On February 10th, the News Media Alliance, National Newspaper Association, and others sent a joint Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit questioning whether the nondelegation doctrine should be strengthened to not allow Congress from transferring to a federal agency the power to rewrite the postal rate-setting system.
On February 8th, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Postal Service Reform Act, H.R. 3076, by a vote of 342 – 92. The Senate plans to put the House bill directly on the Floor and a vote could come as soon as Monday.
Taxes on the use of personal data unfairly target news media entities, are difficult and costly for businesses to administer, and disrupt services valued by consumers.
On February 3rd, the U.S. House Rules Committee released an updated version of a postal overhaul bill, H.R. 3076, which will decrease Postal Service expenses and curb the rate increase trend. The House plans to vote on the bill next week…
Inclusion of paper in EPR programs won’t increase recycling but would unfairly target magazine media.
Efforts to tax large technology platforms inadvertently harm news media entities, as well as the local businesses and non-profits that support them.
Magazine media publishers maintain exceptionally high levels of subscriber satisfaction through well-understood, simple subscription management processes that benefit consumers.
On December 22, the Alliance signed on to a letter by the Reporters Committee to the congressional committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol. That congressional committee recently issued a subpoena to photojournalist Amy Harris.
On November 3, the Alliance joined a brief, filed in the Ninth Circuit, arguing for robust anti-SLAPP law applicability. In Planet Aid v. Reveal, the plaintiff argued on appeal that California’s anti-SLAPP law should not apply in federal court. The brief, filed by the RCFP, argues that Ninth Circuit precedent requires the statute be applied in federal court and a contrary ruling would seriously harm the ability of Californians to freely exercise their First Amendment rights.
