SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ron desantis
Florida Sued Over DeSantis' 'Ultimate Cowardly Act' Against Direct Democracy
"We believe in democracy, and we believe that when politicians fail to act, the people have the right to step in," said the campaign manager of Florida Decides Healthcare, a plaintiff in the suit.
May 06, 2025
Florida Decides Healthcare, a political committee and nonprofit that is fighting for expanded Medicaid eligibility in the Sunshine State, on Sunday sued the Florida secretary of state and other state officials, challenging a law Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed last week that makes it tougher for citizens to get constitutional amendments on the ballot.
According to the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court, Florida Decides Healthcare (FDH) is working to qualify a ballot measure to appear on the 2026 general election ballot that, if voted through, would expand Medicaid coverage in Florida.
Provisions in H.B. 1205 include decreased time for organizers to submit signed petitions and increased monetary penalties for violations. The law also makes it a third-degree felony for anyone other than a registered petition circulator to collect or physically possess more than 25 signed petition forms beyond ones own and immediate family members.
"Because of H.B. 1205's punitive and onerous restrictions, set to go into effect in the middle of FDH's ongoing petition drive, the organization faces the real and imminent threat of being unable to continue its operations," according to the suit. "H.B. 1205 creates intolerable uncertainty, exposes FDH to ruinous civil and criminal penalties, and could ultimately force FDH to shut down its campaign entirely."
According to a statement from FDH, the lawsuit contends that the bill is a "direct assault" on the citizen-led constitutional amendment process in Florida, "a vital democratic tool that gives everyday Floridians the power to propose ballot initiatives."
H.B. 1205 creates "vague" and "punitive" restrictions around the process that will have a chilling impact on political speech and dissuade civic engagement, according to the group.
The Elias Law Group, a prominent Democratic law firm, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, a racial justice and legal advocacy group, are lending legal support to FDH.
This targeting of the citizens amendment process comes less than one year after two ballot initiatives in Florida narrowly failed. Amendment 4 sought to ensure the right to an abortion up until fetal viability. The measure narrowly failed, falling short of the 60% majority needed to pass, meaning Florida will remain under a six-week abortion ban. Amendment 3 sought to legalize marijuana and also failed. Groups backing the initiatives raised tens of millions of dollars.
According to the Orlando Sentinel, the DeSantis administration used public money to run ads targeting the initiatives, and defended the ad campaigns as educational.
"Floridians have a constitutional right to change policy themselves. State legislators have now effectively silenced their constituents, all in order to maintain their chokehold on policymaking," said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, in a statement on Tuesday. The Fairness Project was among the groups that backed Amendment 4 last fall.
"It's the ultimate cowardly act—for politicians to enact minority rule when they know their policies don't align with the will of the majority," Hall added. "Sadly, this is nothing new for DeSantis, who used extraordinarily undemocratic means to block the will of the people during the 2024 election."
Mitch Emerson, campaign manager for Florida Decides Healthcare, similarly called the law "cowardly." Emerson is also a plaintiff in the suit.
"It's not reform—it's repression. We are filing this lawsuit because we refuse to let them silence the people of Florida," said Emerson in a statement on Monday. "We believe in democracy, and we believe that when politicians fail to act, the people have the right to step in. Floridians are ready to vote for Medicaid expansion—and we intend to make sure they get that chance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Fight Against Fascism Starts on Campus
Colleges are ahead of the curve when it comes to surveillance creep, and the ivory panopticon will only get worse as surveillance technologies get more advanced.
Nov 17, 2024
With the significant red shift this election, led by a man who is described by many as a fascist, resisting and reversing fascist creep is more important now than ever. Even at our supposedly most liberal institutions, we have seen increasingly unreasonable overreactions to dissent dictated not through democratic means, but through authoritarian decree.
Take, for example, the University of Pennsylvania. Early in the morning on October 18, a dozen armed university police stormed an off-campus student house to issue a warrant related to the throwing of red paint on a campus statue on September 12 as part of pro-Palestinian protests—red paint that was pressure-washed off within hours. Would UPenn faculty agree that an armed raid is an appropriate response to their own students who are angry and feeling helpless against the injustice of tens of thousands killed in Gaza? Where is shared and democratic governance when it comes to protest response on campus?
Penn Students Against the Occupation announced the paint incident on Instagram as being done by an “autonomous group.” They included a grainy video clip of a masked individual (let’s call them Sam) throwing the paint, echoing protest tactics used for decades from PETA showing disgust in fur coats to Just Stop Oil activists highlighting the hypocrisy of the attention paid to art versus the climate. Sam, presumably a student, clearly did not want to be caught—most likely because they saw how UPenn responded to protests last academic year—with arrests and academic sanctions and increased rules that prohibit protest activities like chalking and civil disobedience, including interrupting a guest speaker. Students know that if they want to be heard but don’t want to risk expulsion, they need to turn to subterfuge. And on a residential university campus, this is particularly tricky.
For free expression, students and faculty need to feel safe in expressing their ideas that push the boundaries of their institution, and they won’t feel safe to do that with complete surveillance of their activities.
While we are all subject to daily state and corporate surveillance of our activities, college campuses are unique examples of Foucault’s panopticon. Colleges serve as internet service provider, landlord, doctor, corner store, laundromat, gym, department of public safety, and, oh right, educator. And they have access to data for all those services, all handily linked to a student ID, collected in one place densely covered by surveillance cameras. What is unique about colleges compared to the broader U.S. is that the surveillance data is held by one institution rather than many. U.S. colleges are also known to employ analytics on their surveillance data: automated license plate reading, social media monitoring, face recognition, device tracking. Sam would have been easily identifiable despite wearing a mask if their phone automatically connected to campus wifi or if they were caught on camera without a mask approaching the scene.
Universities will say this surveillance is for the students—for their safety, health, and success. Yes, campus shootings are real and scary, but surveillance measures have a very limited ability to stop them. Yes, our youth are experiencing a mental health crisis, but monitoring student’s online behavior hasn’t proven to help either. Visible security has been shown to not increase student success, and if we need to track students to make them go to class are we really legitimizing the existence of higher education? The level of surveillance that universities engage in is more reminiscent of that undertaken by fascist and other authoritarian systems than means to support education.
But perhaps universities simply are fascist. After all, they are led by appointment rather than election. They are capitalist, in competition with one another to accumulate enrollment bases. They have their own rules and policies including strict guidelines on student conduct, which in many instances go far beyond those of broader society. They are awash with unbridled nationalism school pride with a deep hatred of other schools’... colors. And sadly, they have resorted to police intimidation and violence against student protesters of university policies, or allowed truly violent opponents to do this on their behalf.
When, last spring, universities set up mobile surveillance units (MSUs), either rented from private companies or on loan from the Department of Homeland Security, around peaceful and non-destructive protest encampments, it became hard to view campus surveillance as anything but a tool to maintain the institutional status quo. Particularly when those MSUs likely didn’t have any capabilities beyond what the campuses already had. They only served to remind students and faculty that the university is watching, and it is watching because it doesn’t approve.
This all makes universities sound like the fascist institutions that Vice President-elect JD Vance wants and that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is building rather than bastions of academic freedom and liberalism run by shared governance.
From private schools like Brown and UPenn to publics like UCLA and UC Davis, universities grossly overreach in their responses to students protesting injustice. For faculty and students to have a stake in campus response to protest, they need to start with a say in campus surveillance. There is no academic freedom or freedom of expression without privacy. FERPA, the federal law that governs student privacy, really only keeps student information from leaving the ivory tower. Universities need privacy policies that govern how information is shared and used within campus.
Colleges are ahead of the curve when it comes to surveillance creep, and the ivory panopticon will only get worse as surveillance technologies get more advanced. For free expression, students and faculty need to feel safe in expressing their ideas that push the boundaries of their institution, and they won’t feel safe to do that with complete surveillance of their activities. Which means the subjects of surveillance need to have a say in the surveillance. Students and faculty ought to demand answers as to why their institutions collect the data they do. They ought to demand evidence that their data policies holistically support student safety, health, and success. They ought to demand clarity as to whether their institution is being run as a Vance-approved or a DeSantis-built campus or as a place for academic freedom and legitimate higher education.
But then, will they be able to make these demands without being expelled or fired?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Insurance Companies Are Not Good Neighbors to Have in a Climate Crisis
Major insurers are denying legitimate claims following extreme weather events while underwriting fossil fuels and lining their CEOs’ pocketbooks.
Oct 16, 2024
Do you know that you’re in good hands with Allstate? Or how about State Farm? Do you know that, like a good neighbor, State Farm is there? Of course you do. Insurance companies have been blasting slogans like these at us for years now. In 2022 alone, Allstate spent $617 million on advertising. State Farm spent an even more whopping $1.05 billion.
But if insurance giants like State Farm truly rated as our “good neighbors,” they’d be behaving—in real life—quite a bit differently than their award-winning advertising suggests.
In hurricane-plagued Florida, for instance, State Farm last year denied 46.4% of homeowner claims, refusals that directly impacted over 76,000 households.
Another reform approach might more quickly catch the attention of top insurance industry boards of directors: tying an insurance company’s tax rate to the ratio between that company’s CEO pay and the paychecks of the firm’s workers.
“Property insurers who deny legitimate claims,” notes Martin Weiss, the founder of the nation’s only independent insurer rating agency, “are sending the implicit message, ‘If you don’t like it, sue us.’”
To add injury to that insult, Weiss adds, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had just before last year signed into law new legislation that makes policyholder lawsuits against insurers “far more difficult.”
For recently retired State Farm CEO Michael Tipsord, insurance industry lobbying victories along that Florida line have helped him pocket some stunning personal rewards. Tipsord pulled down $24.4 million in compensation two years ago, almost $4 million more than his industry’s second-highest 2022 CEO pay total. Tipsord had pocketed even more, $24.5 million, in 2021.
“CEOs are living high on the hog while increasing insurance premiums for people living paycheck to paycheck,” the Consumer Federation of America’s Michael DeLong charged last October. “Insurers are telling regulators that ordinary consumers have to pay much more for auto and home insurance because the companies are struggling with inflation and climate change, but they are quietly handing CEOs gigantic bonuses.”
Overall, DeLong’s Consumer Federation reports, the chief execs at America’s ten largest personal insurance lines collected over a quarter-billion dollars in CEO compensation for their services in 2021 and 2022.
If we really had a “good neighbor” at State Farm—or any other insurance giant—those companies wouldn’t have been spending recent years denying relief to the victims of climate change. They would have been insisting instead that lawmakers crack down on the fossil-fuel corporate giants doing so much to foul our planet.
Top insurers did make an early feint in that direction over a half-century ago. Way back in 1973, notes Peter Bosshard, the global coordinator of the U.S.-based Insure Our Future campaign, “the insurance industry first warned about climate risks.” But that warning, in the years to come, wouldn’t stop insurers from “underwriting and investing in the expansion of fossil fuels.”
Giant insurance companies that actually took climate science seriously, Bosshard observes, would have been “suing fossil fuel companies, to make polluters pay for the growing costs of climate disasters and keep insurance affordable for climate-affected communities.”
Insurers haven’t been doing any of that.
”Insurers talk a lot about their climate commitments and supporting their clients through the energy transition, but this is plain greenwashing,” charges Ariel Le Bourdonnec, a Reclaim Finance insurance activist. “They are still profiting from providing cover that allows companies to develop new fossil fuel projects. Insurers could be a force for change, but instead they are undermining climate action.”
Other critics are emphasizing that insurance industry execs have gone beyond “greenwashing” to “bluelining,” as Lilith Fellowes-Granda, a Center for American Progress associate director, points out. These execs are increasing prices and withdrawing services “from regions they perceive to be at high environmental risk.” These moves typically hit hardest on the “communities most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.”
Climate activists are advocating for a variety of policy changes to reverse these dynamics, everything from making sure property insurers must share the risks they cover to ensuring underserved communities access to affordable insurance.
Another reform approach might more quickly catch the attention of top insurance industry boards of directors: tying an insurance company’s tax rate to the ratio between that company’s CEO pay and the paychecks of the firm’s workers.
Inside the insurance industry, as in every other major U.S. economic sector, that ratio between CEO and worker has soared over recent decades.
In 2023, the chief executive at Chubb Ltd., Evan Greenberg, took home $27.7 million, enough to make him that year’s top-paid American property and casualty insurer. Those millions added up to 452 times more than the annual pay of the typical Chubb employee. In 2022, Greenberg pocketed a mere 346 times his company’s typical employee pay.
Back in 1965, the Economic Policy Institute noted last month in its latest annual CEO pay report, the top execs at major U.S. corporations only averaged 21 times what typical American workers earned. Nearly a quarter-century later, in 1989, CEOs were still only averaging 61 times worker pay.
How could we restore greater equity to corporate compensation and, at the same time, give top corporate executives an incentive to care about more than simply maximizing their own personal compensation? Lawmakers at the state and federal levels have over recent years advanced dozens of proposals that tie corporate tax rates to the size of the gap between top executive and worker pay.
In all these proposals, the higher a corporation’s CEO-worker pay ratio, the higher that corporation’s tax rate.
The Institute for Policy Studies has compiled an exhaustive guide to these CEO-worker pay gap proposals. Maybe the winds of Hurricane Milton will help give these moves the momentum they need to turn into law—and give top execs a reason to care about something more than the size of their own personal pay.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular