Fulton County arts funding slashed: Advocated call for budget reconsideration
The Brief
Fulton County commissioners rejected a proposal to put $1.7M back into the arts and culture in the Fulton County budget.
Non-profit arts and culture programs say they are disappointed by the 50% cut in their budgets.
Commissioners say they are concerned about complying with a Department of Justice consent decree surrounding the Fulton County jail that was issued in January.
FULTON COUNTY, Ga. - Commissioners say they are not issuing a harsh decision and would like to revisit the funding in months to come.
Nonprofit arts and cultural organizations say the reduction in funding by the Fulton County Commission takes away the vibe and vitality of our city.
What they're saying
They say commissioners have not looked at the big picture of how much revenue these organizations generate for our economy. The arts and culture have become thriving aspects of the Atlanta community, but a recent slash in the Fulton County budget from three million dollars to $1.3 million could really bring down the curtain.
Chris Escobar, who owns the Plaza and Tara Theatres, is the executive director of the Atlanta Film Society. "The disappointment I would say I really have is that they aren't looking at the economic impact, the revenue the arts generate, which is strongly and easily a 300% return—a three to one return for every dollar they put out," Mr. Escobar exclaimed. Escobar says the city of Atlanta did an economic impact study that shows a whopping $16 million in tax revenue generated, despite $5 million in grant money invested by the city and county combined.
Statewide, arts advocates say that Georgia has the dubious distinction of being last in the nation when you look at average per capita arts spending while the industry is booming. "The arts and entertainment at large is one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy, particularly as we've been coming out of the recession for the last couple of decades," Mr. Escobar explained. But commissioners have taken a more conservative approach to funding, especially since they are staring at the Department of Justice Consent Decree surrounding the Fulton County jail.
The other side
"I am not saying no to the arts, I am saying pause. Let us figure out what we need to do for our most crucial part of what we are mandated to provide in our county ordinance, and that is the county jail," District 4 Commissioner Mo Ivory explained during Wednesday's Commission meeting. Arts supporters say they understand that commissioners want to revisit this issue. They just hope that the review will not come too late.
The Source
FOX 5's Aungelique Proctor spoke with Chris Escobar, who owns the Plaza and Tara Theatres, and Fulton County District 4 Commissioner Mo Ivory for this article. Fulton County Commission proceedings were also used for this story.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Undocumented students seek to challenge end of Texas in-state tuition
The Brief Undocumented students in Texas are seeking to challenge a court ruling that ended their access to in-state tuition rates. This comes after the U.S. Department of Justice and the state of Texas agreed to end a 2001 law that allowed in-state tuition for certain undocumented students. The students argue that ending the program could increase tuition costs by up to 810%, potentially forcing many of them to drop out of college. DALLAS - A group of undocumented students are asking a federal judge to allow them to challenge the court's ruling that ended their access to in-state tuition. The filing comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against Texas over a 2001 law that allowed undocumented students who had lived in the state for more than three years and graduated from a Texas high school to attend public universities at the in-state rate. What they're saying The students are hoping for a chance to argue their case for the Texas Dream Act after and agreement was reached between the Department of Justice and the state to end the program on the same day the lawsuit was filed. Court documents state the average cost for SAT members to attend a college or university in the state will increase by up to 810% compared to their current rates. "Such an increase puts college out of reach for many students--some of whom have already spent years in college and will not afford to complete their program," SAT's attorneys said. The filing highlights several students across the state that may not be able to complete their degree if the Texas Dream Act is ended. One such student pursuing a Master of Science degree at the University of North Texas has been paying out of pocket for the program since 2020. "She has been able to afford her education because she was able to pay reduced tuition rates," court documents state. "However, she cannot afford to pay out-of-state tuition and will likely be forced to drop out of her program." Dig deeper For nearly 25 years, the Texas Dream Act has provided access to in-state tuition for thousands of undocumented migrant students at Texas colleges and universities. The law allowed for students without legal resident status to qualify for in-state tuition if they have lived in the state for three years before graduating from high school, and for a year before enrolling in college. They must also sign an affidavit promising to apply for legal resident status as soon as possible. The Texas Dream Act was signed into law by Republican Gov. Rick Perry with bipartisan support in the state legislature. Well before DACA provided federal protection to undocumented children, Texas was the first state to create this type of tuition program for them. Now more than a dozen states provide a similar program. The program serves around 20,000 students in Texas, according to the nonprofit organization Every Texan. Despite multiple Republican attempts to repeal the law, those efforts never made it to a full vote in the Texas house. The most recent attempt happened this session. Senate Bill 1798 passed out of committee on May 14, but was marked as "not placed again on intent calendar" on May 26. The settlement between the state and federal governments came just days after the most recent Texas legislative session ended. The Source Information in this article comes court documents filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Information on the Texas Dream Act comes from previous FOX 4 reporting.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - The Constitution empowers the president to pardon civil offenses
President Trump has exercised the pardon power in ways that have defied custom and surprised many. He pardoned all of the Jan. 6 rioters. He has sometimes bypassed the traditional Department of Justice process for considering pardon requests. The Wall Street Journal recently characterized pardons in Trump's second term as 'the Wild West.' As in other areas, Trump has approached pardons in a way that rejects norms and maximizes executive prerogative. However, Trump has not yet deployed the pardon power in another way that would challenge convention and expand presidential authority: He has not tried to pardon any civil offenses. But he could do it. Many punishments meted out by the federal government take the form of civil penalties rather than criminal sentences. Agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau routinely impose penalties of millions of dollars for alleged civil — not criminal — violations, as well as imposing restrictions on the future conduct of the entities they target. If he wished to do so, Trump could remedy the regulatory overreach of unduly aggressive civil enforcement actions by pardoning the underlying civil offenses. The pardon power is succinctly set forth at Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: 'The president … shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.' Conventional wisdom says the pardon power is limited to criminal offenses, but you will notice there is no such statement in the constitutional language. This erroneous conclusion stems largely from the Supreme Court's 1925 decision Ex parte Grossman, in which the court held that the president could pardon criminal contempt of court, but suggested a pardon could not apply to civil contempt. The distinction was based on the court's characterization of criminal contempt as 'punitive' whereas civil contempt is 'remedial.' However, this distinction does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that the pardon power applies only in the criminal context. It could just as easily lead to the conclusion that any 'punitive' measure imposed by the federal government can be pardoned. Indeed, the Supreme Court's reasoning in Grossman was at odds with earlier decisions in which the court sweepingly asserted that the president can pardon 'fines, penalties, and forfeitures of every description arising under the laws of Congress' (The Laura, 1885) and that the pardon power 'extends to every offense known to the law' (Ex parte Garland, 1866). There is no question that the Constitution empowers the president to pardon terrorists and organized crime bosses. It would be deeply incongruous if he could pardon heinous criminal acts but not, for example, civil violations of securities laws. The notion that the president lacks authority to pardon civil offenses is inconsistent with the best reading of the Constitution. The term 'offences' used in the Pardon Clause is a broad category that includes but is not limited to crimes. In addition to the Pardon Clause, the term 'offences' appears in the 'Offences Clause' at Article I, Section 8. This clause gives Congress the power 'To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.' This clause is not limited to criminal acts — the courts and Congress have cited it as authority for civil laws, such as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act. Further, the Pardon Clause states that impeachment cannot be pardoned, though impeachment is not a criminal offense. If the Framers understood that the pardon power applies only to criminal offenses, there would have been no need so explicitly to exclude impeachment from its reach. In the early days of the republic, pardons were used to excuse violations that today would be considered civil in nature. Federal civil offenses did not even exist in the late 18th century. Consequently, early presidents issued pardons for then-criminal offenses that would undoubtedly be treated as civil regulatory violations today. For example, Washington and Adams pardoned minor customs violations. Jefferson issued pardons for 'keeping a billiard table without license' and 'keeping a disorderly house.' Trump has taken unprecedented steps both to reduce regulatory overreach and to reassert executive authority as intended by the Constitution — for example, by removing members of so-called 'independent' agencies. Applying the pardon power to civil offenses where warranted is another legitimate tool available to him. Thomas Beck is the author of 'Constitutional Separation of Powers: Cases and Commentary' and is a former federal agency head. He served as an adviser to the Trump-Vance transition. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
14 hours ago
- Forbes
New State Merger Review Laws Could Harm U.S. Economy
U.S. states are ramping up their review of proposed mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Both Washington and Colorado have enacted new pre-merger notification statutes that will take effect this summer, and other states have introduced or are considering similar legislation. These changes could impose major new costs on potential merging parties and harm the U.S. economy. In addition, the Trump Administration may wish to consider revisiting costly changes imposed in a revised 2024 federal pre-merger rule. M&A Benefits As I previously discussed in Forbes, M&A activity generates major economic benefits by reallocating capital to higher-valued uses and thus yielding more efficient production and innovation. Specifically: M&A Costs and Federal Enforcement Oversight Trends As I previously explained, M&A activity may also, however, impose costs when it reduces competition in the marketplace. The Clayton Antitrust Act bars M&A transactions that may substantially lessen competition. A longstanding bipartisan federal enforcement consensus that targeted only those mergers that threaten to harm consumer welfare (by raising prices and reducing output, quality, or innovation) was overturned by the Biden Administration, which introduced a populist 'big is bad' skepticism of merger activity. These are 'early days' in the second Trump Administration. Nevertheless, new Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission antitrust enforcers appear to be signaling that they will focus on improvements in merger review process, rather than a return to the far less interventionist pre-Biden approach to merger analysis. Indeed, the Trump DOJ and FTC have kept in place 2023 Biden merger analysis guidelines that greatly relaxed prior guidelines' standard for deeming a merger problematic. The new guidelines disincentivized mergers by featuring novel and unproven theories of competitive harm. The new Trump enforcers also have retained an October 2024 revised pre-merger rule. Compliance with the revised rule 'require[s] New State Merger Legislative Requirements Will Likely Prove Harmful At its best, alignment of state and federal antitrust enforcement efforts is an example of beneficial 'cooperative federalism.' States can enforce federal merger law on behalf of their residents. They also may challenge mergers under state antitrust laws. State statutes may allow a local focus on small state-specific mergers not investigated by federal enforcers. State and federal merger enforcement may also, however, work at cross-purposes. State merger cases may generate highly costly, wasteful duplication of federal efforts, and may occasionally be in tension with federal antitrust policy. The 2024 Model Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act served as the basis for an April 2025 pre-merger notification law in Washington, with many other states expected to follow suit. The Model Act gives states access to federal pre-merger filings, subject to the same confidentiality requirements that apply under federal law. Widespread adoption of the Model Act will increase filing cost burdens on merging parties and will subject them to a greater risk of having sensitive non-public business information leak out from a variety of new sources. Even greater concerns stem from the fact that California and New York are considering pre-merger legislation that sweeps more broadly than the Model Act. The new pre-merger burdens would impose major new costs on merging parties. What's more, the California proposal would also establish a far lower substantive standard for striking down a merger ('an appreciable risk of materially lessening competition') than that found in federal law ('may be substantially to lessen competition'). This change raises the legal risk associated with merger proposals. It could seriously disincentivize many beneficial mergers for no good reason. Policy Implications and Next Steps Taken as a whole, recent state merger-related initiatives threaten significant U.S. economic harm. The U.S. has the strongest most innovative capital markets, which are key to driving economic growth. M&A plays a central role in the success of those markets. It keeps rivals on their toes and yields more vibrant competition. The weakening of M&A based on new state-created burdens and legal risks would tend to diminish economic growth and lower American competitive vitality, at least to a degree. This is that last thing we should want to do in a highly competitive global economy. The Trump Administration hopefully will take note. The President might, for example, direct the DOJ and the FTC to make 'competition advocacy' filings with the states highlighting the economic harm that specific merger-related legislative proposals would likely impose. The two agencies have specialized economists and lawyers with a long and respected history of making advocacy filings, directed at both state and federal government entities. The two agencies also use the 'bully pulpit' to emphasize the importance of continued close cooperation between federal and state antitrust enforcers. Federal and state enforcers already cooperate and make joint filings in a variety of cases. New state merger requirements could reduce the effectiveness of such cooperation. Finally, the FTC and the DOJ may wish to take a second look at the revised 2024 federal pre-merger rule to determine whether some of the costly new requirements it placed on filers could be eliminated. Issuing a new less costly rule could be good for American M&A. It would also be fully in tune with President Trump's April 2025 Executive Order on Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers. Hopefully state and federal officials will take note and act to enhance the economic benefits of merger review.
