• November 16, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Brishen Rogers, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s Symposium on Labor and Economic Inequality.

    America’s inequalities are outrageous – and are suddenly all the rage. Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century and various social movements have given us a new language to dissect it: the “99 percent,” “r > g,” the “Fight for $15,” and “Uberization.” Policy professionals are taking note, with the Washington Center for Equitable Growth and various foundations funding research into its causes and consequences. Even Silicon Valley is talking seriously about a universal basic income.

    This is all to the good. And yet the debate is tepid in an important respect: It largely disregards the relationship between inequality and democratic participation. Granted, many criticize our campaign finance laws for tilting the playing field toward the rich. But the economic policy debate largely revolves around forms of tax-and-transfer. Picketty, for example, ultimately proposes little more than a global wealth tax. A universal basic income, for all its virtues, takes the same form.

    But aggressive campaign finance reform and a far more progressive tax code – even if politically possible – cannot ensure equality. The reason is simple: To succeed, egalitarian policies must be intertwined with more democratic economic and social structures. The good news, as discussed below, is that the rise of information technology is creating new opportunities to build a more inclusive democracy.

  • November 16, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Noah Zatz, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

    *This post is part of ACSblog’s Symposium on Labor and Economic Inequality.

    Three vibrant movements of our time are Black Lives Matter, theDREAMers, and Fight for $15. For many progressives, only the last may seem directed at our topic of work and inequality. That intuition is wrong. Legalized state violence – incarceration, deportation, even killing – can and does depress labor standards and enable workplace exploitation (and vice versa).

    We too often separate struggles against racialized state violence from those challenging economic inequality. The former seem to be about the public exercises of government power, while the latter seem to be about private exercises of corporate power. This is both an analytical error and a missed political opportunity.

    Think of criminal justice, immigration, and labor as three points of a triangle. Activists and academics increasingly link mass incarceration and mass deportation, especially as immigration enforcement is criminalized. Likewise, the government’s threat to detain and deport has been linked to employer power. Guest workers face deportation if they exercise the most basic labor right, the right to quit, and undocumented workers labor under employer threats to call in immigration enforcement. Employers use this power to disrupt organizing, degrade working conditions, and depress wages.

    An incarceration-labor connection parallels this immigration-labor connection. This connection mirrors the thoroughly racialized ways that immigration policy produces workplace disadvantage. That historical pattern continues today as Latina/os and others treated as presumptively “foreign” face profiling by employers and government authorities. Similarly, racism has long structured criminal justice in the U.S. From defining what is a crime to the notorious cocaine sentencing disparities, from the frequency of police stops to searches to uses of force, the criminal justice system casts an especially dark shadow over communities of color, and not by coincidence.

  • November 16, 2015

    by Jim Thompson

    In response to the tragic terrorist attacks in Paris, Paul Krugman at The New York Times explains why our strategy for responding to such acts of terror must be rooted in reason, not fear.

    The Editorial Board of The New York Times urges the Senate to confirm Obama’s court nominees before more individuals suffer from our understaffed justice system.

    Elsewhere in The Washington Post, Terrell Jermaine Starr says Missouri protesters’ efforts to exclude media from their “safe space” provides a lesson about press freedom and journalistic ethics.

     At The American Prospect, Rachel M. Cohen opines that the Rental Assistance Demonstration program may do more harm than good for public housing in the United States.

  • November 13, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Justin Pidot, Associate Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law

    News broke last week that the New York Attorney General is investigating Exxon Mobil for providing false information about climate change to investors and the public. Similar investigations of other energy companies may be on the horizon.

    Specifics about the investigation are in short supply. This could be, as an article in Forbes suggests, the opening salvo in a billion dollar litigation campaign like that brought against big tobacco for concealing information about the health risks of smoking. Or it could be a more limited effort to ensure that energy companies fully comply with their obligations to disclose information under securities laws.

    My guess is the latter is true. Just four days ago, the New York AG’s office announced that it had entered a settlement with Peabody Coal under which the company would revise shareholder documents and more fully disclose climate risk in the future. In 2008 and 2009, the New York AG entered similar settlements with three other energy companies. These settlements do not involve million or billion dollar payments, but rather, simply require better information about the risks that climate change poses to the financial health of the companies involved. Frankly, they look a lot like run-of-the-mill settlements of potential securities violations. No one would pay any attention except they involve the words “climate change.”

    Not only does this investigation seem relatively unremarkable, it also seeks to vindicate principles upon which we should generally be able to agree. Legal regimes that require information disclosure need enforcement to stay vigorous.

  • November 13, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Reuben A. Guttman and Caroline M. Poplin, M.D., J.D. Guttman practices law with Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC and was counsel for whistleblowers in cases involving Abbott, Pfizer, GSK, CHS and Pharmerica, among others. Poplin, M.D., J.D., is Medical Director and Of Counsel for Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC and also was involved in cases against Abbott, Pfizer, GSK, CHS and Pharmerica.

    In recent months, Planned Parenthood, a health care provider for low-income women, has been under the focused scrutiny of a Congressional oversight committee. Among its many healthcare services, many of which involve preventive care, Planned Parenthood also provides abortions. The organization has been accused in political circles of selling fetal tissue. Though this may be a crime, there have been no criminal indictments let alone convictions and the evidence seems flimsy, if not fabricated, with congressional oversight itself pretextual.

    Of course, if Capitol Hill politicians are sincerely interested in looking into how federal dollars are being spent for preventive medicine, care for the nation’s children, and care for the infirmed and the elderly, there are real targets to focus on; targets where billions of dollars have been spent for medical care which, in some cases, has neglected the fundamental tenet that has passed from practitioner to practitioner through the ages: “first, do no harm.”

    For starters, look no farther than the pharmaceutical industry where some of the world's largest drug companies – which feed on funds from Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration – have pled guilty to conduct that has admittedly placed lives at risk. Abbott, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson are just a few of the names that make the list.