Dustin Boyer’s Post

Are you curious how public policy or law changes may affect your business in 2024? Join Emily Parks for the upcoming Lunch & Learn to hear changes and ideas that will be impacting your business this year.

A University of Chicago Law School professor believes that a segment of White allies and supporters of DJ Trump will engage in acts of political violence over the next 12 months regardless of the Supreme Court decision regarding Trump's eligibility to be on the ballot in Colorado, which could potentially affect his eligibility in other states. His argument is two-fold: If Trump loses and is stricken from the ballot in Colorado, the likelihood is other states will adopt the Court ruling and apply it in their state as well. This will enrage Trump's supporters, who are overwhelmingly White and professing Christians. Polls show that a majority of White voters, both White men AND White women (largest voting bloc) support conservative candidates and causes represented by the Republican Party. If the Court rules in favor of Trump, and he remains on the ballot and is elected POTUS, the professor argues that Trump and a segment of his supporters will use the powers of the government to tamp down any resistance, protest or perceived threat, which may include the use of violence. On the other hand, if the Court rules in favor of Trump and he still loses the election, segments of his supporters are expected to vent in violent episodes. In either case, the professor believes that some segment of White Trump supporters are expected to rise up in political violence. Standby. https://lnkd.in/gAcnJiwK

Hey RMMFI Community! Check out this webinar from the RMMFI team and Good Business Colorado recapping the legislative session in Colorado and learn how it impacts you and your businesses.

The following is my personal opinion and does not endorse a particular candidate for this year’s Presidential election. We all are entitled to free speech and positive debates. In my opinion, one man is not responsible for dividing people. We have the power and choice to make our own decisions. When individuals or groups are driven apart, there is a lack of unity, cooperation, and a sense of shared purpose. This can lead to division, conflict, and a breakdown of communication and understanding between people. Coming together is characterized by indifferences, personal or social interactions , and a sense of collaboration and common ground. The current situation surrounding the trial of former President Trump and the delay caused by the Supreme Court's involvement has far-reaching implications that extend beyond the immediate legal proceedings. At stake is not just the trial of one individual, but the very essence of our democracy and the principles upon which our country was founded. The delay and uncertainty surrounding the trial risk undermining the fundamental values of our democratic system. The Constitution serves as the bedrock of our nation, outlining the rights and responsibilities of both the government and its citizens. It is through the fair and impartial application of the law that we ensure the integrity of our democracy. When the judicial process is compromised or delayed, it erodes public trust in the system and creates a perception of inequality and injustice. The American people rely on the courts to uphold the rule of law and to provide equal protection under that law. Any threat to the integrity of the judicial process jeopardizes the trust and confidence that citizens have in their government. Moreover, the delay caused by the Supreme Court's involvement raises concerns about the separation of powers and the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch. By inserting itself into the scheduling and timing of a trial, the Supreme Court risks disrupting this delicate balance and potentially undermining the democratic principles upon which our nation thrives. It is imperative that we recognize the significance of the current situation and its potential impact on our democracy. We must remain vigilant in upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and equal protection under the law. Only by doing so can we ensure the preservation of our democratic values and the strength of our nation.

Why? Why do you support taking Kentucky BACKWARDS? Why do you support shutting down freedom of speech and even of THOUGHT within our public schools? Why do you support denying medical care for trans youth, a change that will destroy if not kill some of these poor souls (I have been appointed as a GAL--Guardian ad Litem--to protect such children in Dependency, Neglect, and Abuse Court, and had this law been in effect back then, my suicidal child-clients would have been denied LIFESAVING treatment. Yeah, WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?????????!!!!!!!!!!). And now THIS--trashing Kentucky's 50-year-old OPEN-RECORDS laws, forcing transparency in our government that protects the People's best interest: -------------------------------------------------- "Last but not least, the bill would exempt anything done on a “personal” device or email account from public scrutiny even if it concerns public business. When Sen. Damon Thayer tried to pass this exemption several years ago, public outcry forced the General Assembly to abandon that plan in favor of a narrower exemption for “communications of a purely personal nature unrelated to any governmental function.” Now they’re back at it, trying to exempt anything on a cell phone or Gmail account, regardless of what it says. Just recently the Court of Appeals reminded us of the danger of this approach: “To categorically exclude all text messages on personal cell phones from the scope of the Open Records Act would surely operate to encourage the use of personal electronic devices and place vital public records beyond the reach of citizens.” That’s exactly right. The making of public policy is the public’s business. Citizens of all parties should unite in strong opposition to HB 509’s radical dismantling of the Open Records Act. If this bill becomes law, you’ll no longer have the right to see what public officials and employees are doing on the public’s dime. Read more at: https://lnkd.in/g6C7kR3J

As H.121 is being considered for signature, I think it's worth sharing the most powerful House Floor speech I've heard in my first term. The entire room stood still. House Commerce & Economic Development Chair, Michael Marcotte (R) is one of the most impressive leaders I've ever had the privilege of learning from. "I think we all need to realize what Private Right Action is and what it does... I think that the balance that we have struck in this amendment, by limiting the PRA to data brokers and large businesses that have over 100,000 Vermont consumers - try to imagine how many of our businesses have [that]... To me, that sounds like Big Business - Big Tech - hiding behind organizations that they fund, bringing that fear to states that want to protect their consumers... At a fundamental level, for us to limit the ability to use the courts for what our Constitution made our courts for, runs counter to what we ought to be standing for. And again, that's not a partisan position, that's what our Constitution says our courts are for... If we vote against this bill because there's a private right of action in this amendment, then we're telling our constituents that we're extinguishing your right to seek redress over grievances you might have with a business over your data and how they deal with it... We're extinguishing that right! Or we can go home and tell our constituents that we're here and we're protecting you! Every one of you! We can go home and tell our constituents that we protected you if we pass this bill. That is what we can do." Watch his full House Floor speech: https://bit.ly/121PRA (Minute 44:15 of May 9, 2024 3:15pm House Chamber Feed) #dataprivacy #consumerprotection #techpolicy FYI Phil Scott Kendal Smith Lydia Slauson Fauna Hurley Jason Gibbs

Donald Trump and his inner circle consider the civil service one of the greatest obstacles to the realization of Trump’s second-term agenda. But should Trump emerge as the victor of the 2024 election, it’s the “deep state” of lobbying firms that stands to achieve “near-total domination of public power,” Franklin Foer writes. https://lnkd.in/e5kFxUft In “The Wolves of K Street: The Secret History of How Big Money Took Over Big Government,” Luke and Brody Mullins chronicle the rise of lobbying from 60 registered lobbyists in the 1960s to more than 117,000 employed in the “advocacy cluster” in Washington, D.C. American businesses at first saw little use for that type of help and were slow to react when Ralph Nader’s fervent advocacy led to the passage of motor-safety regulations in 1966, igniting the modern consumer movement. As the regulatory state expanded, a Virginia lawyer named Lewis Powell urged the corporate world to build a counter-infrastructure to advocate for their interests. Lobbying firms have since “ballooned into conglomerates,” Foer writes, and as the industry has matured, it has “grown more adept at turning government into a profit center for its clients.” “For eager beneficiaries of government largesse—not to mention for their equally wolfish facilitators—a second Trump administration would represent a bonanza,” Foer continues. “The civil service, however beleaguered, has acted as an imperfect bulwark against the assault of corporate interests. Its replacement would be something close to the opposite. The hacks recruited to populate government departments will be primed to fulfill the desires of campaign donors and those who pay tribute to the president; they will trade favors with lobbyists who dangle the prospect of future employment in front of them. This new coterie of bureaucrats would wreck the competence of the administrative state—and the wolves of K Street will feast on the carcass of responsible governance.” Read more: https://lnkd.in/e5kFxUft

I've been immersed in this program, working with other GCs/CLOs & executives. I'd encourage all business & thought-leaders, business owners, & attorneys to review the steps you can take to defend democracy. Get involved and be active. Reminder to lawyers: we have an ethical duty to defend democracy. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option. https://lnkd.in/gXAZ6Q5e

Many federal agencies collect fees for goods and services they provide to the public. To help policymakers design, implement, and oversee fair and effective fee programs, the Administrative Conference of the United States recently adopted Recommendation 2023-8, User Fees. Read the Recommendation below and visit https://lnkd.in/dHbEmUHx to read the independent research report prepared for ACUS by Erika Lietzan (University of Missouri-Columbia, School of Law. #ACUSRecommendation