January, 11 2022, 04:02pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Michael Neuwirth
Chief Communications Officer, ASBN
mneuwirth@asbcouncil.org
Leading Small Business Organizations Call on Lawmakers to Consider Rule Change to Make Senate Work Better and to Pass Voting Rights Legislation
Representing more than 500,000 businesses and entrepreneurs, American Sustainable Business Network & other groups hold event to spotlight the role of voting rights in American democracy.
WASHINGTON
The country's leading small business organizations united today to express their opposition to the attack on voting rights and support the United States Senate passing voting rights legislation using filibuster reform to protect the fundamentals of American democracy.
While the Senate continues to debate voting rights legislation, it is critical to note that business owners' voices in many states are being suppressed, particularly those in communities of color.
Polling shows that entrepreneurs, especially those of color, feel disadvantaged within the political system and want equitable access to the lawmakers and votes that impact their lives and livelihoods. There is a direct link between a functioning and truly representative government and a functioning market economy. Entrepreneurship depends on a democracy in which people know that if they have a good idea to serve a market need and are willing to sacrifice and work diligently, their idea can become a successful, profitable business for themselves, their families, and their communities. The Senate must do its part to protect every eligible American's right to vote and guarantee that election results are respected by passing fair and transparent voting rights legislation.
Failing to pass voting rights legislation that protects our democracy threatens our economy. Allowed to continue, these anti-democracy actions will result in an autocratic government favoring politically-connected special interests that will sap the will of the entrepreneurs who drive our local, state, and national economies.
A national survey shows small business owners are concerned about the state of our democracy and favor expanding voting rights. Business owners need to know that our leaders' concerns and interests are being addressed and not overshadowed by the desires of wealthy elites that use their exorbitant resources to garner direct access to political figures. Passing voting rights legislation is crucial to ensuring small businesses have an opportunity to impact the political process.
Another national survey released last week found that businesses with over 250 employees expressed the same concerns about the state of our democracy and the need for a well-functioning democracy to maintain a stable economy. Respondents to this survey also overwhelmingly supported the passage of voting the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act by amending Senate rules if necessary.
Changing Senate rules to expedite important legislation is neither new nor radical. The body already allows more than 160 types of votes and legislation to pass by a simple majority, including just in the last few weeks bypassing the filibuster rules to pass an increase in the debt ceiling.
Our government has no more important job than protecting the health and stability of our democracy. Failing to use this standard tool to protect the one-person, one-vote foundation of our country would be a foolish adherence to a process that would threaten the long-term health of our economy as well as nearly 250 years of self-determination. Failure to act would be the most alarming and radical course of action.
We stand united in support of immediate Senate passage of the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
"I am grateful for business leaders and community voices like the American Sustainable Business Network, Main Street Alliance, Small Business Majority, and the Small Business for America's Future, for speaking up and speaking out against the rampant efforts to take away citizens' freedom to vote," said Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR). "It shouldn't matter where you live, how much money you have, or the color of your skin--we all deserve the same chance to cast our ballots and know our vote will count. Our small business owners are a driving force of our economy, and their voices should not be overshadowed by string-pulling wealthy elites. I applaud the strong voices within our small business communities for their concerted fight to protect American citizens' sacred right to vote."
"A sustainable and just economy needs a strong democracy in which all Americans are able to participate with their votes and their voices. However, American Democracy is under attack in many states across the country," said Thomas Oppel, American Sustainable Business Network Executive Vice President. "Congress has a duty under Section 1 of the Constitution to protect every American's right to vote, but the current Senate filibuster rules clearly stand in the way of Congress protecting our rights. On behalf of the more than 500,000 businesses our collective organizations represent, ASBN has been an outspoken advocate on behalf of the Freedom to Vote Act, For the People Act (S.1) and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. We commend House and Senate leadership on their support for a 'carve out' of the filibuster in which the Senate rules would be changed to permit Constitutional issues, such as voting rights, to pass with a simple 51-vote majority. We call on the U.S. Senate to take the needed actions to enable it to be faithful to our Constitution."
"As a Black woman growing up in the south, I understand the power of the vote! Small business voices are critical and must be protected," said Chanda Causer, Co-Executive Director Main Street Alliance. "The Freedom to Vote Act reflects our shared values as Americans, but politics have once again blocked even having a debate on the bill. We need lasting, structural change to reassure small businesses that our democracy is healthy so that we can get to the business of resilient economic recovery. The Senate must do whatever it takes to pass the Freedom to Vote Act."
"Protecting the right to vote for all Americans, especially those who have been marginalized, is critical to creating an equitable path to entrepreneurship and an inclusive economy," said John Arensmeyer, Founder & CEO of Small Business Majority. "Congress must do all that it can to ensure a fair and transparent political system that will give all citizens equal access to voting and allow small businesses to impact the political process. This means creating a carve-out to the filibuster rule to advance critical voting rights legislation."
"It is not a coincidence that the United States has a strong democracy and a thriving entrepreneurial economy that is second to none. The two go together," said Frank Knapp Jr., Co-Chair of Small Business for America's Future. "Small business owners understand that when voting rights are stripped from any of us, we all lose our influence over government actions. Economic prosperity is tied directly to a healthy democracy, and small business owners want Congress to protect both."
On September 8, 2021, small business owners and community organizations participated in a special event with House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn to discuss the need to prevent laws suppressing Americans' voting rights across the country, discuss why voting rights are essential to democracy and entrepreneurship, and learn about the history of the filibuster. To listen to the recording of the September 8 event, visithttps://tinyurl.com/4w86j7xz.
A recording of today's event is available here: https://vimeo.com/664887272
The American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) advocates for policy change and informs business owners, policymakers and the public about the need and opportunities for building a vibrant, broadly prosperous, sustainable economy. Founded in 2009, its membership represents over 250,000 businesses in a wide range of industries.
(202) 660-1455LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


