Economist Michael Mandel analogized regulations to pebbles in a stream. If you drop one pebble into a stream, its individual effect is negligible. If you deposit a thousand pebbles into a stream, the flow of the water slows down. On the other hand, if you pour one hundred thousand pebbles into a stream, the stream’s flow can become blocked altogether. Researchers note that the amount of regulation in the U.S., both at the state and federal level, has grown steadily over the years. It is a process known as regulatory accumulation. Whether it involves regulating the fuel efficiency of cars, labels on food products or the number of beds permitted in a hospital, new rules are added every year. Yet, few, if any, regulations are ever taken off the books despite the fact that many become unnecessary or virtually obsolete. Some economists argue that overregulation has the effect of slowing economic growth and ultimately impacting the well-being of society. But the task is a difficult one: how does a government identify which regulations should be cut and who should lead the effort?
Northeastern Michigan was already facing a pandemic on May 19 when a breach in the Edenville dam forced 10,000 residents to flee their homes in the face of deadly floodwater. The dam failure elevates the need for state and federal regulators to standardize regulations and collaborate on their enforcement to prevent similar incidents.
In order to operate, non-profit organizations rely heavily on the ability to fundraise. The government leaves the regulation of that “charitable solicitation” to individual states, with most requiring formal registration to engage in such activities. With firms vying for organizations’ business to hire consultants to obtain funds, and ethics and oversight firms highlighting the careful approaches that must be utilized to appropriately raise funds for non-profit operations, charitable organizations may find themselves confused and threatened in the space between needing charitable solicitation to survive and maintaining regulatory compliance to engage in the activity itself. While the threats of penalties and sanctions are large and imposing, it appears that few organizations ever face their true weight. Charitable organizations must, of course, comply with each state of registration, but is the fear instilled equal to the reality of the consequences of non-compliance?
The Trump administration recently delivered a one-two punch to late Obama administration environmental regulations designed to curb the release of methane gas into the atmosphere while simultaneously encouraging its capture for sale. Two Obama era regulations were modified. The first, from the Department of the Interior, was effectively abrogated, while the other stemming from the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA)” is expected to retain only a fraction of its original force. Environmental groups have already responded to the repeal of the department of interior regulation with a lawsuit in federal court. Methane gas pollution became a greater concern in recent years as the production and use of natural gas as an energy source continues to increase. Proponents of earlier regulations point to methane’s potent contribution to the greenhouse effect, while critics argued the regulations were unnecessary given the natural gas industry’s own efforts and incentives to reduce leaks and capture as much usable gas as possible.
On March 14, 2018, the United States Department of Agriculture officially designated twelve Arizona Counties as primary natural disaster areas on account of agricultural loses brought on by intensifying drought. Despite being one the hottest and driest states in the nation, the state is one of the most agriculturally productive, sustaining a multi-billion dollar industry. As drought threatens this economic boon, competing interest groups petition the state legislature to adjust water-use regulations that have failed to stem shortages.
Under Rule 506 of Regulation D (“Reg D”), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) exempts companies making private placements to accredited investors from all federal and state securities registration requirements. As a federal safe harbor, Rule 506 of Regulation D preempts all conflicting state securities regulations, but reserves the states’ rights to require issuers to make notice filings, and to investigate and prosecute securities fraud under state securities laws, commonly known as “Blue Sky Laws.” On its face, Rule 506 of Reg D creates a more efficient securities marketplace. However, the historical lack of consequences for non-compliance at the federal level, combined with inconsistent state notice requirements for using exemptions, further complicates an already over-regulated securities marketplace.
Kimberly Seay Associate Editor Loyola University Chicago School of Law, J.D. 2018 On November 16, 2016, the City Council approved an ordinance amending Chicago Municipal Code § 4-6-010(c)(30), which will require the licensing of all pharmaceutical sales representatives in order to endorse pharmaceuticals within city limits and is set to take effect July 1, …