Antonio Isho
Research Mentor(s): Devin Judge-Lord
Mentor Department:
Authors: Devin Judge-Lord, Antonio Isho
Session: Session 3 (11:00am – 11:50am)
Presentation Type: Poster 100
Abstract
Most U.S. law is now made through executive branch agencies. Comment periods allow people and organizations to write in support or opposition of a rule, typically leaving suggestions for changes they want to see. To study how advocacy affects policy, I analyze the requests of each commenter and then assess whether they received what they asked for in the final rule. I analyzed the “White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative†and the “White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships,†published under the first Trump administration and the Biden administration, respectively. Both rules discuss the regulations that religious organizations must follow when administering a public service funded by the government either directly or indirectly. A public service could be an organization acting as a food bank, administering health care, providing housing, and much more. The Trump administration sought to remove regulations placed on these religious organizations published under the Obama administration. Supportive groups agreed that past rules were too burdensome. Unsupportive groups believed removing past regulations would discourage people from receiving needed aid. In contrast, during the Biden administration, some rules published under the Obama administration were implemented while others were adjusted. In this case, supportive groups agreed with the rule but also tended to ask for the rule to be strengthened. Unsupportive groups once again claimed the regulations too burdensome. In both cases, the majority of commenters were those who disagreed with the proposed rule. This research will allow for a deeper understanding of the effects of public input on proposed policy.
