That is precisely why regulatory pressure on banks about who they serve should concern everyone, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum.  Banks have no incentive to deny access to law-abiding customers.  However, regulators have exerted outside pressure for years, leaning on vague notions of “reputational risk” to force banks away from lawful but politically disfavored customers.  The targets change with the political winds and how is in power.  The principle at stake does not.

What often gets lost in these debates: banks are already required by law to make decisions based on objective, individualized, risk-based assessments — legal risk, credit risk, market risk, regulatory exposure. Personal beliefs and political affiliations should have no place on that list. 

Washington has recently moved to reinforce that standard. Federal banking regulators have begun stripping subjective “reputation risk” criteria from their supervisory guidance, and an executive order signed last year directs that banking decisions rest on individualized, objective analysis rather than a customer’s beliefs or associations. Whatever one thinks of any particular administration, the underlying principle is sound and should be maintained through future administrations.  

History shows who gets hurt first when access to finance becomes conditional: those with the least power. Immigrant families, minority-owned small businesses, and working-class communities have long fought for a foothold in the financial mainstream.  For example, nearly 40 percent of Hispanic small-business owners already report that access to financing is a major barrier, more than double the rate of their white counterparts.  A poisoned financial system where access is restricted by overzealous bureaucrats’ subjective notions of risk or political operatives’ ideological biases not only hurts these communities but the American economy at large.

If we want an economy that works for everyone, we must defend a simple rule: no regulator, no politician, and no pressure campaign should push banks to close accounts for any reason other than material financial risk. Banks are open to all customers — and it must stay that way.

The post A Bank Account Should Not Come with a Political Litmus Test first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

San Francisco, for example, restricted the use of rental pricing software in October 2024, yet rents there are climbing faster than in any other U.S. city. Banning modern management tools does nothing to address the underlying shortage, and risks disincentivizing the new construction that Californians so desperately need.

Read the full letter in the Mercury News and the East Bay Times.  

In addition, Lopez has written on this issue in the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Orange County Register, and the Los Angeles Times.

The post Outlawing Pricing Algorithms Will Not Solve the Housing Crisis first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

The findings send a clear signal to policymakers: lowering the cost of buying and refinancing a home is not only broadly popular but politically potent, with support spanning age groups, political parties, renters, and homeowners alike.

“Americans are sending a clear message: they want housing to be more affordable, and they expect policymakers to tackle unnecessary costs that stand in the way of homeownership,” said HLF president Mario H. Lopez. “From the price of a home to the costs incurred at closing or refinancing, consumers are looking for practical solutions that lower costs while preserving the protections they value.”

That demand for action is rooted in real affordability pressure. Nearly half of voters (49%) say they want the President and Congress to focus on housing costs and availability. Housing affordability is tied for the second-highest policy priority tested, behind only inflation (73%).

Those concerns extend well beyond home prices. Seventy-nine percent of voters believe closing costs are too high, a sentiment shared across age groups, parties, renters, and homeowners. And 87% call it “excessive and unnecessary” to pay for title insurance again when refinancing, even though a title check was already conducted at the time of purchase and nothing about the homeowner’s ownership has changed.

That public sentiment aligns closely with policy already in motion. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte announced last week that the Title Acceptance program, which reduces unnecessary closing expenses, is being actively expanded, mirroring the overwhelming support voters express for programs that cut costs while protecting consumers.

Modernizing title insurance, in short, is an opportunity to lower costs without compromising the integrity of the home buying process.

The post NEWS RELEASE: New Polling Shows 90% of Voters Support Expanding Reduced Title Insurance Fees, 89% Are More Likely to Back Candidates Who Champion It first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

As HLF’s president has previously written, spectrum is a big deal–despite not being in the headlines often–because it quietly powers modern life.  It is the invisible infrastructure behind the wireless networks we all depend on every day to work, learn, access healthcare, run businesses, and stay connected with family and friends.  As connected devices multiply and emerging technologies place even greater demands on our networks, making spectrum essential.

The FCC can build on decades of successful spectrum policy. By advancing valuable mid-band spectrum toward licensed commercial use, the FCC is creating the conditions for continued private-sector investment. That means stronger networks with greater capacity.

Beyond faster download speeds, spectrum usage is about America’s ability to compete on the global stage in the industries that will define the future.

Friends and foes abroad are investing aggressively in next-generation wireless technologies because they recognize that advanced connectivity underpins economic growth and innovation.  Advanced manufacturing, precision agriculture, connected transportation, and other innovations we have yet to imagine will all depend on robust wireless infrastructure.  America cannot afford to fall behind because we failed to fuel our own spectrum pipeline.

Those investments matter for every American, but they are particularly important for underserved communities.

Hispanic Americans are more likely than many other Americans to rely on smartphones as their primary means of accessing the internet, making reliable wireless connectivity particularly important.  Investments in stronger networks can expand access to education, telehealth, financial services, employment opportunities, and the digital tools families increasingly rely on daily.

The same is true for Hispanic entrepreneurs. Latino-owned businesses continue to be one of the fastest-growing segments of the American economy, and reliable wireless connectivity has become essential to doing business.  Small businesses benefit when our communications infrastructure keeps pace with innovation.

When policymakers create the right conditions for private investment, the benefits extend far beyond the communications sector.

By continuing to advance market-based spectrum policies, policymakers can strengthen America’s economy, expand opportunity for all Americans, and ensure our communications infrastructure keeps pace with the demands of the future.

The post FCC Spectrum Auction Stands to Benefit the Larger Economy, Not Just the Telecom Industry first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

An organic compound derived from the kratom plant, 7-OH is widely used by more than one million Americans for pain relief as well as for harm reduction purposes, such as treating symptoms of opioid withdrawal.

The DEA move uses emergency powers to avoid a full scientific review that is required by Congress.  In addition, the accompanying request for public comments from the Department of Health and Human Services explicitly rejects scientific and safety related input related to 7-OH.

“This is a bad-faith scheme that will turn everyday American consumers into lawbreakers, especially those who are struggling with addiction or moving away from opioids,” said HLF president Mario H. Lopez.  “Instead of focusing on rigorous science and a fair, transparent, and measured regulatory process, blindly putting 7-OH in the same legal category as Heroin will make the opioid crisis worse.”

The administration’s move comes shortly after an investigative report detailed how some cabinet members with financial interests in kratom companies who sell products that compete with 7-OH have used their official government positions to target market competitors in the 7-OH industry.

The post NEWS RELEASE: Administration Moves To Potentially Ban 7-OH first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a victory for the Constitution, for originalist jurisprudence, and for America.  No president can rewrite the Constitution by Executive Order, no matter how much they dislike any of its provisions or the Americans it protects.  For decades, originalist legal scholars have recognized that the 14^th Amendment established birthright citizenship as the law of the land.  The 14th Amendment has always been, and continues to be, a catalyst for assimilation and civic cohesion.  And despite the many vicious lies and slurs directed at immigrants and their descendants, America is stronger and more prosperous thanks to generations of people from around the world that have become Americans.”

The post Statement On Supreme Court Ruling in 14th Amendment Case first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

Analysis of the American energy market shows that electricity demand will increase 25% in the next four years and 78% in less than 25 years compared to 2023. Advanced manufacturing and new technologies like Artificial Intelligence are leading factors in the increased demand.

That examination also warns of a risk for residential customers: “electricity rates could increase by 15% to 40% by 2030, depending on the market. By 2050, some rates might even double.”

Meeting demand will require major investments in generation, transmission, and grid modernization. Done right, meeting those needs and lowering ratepayer costs does not have to be a trade-off.

Typically, when energy utility companies build infrastructure like power plants and transmission lines, taxpayers bear the costs. For consumers, modernization typically comes with a hefty price that gets tacked on to their energy bill.

With utilities are facing difficult choices as electricity demand accelerates, customer bills have already climbed steeply—average rates have increased more than 5% in the past year alone.

Private sector investment can help assuage some of these challenges. Recent utility partnerships have demonstrated how outside capital can lead to long-term financing for next-generation energy projects while shielding consumers.

For example, AES Indiana recently announced its acquisition by Global Infrastructure Partners and EQT. This unlocks new financing streams that allow AES Indiana to realize projects that consider the big picture of America’s future and growth beyond the next financial quarter.

In addition to the acquisition, AES Indiana recently announced a partnership to build a data center in Monrovia to add capacity and look to improve grid reliability. The announcement touts over $770 million in customer savings over the next 15 years.

The U.S. Secretary of Energy recently cited that pending rate application in Indiana as evidence that states attracting large-load customers are seeing electricity prices rise slower than inflation.

Increasing recognition in private sector financing for infrastructure is overdue. Proper market driven approaches can encourage investment, reward innovation, and protect Americans from runaway costs and government overreach.

As America’s electricity needs continue to grow, utilities, policymakers—and investors—must keep working families front and center.

A modernized, more efficient grid can have a multiplier effect in benefitting local economies in the 21st Century and still lead to lower household energy bills.

The Indiana example shows what is possible when private capital meets public need.

The post Private Sector Investment Can Both Strengthen Energy Infrastructure And Benefit Consumers first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

This is a generally constructive approach when applied to personal consumer devices products like smartphones or household electronics, and even larger machines like some farming equipment.

But when it comes to more sensitive areas like medical and health-related devices, there are fundamental differences that should not be ignored.  Including efforts to extend right to repair policies to complex medical devices raises serious concerns about unintended consequences. 

Some proposals would require manufacturers to provide device instructions, parts, and tools to consumers and independent repair shops.  But many in the latter category are not subject to the same FDA regulations and oversight as original manufacturers.  Without strong safeguards, increased access to parts and manuals raises the likelihood of unverified repairs.

Many health-related devices require specialized training, strict quality controls, and careful calibration to ensure they function safely and effectively.  Improper repairs can create cybersecurity vulnerabilities like exposing sensitive personal data or compromise device performance and cause malfunction or failure, leading to unnecessary and avoidable health risks for patients.

Supporters of right to repair argue that expanded access to repair materials increases consumer choice and lowers costs.  But in practice, cost-conscious hospitals may feel pressured to choose the cheapest repair option rather than the safest or most reliable one.  That tradeoff can carry significant consequences, especially for patients already facing economic hardship.

More broadly, what might appear to be short-term savings can ultimately result in higher long-term costs, including repeat repairs, needing to replace devices, and additional costs associated with health complications that may results from treatments not implemented as intended.

Lawmakers should carefully consider the unique risks associated with applying right to repair policies to intricate medical devices and equipment.  Consumer access and affordability are important goals, but patient safety must always be the top priority.  For communities already facing disparities in care, the added risks are especially concerning.

The post “Right To Repair” Comes With Risks And Unintended Consequences first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

For common chronic conditions like Alzheimer’s Disease, Americans’ see the need for preventative measures, screening, and care.  No surprise, given the prevalence.  Harvard medical school points out that “more than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer’s disease, and estimates suggest it will affect 13.8 million by 2050. Already, it is the sixth leading cause of death in the United States.”

This translates to public policy preferences and politics.  A recent opinion poll shows that candidates who highlight Alzheimer’s care and want to make it a national priority stand to gain an electoral advantage.

A report about the poll states that “Some 87% of respondents said it’s important to make a national priority out of combating Alzheimer’s Disease. Out of those, 50% said it’s very important. Those figures are fairly evenly split among both Republicans and Democrats.”

The pollsters’ analysis claims that almost 90% of voters “say they are concerned that some Alzheimer’s patients are unable to get FDA-cleared diagnostic tests and FDA-approved treatments their doctors recommend” due to delays in or denial of coverage.

HLF has argued that increasing preventive care broadly is not only a common-sense approach benefiting patients and their families, but that increasing patient access to evidence-based treatments helps address overall healthcare costs, saving money for families and taxpayers alike, making it smart fiscal policy as well.

The post Voter Concern About Alzheimer’s Disease Exemplifies General Worries About Healthcare Costs And Coverage first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.

HLF believes we can and should support responsible financial innovation.  But we must also ensure that the CLARITY Act does not weaken the community banks and credit providers that Hispanics and other underserved communities rely on.

Community banks play a unique role in the American economy:

• They provide small-business loans that help local entrepreneurs open their doors, expand operations, and hire more workers.
• They support family-owned businesses and first-time borrowers who often don’t fit the cookie-cutter profiles favored by large institutions.
• They understand the local realities of the communities they serve.

For Hispanic small-business owners, for example, relationship-based banking is not an abstraction.  It is the difference between being able to secure a line of credit to hire more workers—or putting growth plans on hold.

Analysis of the CLARITY Act from community banking leaders highlights targeted changes to the bill’s language.  These recommendations do not seek to block the bill or oppose digital-asset innovation.  Instead, they are aimed at:

• Making sure the bill does what it intends to do without unintended side effects;
• Preventing sudden, large shifts of deposits away from community banks that could tighten credit in local communities; and
• Preserving the ability of community banks to continue supporting small businesses, homeowners, and local development.

These technical fixes align with the bill’s stated goals while better protecting community banks and their customers.

Innovation and Community Banking Can Coexist.  Well-designed legislation can encourage responsible innovation in digital finance while preserving the critical functions of traditional banks, especially those that serve smaller markets.

Advancing innovation should never mean abandoning the small businesses and workers who drive our real economy.

HLF urges the Senate Banking Committee to:

1. Take seriously the concerns raised by community banks and the communities they serve;
2. Incorporate the reasonable language changes proposed by community banking leaders; and
3. Ensure that the CLARITY Act strengthens, rather than weakens, access to credit for Main Street businesses.

These changes would protect local jobs, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity—especially in communities that already face barriers to capital.

Getting the CLARITY Act right is a test of whether we can embrace the future of finance without leaving Main Street behind.

The post Getting the CLARITY Act Right: Protecting Main Street and Community Banks first appeared on Hispanic Leadership Fund.