Law and Legislation

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      New N.Y. Law Mandates More Transparency in Credit Card Surcharges

      by

      The state law, which goes into effect Sunday, requires businesses to include any surcharges in the prices listed for the products or services they sell.A new law going into effect on Sunday will require businesses in New York to clearly post the cost of purchasing items with a credit card, including any surcharges being imposed, for customers before checkout.The law, signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul in December, also prevents businesses from imposing more in credit card surcharges than what they are charged by processing companies.Businesses can choose either to solely display the higher credit card price for the products or services they sell or to list both the credit card price and the lower cash price for the items.The new disclosure requirements will “ensure individuals can trust that their purchases will not result in surprise surcharges,” Ms. Hochul said in a statement this week.“Transparency is crucial in building trust between businesses and communities, and now patrons will be empowered to budget accordingly,” she said.In New Jersey, Gov. Philip D. Murphy signed a similar law last year requiring merchants to notify consumers before checkout about the amount of any credit card surcharges to be applied. It also prohibited merchants from charging consumers more than the processing fee the businesses paid.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Don’t Underestimate the Mobilizing Force of Abortion

      by

      Poland recently ousted its right-wing, nationalist Law and Justice Party. In 2020, a party-appointed tribunal severely restricted the country’s abortion rights, sparking nationwide protests and an opposition movement. After a trip to Poland, the Times Opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg came to recognize that similar dynamics could prevail in the United States in 2024. In this audio essay, she argues that Joe Biden’s campaign should take note of what a “powerful mobilizing force the backlash to abortion bans can be.”(A full transcript of this audio essay will be available by Monday, and can be found in the audio player above.)Illustration by Akshita Chandra/The New York Times; Photograph by Getty ImagesThe Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, X (@NYTOpinion) and Instagram.This episode of “The Opinions” was produced by Jillian Weinberger. It was edited by Kaari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. Engineering by Isaac Jones and Sonia Herrero. Original music by Isaac Jones, Sonia Herrero. Fact-checking by Mary Marge Locker. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Kristina Samulewski. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Senators Work Into Weekend on Ukraine and Israel Bill as G.O.P. Slows Progress

      by

      The $95 billion package appeared on track for eventual passage, but Republicans who killed a bipartisan version were still trying to make changes.The long-stalled emergency national security package to send aid to Ukraine and Israel is back on track in the Senate and headed toward passage within days — but not before Republican senators try to take a few partisan shots at the legislation.The senators are slowing progress on the $95 billion measure as they seek votes on proposed revisions, particularly concerning border security — despite having voted this week to kill a version of the bill that included a bipartisan deal to crack down on immigration.The demands amount to an exercise in political face-saving. Republicans said for months that they would never approve funds to help Ukraine fight off a Russian invasion without simultaneously taking significant steps to secure the U.S. border with Mexico. But their decision to kill a proposal to do just that means the aid will move forward without immigration restrictions.Now, they are settling for staging a series of votes that aim to show the right-wing Republican base, the G.O.P.-led House and former President Donald J. Trump that they tried to muscle through tough new border policies — and blame Democrats for blocking them.Senators planned a rare weekend session to work through the bill, with a critical vote on the legislation expected Sunday.“Democrats are willing to consider reasonable and fair amendments here on the floor,” Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, said on Friday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Employers Can Now Enroll Workers in Some Emergency Savings Accounts

      by

      But many companies are spurning the “clunky” legal requirements for accounts linked to retirement plans. Instead, some have stand-alone rainy day offerings.Starting this year, a federal law allows employers to enroll workers in emergency savings accounts that are linked to their retirement accounts. But some companies, put off by the law’s complex rules, have begun offering rainy day benefits outside workplace retirement plans.“I do think there is tremendous interest in emergency savings programs,” said Matt Bahl, vice president and head of workplace financial health at the Financial Health Network, a nonprofit that promotes financial well-being. “Having access to liquid cash can greatly reduce levels of financial stress.”The Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit, found that about three-fourths of large employers (those with 500 or more workers) offered or planned to offer hardship or emergency assistance programs to workers last year. Of those, about a third said they offered an emergency savings account feature and another third planned to do so in the next year or two.But while the law, known as Secure 2.0, has helped draw attention to the need for rainy day savings, its rules for setting up emergency accounts within retirement plans are “clunky,” Mr. Bahl said. For instance, only workers making under a certain income limit ($155,000 for 2024) may participate, and their emergency savings are limited to $2,500, though employers can set lower ceilings. And though employers can help with contributions, they must deposit any match into the worker’s retirement account — not the emergency savings account.While employers may eventually choose to offer such “sidecar” savings accounts, stand-alone emergency savings programs are already available from financial technology start-ups and established retirement plan administrators. With emergency savings offerings, “it’s really important to be broadly available and simple to use,” said Emily Kolle, a vice president who oversees the emergency savings offering from Fidelity Investments, one of the largest retirement plan administrators.Emergency savings — a cash cushion available in the event of a job loss or surprise expenses like car repairs or medical bills — are a concern for many Americans. In a recent survey by the financial site Bankrate, about a third said they would have to borrow to cover a $1,000 unexpected expense. And almost a quarter of consumers have no savings set aside for emergencies, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 50 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Grading Biden’s Big Law

      by

      The climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act is popular with businesses. But its cost is expected to double over the next decade, and its outlook is uncertain.The Inflation Reduction Act is popular with business, and that’s adding to its cost.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe costs, and the benefits, of the I.R.A.In the past 24 hours, President Biden has taken questions (and heat) on his age, memory and mental fitness. But the one economic issue that is most likely to generate scrutiny from the business community and beyond over the next several months is the biggest bill he has passed, the Inflation Reduction Act, which he hailed at his news conference last night.Big questions still hang over the law, which many Americans appear not to know exists. How much will it add to the federal deficit? And can the law survive a potential Trump second term?The I.R.A. is expected to cost more than $800 billion through 2033, the Congressional Budget Office said, up from the $391 billion price tag assessed when it was passed in 2022.One reason: There’s huge demand for the credits and subsidies created by the law for building solar, hydrogen and nuclear energy projects, as well as discounts for buying electric vehicles. (An analysis by Goldman Sachs last fall showed that the law led to about $282 billion in investment and roughly 175,000 jobs in its first year.)The green transition won’t come cheap. The I.R.A., which aims for steep emissions cuts, is expected to add $250 billion more to the deficit than initially forecast, according to the C.B.O., despite cost-saving promises by the White House.That said, the math isn’t set in stone. The Treasury Department forecast this week that additional tax-collection resources provided by the I.R.A. would help the I.R.S. gather up to $851 billion more in tax revenue over the next decade. That raises the question of whether this is actually a deficit-paring law.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Ukraine and Israel Aid Bill Stalled in Senate as Divided G.O.P. Demands Changes

      by

      Senate Republicans were withholding support as they sought guarantees they would be able to propose revisions, including to add border restrictions — even after killing a bipartisan deal to impose them.Senators raced on Thursday to revive a sweeping emergency national security aid bill for Ukraine and Israel that has stalled yet again on Capitol Hill amid Republican resistance.Republicans who voted to block the measure on Wednesday were again withholding their support for moving forward with the bill, which includes $60.1 billion for Ukraine, $14.1 billion for Israel and $10 billion in humanitarian aid. They demanded the chance to propose changes, including adding border restrictions — just one day after having blocked a version of the legislation that included a bipartisan package of border restrictions.Feuding over what modifications to seek, Republicans were huddling behind closed doors in the Capitol on Thursday morning to iron out their disputes.Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, who had planned a quick vote on the foreign aid-only measure on Wednesday, said he hoped it could now take place on Thursday afternoon. The bill would need 60 votes to advance, which would require the support of at least 10 Republicans.The impasse was the latest manifestation of discord that has roiled the G.O.P. and ground efforts to pass national security spending bills in both chambers of Congress to a standstill, as Republicans clash over how to address international crises without angering their party leader and presumptive presidential nominee, former President Donald J. Trump.Senate Republicans had initially signaled early Wednesday that they were likely to support moving forward with a clean foreign aid bill without border provisions as long as they had opportunities to propose changes, terms that Mr. Schumer agreed to in principle. Leaders on both sides were optimistic that they would have enough backing to speedily advance the measure.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      With Border Deal Doomed, Schumer Plans Test Vote on Ukraine and Israel Aid

      by

      Democrats plan to quickly force action on an emergency national security spending package for Ukraine and Israel after Republicans block a version of the plan that includes border security measures.Senate Democrats are planning to make a last-ditch effort on Wednesday to salvage an aid bill for Ukraine and Israel, with Republicans expected to kill a version of the package that includes stringent border security measures that they had demanded be included.Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, has told his Democratic colleagues that after a critical test vote set for early Wednesday afternoon, in which Republicans are expected to block the border and Ukraine package, he plans to quickly force a vote on a stand-alone bill that would send tens of billions of dollars in funding to Kyiv and Israel.A bipartisan group of senators had spent months negotiating a compromise that paired a crackdown against migration into the United States with an emergency national security spending package that has been stalled for months.But with Republicans balking at the immigration deal, the outcome of that vote was clear: It did not have the 60 votes it needed to advance. Anticipating its failure, Mr. Schumer told the White House this week that he had a Plan B: If Republicans scuttled the bipartisan agreement, he would immediately seek to push through the foreign aid without the border deal, according to a Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the discussions.That set up Republicans to potentially vote twice in one day to block the emergency national security supplemental bill, which includes $60.1 billion in military assistance for Ukraine, $14.1 billion in security assistance for Israel and $10 billion in humanitarian aid for civilians of global crises, including Palestinians and Ukrainians. Mr. Schumer described that outcome as an embarrassing prospect for a party reeling from a series of defeats.Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, has been a vocal champion of funding for Ukraine.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      In Trump Colorado Ballot Case, Outsider’s Theory Takes Center Stage

      by

      When the Supreme Court considers whether Donald J. Trump is barred from appearing on Colorado’s ballot, a professor’s scholarship, long relegated to the fringes, will take center stage.In the world of American legal scholarship, Seth Barrett Tillman is an outsider in more ways than one. An associate professor at a university in Ireland, he has put forward unusual interpretations of the meaning of the U.S. Constitution that for years have largely gone ignored — if not outright dismissed as crackpot.But at 60, Professor Tillman is enjoying some level of vindication. When the U.S. Supreme Court considers on Thursday whether former President Donald J. Trump is barred from Colorado’s primary ballot, a seemingly counterintuitive theory that Professor Tillman has championed for more than 15 years will take center stage and could shape the presidential election.The Constitution uses various terms to refer to government officers or offices. The conventional view is that they all share the same meaning. But by his account, each is distinct — and that, crucially for the case before the court, the particular phrase “officer of the United States” refers only to appointed positions, not the presidency.If a majority of the court accepts Professor Tillman’s rationale, then Mr. Trump would be allowed to appear on the ballot. At issue is the meaning of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, which bars people from holding office if they participated in an insurrection after having sworn to uphold the Constitution as an “officer of the United States.”Professor Tillman, heavily bearded with black-rimmed glasses and a bookish demeanor, flew to the United States this week to watch the arguments. With Josh Blackman, who teaches at South Texas College of Law Houston, Professor Tillman submitted a friend-of-the-court brief and asked to participate in arguments, but the court declined.Still, his hobbyhorse will be on the Supreme Court’s agenda, and it has drawn as much zealous backing as it has ferocious pushback.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More