Search the archive.

As favor seems to be falling for President Joe Biden after his poor debate performance last month, down-ballot Democrats in four close U.S. Senate races appear to be leading their Republican opponents in all but one state, according to recent polling before and after the debate.

After Biden's lackluster debate performance against former President Donald Trump on June 27 in Atlanta, panic spread within the Democratic Party. There have been growing calls for the president to drop out of the race and for another prominent Democrat to become the party's nominee. However, Biden, 81, has vowed to stay in the race, telling ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in a recent interview that he would only drop out if "Lord Almighty" tells him to.

Senate Democrats in key battleground states have consistently performed better than President Biden in polls, fueling speculation that November could see the highest levels of ticket-splitting in years.

Voting for different parties on the same ticket has become increasingly rare in the U.S. amid growing political polarization. While some down-ballot Democrats are polling better than the president now, observers caution the gap between them will likely shrink as the election draws closer.

On paper, winning back the Senate should be a cakewalk for the GOP this year: The party is defending only 11 relatively safe seats while the Democrats have to defend 23 seats, many of them in red or purple states, at a time when their presidential standard-bearer is struggling.

And yet, thanks to ticket-splitters, Democratic Senate candidates are ahead in almost all of their races — sometimes polling dramatically better than President Joe Biden.

So far, Democratic anxiety about the presidential race’s impact on the Senate has been muted because public polling has almost invariably shown their candidates still leading in the key states where Biden has fallen behind former President Donald Trump. But recent history raises deep questions about whether Democratic Senate candidates can continue to levitate as far above the presidential ticket as polls now show.

Throughout this century, but especially over roughly the past decade, it has grown increasingly difficult for Senate candidates in either party to win in states that usually vote for the other side in presidential contests. During the 2016 and 2020 election years, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only candidate, out of 69 total Senate races, who won in a state that voted the other way at the presidential level.

The positive news for Democrats in the poll is the performance of their Senate candidates in the same states. There are Senate races in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin this year. In each state a Democrat holds the seat now; two are open races and three seats are being defended by incumbent Democrats. And in each state the Democratic candidate is running ahead of Biden, while leading their Republican opponent by a margin of at least 7 points.

MILWAUKEE — Senate Republicans were riding high after President Biden’s implosion on the debate stage in Atlanta — but they were soon confronted with polling showing Democratic incumbents leading in every single battleground state except Montana.

The polling showing Senate Democratic candidates doing better than the beleaguered Biden in their respective states raised alarms among GOP lawmakers that former President Trump may not have long enough coattails when it comes to Senate races.

Although bad-to-worst case scenarios remain underexplored in the scientific literature, statements labeling climate change as catastrophic are not uncommon. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called climate change an “existential threat.” Academic studies have warned that warming above 5 °C is likely to be “beyond catastrophic” (50), and above 6 °C constitutes “an indisputable global catastrophe” (9).

Current discussions over climate catastrophe are undermined by unclear terminology. The term “catastrophic climate change” has not been conclusively defined. An existential risk is usually defined as a risk that cause an enduring and significant loss of long-term human potential (51, 52). This existing definition is deeply ambiguous and requires societal discussion and specification of long-term human values (52). While a democratic exploration of values is welcome, it is not required to understand pathways to human catastrophe or extinction (52). For now, the existing definition is not a solid foundation for a scientific inquiry.

[(John, covered tech policy for the Wall Street Journal and has written extensively about the political backlash against big tech and the antitrust investigations into the companies.) “Big Tech Has Spent $36 million on Ads to Torpedo Antitrust Bill.”, WSJ, 6-9-22, https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-tech-has-spent-36-million-on-ads-to-torpedo-antitrust-bill-11654767000]//LR

WASHINGTON—Advocacy groups bankrolled by big technology companies have poured at least $36.4 million into TV and internet ads opposing antitrust legislation that would bar dominant tech platforms from favoring their own products and services, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. By comparison, groups supporting the antitrust legislation have spent about $193,000, according to a Journal analysis of data collected by AdImpact, an ad-tracking service. Much of the tech industry spending—$13.7 million, or almost 40%—has come since May 1, ahead of a possible floor vote this summer on the bill, which has bipartisan support. The spending marks one of the biggest ad campaigns by the powerful tech industry in recent years and reflects its fear of the disruptive potential of tougher antitrust laws. “This is without question one of the most significant campaigns the association has embarked on in recent years, because it’s one of the most radical policy proposals to regulate a leading sector of the U.S. economy,” said Matt Schruers, president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which has spent more than $23 million, the most of any group. CCIA didn’t disclose which companies provided funding for its ad campaign, saying only that “the association is funding the campaign.” CCIA lists Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc. and Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook among its members. CCIA’s ads have included mentions of Amazon as well as Google and “your phone.” The bill targets dominant tech platforms, including Amazon’s e-commerce site, Google’s search engine, Apple’s App Store and Facebook. Those companies have been working for months to stop or alter the bill, deploying teams of lobbyists and top executives to Washington. The $36.4 million spent by groups opposing the legislation dates back to Jan. 1, 2021. Google’s voluntary disclosure of its memberships for 2021 includes CCIA. Amazon also disclosed that it made payments of $10,000 or more to CCIA in 2021. Many of the ads are running in lawmakers’ home states and districts. They aim to convince voters that easing antitrust standards would contribute to inflation, weaken America’s hand versus China or hurt consumers and small businesses by disrupting popular online services such as Amazon Prime or Google Maps. Sponsors led by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) and Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) held a press conference on Wednesday to push back on the campaign, saying it is distorting the bill’s impacts. “We’re confronted with these big tech companies spending tens of millions of dollars on ads and also on front groups to spread falsehoods about our bill,” Mr. Grassley said. “Obviously they want to protect the status quo, which allows them to expand their influence.” Ms. Klobuchar insisted the bill has the necessary votes to succeed on the Senate floor. “We have momentum despite all the money being spent against us,” she said. The bill passed a Senate committee earlier this year on a bipartisan basis, although some supporters said at the time that they wanted changes. It “is specifically designed to target a small number of specific companies, most of which are headquartered in my home state,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) said at the time. Supporters, including some smaller technology companies, contend the platforms’ dominant position gives them unchecked power to influence the fate of other businesses. They say restricting the platforms’ conduct would carry significant benefits. The bill was endorsed by the Biden administration’s Justice Department. Amazon, Google and Apple say the legislation would make it harder to offer popular services, and that it is fair for e-marketplaces, search engines and app stores to profit off their own innovations. Meta Platforms hasn’t taken a public position on the Senate legislation, and a spokesman declined to comment. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) hasn’t publicly committed to holding a vote on the bill. However, Mr. Schumer recently told Ms. Klobuchar and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) that he intends to bring it up for a vote on the Senate floor early this summer, a Democratic aide familiar with the conversation said. The ad-campaign spending has largely been divided among industry trade groups such as CCIA and the Consumer Technology Association, as well as conservative-leaning groups such as Taxpayers Protection Alliance and NetChoice. “Washington politicians have a law that could break Prime’s guaranteed two-day free delivery and threaten our fragile economic recovery,” said one ad by CCIA, referring to Amazon’s fee-based membership program. “Tell your senators, don’t break our Prime.” CCIA touts research suggesting that its ad campaign already has cut into public support for the antitrust crackdown. Other industry-backed ads focus on what opponents say would be the bill’s impact on small businesses and national security. “The left’s radical liberal bill would take away the digital tools small businesses rely on, empower China to beat America in the race for new technologies, and increase the risk of cyberattacks. Why would Senate conservatives support this dangerous bill?” says an ad from Taxpayers Protection Alliance. Tech companies are hoping to cement opposition to the bill among Republicans, who generally oppose toughening of antitrust laws but have often complained that major tech platforms censor conservative voices. “Conservative politicians and groups backing this legislation due to understandable grievances with certain tech companies are making an incalculable error,” said Patrick Hedger, executive director of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. It has run most of its $7.4 million total advertising in the last six weeks, the Journal’s analysis showed. One state that industry allies have targeted is Texas, according to a person familiar with the matter. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) “is still reviewing the bill, because he continues to be concerned about anticompetitive conduct by some big tech companies towards American consumers, and in many instances conservatives,” a Cruz spokesman said. The state’s other senator, Republican Sen. John Cornyn, opposes the legislation, citing the potential national security consequences. “The last thing we should be doing is weakening America’s ability to compete in a global economy,” he said at a hearing earlier this year. The bill’s supporters say the proposals would boost economic competitiveness without preventing platforms from offering popular services. The ads are also running in states where incumbent Senate Democrats are facing re-election fights, such as New Hampshire, home to Sen. Maggie Hassan, who hasn’t taken a public position on the legislation. A spokesperson said Ms. Hassan is reviewing the legislation and “has a strong record of standing up to some of the worst practices of Big Tech.” Tech companies “know that if the bills came to the floor for a vote, they would pass, and so big tech lobby groups are scrambling to try to prevent that from happening,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, one of the groups that has run ads supporting the legislation. The group’s funding comes in part from the Economic Security Project, an entity backed by Chris Hughes, the billionaire former Facebook executive.

Lobbying behavior/ To test this hypothesis, I reviewed and gathered evidence on the lobbying behavior of various technology-intensive industries. Historical examples show that large, integrated firms resisted strong patent protection in the late 19th-century railroad industry, as did large, integrated firms like IBM in the computing industry of the 1960s and 1970s. Both industries have in common the fact that incumbents offered a bundled package of intangible and tangible assets and therefore resisted patent protection that facilitated entry by suppliers of discrete components of that package. More recent evidence shows that some of the largest technology firms were among the most vigorous supporters of the America Invents Act. Enacted in 2011, that statute substantially expanded opportunities for third parties to contest the validity of patents, principally through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It is likely not accidental that these same firms have been among the most active petitioners at the PTAB seeking to invalidate issued patents.

On paper, winning back the Senate should be a cakewalk for the GOP this year: The party is defending only 11 relatively safe seats while the Democrats have to defend 23 seats, many of them in red or purple states, at a time when their presidential standard-bearer is struggling.

And yet, thanks to ticket-splitters, Democratic Senate candidates are ahead in almost all of their races — sometimes polling dramatically better than President Joe Biden.

Why hasn’t the United States stepped up to the plate? According to scholars and policymakers, one major reason is the fear of treaties infringing on national sovereignty. The United States shuns treaties that appear to subordinate its governing authority to that of an international body like the United Nations. The United States consistently prioritizes its perceived national interests over international cooperation, opting not to ratify to protect the rights of U.S. businesses or safeguard the government’s freedom to act on national security. Politics also poses a significant barrier to ratification. While presidents can sign treaties, ratification requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. Oftentimes, the power of special interest groups and the desire of politicians to maintain party power, on top of existing concerns of sovereignty, almost assures U.S. opposition to treaty ratification.

If President Joe Biden wants to prove that “America is back,” he should attempt to make progress on signing or ratifying several of these major international treaties. Unfortunately, any attempts of ratification will be a tall order in the Senate. Several Republican Senators even resist approving routine political appointments. Furthermore, petty political disputes and foreign policy aims, on top of the Republican priority of defending natural sovereignty and protecting the U.S. Constitution, signal potential political opposition to ratification. After the Trump administration, sovereignty has become almost inextricably linked to the Republican party platform. If the United States wants to maintain its position as a global leader and further important global and regional policy goals, it must move away from its self-defeating sovereignty obsessions and overcome political barriers, despite the odds.

While many U.S. trading partners have strengthened IPR laws and enforcement, some aspects of their regimes continue to pose trade and investment barriers for U.S. firms. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has cited as key concerns some trading partners’ lax border and criminal enforcement against counterfeits, including in the digital environment; high levels of digital piracy; and gaps in trade secret protection and enforcement. For instance, China’s technology transfer and other industrial policies may disadvantage U.S. IP holders in these markets. Among developed economies, the EU approach to GIs, for example, may limit market access for U.S. exporters of products that are common food names, and EU approaches to regulation of the digital economy and artificial intelligence affect U.S. IP (e.g., addressing illegal sharing of copyrighted content, transparency obligations for online platforms with respect to content moderation).

Most of the recent intellectual property literature concerns the "enclosure of the public domain"' or the "one-way ratchet" of intellectual property protection.2 While these concerns are significant and rightly placed, a different, and perhaps more important, enclosure movement is currently taking place at the international level. Instead of the public domain, this concurrent movement encloses the policy space of individual countries and requires them to adopt one-size-fits-all legal standards that ignore their local needs, national interests, technological capabilities, institutional capacities, and public health conditions. Unlike the movement to enclose the public domain, which "fenc[es] off common land and turn[s] it into private property, 3 the international enclosure movement fences off areas that provide attractive policy options for less developed countries. 4 By virtue of this enclosure, these countries are forced to adopt inappropriate intellectual property systems, and they as a result have also lost their ability to respond to domestic crises within their borders.

Following are UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed’s remarks to the special high-level event of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council titled “Doha Programme of Action as an Accelerator of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda”, in New York today: I am pleased to join this special high-level event on the Doha Programme of Action. As we approach the second part of the Fifth United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries conference, we are confronting a uniquely challenging international environment. The world’s least developed countries are facing a cascade of crises: soaring food and energy prices, escalating climate catastrophes, widening inequalities, increasing hunger, worsening poverty, rising interest rates and looming recession. Least developed countries are being pushed off track in their pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. The progress they achieved through years of dedicated efforts is evaporating as we speak. Today, more than half of least developed countries are either in debt distress or at a high risk of debt default. This is eroding their ability to invest in recovery, resilience, and long-term sustainability.

As demonstrated in the Article, one of the main reasons why the effectiveness of patents as an incentive mechanism in the environmental domain is limited is the reliance of patent incentives on market demand in directing innovation.7 To start with, a market-based platform clearly cannot be relied upon to incentivize production of nonmarket goods.8 In the environmental context, this inherent limitation of the patent system comes into effect, for instance, with respect to basic scientific research regarding various fundamental questions related to climate change.9 Yet, even outside the realm of pure basic research, the more upstream a research and development (R&D) project is—i.e., the more removed it is from commercial applications—the higher the uncertainty regarding the market value of such project is likely to be, and the less probable it is that the patent system would provide ample incentives to pursue it.10 Thus, for instance, R&D endeavors designed to explore methods of employing various alternative energy sources in lieu of fossil fuels—which may later serve as the foundation for a wide array of downstream innovative efforts—are not likely to be adequately incentivized by patents.11

Unfortunately, in the context of environmental innovation, the concern that the patent system fails to provide adequate incentives to innovate applies to downstream innovation as well, since market demand tends to underrepresent the social value of green technologies. A cleaner environment constitutes a public good; hence, positive externalities play a significant role in undercutting demand for green products and processes. In deciding whether to purchase and install a pollution-reducing scrubber, for instance, a profit-maximizing firm is likely to focus on its direct costs and benefits, while not ascribing much weight to the substantial beneficial impact on numerous third parties that such a step may yield. If businesses are not willing to pay for climate change technologies a sufficient amount of money that reflects their social value, then the patent system—in its reliance on market demand—is not likely to incentivize development of such technologies at a socially optimal level.12

Intellectual property systems in developed countries are helping to keep poorer countries trapped in poverty, says a report out this week. Laws on patents and intellectual property need to be relaxed and adapted to help developing countries fight poverty and gain access to technology, medicines, and research. Developing countries should set their own agenda and develop laws that give them easier access to cut-price drugs and generic versions of drugs that are still patented. They should also aim to ensure that diagnostic and surgical methods are excluded from patents, says the report from the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. The commission, which was set up by the British government in May 2001 to see how poor people could benefit from national rules on intellectual property, also suggests that companies that share their technology with poorer countries should be rewarded in some way, perhaps with tax breaks. “Intellectual property systems may, if not used carefully, introduce distortions that are detrimental to the interests of developing countries. Developed countries should pay more attention to reconciling their commercial self-interest with the need to reduce poverty in developing countries, which is in everyone's interest,” says the report. In a foreword to the report, Hugh Laddie, UK High Court Patents Judge, says that TRIPS (trade related aspects of intellectual property)—which allows members of the World Trade Organization to have easier access to cheaper medicines—“has not resulted in a shrinking of the gap that divides those two sides [the developed world and the developing world], rather it has helped to reinforce the views already held.” There are those, mainly in the developed world, who believe that intellectual property rights are good and must be strengthened, whereas developing countries believe they benefit just the developed world and seriously damage industry and technology everywhere else. The principles laid out in TRIPS need to be made more flexible, and the deadline to adopt the treaty should be extended to 2016 for some countries, says the report. “Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for developing countries,” said Professor John Barton, chairman of the commission, and professor of law, Stanford University. “But, in the case of developing countries, more and stronger protection is not necessarily better. Developing countries should not be encouraged or coerced into adopting stronger IP [intellectual property] rights without regard to the impact this has on their development and poor people. They should be allowed to adopt appropriate rights regimes, not necessarily the most protective ones.”

CORVALLIS, Ore. - A new study by an Oregon State University business professor has found that developing countries that adopt major international economic treaties do not necessarily gain more foreign direct investment. In fact, in some cases adopting these treaties can hurt, not help a developing country, contrary to what agencies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) espouse. The study, published in the online version of the Journal of World Business, has major implications for Latin American and Caribbean intellectual policy reform. , an assistant professor in OSU's College of Business, spent more than 12 years in private industry managing intellectual property and research and development strategies at various firms. He is the inventor of 43 issued United States patents and more than 70 international patents in areas related to micro/nanotechnology and semiconductor manufacturing. Khoury wanted to know when developing countries in Latin America adopt intellectual property treaties such as the if their inbound investment from foreign countries increases. Mike Peng from the University of Texas at Dallas contributed to the research. "Basically, I wanted to know when developing countries take on the rules of the wealthy, developed nations, do good things happen to them?" Khoury said. "And in many cases, the answer is no." Khoury looked specifically at the Paris Convention treaty, which was renewed in 1967. He found that countries that did not have a significant invention and scientific research base did not financially benefit from adopting the treaty, and in some cases found their economic situations worsen. The OSU professor pointed out that developed countries such as the United States encourage others to adopt the treaties because they want to be able to file their patents in countries where there may be a market for their product, or perhaps where there may be a manufacturing workforce to make the product. As the inventor of more than 100 domestic and international patents, Khoury saw this issue come up frequently when he was filing for patents in other countries. Companies file international patents to protect their invention and make sure competitors in other countries do not copy the product; and they want to ensure that they can sell, market or manufacture the product overseas. Looking at the data over a 14-year period in 18 Latin American and Caribbean countries, Khoury found that countries that adopted the Paris Convention early - such as Colombia, Ecuador and Uruguay - had an inflow of foreign direct investment if they increased innovation, which he measured by the number of scholarly journals published and number of patents filed from that country. So in some cases, adoption of international intellectual property rights treaties may have helped a developing nation. But in countries with the lowest innovation base - including El Salvador, Honduras and Paraguay - early adoption did not increase investment in those countries. "Countries that do not adopt are threatened with sanctions and other types of coercion," Khoury said. "This explains why so many developing nations adopt treaties that are, quite frankly, not beneficial to them and in some cases only helps larger, multinational corporations within more industrialized countries." Khoury explained that developing countries often struggle to stay in harmony with international treaties that are designed as "one-size-fits-all." In many cases, he added, developing nations may see much larger economic benefits from delaying participating with economic treaties such as the Paris Convention and waiting until they have increased their domestic innovation base.

Although the Doha Round began as a development round and has subsequently led to greater accommodation of needs, interests, and conditions in less-developed countries, developed countries have actively pushed for heightened intellectual property protection and enforcement in the WTO. For example, during the TRIPS Council meeting in June 2006, the European Union called for an "in-depth discussion" of enforcement issues. 84 Together with two earlier proposals,85 the EU effort to push for greater discussion of intellectual property enforcement in the TRIPS Council represented the first attempts by a WTO member to revive such discussion since 1997.86 That effort also reflected the directions of the new EU IPR Enforcement Strategy,87 which the European Commission adopted in November 2004.88

In response to the EU efforts, leading developing countries such as Argentina, Brazil, China, and India registered their strong opposition, citing distractions from WTO trade talks, which they claimed were "supposed to focus on development" in the Doha Round.89 As noted by a Chinese official, the TRIPS Council is "not the right time or right place" to discuss intellectual property enforcement. 90 In China's view, those issues should be handled by the DSB instead.9'

CORVALLIS, Ore. - A new study by an Oregon State University business professor has found that developing countries that adopt major international economic treaties do not necessarily gain more foreign direct investment. In fact, in some cases adopting these treaties can hurt, not help a developing country, contrary to what agencies such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) espouse. The study, published in the online version of the Journal of World Business, has major implications for Latin American and Caribbean intellectual policy reform. , an assistant professor in OSU's College of Business, spent more than 12 years in private industry managing intellectual property and research and development strategies at various firms. He is the inventor of 43 issued United States patents and more than 70 international patents in areas related to micro/nanotechnology and semiconductor manufacturing. Khoury wanted to know when developing countries in Latin America adopt intellectual property treaties such as the if their inbound investment from foreign countries increases. Mike Peng from the University of Texas at Dallas contributed to the research. "Basically, I wanted to know when developing countries take on the rules of the wealthy, developed nations, do good things happen to them?" Khoury said. "And in many cases, the answer is no." Khoury looked specifically at the Paris Convention treaty, which was renewed in 1967. He found that countries that did not have a significant invention and scientific research base did not financially benefit from adopting the treaty, and in some cases found their economic situations worsen. The OSU professor pointed out that developed countries such as the United States encourage others to adopt the treaties because they want to be able to file their patents in countries where there may be a market for their product, or perhaps where there may be a manufacturing workforce to make the product. As the inventor of more than 100 domestic and international patents, Khoury saw this issue come up frequently when he was filing for patents in other countries. Companies file international patents to protect their invention and make sure competitors in other countries do not copy the product; and they want to ensure that they can sell, market or manufacture the product overseas. Looking at the data over a 14-year period in 18 Latin American and Caribbean countries, Khoury found that countries that adopted the Paris Convention early - such as Colombia, Ecuador and Uruguay - had an inflow of foreign direct investment if they increased innovation, which he measured by the number of scholarly journals published and number of patents filed from that country. So in some cases, adoption of international intellectual property rights treaties may have helped a developing nation. But in countries with the lowest innovation base - including El Salvador, Honduras and Paraguay - early adoption did not increase investment in those countries. "Countries that do not adopt are threatened with sanctions and other types of coercion," Khoury said. "This explains why so many developing nations adopt treaties that are, quite frankly, not beneficial to them and in some cases only helps larger, multinational corporations within more industrialized countries." Khoury explained that developing countries often struggle to stay in harmony with international treaties that are designed as "one-size-fits-all." In many cases, he added, developing nations may see much larger economic benefits from delaying participating with economic treaties such as the Paris Convention and waiting until they have increased their domestic innovation base.