Seventeen years ago, I had lunch at a suburban diner with Rena Steinzor, then a stranger to me, now an old friend. She'd found me through a colleague at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who'd suggested to her that I might be able to work with her and the other founding members of what was then the Center for Progressive Regulation as they sought to add some media know-how to their fledgling organization. If you've ever met Rena, you might know that her full-court press is second only to LBJ's. I took the gig, coming on board as a consultant, and have been here ever since.
Today, I take my leave after 17 terrific years. During that time, the organization has grown to be a true player on the issues we care about, producing smart, hard-hitting, idea-rich reports that create powerful intellectual ammunition for the progressive cause. Our Member Scholars and staff are frequent contributors to op-ed pages and opinion-leading blogs, and they're quoted on a daily basis in media outlets of all sorts. Certainly by comparison to CPR's founding and second-generation leaders, I played a comparatively small role in the growth of the organization, but even still, I count my work helping propel it to its current state as one of my most meaningful contributions to our civic life.
I'm leaving for the simple reason that it's time – time for me personally to step back from some commitments, and time for CPR to bring in new blood.
I'm especially grateful to the CPR family for demonstrating what true issue and policy expertise looks like. Such expertise is egregiously undervalued these days; indeed, it's under outright assault from some quarters. I particularly appreciate CPR's eagerness to dig into complex issues of regulatory process, taking on problems that don't lend themselves to bumper-sticker solutions but that nevertheless have enormous impact on health, safety, and the environment in people's daily lives. It's essential work, and when done the right way, as CPR has always done it, it empowers people and communities to fight back against those who would sacrifice lives and livelihoods to corporate profit.
Going forward, I'll be putting my shoulder to that same wheel, just elsewhere.
Thanks for the journey, CPR. All the best.
Showing 2,830 results
Matthew Freeman | October 30, 2020
After 17 years with CPR, media consultant Matt Freeman signs off.
James Goodwin | October 29, 2020
This week, I’m posting a new web article documenting the arbitrariness and subjectivity that cost-benefit analysis injects into regulatory decision-making, the latest installment in CPR’s Beyond 12866 initiative. Specifically, the piece explains how cost-benefit analysis deploys a wide variety of methodological techniques that can be clumsy, unscientific, ethically dubious, and, too often, downright absurd.
Darya Minovi | October 28, 2020
If you want to know what the world will look like as the climate crisis ramps up, you don't need a crystal ball. In fact, you need look no further than the past few months of 2020. Western states are fighting record-breaking wildfires, major flooding has plagued the Midwest, and we are in the midst of a historic hurricane season. On October 20, CPR convened a group of researchers, advocates, and community organizers to discuss how the increasing frequency of extreme weather may impact coastal communities, especially those near hazardous industrial facilities vulnerable to damage.
Katlyn Schmitt | October 22, 2020
Earlier this month, Congress overwhelmingly passed America's Conservation Enhancement Act (ACE). The legislation's dozen-plus conservation initiatives include reauthorizations for important programs that help protect the Chesapeake Bay and wetlands across the country.
Darya Minovi, Katlyn Schmitt | October 21, 2020
Dangerous nitrate pollution has contaminated the groundwater that supplies private drinking water wells and public water utilities in several agricultural regions across the United States, posing a significant threat to people's health. A new report from the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) indicates that this problem has reached Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore, an area that's home to hundreds of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and millions of chickens.
James Goodwin | October 19, 2020
For many of us, the prospect of a Supreme Court with Judge Amy Coney Barrett giving conservatives a solid 6-3 supermajority is nightmare fuel. The consequences extend beyond hot-button social issues, such as women's reproductive rights or individual access to affordable health care. If confirmed, Barrett would likely spur the aggressive pro-business agenda that the Court has pursued under the auspices of Chief Justice John Roberts. A key item on that agenda is overturning something called Chevron deference, which some business groups have made a top priority in their broader campaign to bring about, as former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon put it, the "deconstruction of the administrative state."
James Goodwin | October 15, 2020
Recently, the Center for Progressive Reform (CPR) launched its Beyond 12866 initiative, which seeks to promote progressive regulatory reform as a key component of the progressive movement’s efforts to build a more socially just and equitable America. To accomplish this goal, though, we must come to grips with how the regulatory system is perpetuating racial injustice and reinforcing race-based inequities. In a new web article, I take this first step by sketching out some of the ways in which cost-benefit analysis has contributed to structural racism in the broader regulatory system.
Darya Minovi | October 5, 2020
Amidst the president and First Lady testing positive for COVID-19, an embarrassing spectacle of a presidential "debate," and a pandemic that has now claimed more than 200,000 lives in the United States and 1 million worldwide, the West Coast wildfires have lost the attention of the national news cycle. But California and nearby states are still very much ablaze.
James Goodwin | October 1, 2020
In a previous post, I discussed the essentially undemocratic ways that conservatives have come to the brink of a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court and examined one significant implication for regulatory policy: the likely effect on the Court's view on Chevron deference. In this second post, I explore several other ways the Court could undermine the essential democratic character of the regulatory system.
