Guest Contributor
More Info: Michael DiMaria | Partner and SW Regional Director | 602-717-3891 | [email protected]
Thanks for your interest in Washington, D.C. Thanks for reading This Week in Washington – and now for watching Total Spectrum Spotlight.
“Heard on the Hill” looks at the last mile of this Congress, with a particular focus on additional stimulus legislation by discussing what happened, what did not happen, and why. We look over the fence at the upcoming lame duck session, cover some odds and ends, preview the “Art of Polling” interview in Total Spectrum Spotlight, and cover the changes in campaign finance over 40 years in a section we call It’s Raining Money.
“Washington Whispers” takes a deep dive into the battle for the control of the U.S. Senate. It breaks the races into four tiers, and shows why national interest in which party controls the Senate has never been greater.
Ramona Lessen covered three hearings – one before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation about a pathway to a vaccine, another before the House Small Business Subcommittee on Investigation and Regulations about preventing fraud and abuse in the Paycheck Protection Program, and finally the opening of this week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. Ramona has condensed her reports but provides links for those who want to read and watch further.
I urge you to watch the part one of our Total Spectrum Spotlight interview with Neil Newhouse, co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies. Neil provides real insights about what does – and what does not – make a reliable poll and how his art changes with the times.
This Week will return after the election with a special election analysis. Now it is up to you. Make sure your vote counts. From the left or from the right, the right thing to do is vote.
Steve Gordon, Managing Partner
Erik Paulsen, Strategic Consultant
Patrick Robertson, Strategic Consultant
The Art of Polling: Part I
Join us for an interesting conversation with polling expert Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies. In part one of the two-part program we give an insider’s insight on how polls are conducted and how to better understand what sets good polls apart from bad ones.
Find Part #2 and past editions of Total Spectrum Spotlight on YouTube.
Heard on The Hill
By Steve Gordon, Total Spectrum Managing Partner and Former Congressman Erik Paulsen (2009-2019), Total Spectrum Strategic Consultant
THE LAST MILE
We are only a few short weeks away from the election.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has begun its’ hearing concerning the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. Majority Leader McConnell’s goal is to pass her nomination out of the Judiciary Committee and have it on the floor of the Senate before the election. There will be attempts to delay the nomination, but barring a significant problem, Leader McConnell should be able to achieve his goal of confirming a third Supreme Court Justice.
The road to additional stimulus funding has not been so smooth. That road has been filled with potholes, switchbacks, and dead ends.
House Democrats passed the HEROES Act in May which would authorize an additional $3 trillion in spending. Republicans responded by saying that at least $1 trillion of the proposed spending was for non-COVID items. House Democrats countered last month with an updated “skinny” HEROES Act bill that would authorize $2.2 trillion.
Senate Republicans proposed a $1 trillion bill, which appeared to be the sweet spot in the caucus. Some members wanted to spend less than $1 trillion, some members wanted to spend more. ALL Senate Republicans wanted a narrowly crafted liability provision that would only apply to COVID and would cover entities unless there was gross negligence or exceedingly bad behavior.
The Administration had Secretary Mnuchin negotiating with the Speaker, and the sense was that they were making progress – slow and halting progress to be sure – but some progress. But President Trump came home from the hospital and stopped negotiations with the House, until he reversed course and said he wanted a deal – in fact, a bigger stimulus that either the House or the Senate had proposed.
Here is a shorthand way of thinking about what happened, what did not happen, and why:
- House Democrats wanted a large bill that would include some non-COVID-related items and they did not want to provide President Trump an opportunity to claim a victory. The Speaker bet that she could stand firm, and that she had the momentum and the time to wait things out.
- Senate Republicans were divided on the amount of new funds to spend. Fiscal conservatives felt that Congress had spent over $3 trillion on COVID relief, ballooning our national debt to post-World War II levels. Other Republican Senators were quite prepared to spend more than $1 trillion on stimulus funding. As one Republican Senator put it, it is a “pay me now or pay me later” deal. If we do not spend more stimulus money and President Trump loses, surely a President Biden will spend all that and then some.
- The Administration was divided. Many conservatives, including Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, did not want Secretary Mnuchin to make a deal with the Speaker. Others in the Administration felt that it was good for the economy and good politics to find a deal. The President listened to one side, then another, then pulled the plug on negotiations – only to regret it later.
- A deal between the Administration and the Speaker at a figure higher than $1 trillion would have caused friction within the Republican Senate caucus, and Leader McConnell wanted to avoid that at all cost.
Leader McConnell said this week that he will have an additional stimulus bill on the Senate floor for a vote prior to the election. He will include in his bill additional funds for the Paycheck Protection Program as well as more money for unemployment insurance, schools, and hospitals.
It is easy to see the way to a legislative compromise. But the upcoming election makes compromise unlikely – so look for additional stimulus legislation during the lame duck session or early in the next Congress.
Lame Duck Session
Senator Chuck Grassley loves to say that “lame duck sessions have high expectations for success and low results.” But the election – however it comes out – is going to change the status quo and could impact the results.
Congress passed a continuing resolution (often called a CR) to fund the federal government through early December, so they will need to act to fund the government going forward. One option is to pass another CR. Another is to pass an omnibus bill, which is a single bill that packages together several measures or combines diverse subjects and packages them into one bill. There is bipartisan support for an omnibus funding bill rather than another CR.
Congress also needs to pass a Department of Defense Authorization Bill. There are some Medicaid and Medicare extenders that need to be addressed, and the COVID stimulus bill will be front and center. It could be dealt with in the lame duck, and it could be crafted and passed after January 1.
Odds and Ends
If it is important to point out when the federal government fails, then it is equally important to point out when the federal government succeeds.
- 30% of the federal judges sitting today were appointed by President Trump and confirmed by the current U.S. Senate.
- Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) pointed out today that “more COVID-19 tests were produced this month than have been used in our country since the pandemic started earlier this year.” He also said that we will have more than one safe vaccine 6-12 months ahead of schedule because of Operation Warp Speed.
The Campaign – The Art of Polling
We read about polls almost daily, but most of us do not know much about them, or the people who create them. Some people look to see which candidate is leading and which candidate is behind in what is often called the ‘racehorse question’, but there is so much more. We thought it would be extremely worthwhile and timely to talk to a nationally known pollster and ask some of the questions that people wonder about polls – and pollsters.
We reached out to Neil Newhouse, co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies. Neil is a pro’s pro, straight as an arrow, and a very engaging thinker and speaker. We interviewed him on Monday, and the first part of the interview we are calling “The Art of Polling”is today’s Total Spectrum Spotlight.
We steered clear of discussing specific races; rather we focused on finding out what makes a good poll, what mistakes have been made, and how polling has changed over 40 years. Neil covered it all in a very engaging way.
The Campaign: It is Raining Money.
Steve Gordon’s first campaign was in 1978, when he was the finance director for Rudy Boschwitz, who ran and was elected as a Republican member of the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. The campaign raised from all sources for the entire campaign a grand total of around $1.8 million, and Rudy was frankly embarrassed that the campaign raised so much money.
My, how times have changed. Democratic candidates are outraising their Republican opponents in every Senate race this cycle, and that is because Democrats mastered many years ago the art of raising small dollar contributions. Republicans countered with their equivalent small dollar program this cycle, but it will take years for them to catch up.
Last weekend South Carolina Democrat Jaime Harrison reported that his campaign had raised $57 million in the third quarter of 2020 – the most a Senate campaign had ever reported in one quarter. The previous record was held by Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who in 2018 ran against Texas’ Senator Ted Cruz.
$57 million in one quarter is a jaw-dropping amount of money.
Our first reaction is that we have always believed in participatory politics, so we applaud those who contributed and congratulate the Harrison campaign. Our second reaction is we wonder what you do with $57 million with 60 days to go to the election. All the broadcast time has long since been purchased, staff has been paid, and get out the vote programs are already in place.
Our third reaction is that the 1978 Boschwitz campaign created the ‘Skinny Cat Club,’ designed to encourage small dollar contributions. Without the Internet, however, the program generated interest and enthusiasm, but did not move the fundraising needle very much.
We repeat. My, how times have changed.
Washington Whispers
By Patrick Robertson, Total Spectrum Strategic Consultant
There’s less than three weeks left until Election Day and much of the nation’s attention is focused on the contest between President Trump and former Vice President Biden.
But there’s another battle going on – the fight for control of the United States Senate. As those of you who live in states with high-profile Senate contests (like Arizona, Colorado, and Georgia) no doubt know, spending in the Senate races is setting new records and the barrage of ads is approaching nonstop.
The 100-member Senate currently has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two Independents who caucus (and often vote) with the Democrats. This year, 35 Senate seats are up for election, two of which are special elections due to vacancies.
All experts agree that control of the Senate is in play. Democrats and Republicans are contesting a handful of seats that will decide who controls the agenda in the Senate and chairs the committees.
So, on election night, what should we watch to see who is going to win?
Democrats need to gain a net of three seats to end up with a 50-50 Senate. In this case, the Vice President would break a tie and the party of the Vice President is contingent on the outcome of the Presidential race. If Democrats net four seats, they will control the levers of power in the Senate. If they fall short of that total, Republicans will remain in charge of the Senate.
The four tiers of Senate races are described below. Republicans are defending 23 seats and Democrats only 12, so Democrats have an advantage. As the races break down, Democrats have only two incumbents in the top three tiers of races. Republicans have 12.
The top 14 races in the first three tiers I have shown below will decide control of the Senate. Keep an eye on Tier Three in particular. If Democrats flip a couple of these seats early in the evening (like North Carolina or winning one of the Georgia seats outright), it will be a harbinger of a good night for Democrats. If Republicans sweep the East Coast races quickly, they are likely to retain control.
Tier One – Likeliest to Change Control (3 races)
These three races represent the best chance of both the parties to switch control of Senate seats. Nothing is for sure, of course, but if these races stay the way polling has shown, Democrats would net one of the four seats they need.
Alabama – Senator Doug Jones (D, incumbent) against Tommy Tuberville
Senator Jones has been a marked man since he came to the Senate two years ago, winning a special election to fill the unfinished term of Senator Jeff Sessions, who became the Attorney General. Senator Jones is widely believed to have won because of the weakness of his opponent. As a former Auburn University football coach, Tuberville has wide name recognition and has kept the polls in his favor most of the summer.
Arizona – Senator Martha McSally (R, incumbent) against Mark Kelly (D)
Most polls have shown this race outside the margin of error in Kelly’s favor for weeks, but Senator McSally contends that the race is closing. The candidates recently debated and the Presidential candidates are focusing a lot of attention on Arizona and will continue to do so in the home stretch of the election.
Colorado – Senator Cory Gardner (R, incumbent) against former Governor John Hickenlooper
This race has paralleled the Arizona race in the polls, but neither candidate has made his closing argument yet.
Tier Two – Toss Up (4 Republicans)
These four races are almost pure toss-ups. Polls and the political prognosticators all have these within the margin of error and too close to call.
As you can see, all four of these races are incumbent Republicans with strong Democratic challengers. No incumbent Democrats are on this list, meaning Democrats have a chance by winning these toss-ups to net more seats. At the same time, if Republicans win three of these races, Democrats’ prospects of winning the Senate get very dim.
Iowa – Senator Joni Ernst (R, incumbent) against Teresa Greenfield (D)
Maine – Senator Susan Collins (R, incumbent) against Sara Gideon (D)
Montana – Senator Steve Daines (R, incumbent) against Governor Steve Bullock (D)
North Carolina – Senator Thom Tillis (R, incumbent) against Cal Cunningham (D)
Tier Three – Somewhere in the middle (6 Republicans and 1 Democrat)
These are races where the incumbent has been ahead for most of the race but the challenger remains within striking distance and could very well win when votes are cast. If a significant number of these seats go one way or the other, it will signal a great night for that party.
Alaska – Senator Dan Sullivan (R, incumbent) is leading Al Gross in most polls but they are tightening.
Georgia #1– Senator Kelly Loeffler (R, incumbent) is in a jungle race with Congressman Doug Collins (R) and Democrat Raphael Warnock. The top two candidates will face off in a runoff in January if no one gets above 50 percent.
Georgia #2 – Senator David Perdue (R, incumbent) is running against Democrat Jon Ossoff but there are not significant other candidates so we could know the result of this race on election night.
Michigan – Senator Gary Peters (D, incumbent) is running against Republican John James. Senator Peters has held a slim lead, but James is keeping it close and with all of the attention on Michigan in the Presidential race this one could go either way.
Kansas – OPEN SEAT, Senator Pat Roberts (R) retiring, Congressman Roger Marshall is leading against Barbara Bollier.
Texas – Senator John Cornyn (R, incumbent) is running against MJ Hegar. Senator Cornyn would be a shoo-in for reelection in regular years, but Texas has turned a little more blue in recent years and experts are waiting for a Democrat to win a statewide race. It is not likely to be this one, but it bears watching in case the demographics of the state have shifted enough over the last two years.
South Carolina – Senator Lindsey Graham (R, incumbent) faces off against Jamie Harrison (D). Senator Graham is chairing the Judiciary Committee’s hearings on the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. This race has been getting closer all summer and Jamie Harrison just announced that he raised a record $57 million between July 1 and August 31.
Tier Four – Likely Safe Seats (11 Republicans and 10 Democrats)
These 21 races have remained constant since their candidates were set. For one of these races to flip, there would have to be a huge disruption in one of the races or an historic wave for one party or the other. Observers expect that all of these races will be called for the favorite. in the first few minutes after the polls close in each of these states.
Arkansas – Senator Tom Cotton (R)
Delaware – Senator Chris Coons (D)
Idaho – Senator Jim Risch (R)
Illinois – Senator Dick Durbin (D)
Kentucky – Senator Mitch McConnell (R)
Louisiana – Senator Bill Cassidy (R)
Massachusetts – Senator Ed Markey (D)
Minnesota – Senator Tina Smith (D)
Mississippi – Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R)
Nebraska – Senator Ben Sasse (R)
New Hampshire – Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D)
New Jersey – Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)
New Mexico – OPEN SEAT, Sen. Tom Udall (D) retiring, Cong. Ben Ray Lujan is the Democratic nominee
Oklahoma – Senator Jim Inhofe (R)
Oregon – Senator Jeff Merkley (D)
Rhode Island – Senator Jack Reed (D)
South Dakota – Senator Mike Rounds (R)
Tennessee – OPEN SEAT, Senator Lamar Alexander (R) retiring, Ambassador Bill Hagerty is the Republican nominee
Virginia – Senator Mark Warner (D)
West Virginia – Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R)
Wyoming – OPEN SEAT, Senator Mike Enzi (R) retiring, former Representative Cynthia Lummis is the Republican nominee
The race for the Senate heads into the final days. We have already had more than our share of number of October surprises already, so anything can happen.
Infograph: Mask policies vary widely across US school districts
Click image below
Infograph: Estimated extra costs of running a Covid-19 resilient election
Click image below
Infograph: Covid-19 October hot spots – High plains and Wisconsin
Click image below
Hearing Report
By Ramona Lessen, Executive Director, Total Spectrum
Senate Judiciary Committee Nomination Hearing of the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Monday, October 12, 2020 – 9:00 AM
Introducers
The Honorable Todd Young
United States Senator
The State of Indiana
The Honorable Michael Braun
United States Senator
The State of Indiana
Professor Patricia O’Hara
Professor Emerita of Law
Notre Dame Law School
Notre Dame, IN
Witness
The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett
Opening Statements
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chairman
Why are we here? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Sept 18. She was confirmed 96-3. Those were days that have since passed. I regret that. Justice Ginsburg had worked for the ACLU and was known as an icon. Almost all Republicans voted for her. Her good friend on the court, Justice Scalia, got 97 votes. I don’t know what happened between then and now. We can all take some blame. I want to remind everyone that there was a time that someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have been seen as qualified with the understanding that she would have a different philosophy than Republicans voting for her. She spent 27 years on the court. Before becoming a member of the court, she was an active litigator pushing for better rights for women. Justice Scalia called her the leading and very successful litigator for equal justice and better rights for women rights – the Thurgood Marshall of that cause. What high praise. I can’t say any more than that statement says. In my view, the person appearing before this committee is in a category of excellence, something the country should be proud of and she will have a chance to be a worthy successor and to become the ninth member of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Who is Judge Barrett? She is a judge sitting on the 7th Judicial Circuit. She is highly respected. She was a professor at Notre Dame. During three years of that tenure, she was chosen by the students as being the best professor. She is widely admired for her integrity. She grew up in New Orleans, and graduated from Rhodes College in Memphis; later graduated number one from Notre Dame Law School. Academically, she is very gifted. She clerked for Judge Lawrence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then for Justice Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. She practiced law in Washington, D.C. and joined Notre Dame in 2002. She has been a circuit court judge since 2017, confirmed for that position on a bipartisan vote. At that time, she said, “I had clerked for Judge Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned I continue to use today. His judicial policy is mine. A judge must apply the law that is written.” That is who Amy Barrett is in terms of the law. On a personal note, she and her husband have seven children, two of which are adopted.
The process. This is an election year. We are confirming the judge in an election year after the voting has occurred. My Democratic colleagues will say that this has never been done. No one has been confirmed in an election year past July. When Justice Ginsburg was asked about this several years ago, she said that a President serves four years, not three. There is nothing unconstitutional about this process. This is a vacancy that has occurred through the tragic loss of a great woman and we are going to fill that vacancy with another great woman. Bottom line is that the Senate is doing its’ duty constitutionally. As to Judge Garland, the opening with the passing of Justice Scalia, it was during the early part of an election year. The history as I understand it, there has never been a President of one party and the Senate of another party where the replacement has been made during an election year. There have been 19 vacancies filled in an election year. Seventeen of these 19 were confirmed when the Senate and President were of the same party. Most all hearings have been held within 16 days of a nomination. I feel that we are doing this constitutionally and our Democratic friends object to the process. They will have their chance to speak. I hope we will learn more about how the law works and what the Supreme Court is all about.
Why hold this hearing? People on our side say to just ram it through. It is important. It is a lifetime appointment. I would like the world and the country to know more about Judge Barrett. This is probably not about persuading each other; Democrats will vote no and Republicans will vote yes. However the hearing will be a chance to dig deep into her philosophy, as to how she will be different, what is on her mind and Republicans can do the same thing. The American people can find out about Judge Barrett – judge for yourself. Is this person qualified? Is she as qualified as Justice Sotomayor or Justice Kagan? I think so. They were two nominees presented to the committee by President Obama. They had different legal philosophies than my own, but I never thought they weren’t qualified. I thought Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were qualified. We have taken a different path at times. Bork, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh – I hope we don’t take that path with Judge Barrett. She doesn’t deserve that. I don’t think it makes this hearing any better. The American people do not want a repeat of those episodes.
To my Democratic colleagues: I respect you all. We have worked together, and we have had fights at time. You have every right in the world to make your case. I think I know how the vote will come out. This is going to be a long contentious week. Let’s make it respectful, challenging, and remember the world is watching.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member
To view a livestream of the hearing, please click here.
House Small Business Subcommittee on Investigations, Oversight and Regulations hearing
Thursday, October 01, 2020 @ 10:00
“Preventing Fraud and Abuse of PPP and EIDL: An Update with the SBA Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office”
The Subcommittee met to discuss the July 28, 2020 Management Report from the SBA Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the COVID-19 reports from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The reports detail a lack of internal controls and potential for fraud within SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The hearing provided Members an opportunity to discuss OIG and GAO’s findings and determine if SBA’s response to these reports is consistent with their recommendations or if more work needs to be done to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.
To view a livestream of the hearing, please click here.
Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA-27)
Subcommittee Chairwoman
Rep. Ross Spano (R-FL-15)
Ranking Member
Opening Statement
This committee has worked to create to optimize PPP and economic relief programs developed by the SBA, including PPP and the EIDL. Both programs have been a lifeline for our nation’s small businesses. More than five million loans have been approved by the SBA totaling $525 billion. The average loan size is around $100,000. In my district – Florida’s 15th – 10,254 businesses have received $304 million loans in PPP funds. This has allowed business owners to keep the lights on and to keep their employees on the payroll. In addition to the PPP program, the Cares Act expanded the pre-existing EIDL program administered by the SBA. As of Sept 13th, the SBA has approved 3.5 million EIDL loans for $190 billion. The IDL advance grant, which is not required to be paid back, provided six million small businesses with $20 billion in grants. With only the basic statistics, Congress cannot fully measure the impact of these programs. We need to be sure the loans went to the intended businesses and that the loan proceeds were used properly. Fortunately, we have fantastic allies in the SBA’s Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. Today each office has sent representatives to present their initial reviews of PPP and the EIDL. We look forward to working together to be sure that taxpayers’ dollars are spent appropriately and to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Witnesses
Mr. Hannibal “Mike” Ware
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
United States Small Business Administration
Washington, DC
Mr. William Shear
Director
Financial Markets and Community Investment
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC
House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Hearing
Wednesday, September 30, 2020 – 11:30am
“Pathway to a Vaccine: Ensuring a Safe and Effective Vaccine People Will Trust”
The hearing examined the safety and efficacy of, accessibility to, and the public’s trust in prospective coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. During the hearing, the Committee aimed to explore contributing factors to declining public confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and the ways in which the Federal Government may reverse this trend.
To view a livestream of the hearing please click here.
Opening Statement (submitted for the record – not delivered)
Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ-6th)
Chairman
Opening Statement (submitted for the record – not delivered)
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO-1st)
Chair, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY-2nd)
Ranking Member, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
Witnesses:
Dr. Helene Gayle, MD, MPH
Co-Chair, Committee on Equitable Allocation of Vaccine for the Novel Coronavirus
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine
Dr. Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH
Dean, School of Public Health
Brown University
Dr. Ali S. Khan, MD, MPH, MBA
Dean, College of Public Health
University of Nebraska Medical Center
Dr. Mark McClellan, MD, PhD
Founding Director, Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy
Duke University
Dr. Paul A. Offit, MD
Director, Vaccine Education Center
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Calendar
Monday, October 12
- 9:00 a.m. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing – Barrett nomination.
Tuesday, October 13
- 9:00 a.m. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing – Barrett nomination.
- 12 noon House Ways and Means Committee hearing – Taxpayer Fairness.
Wednesday, October 14
- 9:00 a.m. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing – Barrett nomination.
Thursday, October 15
- 9:00 a.m. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing – Barrett nomination.
- 9:00 a.m. Senate Judiciary Committee Markup – Barrett/Pending nominations/Online Content Legislation.
- 1:30 p.m. House Select Intelligence Committee hearing – Stopping Online Misinformation-Conspiracy Theories-Infodemics.
- 2:00 p.m. House Natural Resources Committee hearing – Coastal Community Federal Grantmaking Inequities.
This e-newsletter is produced by Total Spectrum/Steve Gordon and Associates and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The views expressed herein may include subjective commentary and analysis that are the views of the editors and authors alone. Information in this e-newsletter is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but that cannot be guaranteed as independently investigated or verified. Information in this e-newsletter is not an endorsement, advertisement, recommendation, or any type of advice; political, legal, financial or otherwise. For questions about the content of this e-newsletter, please contact the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Noemi Santaella
Add comment