Mediaboss Marketing

Harvard spent $560,000 on federal lobbying during President Joe Bidens first year in office, pacing the Ivy League alongside Yale, which spent the same amount. The school's expenditures put it atop the Ivy League for the fifth time in the last six years.

The Universitys lobbying expenditures rose $5,000 from 2020 levels, breaking a four-year trend of decreases. In the last decade, Harvards lobbying peaked in 2017 under former President Donald J. Trumps administration, reaching $610,000.

During 2021, representatives from Harvards Office of Federal Relations and University President Lawrence S. Bacow continued to lobby the White House and Capitol Hill on key issues related to immigration and higher education, according to Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton.

Key issues include robust federal funding for research and student aid, welcoming immigration policies for international students and scholars, support for DREAMers and other undocumented students, balanced research policies, and incentives for charitable giving, Newton wrote in an emailed statement.

Harvard also continued to support Covid-19 relief and stimulus bills.

The University spent $130,000 lobbying in the first quarter of 2021, gradually increasing its quarterly expenditures before plateauing at $145,000 for the second half of the year.

Harvard continued to lobby for increased funding for higher education, including the Pell Grant Preservation and Expansion Act, which is supported by more than 60 American research universities. The act would double the maximum grant amounts under the program and expand its coverage, which currently includes 34 percent of American undergraduates.

Harvard also lobbied in favor of the National Science Foundation for the Future Act, which would fund the NSF through 2026 and expand STEM education.

The University also continued to lobby for immigration reform, most notably the American Dream and Promise Act along with the Dream Act. Both bills would create new avenues to citizenship.

Bacow has penned multiple letters advocating for immigration reform, including one last year calling on the Department of Homeland Security to reinstate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, a position endorsed by the Biden administration.

While no immigration reform bills Harvard lobbied for in 2021 passed into law, Congress passed the American Rescue Plan, a Covid-19 relief bill backed by Harvard. Additional bills addressing the pandemic including the RISE Act to support research related to Covid-19 or disrupted by the pandemic continue to languish in Congress.

The Harvard School of Public Health also hired Center Road Solutions, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm. HPSH spent less than $35,000 on its lobbying efforts a drop from last years total of $40,000.

Altogether, Ivy League schools spent more than $2.7 million on lobbying in 2021.

Yale also spent $560,000 on lobbying last year, tying Harvard. Cornell and the University of Pennsylvania trailed close behind, with expenditures of $480,000 and $405,000, respectively. Consistent with previous years, Columbia, Brown, and Dartmouth spent the least out of the Ivy League schools in 2021.

For several consecutive years, Dartmouths lobbying activity has fallen below the minimum threshold for disclosure.

Yale, Princeton, and Harvard saw slight increases in lobbying expenditures compared to 2020. Brown, Cornell, and the University of Pennsylvania all continued downward trends in spending that began in 2019.

Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania lobbied against the excise tax on large university endowments, supporting the Dont Tax Higher Education Act a bill that would repeal the endowment tax.

Harvard and Penn also backed a second endowment tax bill, the Higher Education Endowment Tax Reform Act, which would phase out the tax so long as universities give financial aid to students.

Harvard has long contended that the endowment tax undercuts the schools ability to support its students and research. In an interview with The Crimson in November 2017, former University President Drew G. Faust called the endowment tax a blow at the strength of higher education.

The endowment tax is a part of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the flagship tax reform championed by the Trump administration.

The University, a charitable tax-exempt organization, is non-partisan, but is active in Washington with policymakers in Congress and the Administration on issues of importance to the University and its faculty and students, Newton, the Harvard spokesperson, wrote.

Staff writer Cara J. Chang can be reached at cara.chang@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter @CaraChang20.

Staff writer Isabella B. Cho can be reached at isabella.cho@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter @izbcho.

See the original post:
Harvard Spent $560,000 on Federal Lobbying in Biden's First Year | News - Harvard Crimson

March 3, 2022 - WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. SenatorAlex Padilla (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee onImmigration,joined Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and four of their Senate colleagues in introducing theResolving Extended Limbo for Immigrant Employees and Families (RELIEF) Act, legislation toeliminate the family and employment green card backlog by increasing the number of green cards available.

Almost four million future Americans are on the State Departments immigrant visa waiting list, in addition to hundreds of thousands of immigrants in the U.S. who are also waiting for green cards. However, under current law, only 226,000 family green cards and 140,000 employment green cards are available annually. Children and spouses of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) count against these numbers, further restricting the number of available green cards.

Immigrants are the backbone of our nation andour communities arestronger because of them,said Senator Padilla.For far too long, thebacklog of green card applications has restrictedaccess to the American dream for millions of people who are ready to contribute to ourcountry. This bill is a commonsensestep toward eliminating the green card backlog andproviding relief for immigrant families.

In addition to Padilla and Durbin, theRELIEF Actis cosponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).

Along with eliminating the family and employment green card backlog within five years, this bill will help keep families together by classifying spouses and children of LPRs as immediate relatives and exempting derivative beneficiaries of employment-based petitions from annual green card limits, protect aging out children who qualify for LPR status based on a parents immigration petition, and lift per-country limitations.

Specifically, theRELIEF Actwill:

Padilla is a strong advocate for immigration reform. He is anoriginal cosponsorof theU.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, legislation to overhaul the American immigration system, restore fairness and humanity to the system, strengthen families, boost our economy, and open a pathway to citizenship for millions. He recentlycalledon the Biden administration to Provide Temporary Protected Status for Ukrainians on a visa in the United States. Padilla has alsopushedthe State Department to address the international student visa backlog.Source: Senator Alex Padilla

Read more from the original source:
California's US Senator Alex Padilla, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Increase Number of Green Cards and Eliminate Backlog - Sierra Sun Times

President Biden came to CapitolHill on the 404th day of his presidency, during perhaps the most pivotal moment of his short tenure to deliver the State of the Union address.

According to aWashington Post-ABC News poll, Bidens presidential approval rating is at a new low, with 37 percent saying they approve of the job he is doing and 55 percent saying they disapprove.Inflation is at a four-decade zenith and shows few signs of receding. Bidens appointments to the Federal Reserve are wedged behind an increasingly obdurate Republicanblockade. The COVID pandemic finally seems to be easing but faces a public rightlyskepticalthe virus is gone indefinitely and there is a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.

If his approval rating were above 40 percent this would have been a typical State of the Union address, but it was not. In many respects, the nation and the world are balancing on a tightrope.

On almost every issue raised,Biden took a position that puts him in stark contrast with his party, especially the more progressive wing of the party. With 250 daysuntil the midterm elections,when voters will render judgment on Democrats control of Washington,the State of the Union,in my estimation did not move the needle. And the American people who are lukewarm about his presidency and unsure of how we might intervene in the Ukrainian crisis remain unmotivated or feel deflated.

So, who among the base, or generally, did this State of the Union address excite?

The president spent more time discussing the war in Ukraine than the war against voting rights at home. He also discussed strained engagements between some communities, especially communities of color, and law enforcement. He proclaimed, The answer is not to defund the police. The answer is to fund the police, before ad-libbing: Fund them. Fund them.In that same moment, Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-Iowa) in her Republican response accused Democrats of wanting to defund the police.

This example of dog-whistle politics hit against some of the presidents most critical base young, progressive and African American voters. This is an apparent snub of the leftist wing of the party. The unfortunate political reality is that George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, the Freedom to Vote Act and the John LewisJohn LewisBiden's SOTU affirms what we already know: His progressive agenda is over The US can no longer ignore Tunisia's fight for democracy Harris to travel to Selma for 'Bloody Sunday' anniversary MORE Voting Rights Act are dead.

Additionally, Biden did notmention Build Back Better by name his chief legislative agenda, though he mentioned critical elements of the plan. For a while now, its been pretty clear that the signature package is dormant in Congress particularly as we turn to an election year in which passing legislation is much more difficult. However, he did mention one signature Democratic agenda:the Child Tax Credit.He saidhe hoped to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and extend the credit, which saw monthly payments expire in December. Unfortunately, there is no plan to revive them.

Also, his Test to Treat program for immunocompromised individuals and access to therapeutics might be met with resistance as new COVID-19 guidelines recommend most Americans go unmasked, harkening back to last summer before the emergence of the delta variant.

Bidens State of the Union speech was light on genuinely divisive issues. Towards the end, he briefly mentioned abortion, immigration reform, transgender rights and climate change. And at plenty of points in the speech, he seemed to be trying to speak to issues dear to Republicans and perhaps even disaffected Democrats.

Stylistically, he spokeover the applause, seeming to rush through the speech without pause to allow for more extended ovation and for critical points to have their moments. It felt swifteven with his mention of the historic appointment of Judge Ketanji Brown JacksonKetanji Brown JacksonBiden's SOTU affirms what we already know: His progressive agenda is over Sen. Lujn returns to Senate after stroke Collins to meet with Biden's Supreme Court nominee Tuesday MORE, the first Black woman appointed to the Supreme Court. There was no recognition of the landmark diversity in the judiciary and he quickly pivoted to immigration, where he failed to lay out a comprehensive plan for reform.

All things considered, President Biden affirmed what we already know he is the epitome of moderation consistently appealing to the political attitudes of right-of-center Americans and small C conservatives who dont support him despite his efforts.

Furthermore, his unity agenda, which supports needed initiatives for issues such as opioids, cancer research, mental health and veterans care, is more of the same as what we have heard previously. No innovation, no big legislative agenda, no exceptionally comforting and enduring vision for the country. Democratsneed a winning strategy; President Biden has yet to exercise his bully pulpit in full support of this strategy.

Biden concluded: Fellow Americans: Look, we cant change how divided weve been ... but we can change how to move forward on COVID-19 and other issues that we must face together. Regrettably, the president did not provide a framework for change moving forward.

He enthusiastically concluded, Go get em.And I am afraid that is precisely what the Republican Party will do deliver a shellacking to the Democrats in November.

Quardricos Bernard Driskell is an adjunct professor of legislative politics atThe George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.Follow him on Twitter @q_driskell4

Read more here:
Biden's SOTU affirms what we already know: His progressive agenda is over | TheHill - The Hill

The Wikimedia Foundation has issued a statement supporting Russian Wikipedia volunteers after a censorship demand from internet regulators. On Tuesday, tech and communications regulator Roskomnadzor threatened to block Wikipedia over the Russian-language page covering Russias invasion of Ukraine, claiming it contained false messages about war casualties and the effects of economic sanctions, among other things.

On March 1st 2022 the Wikimedia Foundation received a Russian government demand to remove content related to the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine posted by volunteer contributors to Russian Wikipedia, reads the statement sent to The Verge via email. As ever, Wikipedia is an important source of reliable, factual information in this crisis. In recognition of this important role, we will not back down in the face of efforts to censor and intimidate members of our movement. We stand by our mission to deliver free knowledge to the world.

The Roskomnadzor demand, which was posted in Russian Wikipedias Telegram channel, demands Wikimedia address user edits from a February 27th version of the article. As translated by Wikimedia Russia, it takes issue with information about numerous casualties among the military personnel of the Russian Federation, as well as the civilian population of Ukraine, including number of children, as well as the need to withdraw funds from accounts in banks of the Russian Federation in connection with the sanctions imposed by foreign states. (While the wars casualties remain difficult to estimate, the United Nations has confirmed hundreds of civilian deaths in Ukraine since the conflict began last week, including at least 13 children, and acknowledged that its numbers likely underestimate the real death toll.)

Wikimedia Russia called the claims fundamentally impossible to evaluate and urged the government not to block access to the article which would effectively require blocking access to all of Wikipedia. It also noted that the page is constantly changing thanks to the work of its numerous editors. All these people have very different views on what is happening, and they are all very careful to ensure that someone does not insert false information or misleading wording into the article, the group wrote.

As Input notes, Russian authorities have sent a number of complaints about Wikipedia pages in the past. The government outright blocked the site in 2015 over a cannabis-related article, but the blackout was short-lived. However, the current threat is part of a larger online crackdown around the invasion one thats seen Russia block Twitter and Facebook in an effort to control the narrative around the war. Tuesdays takedown request threatened censorship. Denying people access to reliable information, at a time of crisis, can have life-altering consequences, warned the Wikimedia statement.

Read more here:
Wikimedia says it 'will not back down' after Russia threatens Wikipedia block - The Verge

Art House is gearing up for Womens History Month as it hosts its Art+Feminism Art Talk and Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon on Wednesday, March 8 at 11 a.m. EST via Zoom.

Art House wont be alone for this as several universities will be joining in. Among the participants are Hudson County Community College, Seton Hall University, Paul Robeson Galleries at Express Newark, Rutgers University - Newark, and The Feminist Art Project, a program of the Rutgers Center for Women in the Arts and Humanities.

The Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon began in 2020. Those attending will learn how to edit and create Wikipedia pages for artists that are women, gender diverse, or people of color. The workshops goal is to amplify the voices of artists and cultural workers who are underrepresented in digital resources and the arts.

Since 2014, over 18,000 people at more than 1,260 events around the world have participated in edit-a-thons, resulting in the creation and improvement of more than 84,000 articles on Wikipedia and its sister projects, according to a press release from Wikipedia.

We are proud to partner again on this important virtual event supporting the worldwide movement to amplify gender diverse artists through Wikipedia, said Art House Producing Director Courtney Little. This is an incredible opportunity for community members to learn from each other and to enrich Wikipedia to include more voices and perspectives.

The event will feature closed captions autogenerated by Zoom. To request ASL interpreters, please email info@arthouseproductions.org at least 72 hours before the event. Free registration is available at https://bit.Ly/3tE8bYq. All are invited to register and edit or create a Wikipedia page for an artist.

Read more:
Art House and universities to host Art + Feminism - NJ.com