March, 26 2021, 12:00am EDT
3 Key Takeaways from Sen. Manchin's Calling for Bipartisan Support of Key Voting Rights and Campaign Finance Reforms in S. 1
Yesterday, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) reaffirmed his support for protecting voting rights and reforming the campaign finance laws, two key areas addressed by the For the People Act--a sign that momentum continues to grow for the wildly popular legislation. Here are three key takeaways from his statement:
WASHINGTON
Yesterday, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) reaffirmed his support for protecting voting rights and reforming the campaign finance laws, two key areas addressed by the For the People Act--a sign that momentum continues to grow for the wildly popular legislation. Here are three key takeaways from his statement:
1. Sen. Manchin clearly indicated his support for a number of provisions of the bill that protect voting rights and strengthen campaign finance laws, saying:
- "A healthy democracy depends on a voting system that is accessible, free, fair, and secure...We can also do more to help those groups that have been historically disenfranchised and underrepresented in our federal elections through bipartisan solutions."
- "Now, more and more lawmakers spend their time dialing for dollars, instead of legislating for their constituents. The never-ending battle to raise money to spend on reelection campaigns cheapens our elections to nothing more than financial transactions. That is why I have and will continually support changing our campaign finance rules."
2. Manchin's statement correctly noted that a number of provisions of the For the People Act have had the support of Republican lawmakers in the past--including the Honest Ads Act, Secure Elections Act, and Prevent Election Hacking Act.
- Earlier this year, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington outlined how many provisions of the For the People Act have bipartisan origins. You can read the report here.
3. While Manchin calls for working towards a bipartisan solution on voting and campaign finance, Senate Republicans have offered no support for major voting and campaign finance provisions in S.1--and if this does not change, then Senate Democrats will have no choice but to pass S.1 without them.
Democracy advocates lauded Sen. Manchin's affirmation of the bill's key provisions, saying:
- Fred Wertheimer, President of Democracy 21: "Democracy 21 thanks Senator Manchin for his strong statement today on the need for the Senate to address voting reforms and reforms to address 'the disturbing role money plays in our democracy.'"
- Adam Green, PCCC Co-Founder: "This statement by Senator Manchin was a game changer... Senator Manchin made clear federal democracy reforms are alive and well--and that he is invested in getting them across the finish line. We'll take that as very good news."
- Karen Hobert Flynn, Common Cause President: "We appreciate that Senator Joe Manchin reaffirmed his commitment to protecting voting rights and strengthening our democracy with big bold reforms today... As the For the People Act goes through the Senate process in 2021, we fully expect Senator Manchin to support the bill again."
- Tiffany Muller, President of End Citizens United // Let America Vote Action Fund: "We thank Senator Manchin for taking a serious, thoughtful approach to the For the People Act."
Repair Our Democracy, a project of Democracy 21, is focused on defending the For the People Act against bad-faith attacks and outright lies.
LATEST NEWS
Senate Dems Urge Treasury Chief to Crack Down on Rich Tax Dodgers
"The Treasury Department can and should exercise the full extent of its regulatory authority to limit this blatant abuse of our tax system by the ultrawealthy."
Mar 21, 2023
Four U.S senators this week called on Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to use her existing authority to go after American billionaires and multimillionaires who "use trusts to shift wealth to their heirs tax-free, dodging federal estate and gift taxes."
"They are doing this in the open: Their wealth managers are bragging about how their tax dodging tricks will be more effective in the current economy," stressed Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
"While we look forward to continuing to partner with you on legislative solutions," the senators wrote to Yellen, "the Treasury Department can and should exercise the full extent of its regulatory authority to limit this blatant abuse of our tax system by the ultrawealthy."
Their letter to the Treasury leader, dated Monday and first reported by CBS MoneyWatch Tuesday, highlights that "only the wealthiest American families" are asked to pay transfer taxes such as the estate tax, gift tax, and generation-skipping transfer (GST) tax.
As the letter lays out:
Tax avoidance through grantor trusts starts with the ultrawealthy putting assets into a trust with the intention of transferring them to heirs. Grantor trusts are trusts where the grantor retains control over the assets, and the structures of some of these grantor trusts allow the transfer of massive sums tax-free. Tax planning via grantor trusts, including grantor retained annuity trusts (GRATs), is a kind of shell game, with a wealthy person and their wealth managers able to pass assets back and forth in ways that effectively pass wealth to heirs while minimizing tax liability.
Some of the wealthiest families further compound this tax avoidance with perpetual dynasty trusts, which can be used to shield assets from transfer tax liability indefinitely. For example, aggressive valuation discounts can artificially reduce the value of assets transferred into a trust below the GST tax exemption threshold, after which the assets can grow in perpetuity within a trust exempt from transfer tax.
"The ultrawealthy at the top of the socioeconomic ladder live by different rules than the rest of America, especially when it comes to our tax system," the letter charges. "As the richest Americans celebrate and take advantage of these favorable tax opportunities, middle-class families struggle with inflation and Republicans threaten austerity measures and the end of Social Security and Medicare."
To help force the richest Americans to "pay their fair share" in taxes, the senators are calling on Treasury to revoke a pair of tax code rulings from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); require GRATs to have a minimum remainder value; reissue family limited partnership regulations; clarify that intentionally defective grantor trusts (IDGTs) are not entitled to stepped-up basis; and put out clarifying regulations on certain valuation rules for estate and gift taxes.
The senators also sent a series of questions—about potential administrative action, how much is estimated to be held in grantor trusts, and how much could be raised from cracking down on abuse—and requested a response from Treasury by April 3.
Their letter comes after President Joe Biden earlier this month introduced a budget blueprint for fiscal year 2024 that would hike taxes on the rich—proposed policies praised by progressive experts and advocates as "fair, popular, and long overdue."
Yellen last week appeared before the Senate Finance Committee—of which Warren and Whitehouse are members—to testify about the administration's proposal. She said in part that "our proposed budget builds on our economic progress by making smart, fiscally responsible investments. These investments would be more than fully paid for by requiring corporations and the wealthiest to pay their fair share."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden DOL Praised for Historic Suit Over Using Debt Threat to Stop Workers From Quitting
The department's "action against predatory stay-or-pay contracts sends a monumental message to employers: Obey the law or face repercussions," said the head of Towards Justice.
Mar 21, 2023
Workers' rights advocates are applauding the Biden administration this week for filing a historic lawsuit against a Brooklyn-based healthcare staffing agency for coercive contracts that allegedly violate federal labor law.
Biden's Department of Labor (DOL) says in a complaint filed against Advanced Care Staffing (ACS) and CEO Sam Klein in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York that "in flagrant disregard" of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the company "has entered into contracts purporting to require employees to complete at least three years of full-time work for ACS in order to retain their wages."
"The contracts warn employees that if they leave ACS's employ before three years' time, they will face ACS and its lawyers in an arbitration behind closed doors, where ACS will demand that employees kick back much of their hard-earned wages—including wages to which they are entitled under federal law," the complaint continues.
"Under this scheme, the pay that ACS promises its employees may be converted into nothing more than a loan that employees must repay with interest and fees, leaving some employees with no compensation at all, much less the wages required by the FLSA," the document adds. "The FLSA prohibits an employer from holding employees' wages hostage, allowing employees to keep their wages free and clear only if employees remain in the service of their employer."
The DOL, led by acting Secretary Julie Su, aims not only to end this "unlawful conduct" but also "to recover unpaid wages and liquidated damages due to the former employees from whom ACS has already initiated arbitrations, and to restrain defendants from withholding unpaid wages from their former employees."
Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda reiterated in a statement Monday that "federal law forbids employers from clawing back wages earned by employees, for employers' own benefit."
"Employers cannot use workers as insurance policies to unconditionally guarantee future profit streams. Nor can employers use arbitration agreements to shield unlawful practices," Nanda said. "The Department of Labor will do everything in its power to make sure employees are being paid their hard-earned wages, and to safeguard them from these types of exploitative practices."
Bloomberg last September reported on Benzor Shem Vidal, a nurse who immigrated to the U.S. from the Philippines and took legal action against ACS for forcing him to work in "brutal and dangerous conditions," including simultaneously caring for 40 patients.
As Bloomberg detailed:
Under Vidal's contract, Advanced Care Staffing could sue him in arbitration for damages if he quit within three years of starting work—and make him pay the legal costs, according to the complaint in federal court in Brooklyn. The conditions were so onerous that they violate human trafficking laws meant to protect people from being exploited for labor, Vidal said.
"Mr. Vidal believed it was impossible for him to provide adequate care to patients but was also terrified to resign," his lawyers wrote. "He knew that his contract with Advanced Care Staffing purported to allow the company to pursue legal action against him, with potentially ruinous financial consequences, if he decided to terminate his employment."
Advanced Care Staffing did not immediately respond to an inquiry. The company has placed thousands of employees at facilities in New York and surrounding states, according to its website.
The DOL complaint lays out his experience over several pages and concludes that "defendants have a policy and practice of entering into contracts with employees with identical or substantially similar contract provisions to the 2022 contract with Vidal."
Celebrating the new case against ACS, Towards Justice executive director David Seligman declared Tuesday that "DOL's action against predatory stay-or-pay contracts sends a monumental message to employers: Obey the law or face repercussions."
"A fundamental premise of our labor laws is that employers pay workers, and not the other way around," said Seligman. "This lawsuit builds on a multiagency effort from the Biden administration to curb coercive contracts that rob workers of bargaining power. We look forward to what's next."
As Seligman noted in a series of tweets, other actions include the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) last June launching an inquiry into practices and products that may leave workers indebted to their employers, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in January proposing a ban on noncompete clauses.
After noting that the DOL is taking on the ACS case as a minimum wage fight, Seligman said another important aspect is the department's allegation that the company's "arbitration requirements violate federal law too, not just because the employer is attempting to shield unlawful practices but also because the arbitration requirement itself shifts costs onto workers."
The DOL complaint states that ACS's arbitration and contract demands "have an impermissible chilling effect on their employees' ability to effectively vindicate their federal statutory rights, including the protection to be free from an unsafe or hazardous workplace, and to obtain unpaid wages due."
Student Borrower Protection Center senior policy adviser Chris Hicks on Tuesday stressed that such problems stretch far beyond one company, saying that "whether it's training repayment agreement provisions (TRAPs) or stay-or-pay contracts, employers are using debt as a tool of coercion to force workers to stay in low-paying, unsafe jobs."
Hicks also highlighted that "the Biden administration has been strengthening its whole-of-government approach to ensure workers are able to fully and freely exercise their rights—including their right to depart without the looming threat of debt."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Investigation Belies UK Claim That No Civilians Were Killed in Iraq-Syria Bombings
"Britain claims a 'perfect' war against Islamic State in Iraq," said a report co-author. "It isn't credible, and it isn't true."
Mar 21, 2023
British airstrikes targeting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria likely killed dozens of noncombatants despite claims by U.K. military leaders that no civilians died during such bombings, a major investigation by the monitor group Airwars and The Guardian revealed on Tuesday.
"Britain claims a 'perfect' war against Islamic State in Iraq. Thousands of missiles fired, thousands of fighters killed, and not a single civilian harmed," Guardian senior international affairs reporter and report co-author Emma Graham-Harrison tweeted. "It isn't credible, and it isn't true."
Airwars obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests previously classified documents from which the group identified eight airstrikes that may have been carried out by U.K. warplanes in which at least 32 civilians were killed.
"Working with The Guardian, we visited Iraq to search for the victims mentioned in the original casualty allegations and piece together what happened," said Airwars. "One of those we found was the Younis family in Mosul."
Using declassified reports, coalition statements, survivor and other witness interviews, and 3D modeling, Airwars reconstructed the November 29, 2016 strike that killed a 6-year-old member of the Younis family in the Iraqi city.
"We found that shortly before 4:00 pm a mission commander requested a strike on ISIS militants firing at Iraqi allies. After the strike was approved, coalition analysts reported losing sight of their initial targets," the group said. "They ultimately identified another group of males on the sidewalk carrying a 'possible' weapon."
Around this time, Enam Younis and her children left their home "looking for safety a few streets away. Both Enam and her father said there were no ISIS fighters within 30 meters. As they walked past the door of the neighboring house, the missile detonated."
As The Guardian reports:
Enam Younis, 31 at the time, was thrown to the ground by the blast and has never walked again. Her older daughter, Taiba, 6, inquisitive and desperate to start school, was killed instantly. Zahra, just 3, was hurled over a fence. She survived but was peppered with shrapnel that tore into her stomach and is still lodged deep in her skull. Doctors have said that if it moves, it could cause devastating brain injury.
There was a third child, Ali, a toddler too young to walk, who was shielded from the drone cameras—and the worst of the blast—by his mother's arms, but who still lost part of a foot and hand.
Younis was taken out of Mosul for treatment and even six years later, her memories are too painful for her to return to the city she called home. "It is still impossible for me to think about going to Mosul now," she said weeping. "I didn't even visit my daughter's grave. I can't do it."
A U.K. Ministry of Defense spokesperson declined to confirm or deny whether British forces carried out any of the airstrikes detailed in the investigation while insisting that "there is no evidence or indication that civilian casualties were caused by strikes in Syria and Iraq."
"The U.K. always minimizes the risk of civilian casualties through our rigorous processes and carefully examines a range of evidence to do this, including comprehensive analysis of the mission data for every strike," the spokesperson told The Guardian.
However, according to Airwars:
Politicians, campaigners, and civil society groups have consistently raised concerns about the U.K.'s lack of civilian harm monitoring and accountability in Iraq and Syria. The Netherlands has since paid millions in compensation to victims of its strikes, while the United States has launched major policy reforms to learn the lessons of the campaign. The U.K. remains an outlier, claiming it had robust mechanisms for monitoring the impact of its strikes—including post-strike battle damage assessments—and refusing to review its policies.
Airwars has also accused U.S. officials of habitually undercounting the number of civilians killed by American bombs and bullets.
The report notes that while "civilian victims of U.K. airstrikes can theoretically claim condolence payments from the British government," those attempting to do so "would face severe procedural and legal hurdles."
"The U.K. has not publicly compensated a single victim of a British airstrike and there is no clear process for victims and their families to apply," Airwars said.
Airwars estimates that between 8,197 and 13,254 Iraqi and Syrian civilians have been killed by U.S.-led coalition forces in 1,525 separate strikes since 2014. This figure stands in stark contrast with a coalition estimate of 1,437 civilians killed in 342 separate incidents.
Since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq 20 years ago, between 550,000 and 580,000 Iraqis and Syrians have died, according to Airwars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.