Search Results

The covid-19 pandemic exasperated pre-existing, deeply imbedded flaws of the criminal justice system. With a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) already failing on multiple fronts to safely house their inmates with staffing shortages and the in-ability to separate infected inmates from healthy ones, the potential of months-long lockdowns proved detrimental and life-threatening. Thankfully, the Trump Administration helped alleviate this issue of prison overcrowding by implementing the CARES Home Confinement policy. The policy allowed low-risk, medically vulnerable inmates with no history of violence in prison to spend the remainder of their sentence under home confinement. This resulted in huge cost savings on the taxpayer ($65.33 per inmate, per day) and almost no risk to public safety with only a 0.2% recidivism rate (compared to the 43% national rate). Those participating in the program have become productive, tax-paying members of society who have turned their life around, supported their communities, and repaired broken family units. The Trump-era CARES Home Confinement policy has proven to be one of the most successful criminal justice initiatives in the 21st century. Unfortunately, some in Congress are working to end this public safety success and the Nolan Center for Justice has stepped up to ensure such a mistake is not made. Earlier this week, CPAC’s Frank Russo sat on the CARES Act Home Confinement Briefing Panel to discuss the importance of codifying, not reversing, this innovative approach to modernizing the criminal justice system. The panel sought to educate and inform Congressional staff on the effectiveness and societal impact of home confinement as an alternative to traditional incarceration. “We care because those individuals are not only helping themselves, but also the wider community around them” Mr. Russo said, affirming CPAC’s support for the program. Further, Mr. Russo posed the question to the bipartisan audience, “what message does it send when we punish former inmates for succeeding after prison.” At a time when Americans are calling for a justice system that prioritizes accountability and redemption, reversing one of the most successful Trump Administration initiatives would be a significant step in the wrong direction.

Legal internships are one of the many and exciting internship opportunities that CPAC offers. These internships in particular offer specialized, hands-on experience in the legal field while complementing and reinforcing the coursework of law school. CPAC provided me with my first foray into the legal office experience. In addition to the exposure to contract review, compliance, and personnel work that comes from a normal legal internship, I was also able to work in advocacy and the state and federal level. Not to mention getting to work behind the scenes at the CPAC conference. CPAC provided a challenging internship through the summers, my 2L and 3L year, and all the way through studying for and passing the Bar exam. Though rigorous, CPAC always assured me that school would come first and was there every step of the way. I cannot think of a better way to start my legal career. Experience all that a CPAC internship has to offer for yourself by applying for a Spring 2024 internship here.

CPAC conferences are the boost young conservatives need to keep the movement going strong. The boundless opportunities to meet and make friends with other like-minded young people encourage the next generations of conservatives to know that they are not alone in their convictions to fight for freedom. You never know who you may meet from other attendees to main stage speakers. With thousands of other conservatives from all parts of the country and even the world in attendance, opportunities abound to start building genuine connections with fellow conservatives and to begin or increase your involvement in the fight to save America. As a five-time student attendee before I started working at CPAC, I was able to make so many amazing connections and friendships through attending each conference. At CPAC Texas 2021, I was fortunate enough to meet Kari Lake. It was through that first connection and continuing to stay involved that I was invited to join Kari's gubernatorial campaign in Arizona as an intern for the final month before the election. Being able to play even a small role in that campaign was the opportunity of a lifetime, and I am so thankful for the initial connection with Kari that was made possible through my attendance at CPAC. I highly encourage every young conservative that wants to get more involved in the movement to make it a priority to attend CPAC, especially going into this crucial election year. Tickets for CPAC DC February 21-24, 2024 are on sale now. Student tickets start at $55 and General Registration starts at $95 for a limited time! Visit CPAC.org for more information and to register.

Volunteering at CPAC is a great way to get involved with conservative politics and get a behind-the-scenes look at how CPAC operates. CPAC volunteers have integral roles in the successful execution of the conference, and their hard work makes the conference such a great success. Volunteers get the unique opportunity to work in all areas of the conference, including General Session, Media Row, and CPAC Central. Before or after shifts, volunteers have general attendee access to the conference – free of charge. This is a great opportunity to meet and network with like-minded conservatives, as well as attend the largest gathering of conservatives in the world! Applications for volunteer positions at our next CPAC conference, happening February 21-24 in Washington, D.C. are now open! Click here to apply today!

At CPAC, we understand that freedom does not come free. On this Veteran’s Day we extend our deepest gratitude to those who have paid the price, risked their lives, and made unimaginable sacrifices so that we all might enjoy the rich freedoms this great country has provided us. Because of the courage and strength of our veterans throughout the history of this country, from the Revolutionary War to the World Wars and the conflicts of more recent years, America has stood the test of time and led the world in liberty. While many around the country today desecrate our flag, mar this history with falsehoods, and belittle the values our veterans have fought for, those of us at CPAC still love our country, believe that America is indeed a great nation, and maintain the utmost respect for those who have fought on the front lines to keep us free. The service of our veterans is the reason we can truly, and proudly, say we are “the home of the brave”. Thank you for your service! -CPAC

What are social media companies doing to combat the scourge of human trafficking haunting communities across the country? Unfortunately, the answer is more concerning than the question. Just last month, prosecutors in Texas were back in Court seeking to convict traffickers who used social media apps like Snapchat and Facebook to coerce victims into a cycle of abuse. Many have advocated that social media platforms need to fix their filtering and monitoring trends to protect the impressionable minor population. Just a week ago, an ex-employee of Facebook testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that these platforms have ignored repeated calls to bring an end to this abuse, even when the company's own staff fall victim to these criminal actors. Yet a majority of the resources these companies use for policing their own platforms go towards limiting speech. As House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan revealed, social media companies partnered with the Federal government and non-profits to silence the voices of those who dare criticize their policies and practices. These companies should be dedicating their time and money to removing the actual crimes occurring on their platforms daily. As the former Facebook employee stated in his testimony even though staff have raised complaints to the company's leadership, no significant changes have been made. Stated more simply: “we can’t trust them with our children.” Social media platforms like Facebook need to be held accountable to pursue significant changes to their filter and reporting processes to protect vulnerable populations like children from predators and traffickers.

Since "standing up" in July, the CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom has hit the ground running, getting involved in all kind of different proposals from the Biden administration to expand the size and scope of federal power, from proposals that will drive up the price of gas and childcare, to proposals that turn the idea of protecting pregnant women on it's head. This fall and into the winter, we're continuing that push back, and we're going to need your help. Here is a summary of just some of the issues we're planning on being involved in: The OSHA "Walkaround" Rule: The Biden administration is proposing a rule that would allow 3rd parties to accompany OSHA inspectors when they inspect a business--union representatives, trial lawyers, environmental activists, etc. This is yet another attempt within the Biden Administration's "whole of government" approach to regulations that, in this case, serves to advance their agenda of making it easier for Unions to unionize employees. We feel that this is violates basic standards of private property rights, has huge liability potentials, and comes with costs that OSHA has strongly underestimated. (Comments due in November) ATF's So-Called "Gun Show Loophole" Rule: The Second Amendment is once again under attack by the Biden Administration, this time in a proposed rule from the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobacco, and Firearms. Their stated position is that this closes a supposed "loophole" with regards to gun shows, but experts in the field know that no such loophole exists. We feel that this proposal targets lawful gun owners, potential lawful gun owners, and firearms manufacturers and dealers in a way that violates their basic 2nd Amendment rights, especially in light of recent Supreme Court caselaw. (Comments due in November) FCC's "Net Neutrality" Proposal: The last time "Net Neutrality" was proposed, the left said it was necessary to prevent Internet Service Providers from censoring content, and that without Net Neutrality, the internet would die. Well, the internet didn't die, and now the left wants content censorship... yet the leftist-controlled FCC proposed Net Neutrality once again. Now, what they really want (in the name of national security), is even greater control over the internet, and they want to dictate (once again) what people pay for their internet service. (Comments due in December and January) HHS Forcing Price Controls on Drug Manufacturers... Or Else: Former Chicago Mayor (and Chief of Staff to Barack Obama), Rahm Emanuel, famously said that politicians should never let a crisis go to waste. In the spirit of that, Democrats used the Orwellian-named "Inflation Reduction Act" to expand the federal government's power in the health care economy by, among other things, forcing drug makers to "negotiate" with the federal government over health prices (ie, be forced to take whatever drug price the Biden Administration wants). If you don't, your drugs will be slapped with a 95% excise tax--essentially doubling their price to consumers. (Comments due in December) Implementation of the Left's Radical Environmental Agenda: CRF is diligently watching the Biden Administration's regulatory proposals for new attempts to implement their extremist, anti-human ideas in the widest variety of regulatory areas, whether it is their Electric Vehicle mandate, or mandates regarding so-called "green investing" (otherwise known as "ESG"). While there are no open rulemakings currently, CRF is going to keep our eyes open for any new opportunites to inject our common-sense, free-market, limited-government perspective. There will be opportunities for you to get involved and file comments of your own with these agencies, so please keep coming back to take a look!

Two years ago, after realizing that I was totally healed from cancer, I asked God what he wanted me to do and he sent me to DC. When I got there, the first couple I met and had dinner with, not by my planning but by God’s, was Matt and Mercedes Schlapp. They did what they always do; they treated me like family from day one, and because of their inspiration and God’s leading, I knew immediately that CPAC was going to be one of the most important organizations for me to work with. It has been a total blessing in life to be able to serve this country and God while working closely with CPAC, including traveling to other countries and doing my show, It’s Not About Us. I can’t thank them enough and I would encourage anyone to sign up and come to CPAC this coming February 21-24 and to feel the encouragement of being with likeminded Christians and conservatives while hearing from some of the most devoted speakers in the country. God Bless, Elaine Beck

Internships with CPAC are more than just another item on a resume. My internship with CPAC provided great exposure to conservative politics and the logistics of hosting one of the largest political events in the world. I got to work alongside the amazing team that makes CPAC happen, and it was truly inspiring to say the least. Afterwards, I was able to transition into a full-time role at CPAC and continue building relationships with fellow staff members, donors, and our political allies. It has been the experience of a lifetime getting to defend the values I hold dear, while also developing professional skills and relationships. If you are interested in joining a supportive and energized community of conservatives while gaining professional experience, internship applications are still open for Spring 2024. Click here for more information and to submit your application.

Today is Halloween and we here at the Center for Legislative Accountability have, in the spirit of dressing up in masks and costumes, been thinking about the many ways in which Leftist politicians use euphemisms in their bills to disguise their ideology. Leftists know that their policies, on their face, can sometimes be hard to stomach, so they adopt softer and nicer words that they can use when passing their agenda. Today, we are going to unmask some of these popular euphemisms and forms of doublespeak. Here is what progressive politicians mean when they say… “Diverse Workforce.” – Unfortunately, a diverse workforce does not mean one that is composed of a variety of people pulled from all racial groups. It can very well mean a workforce made up entirely of women, non-binary people, or the members of the same racial minority. A workforce is only deemed to be not diverse if it is composed of straight, white males. It is, therefore, usually a reference to a workforce with as few straight, white males as possible. “Equity.” – This term is used to provide cover for racist policies. Equity is a state in which all have reached the same endpoint. Its attainment often requires the enactment of policies that target and discriminate against particular groups of people. Laws that state that they promote equitable outcomes are typically designed to benefit and favor certain racial groups more than others. “Legally protected healthcare activity” – This term usually refers to abortions, radical gender surgeries, or hormone replacement therapy. “Gender-affirming care” – This term also refers to the aforementioned types of surgeries and hormone therapies. In fact, the term itself is incredibly misleading because these medical procedures do the opposite of affirming a person’s actual gender. “Election security.” You probably thought that this term was the exclusive prerogative of the Right! Not so. Some blue states like to pass election reform bills under the guise of election security that actually just make it harder to audit elections. “Assault weapons” and, more recently, “Weapons of war.” – These terms refer to any gun that the party in power wants them to refer to. An “assault weapons” ban is usually just a ban on a laundry list of weapons that pro-gun control politicians dislike.

I try not to write blog posts in the first person. But there are occasions where that's necessary - at least by way of introduction. My earliest lessons about regulatory policy were from my father, a scientist in the realm of environmental policy and occupational safety and health. A natural sceptic, he was one of the first people to teach me to look deeply at narratives. Since his primary area of research was assessing risks to public health and how to apply that research to policies that were being adopted, we used to have (still have, in fact) conversations about how people perceive risks and how those perceptions drive public policy. How a public, being panicked by overblown risks can create policies that not only don't address real risks, but, in fact, can create other, greater risks to the environment, public safety, and health. A recent example is the EPA's recent proposal to severely limit the use of a chemical called ethylene oxide - a proposal that would effectively ban the chemical. EPA claims that there are severe risks from exposure to ethylene oxide, so in order to reduce that risk, they propose to set emission standards so low that the chemical simply cannot be used. The problem is that ethylene oxide is used as a disinfectant in medicine when heat or surface chemicals cannot be used (for certain kinds of instruments, or even gauze). That one cannot have a medical procedure in America without at least one essential piece of equipment or device that requires the use of ethylene oxide to ensure that it is sterile. And EPA has offered no alternatives! The risk of harm to the general public from ethylene oxide is low. But the EPA is creating massive new risks by attempting to ban it. Thus, the need for greater comparative risk assessment in determining public policy. I mentioned my father at the beginning of this blog post because every once in a while I get the rare opportunity to work with him on something. In this case, my Dad and I co-wrote an op-ed on the need for comparative risk assessment in regulatory policy (especially as the Office of Management and Budget is proposing to fundamentally change their regulatory analytical protocols through something called "Circular A-4"). That op-ed is HERE, and can be summarized as follows: While traditional cost-benefit analyses are valuable, they only offer a partial view. Everyday actions carry inherent risks, as evidenced by unexpected accidents in homes, but people naturally weigh benefits against risks. In public decision-making, this intuitive process must be formalized. The term "safe" is often misconstrued, and absolute safety is unattainable. It's crucial to integrate comparative risk assessment into regulatory decisions for more comprehensive choices. The recent proposals by the Biden Administration have missed this angle, underscoring the need for a holistic approach in assessing benefits and risks. Comparative risk assessment, which compares the harm of a proposal to other potential risks, is essential but has been sidelined in recent debates. The Biden Administration's proposed changes to the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-4 overlook this assessment method. Though the Circular provides guidance for regulatory analysis and emphasizes cost-benefit analyses, this approach alone doesn't capture the whole picture of risks involved. While cost-benefit analyses evaluate the fiscal sense of a proposal, they don't contextualize it against other possible risks.

Did you know that the Department of Defense wrongfully accused and punished members of our armed services despite proof of innocence? As 1st Lt. Llewelyn Hughes put it, “I just don’t want to see another generation of soldiers experience what I had to experience.” The lieutenant is not the only retired veteran to suffer from a false criminal record after helping recruit new soldiers through the National Guard Recruiting Assistance Program (G-RAP). In 2012, the National Guard launched G-RAP during the Global War on Terror to incentivize recruitment. The program offered service members a financial bonus if they referred a friend to the National Guard. Many service members opted into the program to support their families back home. Yet, due to only a few cases of fraud coupled with mismanagement, nearly 2,000 service members were given a criminal record for participating in the program, though they did not commit fraud themselves. These criminal records stalled their careers and placed unnecessary barriers on these innocent service members. Now, states are implementing their own version of G-RAP to boost recruitment. Will they make the same mistake? Click here to learn more about the Nolan Center for Justice’s work to ensure that we protect those who protect us.