The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania In 2008, California became the first state to deprive citizens of their rights by rewriting its constitution through the passage of the infamous, Proposition 8. [1] Amongst heavy opposition, this amendment limited the recognition of marriage to unions between a man and a woman, dissolving the previously instituted marriage rights of same-sex couples. Its ratification is largely attributed to The Church of Latter-Day Saints which heavily funded a series of successful media campaigns under the guise of the nonprofit, the National Organization For Marriage. [2] This funding was subsequently utilized to produce propaganda in various formats to sway public opinion. Under federal regulations, however, nonprofit organizations are prohibited from participating in political activities or risk losing their tax-exempt status. [3] Nevertheless, due to the Citizens United decision in conjunction with ambiguous tax codes, these practices are deemed permissible, granting nonprofits an unrestrained ability to affect American politics. In order to have a truly just nation, one that embodies the democratic ideals we strive to uphold, it is essential that we reevaluate existing policies and instate stricter provisions to limit the power of nonprofit interest groups. As their name implies, nonprofit groups are organizations that redistribute any economic revenue for the sole purpose of aiding the lives of others. The United States’ Internal Revenue Services recognizes the merit of such organizations and awards them a tax-exempt status as outlined in section 501(c) of the IRS tax code. [4] In other words, these groups operate as if they had no income. While there are many types of nonprofits, most fall under the category of 501(c)(3) which are groups with charitable, educational, religious, or scientific purposes, among others. Meant to be isolated from political issues, donations to these groups qualify as tax deductions in individual income tax reports for the donors. Similarly, most other nonprofits fall under section 501(c)(4), which are groups meant to operate exclusively for the general welfare, but have become increasingly active in political campaigns. Because these groups are allowed minimal political involvement, donors do not qualify for tax deductions, but nonprofits are still not taxed for any of the money they receive. Several nonprofits have circumvented this by creating two distinct groups, one a 501(c)(3) and the other a 501(c)(4). In this way, money can be easily transferred between both organizations, and can be used for political purposes; in addition, donors will always qualify for tax deduction. This loophole is vital because both types of nonprofits are not subject to disclosure laws. While groups in the 501(c)(4) category are allowed greater political freedoms, it is important to recognize that neither group is legally able to support or endorse any partisan candidate or action. [5]
0 Comments
 By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. A product of market economies, contracts are rudimentary legal documents that bind two parties to a mutual promise. [1] In the music industry, these contracts are valuable and highly sought after by voracious artists who dream of one day obtaining worldwide recognition. Distracted by the promise of fame and riches, however, many musicians hastily overlook the restrictive nature of recording contracts, and like, in the case of pop star Ke$ha, these restrictions can have detrimental consequences. Once a rising star in the music business, Ke$ha now finds herself locked in an exclusive contract with Sony and forced to work with her alleged sexual abuser, Dr. Luke. [2] In an attempt to salvage her career, she has embarked upon a tenacious legal battle pleading the New York Supreme Court to permit her an injunction, which would effectively liberate her from her abusive contract and allow her to continue developing her musical career without risk of being held liable for breaching her contract. [3] A case that seems to have an apparent resolution is sure to be a subject to prolonged contestation. Legal battles between musicians and their recording companies shed light on the necessity of the legal system to adopt stringent provisions protecting artists from the damaging consequences of unfair contracts.  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. Turing Pharmaceuticals was the subject of heavy backlash after CEO Martin Shkreli increased the price of Daraprim astronomically. This drug is used to fight common parasites that attack people with weakened immune systems, such as AIDS and cancer patients. In a drastic move, the price was increased by nearly 5,000%, pricing each pill at $750 instead of its previous $13.50. [1] Though this incident has received a significant amount of coverage from various media outlets, drastic hikes in the price of prescriptions are common-- and completely legal-- decisions by pharmaceutical companies to increase revenue from specialty medication. In fact, the change in the price of Daraprim is modest in comparison to the 2014 change of the prescription pill Tertracycline, which increased in price by a whopping 17,714%. [2] With Americans facing exceptionally large prescription costs in comparison to other developed nations, it is imperative that the federal government adopts an active approach in reducing the costs of medication. In comparison to our European counterparts, Americans pay more than double for prescription medications. [3] Though there are various factors that influence the cost of drugs, including differences in the organizational structure of our respective medical systems, pharmaceutical price regulation measures are the primary reason the European Union is able to maintain low prescription costs. The E.U. heavily intervenes in their pharmaceutical market by instating price caps for the sale of generic drugs and setting a maximum reimbursement rate. [4] This is a significant divergence from the United States, whose only policies regarding the pharmaceutical industry focus on safety. Most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, are frustrated by rising prescription costs and favor the passage of policies allowing the government to further control drug costs. [5]  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. Amidst this summer’s series of momentous Supreme Court decisions, the most powerful judicial body in America dropped a bombshell: it will be revisiting the issue of affirmative action next term in the case of Fisher v. The University of Texas. [1] After a long chain of appeals, the case will come before the Supreme Court in 2016, giving the justices the opportunity to address the much-avoided topic that has inspired much fervor in the program’s supporters and dissenters alike. The case revolves around Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian woman who sued The University of Texas after the admissions office rejected her undergraduate application in 2008. According to Fisher’s lawyers, a public university cannot legally use race as a factor in determining an applicant’s admission, claiming it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits preferential treatment on the basis of race. [2] The United States District Court first heard the case and ruled in favor of the University. Fisher appealed the case after this and subsequent rulings in favor of the university’s affirmative action program, eventually reaching the Supreme Court. It remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which once again ruled in favor of the University’s admissions policy. Once more, Fisher appealed the case; however, since Fisher had already graduated from college, the University requested that the case be dismissed entirely. The request was denied, as the Supreme Court announced this past June that it would add Fisher v. The University of Texas to their docket. [3]  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a rising freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. Shortly after the Supreme Court’s epochal decision in favor of same-sex marriage, lines of couples hoping to become newlyweds flooded local county clerks' offices across the nation. While many were able to obtain a marriage license successfully, others, such as a couple in Hood County, Texas, were met with dismay as their request was denied. [1] Although their marriage license was later approved and similar non-compliant counties nationwide are now facing civil charges, incidents like these shed light on the underlying bias that propagates throughout the American bureaucracy. In legal terms, a government is a set of laws and regulations exerted on a group of individuals. [2] Such an abstract concept, however, would be ineffective without citizens that enforce the established mandates of the government. Thus, the bureaucratic system exists. As the people behind the regulatory entity that seeks to provide order, it is with them that the true power of the government is vested in. Bureaucrats serve as the face of the government, shaping our interactions with our central authority at all levels. The outreach of bureaucratic workers is substantial, as they range from teachers to public officials. As public servants, they are tasked with implementing and enforcing laws equally and without prejudice. [3] However, like all humans, members of the bureaucracy are subject to act with predispositions. Laws are only as powerful as the individuals that enforce them; bias in bureaucrats can lead to unfair discrimination and institutional racism. This bias can be expressed both explicitly and implicitly.  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a rising freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. As Philadelphia prepares for Pope Francis’ visit, he continues to make headlines as he uses the papacy's power to incite action in addressing many societal issues. Although the media has portrayed the Pope’s activism as novel, for centuries the Pope’s influence and power has extended past the Catholic Church and into the realm of policy. The significant trend of political activism began with Pope Innocent III, who led the Catholic Church from 1198 until his death in 1216. Throughout his relatively short tenure he challenged the power of the English Crown, launched the Crusades in an effort the recover the Holy Land, and, most importantly, established the powerful doctrine of papal power within the church and, to an extent, secular affairs. As a result, historians regard him as the most powerful and significant pope of the Middle Ages. [1]  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a rising freshman at the University of Pennsylvania. In one of his last strides to push for immigration reform before he leaves office, President Obama urged Congress in his Saturday weekly address on June 6 to pass a previously agreed-upon immigration bill that would “bring more undocumented immigrants out of the shadows so they can get right with the law.” [1] But in many cities across America, undocumented immigrants live as everyday citizens with neither fear of deportation nor dire necessity to embark in the long and often times complicated immigration process. Known as sanctuary cities (or safe havens), these hubs are shelters for illegal immigrants, protecting them through either legal provisions or de facto practices. Though the term does not have a formal legal meaning, it has gained popularity and widespread usage since 1989, when the San Francisco Board of Supervisors first declared the Golden Gate City a “sanctuary.” [2] Since then, other cities such as Washington, DC, Houston, San Jose, and Detroit have adopted laws that protect illegal aliens in varying degrees, thus serving as sanctuaries. |
|
|