Regulation - Too Much or Too Little?

[dislaxxic]

More regulation needed?

Inside a corporate giant’s fight to thwart a massive pollution tab

Chemical industry giant 3M is waging an aggressive campaign to stave off new regulations and potentially billions of dollars in damages stemming from a contamination crisis that has fouled tens of millions of Americans’ drinking water.

The Minnesota-based company is putting its lobbying muscle to work in Washington and courting the support of state attorneys general as it faces potentially massive financial liability for toxic pollution linked to two of its nonstick and water repellent chemicals, which have turned up in the water supplies of more than 1,500 U.S. communities."

..

[foreverlax]

a fan, this one is for you.

The Justices Hear a Case of Liquor

Tennessee gives the court a chance to revive the long-dormant Privileges or Immunities Clause.

Doug and Mary Ketchum weren’t looking for a fight when they moved to Tennessee. But they got one, and it’s gone all the way to the Supreme Court, which on Wednesday hears Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.

The Ketchums left Utah because the dirty local air threatened the life of their severely disabled daughter. They bought Kimbrough Wines and Spirits, a historic Memphis shop, but quickly found themselves up against the state’s anticompetitive liquor lobby, the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association. State law forbids new residents from getting a retail liquor license until they’ve lived in Tennessee for two years. The license expires after a year and can’t be renewed unless the holder has lived in the state for 10 years.

The Ketchums knew about Tennessee’s residency requirements, but they weren’t concerned. Tennessee’s attorney general had twice determined the requirements to be unconstitutional, and the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission wasn’t enforcing them. That changed when the Total Wine chain applied for a retail license. The Retailers Association threatened to sue the commission, which in turn went to court seeking a judgment on the law’s constitutionality. The Ketchums were caught in the middle. The Retailers Association lost in both trial court and the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, each of which held that the law discriminates against out-of-state economic interests in violation of the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause.


The Tennessee law also violates the important but long-neglected Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. Ratified in 1868, it prohibits a state from discriminating against citizens based on the duration of their residency, including when they are exercising their right to earn a living. The clause was a response to Southern laws designed to keep newly freed blacks on or near their plantations and to inhibit the migration of sympathetic Northerners.

In 1873, however, the Supreme Court gutted the Privileges or Immunities clause in the Slaughter-House Cases. The justices let stand a Louisiana law that granted a monopoly to a politically favored slaughterhouse, dismissing a claim brought by butchers that the monopoly deprived them of their livelihood.

It was a 5-4 ruling, but all nine justices agreed that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects the right of newly arrived citizens in a state to be treated the same as established ones. Relying on Slaughter-House, the court can make clear again that every American has the right to move to a new state and earn a living on equal terms.

That right isn’t diminished if the livelihood involves the sale of alcohol, even though states have broad regulatory power under the 21st Amendment. In Granholm v. Heald (2005), the court struck down a state law that allowed intrastate, but not interstate, shipments of wine to consumers. “State laws that violate other provisions of the Constitution are not saved by the Twenty-first Amendment,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

Simply put, the Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association is doing what all such bottleneckers do: using government power to protect its members from competition so that they can rake in monopoly profits and not have to work as hard to compete. The 14th Amendment protects the rights of the Ketchums, not the private interests of established businesses.

So raise a glass in hope that the Supreme Court protects the Ketchums’ rights, revitalizes the Privileges or Immunities Clause, and breaks open Tennessee’s government-imposed anticompetitive bottleneck once and for all

.

132 members in State Assembly - over 75% R
Governor - R
House - 7 of 9 are R
Senators - both R

So do the Rs believe in free markets and fewer regulations?

[a fan]

This is what it looks like when you take power from the Fed, and give it to States.

Is it any wonder why States don't want Federal oversight? Picture what your home States laws would look like without access to Federal Courts, keeping State governments honest. Well, somewhat honest.

[HooDat]

This is what it looks like when you take power from the Fed, and give it to States.

Is it any wonder why States don't want Federal oversight? Picture what your home States laws would look like without access to Federal Courts, keeping State governments honest. Well, somewhat honest.

it is all about checks and balances.....checks and balances......

but yes - it is easy to have petty thieves at the state level and we need a Fed to root them out,

[a fan]

And if I wasn't clear-----in my experience dealing with State bureaucracies (about 22), there is no difference between R's and D's. They both do it.

Although I will admit to being more annoyed by the "we get rid of regulations" Republican party. They do no such thing, and it tires me to hear Republican voters claim that they do.

[youthathletics]

And if I wasn't clear-----in my experience dealing with State bureaucracies (about 22), there is no difference between R's and D's. They both do it.

Although I will admit to being more annoyed by the "we get rid of regulations" Republican party. They do no such thing, and it tires me to hear Republican voters claim that they do.

Check out this video from Gov. Hogan, afan. You know I am pro-Hogan and I know that you have been asking what is he doing with regs. etc., this is part and parcel to his long vision plan. This 10 minute clip has some enticing incentives for business to come in and startup. https://twitter.com/GovLarryHogan/statu ... 5510240256 Starting at the 3:45 mark is where the meat gets started.

[HooDat]

on the subject (kind of). Years ago, my sister-in-law had a friend who's father was best buddies with the governor of their state. He (of course) was some kind of contractor. They were very, very financially flush. The governor lost a re-election bid, and suddenly the friend was on a budget, not getting new cars like before, and traveling far less. The economy had softened at the time, so I thought nothing of it, until the next election came along, that governor was elected again, and within months - the friend (and of course her daddy) was living the high life.....

[a fan]

And if I wasn't clear-----in my experience dealing with State bureaucracies (about 22), there is no difference between R's and D's. They both do it.

Although I will admit to being more annoyed by the "we get rid of regulations" Republican party. They do no such thing, and it tires me to hear Republican voters claim that they do.

Check out this video from Gov. Hogan, afan. You know I am pro-Hogan and I know that you have been asking what is he doing with regs. etc., this is part and parcel to his long vision plan. This 10 minute clip has some enticing incentives for business to come in and startup. https://twitter.com/GovLarryHogan/statu ... 5510240256 Starting at the 3:45 mark is where the meat gets started.

I read about the Priority Funding Areas, Advantage Maryland, and Partnership For Workforce Quality plans, thanks!

These are miles better than the NYState plan where new businesses pay no taxes for X years, and existing businesses get screwed.

But I'm always leery of limitations-----in other words, the Partnership for Workforce Quality only gives out funds to businesses with 10 or more employees. Why do that? You're hobbling small businesses, and giving advantage to bigger ones....as if they don't have enough advantages already.

Generally speaking, though, that's good stuff, and it sounds like this Hogan guy is actually trying to govern and help his State.

I can't find any updates about his panel that was looking into getting rid of red tape. Can you?

Thanks for the link!

BTW, Hogan sounds a lot like our former Governor Hickenlooper-----a moderate that works with no care for party, and seeks input and consensus. He wasn't perfect, but his heart and mind were in the right places.

[HooDat]

-a moderate that works with no care for party, and seeks input and consensus. He wasn't perfect, but his heart and mind were in the right places.

we need more of these please...!

[dislaxxic]

Here's how republicans like to govern:

TRUMP’S CFPB FINES A MAN $1 FOR SWINDLING VETERANS, ORDERS HIM NOT TO DO IT AGAIN

"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau penalized a man $1 this week, for illegally exchanging veterans’ pensions for high-interest “cash advances.” Mark Corbett claimed in sworn statements to the bureau that he had an inability to pay any fine of greater value, and the bureau accepted $1 as payment for making illegal, high-cost loans to former members of the armed forces.

Somehow, two other state regulatory agencies, in Arkansas and South Carolina, assisted in the extraction of a single dollar bill from Corbett.

This is not the first time during the Trump administration that CFPB has taken an inability to pay into account to reduce a fine for violations of consumer protection law. Under the previous acting director, current acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, this type of reduction was so widespread that it came to be known as the “Mulvaney discount.” The American justice system rarely treats impoverished defendants with such mercy."

..

[genesrfree]

Bandito just can't stop trolling, can he? There is literally no point to that last post other than to validate his own narrow-minded opinion of the issue.

..

Oh, I don't think so, he's spot on. Democratically run cities like the one's he mentions are cesspools, run by democrats for many years. He's not trolling, he's responding to all of this liberal goo being thrown around by people who obviously don;t have many important things to tend, I gotta get back to work...have a nice day!

[dislaxxic]

ELIZABETH WARREN WAS RIGHT: NEW LAW IS ALREADY MAKING BANKS BIGGER

"THE PROPOSED $28 billion merger announced Thursday between large regional banks SunTrust and BB&T is the biggest banking tie-up since the financial crisis, creating what would become the nation’s sixth-largest bank. And it’s a direct result of actions taken by the Trump administration and the bipartisan group of lawmakers who passed a bank deregulation bill in 2018.

While Democrats insisted that the bank bill, S.2155, was merely about community bank regulatory relief, critics and industry experts expected that it would lead to consolidation of the sector, which began to occur almost immediately after passage. “I’m concerned about the negative impact of increased consolidation caused by S.2155 on community banks and on customers who benefit from more competition for their business,” wrote Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren in April 2018, just a month after the bill’s passage.

Warren singled out by name her own Democratic colleagues who were supporting the bill, catching internal blowback from the caucus. But Warren’s warnings have proven prescient, as the SunTrust-BB&T merger represents the latest in a wave of deals in the financial sector. “Once again, big bank deregulation is leading to more consolidation,” said Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., a Warren protégé and first-term congressperson who sits on the House Financial Services Committee. “I opposed last year’s bank giveaway bill, and the Trump administration’s loosening of protections, precisely because it would make ‘too big to fail’ even worse. This merger will do the same and end up hurting our nation’s community banks.”

..

[cradleandshoot]

ELIZABETH WARREN WAS RIGHT: NEW LAW IS ALREADY MAKING BANKS BIGGER

"THE PROPOSED $28 billion merger announced Thursday between large regional banks SunTrust and BB&T is the biggest banking tie-up since the financial crisis, creating what would become the nation’s sixth-largest bank. And it’s a direct result of actions taken by the Trump administration and the bipartisan group of lawmakers who passed a bank deregulation bill in 2018.

While Democrats insisted that the bank bill, S.2155, was merely about community bank regulatory relief, critics and industry experts expected that it would lead to consolidation of the sector, which began to occur almost immediately after passage. “I’m concerned about the negative impact of increased consolidation caused by S.2155 on community banks and on customers who benefit from more competition for their business,” wrote Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren in April 2018, just a month after the bill’s passage.

Warren singled out by name her own Democratic colleagues who were supporting the bill, catching internal blowback from the caucus. But Warren’s warnings have proven prescient, as the SunTrust-BB&T merger represents the latest in a wave of deals in the financial sector. “Once again, big bank deregulation is leading to more consolidation,” said Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., a Warren protégé and first-term congressperson who sits on the House Financial Services Committee. “I opposed last year’s bank giveaway bill, and the Trump administration’s loosening of protections, precisely because it would make ‘too big to fail’ even worse. This merger will do the same and end up hurting our nation’s community banks.”

..

Lizzy Warren being correct. That would be a first indeed.

[CU77]

She also said that gutting the CFPB would lead to more people getting swindled.

Unless, of course, you are OK with the guy who was ripping off veterans pensions getting a CFPB fine of one dollar.

[cradleandshoot]

She also said that gutting the CFPB would lead to more people getting swindled.

Unless, of course, you are OK with the guy who was ripping off veterans pensions getting a CFPB fine of one dollar.

BFD... here in NYS we have Andy Cuomo and his buds and the corruption from the Buffalo billions and Andys BFF's all going to federal prison. Andy didn't know a damn thing about it. Spare me, the one thing about scammers and swindlers is they all do what they do because of political connections... from both parties. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... homes.html That flippin Liz... what a gal.

[seacoaster]

Wasn't sure where to put this. But here is an article about McKinsey & Co. advising clients on best practices, while holding $25 billion in investment funds through MIO, the McKinsey Investment Organization. Conflicts of interest much? Who's to know:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/busi ... e=Homepage

"...An investigation requested by the oversight board found that MIO had five direct and indirect investments in Puerto Rico’s debt while McKinsey advised the island, according to a report released Monday. The investigation found no evidence that McKinsey violated any laws or that its consultants knew about MIO’s investments, though the report noted that any consultant could have learned about them by “reviewing publicly available (albeit usually dated and incomplete) information.” MIO’s holdings of Puerto Rico debt “could create the appearance of a potential conflict,” said the report, which recommended more thorough disclosure.

Much of what the fund invests in remains concealed. But The Times uncovered some investments through interviews with former fund officials and shareholders and a review of thousands of pages of documents, including court filings, prospectuses and leaked offshore records. Those investments range from Valeant to a Nepalese casino and a stake in a fund that lent money to the man who became China’s most notorious fugitive.

And while outside managers direct most of the firm’s holdings, its own traders have directly invested more than $1 billion in assets like commodities, foreign currencies and government bonds. With McKinsey increasingly advising governments around the world, those direct investments, highly sensitive to government policies, create the potential for conflicts of interest.

“The mistake people make is to say, ‘Well, conflicts of interest aren’t so dangerous, because well-meaning professionals can navigate them objectively,’” said Daylian Cain, who teaches business ethics at the Yale School of Management. “But the research is out on this: No, they can’t.”

[dislaxxic]

For tech giants, profits far outweigh fines

Fines just a "cost of doing business"...

..

[dislaxxic]

Big Telecom companies are suppressing fast internet

"Susan Crawford, the author of “Fiber: The Coming Tech Revolution—And Why America Might Miss It,” has spent years studying the business of these underground fiber optic cables that make fast internet possible. As it turns out, the internet infrastructure situation in the United States is almost hopelessly compromised by the oligopolistic telecom industry, which, due to lack of competition and deregulation, is hesitant to invest in their aging infrastructure. “That would never happen," Crawford told me. "We saw that with electricity. We’ve seen it with internet access in America already.”

This is going to pose a huge problem for the future, Crawford warns, noting that politicians as well as the telecom industry are largely inept when it comes to prepping us for a well-connected future. I spoke with Crawford via phone about her new book and the myriad problems with internet infrastructure in the US."

Raise your hand if you think more regulation in this arena would be a GOOD thing...

..

[HooDat]

I will raise my hand and say that for most consumers - the future is cellular not fiber.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

food for thought- https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/cars-data-privacy