Search the archive.

At the top of President Biden’s letter announcing his withdrawal from his reelection campaign, he staked a major legacy claim, saying his administration passed “the most significant climate legislation in the history of the world.”

Now environmental groups and voters have begun parsing how Vice President Harris — and her possible running mates — might be different from Biden on key questions of climate change, the movement away from fossil fuels, and environmental regulation.

Now that Kamala Harris has effectively wrapped up the Democratic nomination for President, journalists and pundits are examining her every word for clues about how she might govern. To some extent, the answer is obvious. Having served for four years under Joe Biden, the Vice-President would seek to extend his Administration’s policy accomplishments, which she described last week as “unmatched in modern history.” But, on the economy, what exactly is the Biden legacy?

In a report published last November, the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank based in New York, pointed out that the defining goal of Bidenomics, its “North Star,” has been to rebalance the economy, moving power away from large corporations toward workers and consumers. This principle has guided many of the Biden Administration’s economic actions: using stimulus policy to promote strong job growth and low unemployment, which strengthens the bargaining power of workers; enforcing labor laws and making it harder for companies to thwart unionization drives; using antitrust statutes to contain the monopoly power of big corporations in industries ranging from high tech to supermarkets to airlines. “Empowering workers and curbing corporate power—that is the essence of the Biden legacy,” Felicia Wong, the president of Roosevelt Forward, the advocacy organization affiliated with the institute, and a co-author of the report, told me. “The big question going forward is: How long will that last?”

If President Joe Biden were to bow out of the White House race, Vice President Kamala Harris is widely viewed as most likely to take his place as the Democratic nominee.

So what would her policy priorities look like — and would there be much difference from Biden’s approach?

The Economist produced a series of charts that demonstrate this. They show manufacturing and construction booming, higher wages, infrastructure rebuilds and a diverse energy platform. 

Harris is unlikely to change Biden’s formula. However, expect continued legislative attacks on bad corporate conduct and more access for small businesses.  

WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 17, 2024) — The Biden administration may soon endorse a proposal before the World Trade Organization (WTO) that would suspend patent protections on Covid-19 treatments and tests and, in doing so, thwart existing WTO standards. This move would be enormously unpopular with American voters, according to a new poll released today by the Bayh-Dole Coalition.

Seven in ten voters believe that it is important for the Biden administration to preserve WTO standards for protecting IP. And 77% are at least slightly concerned that the pending proposal would stifle medical research and kill American manufacturing jobs.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/29/bidens-got-pharmas-back-in-global-pandemic-treaty-negotiations-00138133

During the worst of the Covid pandemic, under pressure from the progressive wing of his party, the Biden administration reversed longstanding U.S. policy opposing waivers of patent protections. In May 2021, as developing countries watched rich nations vaccinate their citizens while they waited for shots, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai announced America’s support for a proposal from South Africa and India that would waive those protections for Covid vaccines as part of World Trade Organization talks. The administration supported the waiver because of the gravity of the situation at the time in an effort to end the pandemic, the HHS spokesperson said. But when WTO member countries agreed finally in June 2022 to issue the waiver, theoretically permitting developing countries to make their own Covid vaccines using U.S. drugmakers’ formulas, it came too late. Pharmaceutical companies in Western countries and India were pumping out millions of doses but demand for shots had waned globally, as people saw the risk of severe disease diminishing. Talks about extending the waiver to include Covid tests and treatments continue at the WTO but face bipartisan opposition in Congress. The WTO process revealed a deep split within the Democratic Party, with progressives supportive of broad waivers of U.S. intellectual property rights, and moderate Democrats strongly opposed. Republicans also opposed the waivers. More than a dozen senators from both parties, including Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), wrote to Biden and Tai this month asking them to reject the waiver of patent protections for tests and treatments because, they said, it wouldn’t improve global access to Covid drugs while negatively impacting “American manufacturers, innovation, and global competitiveness.” Nearly 20 House Democrats signed a similar letter in December. Pharma representatives said that forcing them to share their formulas wouldn’t lead to much manufacturing in the developing world because companies seeking to produce vaccines and drugs need knowledge and expertise that don’t come with patents. “This doesn’t work if it’s coerced,” said Thomas Cueni, director general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations, of the patent waivers. And the Biden administration, despite its willingness to loosen patent protections during the worst days of Covid, has taken pharma’s side in the treaty negotiations that could guide the world’s response to the next pandemic. Some European nations, including Germany, have also sided with their drugmakers. The top U.S. negotiator for the pandemic treaty, Hamamoto, argued in a meeting in Geneva in November that requiring more access to U.S. drugmakers’ inventions would undermine the very system that worked in response to Covid without improving access during future pandemics. “The United States believes strongly in IP protections, which serve to fuel investment and innovations,” she said, adding that the U.S. is also “exploring options” to make tests, drugs and vaccines more readily available for developing countries during future pandemics. Jim Risch, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s top Republican, who would exercise influence if a treaty ever makes it to the Senate for ratification, said he couldn’t support a deal that threatens intellectual property rights. The Idaho senator agrees the U.S. needs to help others access vaccines, but he said “giving away IP protections will kill innovation.”

The Biden administration may soon endorse a proposal before the World Trade Organization (WTO) that would suspend patent protections on Covid-19 treatments and tests and, in doing so, thwart existing WTO standards. This move would be enormously unpopular with American voters, according to a new poll released today by the Bayh-Dole Coalition. Seven in ten voters believe that it is important for the Biden administration to preserve WTO standards for protecting IP. And 77% are at least slightly concerned that the pending proposal would stifle medical research and kill American manufacturing jobs. “This poll clearly demonstrates that voters value intellectual property protections and oppose giving away U.S. intellectual property, especially to competitors like China,” said Joseph P. Allen, Executive Director of the Bayh-Dole Coalition. Opposition to this waiver is bipartisan, with supermajorities of both Republicans and Democrats preferring political candidates who prioritize protecting American inventors’ IP rights. “Voters expect U.S. officials to resist this misguided proposal which would undermine the American economy,” said Allen. The poll, conducted by Morning Consult, surveyed 2,202 registered voters between December 22 and December 24. Results have a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points.

Despite the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the World Trade Organization (WTO) continues to consider expanding the 2022 intellectual property (IP) waiver on COVID-19 vaccines to include treatments and tests under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

The Biden Administration is still considering whether to support the expansion, despite voters’ clear support of IP protections. A recent Morning Consult/PhRMA poll found that Americans are deeply concerned about how a waiver expansion would weaken the innovation environment, threaten U.S. manufacturing and jobs, and cede innovation leadership to other countries.

Despite the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, the World Trade Organization (WTO) continues to consider expanding the 2022 intellectual property (IP) waiver on COVID-19 vaccines to include treatments and tests under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

The Biden Administration is still considering whether to support the expansion, despite voters’ clear support of IP protections. A recent Morning Consult/PhRMA poll found that Americans are deeply concerned about how a waiver expansion would weaken the innovation environment, threaten U.S. manufacturing and jobs, and cede innovation leadership to other countries.

A new poll finds most Americans want the Biden administration to protect IP rights on the international stage, and both consumers and investors are increasingly interested in products made from captured carbon. (560 words, 2 minutes, 48 seconds) U.S. voters favor strong international IP protection, poll finds Most Americans want the Biden administration to protect intellectual property rights at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and express concerns about waiving those rights, finds a new poll commissioned by the Bayh-Dole Coalition. Why it matters: In 2022, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) agreed to a waiver of WTO IP protection for COVID vaccines. Now, USTR is considering an extension of the waiver to include COVID diagnostics and therapeutics. The key finding: 7 in 10 respondents said it’s important for the Biden administration to preserve WTO IP protections, and most said it’s very important, finds a Morning Consult poll of 2,202 U.S. adults conducted Dec. 22-24. China is a concern: 68% said U.S. adversaries like China should not be able to replicate American-made technologies without permission from the inventors—with only 11% disagreeing and 21% saying they don’t know. Vote for IP protection: 66% would be inclined to vote for a candidate who prioritizes stronger IP rights, while 11% said they prefer a candidate who weakens IP rights. IP waivers aren’t necessary—and the COVID vaccine IP waiver was never used because IP was never a barrier to global distribution, 19 House Democrats recently told USTR. BIO agrees: “There is no credible evidence supporting the need for an expanded TRIPS waiver,” said BIO Chief Policy Officer John Murphy.

But in the international arena, they’re united in an effort to block developing countries from access to U.S. firms’ patented information on vaccines and drugs when the next pandemic hits.

The pharmaceutical industry, Trump and Obama administration officials, and others are urging the Biden administration to reconsider a controversial plan for seizing patents on a drug when its cost gets too high, claiming the approach misinterprets decades-old law and threatens the delicate pipeline that produces innovative, life-saving drugs.

Over 500 comments were filed by the Feb. 6 deadline for groups and individuals to weigh in on the Biden administration’s framework for the federal government to use its march-in rights. The proposal lays out the Biden administration’s stance in a longstanding debate over whether price is a justifiable reason for the government to “march in” and take over a patent on technology developed with the help of taxpayer dollars and then license it to an outside manufacturer.

University of Chicago News; News organization for the University of Chicago, 11/6/24, , Accessed 7/25/24 UChicago Harris/AP-NORC poll shows majority believe AI will increase spread of election misinformation, University of Chicago News, https://news.uchicago.edu/story/poll-finds-bipartisan-concern-about-use-artificial-intelligence-2024-elections AM-COP

The public is worried about thew role AI could play in spreading false election information. Most adults (58%) believe that the use of AI will increase the spread of misinformation during the 2024 presidential election, and those who are more familiar with AI tools are more likely to say its use will increase the spread of misinformation (66% vs 51%).

The SHOP SAFE Act is a typical piece of safety-themed legislation, in that it would accomplish something much more sinister than what its name promises. Far from protecting online shoppers from harmful products, this legislation—sponsored by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D–N.Y.) in the House and by Sen. Chris Coons (D–Del.) in the Senate—threatens to obliterate online marketplaces by subjecting them to increased liability.

Democrats are currently plotting to add the SHOP SAFE Act to the bipartisan Endless Frontier Act, a technology infrastructure bill that already passed in the Senate and could certainly become law sometime in the future. This would be a disaster; the SHOP SAFE Act has massive problems that would make it very difficult for smaller online marketplaces to survive. While the bill is undoubtedly intended to seize on Congress's anti–Big Tech fervor, the likely outcome of its passage would be the solidification of Amazon's dominance.

Seven in ten voters believe that it is important for the Biden administration to preserve WTO standards for protecting IP. And 77% are at least slightly concerned that the pending proposal would stifle medical research and kill American manufacturing jobs.

“This poll clearly demonstrates that voters value intellectual property protections and oppose giving away U.S. intellectual property, especially to competitors like China,” said Joseph P. Allen, Executive Director of the Bayh-Dole Coalition.

Senator Bernie Sanders & Representative Ilhan Omar respond to a shock poll showing that a large majority of US voters want Biden to temporarily waive patent protections on Covid-19 vaccines.

A new poll finds that 60% of US voters want President Joe Biden to endorse the motion by more than 100 lower- and middle-income countries to temporarily waive patent protections on Covid-19 vaccines at the World Trade Organization. Only 28% disagreed.

examining moral rights in the united states,” U.S. Copyright Office, April, Available Online at https://www.copyright.gov/policy/moralrights/full-report.pdf, Accessed 07-13-2024) JM

4. State Moral Rights Laws

Additional implications of a Court operating free from a norm disfavoring issue creation are easy to develop. 1 But the general point is simple: without this norm the Court would no longer resemble a legal body in the way that scholars, attorneys, and jurists—not to mention Article 111 of the U.S. Constitution—contemplate such fora. More to the point, regular deviations from this norm would undermine the Courts legitimacy. The public believes that the Court's legitimate judicial function involves resolving the issues before it, not the creation of new issues.36 As one scholar put it, "When the parties choose issues, there is little opportunity for judges to pursue their own agendas and, as a consequence, the proceedings are not only fairer, but are perceived to be fairer," But, if the Court departs from this practice, it raises questions as to the impartiality of |its| actions, and such speculation tarnishes the Courts legitimacy. Litigant control of the issues is important to satisfy not only the parties, but society as well…When the Court [discovers] issues that the litigants have not presented, the Court erodes its credibility and trespasses on the soul of the adversarial system.'7

That hasn’t, however, kept Republicans from swinging away. Biden is far and away the GOP’s No. 1 villain on Facebook, according to an analysis conducted by the Democratic-leaning communications agency Bully Pulpit Interactive for POLITICO. Over the last three months, Republicans and affiliated groups and committees have spent nearly $2.5 million trying to paint Biden and his priorities in a negative light. That’s more than three times what they’ve spent on Facebook ads targeting other leading Democrats — from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and former President Barack Obama — and issues like socialism, fake news, and “defund the police” combined. POLITICO opted to review the last three months of data, after Facebook lifted the ban on political ads on its U.S. platform. But there has not been a consistent theme to the anti-Biden spots. The attack lines getting pushed most on the right go after Biden’s massive infrastructure push, his call for raising taxes, dark money groups that support his agenda, his position on guns and the rise of gun violence in U.S. cities, according to Bully Pulpit’s analysis. The conservative outfit Americans for Prosperity is leading the online barrage against Biden, with spots on infrastructure, taxes and the American Jobs Plan. The National Rifle Association has run online ads targeting Biden on guns, claiming that the “Biden Political Machine [will] dismantle the 2nd Amendment.” But others running ads go after Biden on wholly different topics. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has run spots accusing the president of trying to pack the Supreme Court with “radical leftiest justices” (Biden has only put together a commission to study the composition of the courts).

No, it’s not. If the Obama Administration loses in the Supreme Court, the political pain will fall almost exclusively on the President and his Party. To paraphrase Colin Powell and the Pottery Barn rule, President Obama will have broken health care, so he owns it. To the vast mass of Americans who follow politics casually or not at all, Obamacare and the American system of health care have become virtually synonymous. This may not be exactly right or fair, but it’s a reasonable perception on the part of most people. The scope of the Affordable Care Act is so vast, and its effects so pervasive, that there is scarcely a corner of health care, especially with regard to insurance, that is unaffected by it. So if millions lose insurance, they will hold it against Obamacare, and against Obama. Blaming the President in these circumstances may be unfair, but it’s the way American politics works.¶ Republicans, of course, will encourage this sentiment. The precise legal claim in King v. Burwell is an esoteric one. It is not based on a claim that Obamacare is unconstitutional. (The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law three years ago.) Rather, the central assertion by the plaintiffs is that the Obama Administration violated the law itself. In any event, the subtlety of the issue at the heart of the case will surely be lost in its aftermath. The headlines will read, correctly, “Court rules against Obamacare,” and this will be all that matters. The Republicans will argue that the Supreme Court showed that the law was flawed from the start, that the Obama Administration is lawless, that a full repeal of the law is the only appropriate response to the Court’s decision—and that the millions who lose their subsides should blame the sponsor of the law. Watch for references to a “failed Presidency.” There’ll be plenty of them.¶ Understandably, perhaps, the Administration has courted this kind of reaction. Better than anyone, Administration officials know the scale of the problems that would be created by a loss in the Supreme Court. Advertising this possibility makes sense as a litigation strategy; Obama officials don’t want to make it easy for the Supreme Court to rule against them. In testimony before Congress and elsewhere, Sylvia Burwell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (and the defendant in the case), said that the Administration has no contingency plan for an adverse ruling in the Supreme Court. But playing chicken with the Justices only works if it works. If the Supreme Court strikes down the subsidies, the Administration will also have to answer for why it didn’t prepare for this possibility.¶ For many people, the President of the United States is the government of the United States. It’s why he gets the credit and blame for so many things, like the economy, where his influence can be hard to discern. This is particularly true for a subject in which the President has invested so much of his personal and political capital. If the Supreme Court rules against him, the President can blame the Justices or the Republicans or anyone he likes, and he may even be correct. But the buck will stop with him.