Outdated rules have been forcing providers to pour money into old copper lines, the same kind of infrastructure that powered telephone landlines decades ago.  These systems were not built for how we connect with one another today.  

Copper lines are slower, more prone to outages, and less reliable in extreme weather.  The value of copper makes copper lines increasingly susceptible to crime. These are real vulnerabilities that lead to service disruptions.

Wireless connectivity is now central to Americans’ daily lives.  Most households now rely primarily—and in some cases, entirely—on wireless services.  Only 1.4 percent of Americans rely solely on copper-based phone service.

The transition away from copper helps bring the regulatory environment in line with the reality of modern consumer wants and needs.  Streamlining cumbersome regulations that impede the transition away from outdated networks, stands to spur investment into modern infrastructure. 

Industry analysts indicate that part of the stated goal is to “free up tens of billions of dollars annually in private capital” currently spent maintaining copper networks, allowing providers to invest in fiber, fixed wireless, and other next-generation technologies—in addition to wireless networks.

Network modernization matters not just for convenience, but also for creating economic opportunity.

Reliable connectivity enables students to participate in online learning, gives families access to telehealth services, and empowers entrepreneurs to start and grow businesses, kickstarting job creation.

For example, a recent study showed that “rural counties with high broadband adoption rates of over 80% have significant advantages over those with low usage, including 213% higher business growth rates,10% higher self-employment growth rates, 44% higher GDP growth rates, and 18% higher per capita income growth rates.”

Broadband access matters to those rural and other segments of the country that are still not reaping the full rewards of increased connectivity.  The gap in access to communication technologies— known as the digital divide—hurts millions in underserved communities. 

By now Americans have a strong understanding of just how they benefit from connectivity and the digital economy.  Regulators should ensure Americans have access to the tools they are clearly demanding.  The FCC attention to the transition to modern communication networks is a constructive step.

The post Modernizing America’s Telecom Networks Is A No Brainer first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

The TPSAC meeting was discussing Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) Applications for certain nicotine pouch products.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines an MRTP as any tobacco product that is sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease. 

HLF’s testimony as prepared:

Good afternoon.  My name is Mario H. Lopez, and I am president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund—a nonpartisan public policy advocacy organization promoting liberty, opportunity, and prosperity for all Americans. 

I am here today to support authorizing the Modified Risk Tobacco Product application being considered today.

According to the CDC, nearly 500,000 people die every year in the United States due to smoking.  And smoking-related illnesses cost over $300 billion yearly, including medical expenses and lost economic productivity.  But despite massive public campaigns and other large-scale and costly efforts, the reality is that millions of Americans will continue to smoke.

In a physical sense, what smokers are after is simple: nicotine.

Nicotine does not cause disease or death, but it is what keeps people using tobacco products.  The toxic mix of thousands of chemicals contained in tobacco and tobacco smoke makes its use deadly, causing serious health effects, including fatal lung diseases and cancer.

We thus appreciate the FDA’s recognition that health risks for different tobacco products exist on a spectrum.  This is a critical lynchpin for moving more people away from the harms inherent in tobacco combustion.

Modified Risk Tobacco Products (MRTP) are important because of their role in providing harm reduction options for adult smokers who cannot or will not quit nicotine entirely.  MRTP designation shows scientifically evaluated evidence of reduced harm and risk of tobacco-related disease compared to combustible cigarettes.  Such a designation provides consumers with credible, regulated information rather than marketing claims.

Smokers benefit from clear guidance about which alternatives are genuinely less harmful.  MRTP status gives them confidence that switching can reduce health risks, empowering them to make decisions based on science, not speculation.

Adult smokers deserve access to truthful, scientifically backed information about the risks and benefits of all tobacco products.  The MRTP process was specifically designed to address this issue.  Denying the MRTP in question would undermine this process and deprive consumers of a critical tool used to make better choices. 

The public health benefits are simply too great to ignore.  The FDA has an opportunity to continue to acknowledge the realities and science involved in various methods of tobacco consumption and allow consumers to use products that will substantially lower the negative effects to their health.

The Hispanic Leadership Fund respectfully urges the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee to recognize the merits of approving the MRTP application in question.             

Thank you.

The post Testimony Before the FDA’s Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

Under current law, hospitals are supposed to post pricing data, including negotiated rates and discounts, so patients can compare costs for services before getting care.  However, analyses show that the data hospitals provide is inconsistent, messy, and often unusable for consumers, making true price comparison nearly impossible.  

This lack of transparency undercuts competition and leaves families vulnerable to surprise bills and inflated charges.  Patients need, and are calling for, for true transparency.  For example, a recent poll in Maryland found that 94% of respondents are frustrated by high healthcare costs, wanting the legislature to review hospital pricing.

That’s why Congress must act with meaningful reform.  In the House, H.R. 267, the “Health Care PRICE Transparency Act” would strengthen and clarify hospital and insurer pricing disclosures, requiring clear, consumer-friendly publication of negotiated rates, cash prices, and other pricing data.  In the Senate, S. 2355, the “Patients Deserve Price Tags Act,” would similarly tighten transparency requirements, mandate accessible pricing for services, and extend these obligations to insurers and additional providers.  These reforms aim to finally give patients the ability to see and compare actual prices.

The stakes are especially high for underserved communities. For example,  Hispanic patients are more likely to be uninsured or underinsured and therefore particularly exposed to inflated hospital charges and surprise billing.  When hospitals obscure costs or fail to provide clear pricing, it too easily delays care, erodes trust in the health care system, and result in greater medical debt.   Empowering families with transparent prices helps them budget for care, compare providers, and avoid unnecessary financial harm.

Reducing pricing abuse would also promote competition.  Requiring hospitals to publish clear, comparable prices can help drive down costs.

Congress must pass real transparency legislation this session. Doing so would deliver tangible relief to the millions of Americans struggling under rising health care costs, while strengthening accountability and competition in our health care system.

The post Congress Should Strengthen Transparency Laws Regarding Hospital Prices first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

That might sound appealing at first, but government forcing a cap on interest rates will produce unintended consequences that will limit financial flexibility and disproportionately harm low- and moderate-income communities.

Millions of Americans rely on credit cards as a financial lifeline. According to Federal Reserve data, 37 percent of adults are unable to cover a $400 emergency expense with cash or its equivalent. Among those who can manage the expense, the most common solution is to use a credit card. Only 55 percent of adults have enough emergency savings to cover three months of expenses. For low- and moderate-income households, credit access often fills the gap when unexpected costs arise.

Interest rate caps disrupt that access. When lenders are unable to price for risk, they respond by reducing credit limits or eliminating access altogether for higher-risk borrowers. Lower income consumers and underserved communities are the first and most affected. Lower credit limits increase utilization rates, which can quickly damage credit scores and make future borrowing more expensive or impossible.

History bears this out. After Illinois imposed an interest rate cap in 2021, loans to subprime borrowers fell by 38 percent. A similar rate cap in Oregon harmed consumers on average and led to a deterioration in household financial conditions. More recently, a December 2025 study from the New York Federal Reserve found that credit to the riskiest borrowers contracted sharply in states with rate caps, while delinquencies did not improve.

The broader economic implications are also significant. Consumer spending accounts for roughly 70 percent of U.S. GDP, and credit cards facilitated $3.6 trillion in spending in 2024, about 12 percent of the economy. As Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee warned in a 2022 report, price controls too easily lead to shortages rather than relief. In credit markets, that shortage manifests as reduced access.

Addressing affordability must be a priority. But policy that cuts off credit for financially vulnerable families risks deepening inequality, not easing it. Viable solutions would include expanding access, promoting competition, and increasing consumer financial literacy—including responsible credit card use.

Price controls do not work. Applying them to interest rates will ensure consumers are not left with fewer options when they need help most.

The post Credit Card Interest Rate Caps Will Hurt Low-Income and Financially Vulnerable Consumers first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

Stablecoins, a form of cryptocurrency, are backed by traditional assets—the U.S. dollar, for example.  Stablecoins are used to exchange other cryptocurrencies.  The GENIUS Act established a regulatory framework for this newer type of currency, including rules for distinguishing what makes stablecoins different than traditional currency to protect both consumers and the overall stability of the financial system.

One difference is the treatment of interest payments to consumers.  As stated by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, “The GENIUS Act explicitly excludes payment stablecoins from securities or commodities designation and issuers of payment stablecoins cannot pay interest or yield to customers who hold them.”

While consumers earning interest on their money is generally positive, there are sound reasons to treat stablecoins in a different way, most importantly to preserve a key pillar of how credit and economic development works in the real economy.

The law is already being skirted.  As financial expert and former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Enforcement Economist Andrew Nigrinis points out,  “Wallets and exchanges now routinely offer ‘yield,’ ‘cash-back,’ or ‘rewards’ that mirror the federal funds rate. The difference is semantic, not economic, and it has profound implications for credit creation.”

Nigrinis continues: “That’s because deposits are not the end of the story; they are the raw material that fuels loans to households, small businesses, and farms, and those loans are what power economic growth.” 

HLF recently sent a letter to members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs out of concern for the effect on deposits into, and thus loans from, financial institutions—especially smaller banks. 

From the letter:

Community banks act as a vital lending source for small businesses–especially in rural and underserved communities–financing 60 percent of all small business loans nationally.

These loans are a crucial part of both local and the larger American economies, enabling small businesses to meet existing payrolls, create jobs, and finance growth and innovation.

The overall effect could be monumental, as deposit outflows from banks could reach up to $6.6 trillion, according to a Treasury Department report.  That would severely hamper investment in underserved communities across the county.  HLF calls on Congress to stick to the stated intent of the GENIUS Act and ensure that implementing that legislation prevents what would be a tragic result. 

The post Congress Needs to Ensure That Recently Passed Crypto Law Protects Deposits and Lending first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

Lander issued a politically-motivated recommendation to rebid pension mandates held by BlackRock, Fidelity, and PanAgora for what he claims are “inadequate decarbonization plans” and “restrictive approach to shareholder engagement.”  Missing from his rationale is any objective financial criteria.

Despite years of contribution to the city’s economy, Lander’s unilateral push to ditch these investment partners shows just how clouded sheer political ambition has made his judgement.

These city employee retirement plans are designed for long-term growth and steady returns, rendering Lander’s last-minute mandate an expensive and destabilizing exercise for the current and future retirees who have earned and depend on their plans. 

As reported by Reuters, Lander’s memo to pension fund trustees shows that Lander wants a fund manager that will toe the ideological line on his preferred climate goals. 

To take up the mantle, Lander has all but anointed another firm with whom the Comptroller’s office has long had a cozy relationship, State Street. Applauding the firm’s “robust approach” to shareholder engagement, Lander appears to be teeing up his State Street allies for a smooth path to the next major pension contract. 

By dolling out favors to loyal allies, Lander appears to have his personal political ambitions in mind. It is no secret that the Comptroller is eyeing a bid for U.S. Representative Dan Goldman’s seat in 2026.  Lander’s maneuvering reveals that his campaign will reply on bullying select financial firms to score political points, even if it risks pension beneficiaries’ savings and investments.

This isn’t the first time Lander has leveraged New York City’s $270 billion public pension portfolio for political gain.  Just this April, he demanded every asset manager submit a “Net Zero by 2040” plan or risk losing their contract.

These self-aggrandizing attempts to turn public pension funds into a personal political springboard shows that Lander has forgotten about the approximately 800,000 teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public servants whose pensions he took an oath to protect.

Pension management should be driven by performance, not political pressure from any side.  And workers’ earned benefits shouldn’t be collateral damage in battles for any politician’s personal interests.

Retirees deserve stability, not political gamesmanship—and Lander’s maneuvering makes clear which one he values more.

The post Brad Lander’s Parting Gift is a Poison Pill for Retirees in NYC’s Employee Pension Plans first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

Multiple media giants are reportedly interested, and any buyout would face logistical, financial, and regulatory hurdles before it could become reality.  The developments come in a changing media landscape.  Lopez writes that as “Big Tech giants continue their entertainment expansions, the question is no longer whether the industry will consolidate, but how and under whose leadership”

In the present regulatory climate, political feasibility is a reality, whether justified or not.  Even in a more ‘normal’ times, any major merger involving companies of this size, especially media companies, would face intense scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers.  

Potential WBD buyers include Amazon, Netflix, Comcast, and Paramount-Skydance.  The accompanying chart represents why antitrust issues would be bound to come up with Netflix specifically.

Read the whole piece for conclusions as to which of these firms is likely to face a less thorny regulatory path.

The post Potential Purchase of Warner Bros. and Its Impact on Media first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

Building on that success and expanding domestic manufacturing is a stated policy goal that stretches across the political spectrum.  And in the push to do more, there is one critical input we cannot overlook: plastic.

Plastic is the backbone of modern manufacturing, supporting everything from aerospace to healthcare to consumer products. Plastic’s versatility, cost-effectiveness, performance, and lightweight nature make it indispensable for modern manufacturing.

To meet growing demand sustainably, Congress should act to strengthen our recycling system.  Central to this is modernizing outdated recycling regulations to recognize innovative new technologies, and establishing national recycling standards to eliminate state-by-state confusion and boost supply of recycled materials.

If done correctly, more recycling can lead to better, more sustainable manufacturing with less waste–a win for our economy, our environment, and American workers.

It is time for Congress to lead with pro-innovation policies that help U.S. manufacturing and recycling thrive together.

The post Congress Can Strengthen American Manufacturing—And Recycling—Together first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

Spectrum refers to the radio frequencies that wireless devices use to transmit information via the internet.  In recent times, spectrum has become a critical pillar for both personal internet access for millions of Americans, as for a broad range of economic activity. 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has typically been in charge of administering auctions of licenses for various spectrum bands for use by non-federal users.  The FCC’s authority expired in 2023 but was reauthorized in the 2025 legislation.  Unlike other provisions of the megabill, spectrum reauthorization has enjoyed a history of strong bipartisan support.  

HLF has consistently supported the reauthorization of Spectrum auctions, for example in an opinion piece earlier this year outlining the background and benefits.

Despite the revival of FCC spectrum auction authority now signed into law, the current version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) before the U.S. Senate includes a provision that would interfere with that process, allowing the Pentagon to block the sale of any spectrum.

The national security rationale might sound reasonable, except that it ignores that the spectrum provisions in the reconciliation bill were the result of extensive debate and negotiations that were part of that process and were done to achieve a balance between security concerns and realizing the economic benefits that would result from spectrum availability for private sector economic activity.

Those economic benefits are significant.  Research by economic consulting firm National Economic Research Associates (NERA) research summarized a report on this issue thusly: “We estimate each additional 100 MHz of mid-band spectrum to mobile will generate $264 billion of GDP, about 1.5 million new jobs, and about $388 billion in consumer surplus.”  

 The language on spectrum in the current NDAA should be removed and wireless spectrum auctions should proceed as planned.

The post The Latest Obstacle to Expanding Internet Access via Wireless Spectrum Auctions first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

Credit Unions’ tax-exempt status was established in The Federal Credit Union Act of 1934.  In order to avoid high-risk, high-reward investments, the law includes requirements that Credit Unions limit their depositors to groups holding a common bond—occupation, community, or association, for example.

In the decades since, Credit Unions have grown in popularity and size, this chart shows that “the top 10, top 50 and top 100 credit unions hold combined assets of $431 billion, $832 billion and $1.1 trillion, respectively.”

Competition is of course a staple of sound economic policy that benefits consumers and all Americans.  But competition needs an even playing field to function properly.

What has become contentious is that in recent years Credit Unions have eased their membership requirements and accepted customers who do not meet their original qualifications, which are set by the Credit Unions themselves.

Some Credit Unions who have chosen this path seem to be challenging the “common bond” requirement.  Thus, they are operating like regular banks, but with a competitive edge over other institutions like community banks that compete for similar customers but are not exempt from corporate income taxes.   The result is a market distortion.

That proposal to address this issue ultimately did not make it into the final bill text that was signed into law.  However, it garnered enough attention that there is an increasing chance that it comes up again. 

The best way for Congress to address this issue is with proper committee hearings.  But it is worth stressing that they should do so with the big picture in mind, focusing on broad-based, long-term tax relief to improve economic efficiency to the benefit of all Americans.

The post Credit Union Tax Exemption Continues To Garner Attention first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.