Get Engage{d}

Are you Engage{d}

Introducing Connectivity from CQ Roll Call

Earlier this month CQ Roll Call introduced Connectivity, a new blog on issue advocacy and engagement, bringing much-needed coverage to the vital and fast-changing aspect of political activism.

connectivityLaunching this blog was a natural fit for the company. CQ Roll Call has long been a provider of the best tools for managing advocacy campaigns — first with Capwiz and Knowlegis and more recently through our powerful new Engage platform. Connectivity will draw upon that experience, the resources of the CQ Roll Call newsroom, and the knowledge of our editorial advisory board to identify best practices, new trends and the key players in the advocacy world. Through guest-authored posts, the blog also will provide professionals a place to share their know-how and gain insight from the larger advocacy community.

Keep Reading…

Mississippi Special Session

A special session has been called by Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant to begin at 1 p.m. on Thursday, May 8, 2014 so that lawmakers can find a way for the state to pay its share of $20 million in recovery costs following the series of tornadoes that hit residents in late April.

“Residents across Mississippi are suffering as a result of last week’s deadly tornadoes, and it is imperative that we provide the necessary resources for response and recovery,” Bryant said in a statement. “I am hopeful the Legislature will appropriately address the funding needs for this most recent disaster and will provide a sustainable method for satisfying responsibilities the state has for ongoing work from other disasters.”

During that time, 23 tornadoes hit the state, according to the National Weather Service, killing 14, and leaving behind several counties in need of services offered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). State and local governments are expected to provide a one-eighth match to money spent by FEMA. In addition to paying some administrative costs, initial estimates of state costs already surpass $13.5 million as damage assessments are still ongoing.

Evoking Prohibition Era Tactics, Lawmakers Look to Keep ‘Dry’ Powdered Booze Off Shelves

Earlier this month, the U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) granted label approval for a new product that immediately caused a firestorm across national media outlets. The product? Powdered alcohol, or palcohol, a powdered substance manufactured in several distinct flavors meant to mimic spirits or cocktails and only requires the addition of water or your favorite mixer to create a refreshing alcoholic beverage on the go. Predictably, the outrage was immediate and intense, leading TTB to rescind approval only, claiming it was an error that approval was granted in the first place. However, this does not mean that the product will not be put on the market eventually, it simply requires the manufacturer, Lipsmark LLC, to reformulate the products packaging and subsequently re-apply to the Alcohol Trade Bureau for approval. Should the product be re-approved, further outrage is to be expected.

Powdered alcohol has already been for sale for years in several other liberal democracies, including Germany, Japan and the Netherlands. However, given the nations tumultuous history with alcohol, from prohibition to the current binge drinking culture that exists on college campuses across the nation, it’s unsurprising that the reaction to a new, more discreet way of imbibing alcohol would be looked down upon by the general public.

While some have dismissed powdered alcohol as simply a new marketing gimmick, lawmakers in several of the states that are still in session this late in the year, always eager to curry favor with constituents, have begun to take steps to keep this product off the market and out of the hands of children should it eventually hit the shelves.

On Tuesday, Minnesota Rep. Joe Atkins introduced HF 3364, which would make it unlawful for any person or business to possess, purchase, sell or use powdered alcohol, however it contains an exemption for hospitals and other similar institutions for the purpose of scientific research. The bill is currently pending in the House Commerce and Consumer Protection Finance and Policy Committee. Minnesota is scheduled to adjourn for the biennium in just under 20 days, making the bill unlikely to become law this year.

Similarly, Vermont Senate lawmakers also moved quickly to tack an amendment onto another alcohol related bill, S. 299, which would direct the Commission or Liquor Control alongside the Department of Health to study the product, and make sale and possession of powdered alcohol illegal until the study is completed in January of 2015. Unlike the proposal in Minnesota, Vermont’s has teeth, and sharp ones at that, creating a two year jail penalty for those convicted of selling the product. Also unlike the Minnesota proposal, Vermont’s is very likely to pass prior to the legislatures sine die adjournment.

With most states out of session until 2015, when a new biennium begins, expect this to be an issue that legislators will pounce on to regulate, similar to the way e-cigarette regulation has been handled and the state level following their meteoric rise in popularity in 2013.

GMO Labeling on the Horizon? Vermont Senate Passes Labeling Bill, Gears Up for Litigation

On Wednesday, the Vermont Senate overwhelmingly passed HB 112, a bill that would require the labeling of all food sold in the state containing genetically modified ingredients and meant for human consumption. Notably, the bill does not apply to food intended for consumption by animals or meat products from animals raised on genetically modified food. Should the bill pass the House again, it will be delivered to Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin, who has previously indicated that he will sign the bill. According to the Burlington Free Press, several lawmakers, including Senate President Pro Tempore John Campbell, have acknowledged that the bill is likely to incite several lawsuits from food manufacturers. To counter any anticipated litigation, the measure would specifically create a fund for defending the law in court. If enacted, Vermont would become the first state in the nation to require specific labeling of foods containing GMO products. It would take effect July 2016.

While Vermont may be the first state to effectively require the labeling of GMOs, it is not the first to pass legislation requiring the label. Earlier this year, Maine Republican Gov. Paul LePage ceremoniously signed LD 718, a bill that would require labeling GMO products as such under the condition that at least five other states adopt similar statutes first. Governor LePage’s support of this bill is especially surprising, considering the high number of bills passed by the Democratic Legislature that he has vetoed during his tenure. Connecticut also passed a similar bill, HB 6527, in 2013. That bill would require GMO labeling once a critical mass of four other states have adopt similar statutes. Additionally, the National Conference of State Legislatures reports that recently-introduced federal legislation would give the FDA more leeway in determining if a genetically modified product should be labeled. According to Stateline, 67 similar bills have been introduced across 25 states.

Indeed, one only needs to look at California’s 2012 failed ballot measure, Proposition 37, which would have made the Golden State the first in the nation to require GMO labeling. The initiative narrowly failed but attracted significant political attention by attracting over $55 million in total donations – including over $46 million coming from large corporations opposed to the measure – quickly became the most expensive ballot initiative in the nation’s history. This level of funding underscores the importance of the issue to interested parties and serves as a warning of the well-funded wrath Vermont and other states may endure as a result. Should Vermont’s bill pass as expected, only two additional states would be required for Connecticut and Maine’s statutes to take effect. This is further exacerbated by the fact that 2014 is an election year, leaving lawmakers vulnerable. Additionally, this year marks the end of the legislative biennium for most states, clearing the slate for fresh initiatives. Looking to 2015 will be critical for those on both sides of the issue.

The GMO movement is not likely to go away anytime soon. As Vermont Democratic Attorney General Bill Sorrell told a gathering of Attorney’s General recently, “It’s coming to a number of your states…. The politics are huge. Good luck.”

California Special Session

On Wednesday, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., called a special session in the Legislature of the State of California to review the Rainy Day Fund that was placed on the November ballot. The session will start on Thursday, April 24.

Early this year, the Governor proposed changes which he claims will strengthen the Rainy Day Fund by allowing the state to pay down its debts and unfunded liabilities. The changes include providing for the increase in deposits during spikes in capital gains revenue; allowing supplemental payments toward the state’s debts and liabilities; and limiting withdrawals. The Governor would also create Proposition 98, a reserve of school funding and a prevention against future cuts. This reserve would not affect the guaranteed level of funding for the schools.