’ s personal involvement in prior trades , such as millions of dollars in transactions while he served on the Banking Committee .
Perdue , one of the wealthiest members of Congress , built his fortune in the style @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specialist who helps revive brands and reap rewards for investors , ” as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution put it in a review of his business record .
The AJC ruled that his record was “ mixed , ” in part because of a buyout Perdue helped structure as the CEO of Dollar General , which landed him a $ 42 million windfall when he stepped down in 2008 .
The next year , the company had to pay that same amount to settle shareholder claims that Perdue and other execs had shortchanged them in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected to the Senate in 2014 , has invested millions .
A portion of it rests in a Wells Fargo brokerage account and a Georgia holding company called DBP Enterprises , where Perdue has held an ownership stake since 2011 .
That DBP stake comprises 130 assets valued anywhere between $ 12 million and $ 29 million , according to 2018 Senate financial disclosures .
His Wells Fargo account lists 60 assets valued at up to $ 1.2 million .
Disclosures only provide ranges of value , so we can not know precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stock trades , or the extent of his profits .
But the forms do show that between 2017 and 2020 , while he sat on the Banking Committee , Perdue traded at a minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars , possibly millions .
According to the disclosures , Perdue held up to $ 910,000 in bank stocks alone from 2017 to 2019 , through DBP and Wells Fargo .
The shares earned him up to $ 204,000 in capital gains and dividends payouts .
But Perdue does not let his stocks sit idle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show , the senator not only sold as much as $ 135,000 in bank stock , but scooped up as much as $ 600,000 .
Over the next two years he cranked up the volume , unloading as much as $ 1,110,000 in banking shares and buying as much as $ 480,000 .
In April of this year , Perdue was swept up in the same insider trading scandal that has also damaged Loeffler , when it was revealed that earlier in the year he had bought and sold shares in several companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic .
The scandal , which included Senate veterans Richard Burr , R-N.C. , and Diane Feinstein , D-Calif. , shook public confidence , raising concerns that elected officials had abused their access to privileged information in order to capitalize personally on the spread of the disease .
The next month , under scrutiny from the public and government investigators , and with the election on the horizon , Perdue pledged to stop trading individual stocks .
In September he announced that the Department of Justice , the Securities and Exchange Commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cleared him of wrongdoing .
He marked the occasion with a new campaign ad , which accused Ossoff of lying to voters about Perdue ’ s involvement .
The Times gave the lie to that defense on Wednesday , indicating that Perdue had acted on a personal tip .
The report recalls a moment from an October 2017 hearing , where senators on the Banking Committee grilled Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan about the account fraud scandal that had wracked the bank the year before .
The scandal earned the bank a $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protection Bureau , an agency Perdue had sought to defang earlier that same year with a bill that the American Bankers Association called “ an effective check and balance on the Bureau ’ s authority.
” Perdue , whose Wells Fargo account at the time held up to $ 1.2 million , teed Sloan up to defend his company , but Sloan , contrite in the face of multiple bareknuckled government investigations , repeatedly declined the exit ramp .
Perdue then let slip a reference to a private conversation , before reluctantly admitting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a $ 3 billion federal fine — was a “ serious issue.
” “ I think you would agree , we in a private conversation — there is no way to sugarcoat this as a serious issue , and I appreciate your handling it the way that you are , ” Perdue said .
Over the next three years , Perdue continued to throw softballs to big banks .
As he was slinging stock , he cosponsored 14 bills that benefited the financial industry , the majority earning the blessing of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on by financial institutions where Perdue held hundreds of thousands in stock , including Regions Financial , US Bancorp and JP Morgan .
For instance , in 2017 , Perdue cosponsored a bill called the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act , which was geared to loosen Dodd-Frank regulations on mid-sized banks .
The bill never made it out of committee , but Regional Financial and US Bancorp , where Perdue had stashed $ 300,000 , both lobbied heavily on it .
Perdue went after Dodd-Frank again that year , cosponsoring the Economic Growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which The New York Times reported “ frees banks from a variety of regulations that were imposed after the financial crisis of 2008 , ” including “ innovative measures ” that targeted large institutions .
That bill never made it out of committee , but was lobbied on by banks where Perdue held up to $ 465,000 of stock at the time , including Wells Fargo .
In two instances , Perdue received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from financial institutions on the same day he introduced legislation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ signed on as an original co-sponsor of a bill that postponed compliance with a new accounting standard that some in the financial industry believed would impede lending during an economic downturn .
FEC records show that in the days before Perdue co-sponsored the bill and the two weeks immediately afterward , he received nearly $ 50,000 from employees at the Capital Group , a financial services company , including $ 5,400 from the CEO .
In October 2017 , a few weeks after Sloan ’ s testimony , Perdue co-sponsored legislation that eased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lines .
That bill was first introduced in August , and in the month before Perdue added his name on Oct. 25 , his campaign received $ 24,000 from employees of the wealth management company SEI Investments , according to FEC filings .
Fourteen of those SEI employees gave $ 1,000 on Oct. 19 , but only one employee donated the same day that Perdue committed to the bill : a maximum donation of $ 5,400 , from CEO Alfred West .
This September , Postmaster General Louis DeJoy was hit with FEC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donor ” scheme , in which he reimbursed employees for political donations to his favored candidates .
Over the course of his career , Perdue has accepted more than $ 2 million in donations from the investment and securities industry , and half a million from commercial banks .
But considering that so few of those bills made it past the committee , and only two became law , it is not clear who got the most out of their investment .
A Perdue campaign spokesperson did not reply to questions for this @ @

David Perdue, one of two multimillionaire Georgia Republican senators facing insider-trading scrutiny ahead of runoff elections in January, traded hundreds of thousands of dollars in bank stock while passing pro-bank legislation on the Senate Banking Committee, financial disclosures show.
Between 2017 and 2020, while on the committee, Perdue co-sponsored 14 bills that benefited the financial industry, including through deregulation and extended liability protection. In that time he also accepted more than $1 million in political contributions from financial interests, federal filings show.
This spring Perdue, one of the most active traders in Congress, pushed back against allegations of insider trading in advance of the coronavirus, claiming that outside advisers made the calls without his input.
A bombshell New York Times report on Wednesday has made clear that was a lie: This summer, Justice Department investigators found that Perdue had instructed one of his brokers to offload more than $1 million in a company after the CEO tipped off the senator in a personal email.
This news comes as Perdue faces a Jan. 5 runoff against Democratic rival Jon Ossoff, who battered Perdue on the insider-trading allegations throughout the year. The runoff, along with Georgia Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler’s runoff election held on the same day — Loeffler faces the Rev. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat — will determine which party controls the Senate.
The latest stock news also creates a new context for assessing Perdue’s personal involvement in prior trades, such as millions of dollars in transactions while he served on the Banking Committee.
Perdue, one of the wealthiest members of Congress, built his fortune in the style of Mitt Romney — “a turnaround specialist who helps revive brands and reap rewards for investors,” as the Atlanta Journal-Constitution put it in a review of his business record.
The AJC ruled that his record was “mixed,” in part because of a buyout Perdue helped structure as the CEO of Dollar General, which landed him a $42 million windfall when he stepped down in 2008. The next year, the company had to pay that same amount to settle shareholder claims that Perdue and other execs had shortchanged them in the deal.
Perdue, who was elected to the Senate in 2014, has invested millions. A portion of it rests in a Wells Fargo brokerage account and a Georgia holding company called DBP Enterprises, where Perdue has held an ownership stake since 2011.
That DBP stake comprises 130 assets valued anywhere between $12 million and $29 million, according to 2018 Senate financial disclosures. His Wells Fargo account lists 60 assets valued at up to $1.2 million.
Disclosures only provide ranges of value, so we cannot know precisely how much money Perdue has moved in stock trades, or the extent of his profits. But the forms do show that between 2017 and 2020, while he sat on the Banking Committee, Perdue traded at a minimum hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly millions.
According to the disclosures, Perdue held up to $910,000 in bank stocks alone from 2017 to 2019, through DBP and Wells Fargo. The shares earned him up to $204,000 in capital gains and dividends payouts.
But Perdue does not let his stocks sit idle. Between 2017 and 2018, disclosures show, the senator not only sold as much as $135,000 in bank stock, but scooped up as much as $600,000. Over the next two years he cranked up the volume, unloading as much as $1,110,000 in banking shares and buying as much as $480,000.
In April of this year, Perdue was swept up in the same insider trading scandal that has also damaged Loeffler, when it was revealed that earlier in the year he had bought and sold shares in several companies that were eventually directly affected by the coronavirus pandemic. The scandal, which included Senate veterans Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., shook public confidence, raising concerns that elected officials had abused their access to privileged information in order to capitalize personally on the spread of the disease.
The next month, under scrutiny from the public and government investigators, and with the election on the horizon, Perdue pledged to stop trading individual stocks.
In September he announced that the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee had all cleared him of wrongdoing. He marked the occasion with a new campaign ad, which accused Ossoff of lying to voters about Perdue’s involvement.
The Times gave the lie to that defense on Wednesday, indicating that Perdue had acted on a personal tip. The report recalls a moment from an October 2017 hearing, where senators on the Banking Committee grilled Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan about the account fraud scandal that had wracked the bank the year before.
The scandal earned the bank a $150 million fine from the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, an agency Perdue had sought to defang earlier that same year with a bill that the American Bankers Association called “an effective check and balance on the Bureau’s authority.”
Perdue, whose Wells Fargo account at the time held up to $1.2 million, teed Sloan up to defend his company, but Sloan, contrite in the face of multiple bareknuckled government investigations, repeatedly declined the exit ramp. Perdue then let slip a reference to a private conversation, before reluctantly admitting that the decade-long scandal — which resulted in a $3 billion federal fine — was a “serious issue.”
“I think you would agree, we in a private conversation — there is no way to sugarcoat this as a serious issue, and I appreciate your handling it the way that you are,” Perdue said.
Over the next three years, Perdue continued to throw softballs to big banks. As he was slinging stock, he cosponsored 14 bills that benefited the financial industry, the majority earning the blessing of the ABA. Five of them were lobbied on by financial institutions where Perdue held hundreds of thousands in stock, including Regions Financial, US Bancorp and JP Morgan.
For instance, in 2017, Perdue cosponsored a bill called the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act, which was geared to loosen Dodd-Frank regulations on mid-sized banks. The bill never made it out of committee, but Regional Financial and US Bancorp, where Perdue had stashed $300,000, both lobbied heavily on it.
Perdue went after Dodd-Frank again that year, cosponsoring the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, which The New York Times reported “frees banks from a variety of regulations that were imposed after the financial crisis of 2008,” including “innovative measures” that targeted large institutions. That bill never made it out of committee, but was lobbied on by banks where Perdue held up to $465,000 of stock at the time, including Wells Fargo.
In two instances, Perdue received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from financial institutions on the same day he introduced legislation.
On May 21, 2019, Perdue signed on as an original co-sponsor of a bill that postponed compliance with a new accounting standard that some in the financial industry believed would impede lending during an economic downturn. FEC records show that in the days before Perdue co-sponsored the bill and the two weeks immediately afterward, he received nearly $50,000 from employees at the Capital Group, a financial services company, including $5,400 from the CEO.
In October 2017, a few weeks after Sloan’s testimony, Perdue co-sponsored legislation that eased regulations on mortgage transfers that cross state lines. That bill was first introduced in August, and in the month before Perdue added his name on Oct. 25, his campaign received $24,000 from employees of the wealth management company SEI Investments, according to FEC filings.
Fourteen of those SEI employees gave $1,000 on Oct. 19, but only one employee donated the same day that Perdue committed to the bill: a maximum donation of $5,400, from CEO Alfred West.
This September, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy was hit with FEC criminal complaints for an alleged “straw donor” scheme, in which he reimbursed employees for political donations to his favored candidates.
Over the course of his career, Perdue has accepted more than $2 million in donations from the investment and securities industry, and half a million from commercial banks. But considering that so few of those bills made it past the committee, and only two became law, it is not clear who got the most out of their investment.
A Perdue campaign spokesperson did not reply to questions for this article.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-11-27--Senate GOP Wants to Freeze Pay for All Federal Workers During a Pandemic

With the government set to shut down in just two weeks without action from Congress , Senate Republicans are advocating an across-the-board pay freeze for civilian federal workers in 2021 as part of their plan to fund agencies amid the deadly coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic crisis .
Employee organizations and Democratic lawmakers reacted with outrage after Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee quietly unveiled their pay-freeze proposal earlier this month , with the largest union of federal workers calling the plan a “ cruel slap in the face to those who have risked their lives to maintain government services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis in our lifetimes.
” “ Trying to outdo President Trump in disrespecting federal employees by eliminating even the paltry raise he put forth is completely unwarranted and will only worsen the government ’ s ability to function effectively , ” Everett Kelley , national president of the American Federation of Government Employees ( AFGE ) said in a statement .
“ There is no justification for denying our civil servants a decent pay increase next year .
We call on lawmakers to reject this insulting maneuver.
” Jessica Klement , staff vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association , noted that “ this is a year when federal employees have stepped up to respond to a global pandemic , with tens of thousands on the frontlines working on behalf of the American people and contracting Covid-19 in the process.
” “ Yet they face the prospect of a pay freeze , ” said Klement .
“ That ’ s not just an affront to public service ; it ’ s a policy that risks losing highly competent and productive employees from the ranks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the citizens they serve.
” The GOP proposal — which falls short of Trump ’ s call for a meager 1 % across-the-board pay increase for federal workers in 2021 — came as lawmakers are working to avert what would be a devastating government shutdown amid twin public health and economic crises with no end in sight .
If Congress fails to reach an agreement or Trump refuses to sign off , the government will shut down on December 11 .
Earlier this week , House and Senate appropriators reportedly reached an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending package , but the details of the $ 1.4 trillion legislation — including whether the deal includes the GOP ’ s proposed pay freeze or coronavirus relief — remain secret .
Some House Democrats have pushed for a 3 % across-the-board pay raise for civilian federal employees .
“ Even with an allocations deal in place , ” Roll Call reported , “ there is no guarantee that a bipartisan omnibus package can be written and passed… before current funding expires .
Differences in funding levels between the House and Senate masked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will still need to be resolved for an omnibus deal to come together.
” While it is unclear whether the GOP push for a pay freeze will survive the negotiation process , the proposal served as evidence of Senate Republicans ’ priorities as workers across the U.S. suffer from the widespread economic fallout sparked by the coronavirus pandemic .
“ As our federal employees work every day to deliver vital services to the American people , Republicans continue to try to strip them of their rights , politicize the merit-based system , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work , ” Sen. Chris Van Hollen ( D-Md . )
said in a statement .
“ We can not let this stand .
I will fight tooth and nail to stop this proposed pay freeze and ensure that the good work of federal employees is fairly compensated .
”

The government could shut down on December 11 if Congress and Trump cannot agree on new spending legislation.
With the government set to shut down in just two weeks without action from Congress, Senate Republicans are advocating an across-the-board pay freeze for civilian federal workers in 2021 as part of their plan to fund agencies amid the deadly coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic crisis.
Employee organizations and Democratic lawmakers reacted with outrage after Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee quietly unveiled their pay-freeze proposal earlier this month, with the largest union of federal workers calling the plan a “cruel slap in the face to those who have risked their lives to maintain government services for all Americans during the worst health crisis in our lifetimes.”
“Trying to outdo President Trump in disrespecting federal employees by eliminating even the paltry raise he put forth is completely unwarranted and will only worsen the government’s ability to function effectively,” Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) said in a statement. “There is no justification for denying our civil servants a decent pay increase next year. We call on lawmakers to reject this insulting maneuver.”
Jessica Klement, staff vice president for programs and policy at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, noted that “this is a year when federal employees have stepped up to respond to a global pandemic, with tens of thousands on the frontlines working on behalf of the American people and contracting Covid-19 in the process.”
“Yet they face the prospect of a pay freeze,” said Klement. “That’s not just an affront to public service; it’s a policy that risks losing highly competent and productive employees from the ranks of our federal government, to the detriment of the citizens they serve.”
The GOP proposal — which falls short of Trump’s call for a meager 1% across-the-board pay increase for federal workers in 2021 — came as lawmakers are working to avert what would be a devastating government shutdown amid twin public health and economic crises with no end in sight. If Congress fails to reach an agreement or Trump refuses to sign off, the government will shut down on December 11.
Earlier this week, House and Senate appropriators reportedly reached an agreement on a framework for an omnibus spending package, but the details of the $1.4 trillion legislation — including whether the deal includes the GOP’s proposed pay freeze or coronavirus relief — remain secret. Some House Democrats have pushed for a 3% across-the-board pay raise for civilian federal employees.
“Even with an allocations deal in place,” Roll Call reported, “there is no guarantee that a bipartisan omnibus package can be written and passed… before current funding expires. Differences in funding levels between the House and Senate masked an array of partisan policy disputes that will still need to be resolved for an omnibus deal to come together.”
While it is unclear whether the GOP push for a pay freeze will survive the negotiation process, the proposal served as evidence of Senate Republicans’ priorities as workers across the U.S. suffer from the widespread economic fallout sparked by the coronavirus pandemic.
“As our federal employees work every day to deliver vital services to the American people, Republicans continue to try to strip them of their rights, politicize the merit-based system, and deny them fair pay for their hard work,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said in a statement. “We cannot let this stand. I will fight tooth and nail to stop this proposed pay freeze and ensure that the good work of federal employees is fairly compensated.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.