Mass Priorities Launches "No Blank Check" Billboard Campaign in West Springfield

This week, Mass Priorities announced an expansion of its educational efforts in Western Massachusetts with the unveiling of a new billboard at the intersection of Route 5 and Interstate 91 in West Springfield.

“Mass Priorities is committed to advocating for responsible allocation of taxpayer dollars, emphasizing the importance of funding critical services such as education, public safety, and infrastructure over unnecessary pet projects,” said Christopher Thrasher, Mass Priorities policy director. “Today, we reaffirm our commitment to this mission with the unveiling of a striking billboard designed to capture the attention of West Springfield residents and municipal leadership alike.”

The billboard features a powerful visual—a blank check made out to Westfield Gas and Electric with the memo line reading “Whip City Fiber” and signed by West Springfield taxpayers. Accompanying this imagery is a bold message: “No Blank Checks for Government Broadband – Fund Critical Massachusetts Priorities.” This visual metaphor serves as a stark reminder of the potential misuse of taxpayer funds if not properly scrutinized.

The Mass Priorities educational campaign in Western Massachusetts seeks to emphasize the necessity of critical analysis and thoughtful expenditure of taxpayer resources, especially during times of economic uncertainty and dwindling federal support.

“As municipal budgets come under increasing strain, we must make prudent decisions to avoid cuts to essential services and threats to bond ratings,” said Thrasher. “By promoting fiscal diligence and accountability, we can safeguard the interests of taxpayers and ensure that the use of limited municipal funds focuses on real community priorities.”

Mass Priorities Expands Education Campaign into Western Massachusetts

Mass Priorities Policy Director Christopher Thrasher today announced a significant expansion of the organization’s campaign into Western Massachusetts.

“Amid growing economic pressures and dwindling federal support, Mass Priorities is launching an education campaign in Western Massachusetts to ensure taxpayer dollars are allocated to projects that provide tangible benefits to local communities, emphasizing the importance of funding critical services like education, public safety, and infrastructure over unneeded, unwanted pet projects,” said Thrasher.

“Local municipalities in Western Massachusetts and across the Commonwealth are facing significant shortfalls in revenue at the same time federal COVID and stimulus funds are ending,” said Thrasher. “This is creating immense fiscal pressure on local budgets, forcing tough decisions between cutting essential services or raising taxes on already stretched citizens. The urgency to prioritize municipal spending on critical needs has never been greater.”

As the campaign expands across the Commonwealth, Mass Priorities is sounding the alarm on potential threats to crucial municipal priorities. Mass Priorities will begin a multi-channel education and awareness initiative in Western Massachusetts this week.

“Our goal is to ensure that both the leaders and the citizens of Western Massachusetts communities are well-informed and prepared to make wise decisions with their limited taxpayer dollars,” said Thrasher. “It is imperative that we focus our resources on essential services and education, instead of throwing money at risky, unproven, and unnecessary non-critical projects.”

“With proper due diligence, the potential risks from misplaced priorities become clear: cuts to crucial services, threats to bond ratings, and looming peril to taxpayers. Mass Priorities is calling on municipal leaders to use comprehensive cost modeling for all community projects and to embrace the philosophy of look before you leap, know before you go, and trust but verify,” said Thrasher.

More information is available at www.MassPriorities.com.

DPC Urges Mississippi Governor to Veto 340B Expansion

Today, the Domestic Policy Caucus wrote to Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves, urging him to veto H.B. 728, a bill that would expand 340B in the state.

DPC wrote, “H.B. 728 would create an economic environment in which incentives would be put in place to encourage even more consolidation of healthcare systems, to put healthcare farther out of reach of rural Mississippians, and to imperil the ability of underserved Mississippians to receive the medications they need, all while lining the pockets of big healthcare systems and giant chain pharmacies… The number of independently owned retail pharmacies declined by 16 percent in the United States between 2003 and 2021. That has contributed to the appearance of what are called “pharmacy deserts… Only Stone County has no pharmacy desert, and in more than 20 Mississippi counties, 100% of the residents live more than 15 minutes from the three closest pharmacies.

Read the full letter here.

DPC Urges Missouri Senators to Oppose 340B Expansion

The Domestic Policy Caucus wrote to Missouri Senate Leaders to vote against the expansion of 340B, the federal law on prescription drugs, which S.B. 751 currently under consideration would create in Missouri.

DPC wrote, “S.B. 751 would create an economic environment in which incentives would be put in place to encourage even more consolidation of healthcare systems, to put healthcare farther out of reach of rural Missourians, and to imperil the ability of underserved Missourians to receive the medications they need, all while lining the pockets of big healthcare systems and giant chain pharmacies. Meanwhile, it would do nothing to reduce healthcare costs, which is what everyone really wants. Indeed, it probably would actually increase costs while resulting in poorer health outcomes… There should be much more discussion, analysis, and debate before determining whether to head down this uncertain and troubling healthcare policy path.

Read the full letter here.

DPC Writes to Minnesota Senators to Request "No" Vote on 340B Expansion

Today, the Domestic Policy Caucus wrote to members of the Minnesota Senate Health & Human Services Committee to request that they vote no on S.F. 5159, a bill that would expand the federal 340B mandate in the state.

In the letter, DPC wrote, “We are very much concerned that S.F. 5159 would hand over even more economic power to massive, national chain pharmacies that have driven so many local, mom-and-pop pharmacies out of business over the past several years… According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, over the last decade, Minnesota has lost more independent drug stores than any other state. S.F. 5159 would exacerbate the problem. In 2023 alone, 24 pharmacies closed in Minnesota, according to the Minnesota Pharmacists Association: 6 were part of national chains, 1 was in the Thrifty White regional chain, and 17 were independents. So, at the end of 2023, there were only 126 independent pharmacies left in the state.

Read the full letter here.

DPC Urges Maryland Senators to Vote Against 340B Expansion

The Domestic Policy Caucus today wrote to Maryland Senate Finance Committee members, urging them to vote against H.B. 1056, a bill that would expand the 340B federal prescription drug mandate in the state.

In the letter, DPC wrote, “As you know, pharmacies are essential to the communities they serve. But in Maryland and throughout America, independent drugstores are struggling… Disparities in access to care and health outcomes for rural, underserved, and minority populations have long been significant issues. Any policy that could further restrict the availability of medicines to these populations—or force them to travel farther to obtain them—needs to take the issue of health equity into consideration. There should be much more discussion, analysis, and debate before determining whether to head down this uncertain and troubling healthcare policy path.

Read the full letter here.

DIDMCA Opt-Out: Ruining Credit Access for Rural Iowa

Iowa operates in a pre-1980s credit market, and rural Iowans are the most disadvantaged when it comes to the availability of credit.

A Tale of Two States

Iowa is a tale of two states—a state within a state—one rural, one urban.

Banking and credit access in Iowa’s urban areas is good; banking and credit access in rural Iowa is dismal.

Iowa’s DIDMCA opt-out has ruined credit access for rural Iowans.

It is thanks to a unanimous 1978 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Marquette Nat’l Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Serv. Corp., authored by Justice William Brennan, that banks holding a national charter are governed by the interest rate caps of the states in which they are based instead of the state in which the consumers live.

Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Carter in 1980 in response to the Supreme Court ruling, DIDMCA allows banks chartered under state law to have the same right to export their home-state interest rates as the national banks do. Thus, DIDMCA puts state-chartered banks on equal footing with the massive nationally chartered banks like Wells Fargo, Citibank, and Capital One.

Because of this Supreme Court ruling and DIDMCA, unprecedented competition among banks has opened credit options for millions of people who previously were ineligible and had to rely on more expensive and risky alternatives. This environment has allowed many people who previously were on the margins of the credit community—or outside it—to become part of it and subsequently establish good credit ratings and be more confident about the future. This competitive consumer credit environment helped fuel the economic expansion of the 1980s and beyond.

It is unfortunate that in passing DIDMCA, Congress included a provision that would allow state legislatures to opt out of the law. Currently, only Iowa and Puerto Rico are opted out.

Consequently, lawmakers at the federal and state levels have proposed legislation to alleviate credit access problems in rural Iowa and to provide rural development incentives, which demonstrates the palpable impact of the state’s DIDMCA opt-out.

The solution seems clear: Iowa could rescind its DIDMCA opt-out and alleviate the credit access crisis in rural Iowa and eliminate the need for remedial legislation.

Read our one-pager here.

NoGovInternet.com in Deseret News: Is government control of our internet a good idea?

NoGovInternet leader and former Utah House Speaker Greg Hughes recently penned an op-ed for Deseret News, “Is government control of our internet a good idea?”

Among other points in the column, Hughes wrote, “Never once, in over 20 years in the public square, did I meet a single Utahn who asked or demanded that any government, from the state down to the city level, take control of internet infrastructure.”

Read the full op-ed here.

DPC Urges West Virginia Governor to Veto 340B Expansion

The Domestic Policy Caucus today wrote to West Virginia Governor Jim Justice, urging him to veto SB 325, a bill that would expand the 340B federal prescription drug mandate in the state.

In the letter, DPC wrote, "Pharmacies are essential to the communities they serve. But in West Virginia and throughout America, rural independent drugstores are struggling. In a 2022 policy brief, the Rural Policy Research Institute reported this troubling fact: The number of independently owned retail pharmacies declined by 16 percent in the United States between 2003 and 2021. That has contributed to the appearance of what are called “pharmacy deserts”—areas where residents must drive more than 15 minutes to a drugstore. West Virginia Public Radio has reported that pharmacy deserts exist in Wirt, Ritchie, Doddridge, Pocahontas, and Pendleton Counties. S.B. 325 would exacerbate the problem for West Virginians."

Read the full letter here.

DPC Pens Letter to Kansas Legislative Leaders to Urge Opposition to 340B Expansion

The Domestic Policy Caucus wrote to Kansas state legislative leaders today to urge opposition to 340B prescription drug program expansion.

In part, DPC wrote, "If they were made aware of it, most Kansans probably would find it baffling that their state legislators quietly included the expansion of a massive federal healthcare mandate in their budget bill. It’s troubling that this happened with little discussion, let alone research or debate, about the impact of the policy on Kansans’ ability to have their medical needs satisfied... Disparities in access to care and health outcomes for rural, underserved, and minority populations have long been significant issues. Any policy that could further restrict the availability of medicines to these populations—or force them to travel farther to obtain them—needs to take the issue of health equity into consideration... This issue is too important and its ramifications too complex not to be heard in the normal committee process—in daylight—with the normal public scrutiny that would be afforded to it.

Read the full letter here.