Bypassing Congressional Committees: Parties,Panel Rosters,and Deliberative Processes

Although scholars have examined committee rosters extensively, no study has considered the relationship between the ideological composition of panels and their participation in bill drafting. I thus ask: Which committees are frequently excluded from legislative deliberations? Does the composition of committees affect the degree to which they contribute to bill development? Using DW‐NOMINATE data, I calculate ideological scores for congressional panels between 1989 and 2010 to see whether certain committees are routinely bypassed. I find that moderate panels, polarized panels, and panels with moderate chairs are often excluded, while extreme committees in the majority direction tend to retain bill‐writing duties.     

Harming America: Corporate Crime in a Context of Deregulation

ABSTRACT

Like many Republican presidential candidates before him, Donald J. Trump campaigned on a pro-business, anti-regulation platform, and since his election in November 2016, he has directed his administration to move forward with deregulation in many arenas, including consumer financial protections, environmental controls, and workplace safety among others. Past efforts to roll back regulations governing certain industries, such as the savings and loan and the mortgage industries, have had harmful consequences for the general public or for specific interest groups. In this study, we review what the Trump administration has accomplished with regard to deregulation to date. Then, based on past deregulatory fiascos, we theorize the harmful collateral consequences that may result from this most recent swing of the regulatory-deregulatory pendulum.     

Cultivating Evidence-Based Pathways for Cannabis Product Development: Implications for Consumer Protection†

Disparities between federal and state cannabis regulation, coupled with protracted federal enforcement, have facilitated the proliferation of a multi–billion dollar cannabis industry that generally evades compliance with federal consumer protection laws. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) established regulatory pathways for the lawful development of products such as food, drugs, and dietary supplements. The FDCA uses a science-based approach to protect consumers from harmful products, but early inconsistencies between state and federal cannabis regulation prevented and/or discouraged the cannabis industry from complying with FDCA requirements. Cannabis products are promoted as safe and attributed with providing effective therapeutic treatment for numerous medical conditions, yet the claims often lack the rigorous evidence-based support typically expected by regulators and the medical community. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced its expectation that cannabidiol (CBD) products comply with the FDCA and follow a science-based approach to product development. The FDA is addressing violations involving unsubstantiated CBD health claims and is working to clarify the future regulatory pathway for CBD products. Meanwhile, the state-approved cannabis market continues to operate, selling numerous products that have circumvented the FDCA consumer protections. This article examines the need for strengthening consumer protections in the cannabis market. We use evidence-based medicine as a model to address the importance of science-based product development and to contextualize a science-based comparison of regulatory pathways for cannabis drugs, food, and dietary supplements.