Search Results

NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, is the agency within the US Government that is, among other things, responsible for the development of the "atomic clock" (that standarizes time around the country, and underpins things like the GPS in our phones). Yet for some reason, the Biden administration is seeing fit to use NIST to go over their goal of price controls for drugs in the United States! In December, NIST proposed to amend a 43yo piece of legislation called the Bayh-Dole Act by considering drug prices in the exercise of March-In Rights, there is a burgeoning debate on the future trajectory of innovation, economic prosperity, and the pharmaceutical industry in the United States. At the heart of the discussion is the potential shift from the Act's original mandate to foster innovation and commercialize federally funded research towards a framework that could regulate drug prices. This proposal has sparked considerable concern among stakeholders across the innovation landscape. Distorting the Bayh-Dole Act's Original Intent The Bayh-Dole Act, a keystone of American innovation since 1980, has propelled the U.S. to a leadership position in global technology and pharmaceuticals. It encouraged the commercialization of federally funded research, which led to the development of life-saving drugs and technologies. However, the NIST's proposal to factor in the price of drugs as a criterion for exercising March-In Rights diverges from the Act's original purpose. Instead of promoting the utilization of inventions and fostering public-private partnerships, this move could serve as a mechanism for price regulation—a stark departure from the Act's foundational goals. A Threat to Innovation and Economic Growth The proposed changes pose significant risks to innovation and investment, particularly in the biopharmaceutical sector, where the certainty of patent protection underpins the development of new treatments. The introduction of pricing considerations in the exercise of March-In Rights threatens to deter investment, stifling innovation and slowing the development of new drugs. This could also undermine the U.S. economy at large, given the pharmaceutical industry's role as a vital economic engine contributing billions in economic output and supporting millions of jobs. Undermining Patient Access to Innovative Treatments The NIST proposal could adversely affect patient access to innovative treatments. By introducing uncertainty into the intellectual property landscape, the proposal risks deterring the investment required for the development of new therapies. This move could slow the pace of medical breakthroughs, potentially depriving patients of access to life-saving treatments. Raising Legal and Constitutional Concerns The proposal also raises significant legal and constitutional issues. The exercise of March-In Rights based on drug pricing could be perceived as a taking of property without just compensation, challenging established property rights protected under the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, this reinterpretation of the Bayh-Dole Act could exceed the authority granted by the legislation itself, leading to prolonged legal battles and further uncertainty. In light of these concerns, it is imperative to tread carefully in any modifications to the Bayh-Dole Act. Preserving the Act's original intent and the incentives for innovation that have secured the United States' position as a global leader in technology and medicine is crucial. Policymakers are urged to explore alternative solutions that address drug affordability without undermining the principles of innovation and private investment. A balanced strategy that respects property rights, fosters economic growth, and maintains America's competitive edge in the global technology and pharmaceutical markets is essential for sustaining the vitality of the U.S. innovation ecosystem. The CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom is filing detailed comments in opposition to this (with comments due by midnight Monday night, February 6). You can file comments as well, by visiting the Federal Register page HERE!

Of all the states CPAC rates, West Virginia certainly takes home a trophy as one of the most conservative in the nation. Twenty Republicans earned CPAC’s highest honor, the Award for Conservative Excellence, in the Mountain State. These legislators earned this recognition for their outstanding voting record that upheld the conservative position at least 90% of the time. Many more representatives earned CPAC’s Award for Conservative Achievement by voting with the conservative position at least 80% of the time. Even the few Democrats in the West Virginia legislature scored higher than those in other states, garnering a 29% average in the House and a 48% average in the Senate. The commitment of West Virginia lawmakers to conservative principles is apparent in the laws they passed. They executed a well-rounded, freedom-forward agenda in 2023 that protected life, limited government, and asserted constitutional freedoms. CPAC recognizes two bills in 2023 that created substantial protections in defense of life. SB 552 expanded informed consent requirements and required state health agencies to establish a 24/7 resource hotline and publish information on abortion on their official website. SB 613 advanced the pro-life cause by lifting requirements for certificates of need for birthing centers. It now allows birthing centers to acquire necessary equipment more easily, helping them thereby improve service in their communities and offer more options for childbirth. West Virginia legislators further executed a series of bills that limited government spending and improved the education system. HB 2526 now allows West Virginians to keep more of their hard-earned dollars by lowering the state income tax rate. SB 1009 and HB 2862 prevent the tax dollars that the state does collect from being used to promote ESG and protect state funds from poor, politically-motivated investments. HB 3084 established safeguards against government regulations on charter schools, advancing school choice and supporting improvements to the quality of public education. Most of all, legislators championed constitutional freedoms by passing at least six laws that protect religious freedom, parental rights, the right to bear arms, and freedom of speech. SB 10 prohibited universities from preventing students from carrying a concealed firearm. HB 204 prevents mischievous financial institutions from sharing personal financial records with the state government for the purposes of surveilling gun owners. HB 3042 prohibits the disproportionate regulation of religious services and is a victory for freedom of religion. Legislators also encouraged school choice, parental rights, and transparency in education with SB 422 requiring schools to publicly post their curricula on their websites. All in all, West Virginia's dedication to preserving the rights of its constituents helped it stand out as an encouraging beacon of freedom. Learn about West Virginia’s victories for liberties and more at CPAC.org.

The Nolan Center for Justice at the CPAC Foundation works to improve our nation’s criminal justice system.  We help develop policies to improve public safety, ensure both individuals and the government are held accountable, and advance human dignity.  We also look for opportunities to encourage people caught up in the criminal justice system to find rehabilitation…and yes, redemption.  Why are rehabilitation and redemption important?  Because every instance of reoffending means another victim, another court case, and another prison cell.  By reducing recidivism, we are cutting one of the main drivers of the crime rate. One of the policies we support is providing incentives to encourage prisoners to pursue prison education, mental health treatment, job training, anger management, life skills and other programming that has been shown to reduce recidivism.  For example, President Trump’s First Step Act offered non-violent, low-risk inmates an opportunity to move to home confinement to serve their last year under the control of the Bureau of Prisons, when they took anti-recidivism programming.  And we now know that this system is working. A recent report by the non-partisan Council on Criminal Justice using Justice Department data found that the recidivism rate for those who earned their way to home confinement before release had a re-arrest rate of 12.4%, compared to an estimated recidivism rate of 19.8% for those released before the First Step Act.  That’s a 37% cut in recidivism!  Similar results were seen in 15 years of data from Texas after Governor Rick Perry (R) increased recidivism reduction programming as part of his justice reinvestment initiative.  Other states have provided incentives for prisoners to do the hard work of self-improvement and seen their re-offense rates drop.  In Michigan, the pending Safer Michigan Act provides “productivity credits,” (modeled after the First Step Act) to allow inmates to shave months off their sentences if they successfully complete proven anti-recidivism programs. We also support a package of policies called Clean Slate. Clean Slate applies to people who made a mistake and were convicted of low-level, non-violent crimes.  If they stay out of trouble for seven years, they can have their records automatically sealed.  While law enforcement will still have access to the sealed records, the former prisoners will have an easier time finding work, obtaining safe housing, and going back to school. And with such redemption comes reduced recidivism risks. Clean Slate has been passed by Republican legislatures in Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Utah. So why should voters and policymakers care about helping prisoners find redemption? Because doing so makes neighborhoods and communities safer, while also reducing the burden of incarceration costs on the taxpayers. It is a win-win.

Every year, CPAC has the opportunity to partner with fantastic conservative businesses and organizations who participate in our annual conference as sponsors. Our sponsors support the work we do at our conferences to uplift, unite, and inform grassroots conservatives and advance the movement all over the world. They instantly become part of an international network of organizations and individuals who both attend our conference and enjoy our digital content. Our sponsors also get to enjoy the conference as attendees and take in the exciting speeches, maybe even give one themselves, and add to their community of like-minded patriots with the infinite social opportunities. We love our sponsors who make CPAC possible and can’t wait to PROTECT AMERICA NOW with them at CPAC in DC 2024! Check out CPAC.org/sponsorship to learn more about our sponsorship opportunities.

In a shocking revelation, a preliminary investigation by the House Republican-led Science, Space, and Technology Committee has uncovered disturbing details about the White House's undue influence in a federal climate reporting initiative. This story, initially reported by Fox News Digital, raises serious questions about conflicts of interest and the integrity of the rulemaking process. Uncovering the Scandal The internal GOP memo reveals how the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) inappropriately swayed federal acquisition regulations. This intervention allegedly favored environmental activist groups with significant ties to Democrat donors and CEQ staff. According to the committee's findings, the CEQ successfully influenced the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council to outsource the Biden administration's climate reporting and disclosure initiative to two UK-based groups: the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). Conflict of Interest and Lack of Transparency Committee Chairman Frank Lucas expressed grave concerns about the CEQ's influence and potential conflicts of interest. Evidence suggests that CEQ staff advocated for regulations benefiting their friends and former employers. This casts a shadow over the decision to have U.S. contractors disclose their emissions to private foreign entities, which are not accountable to Congress or the American people. The Root of the Issue The issue dates back to May 2021, when President Biden ordered the FAR Council to develop regulations for federal contractors to disclose greenhouse gas emissions and set science-based reduction targets. Later, these regulations required disclosures through CDP and target validations by SBTi, effectively outsourcing policy to these foreign nonprofits. This move has been criticized for its lack of balance in decision-making. Deepening Concerns Further investigation revealed that Betty Cremmins, director for Sustainable Supply Chains at CEQ and a former CDP director, might have coordinated with CDP to align its messaging with FAR Council priorities. This highlights a deep-rooted conflict of interest. Questionable Funding and Influence Adding to the controversy, SBTi is funded by a massive dark money network involved in various progressive causes. This raises questions about the impartiality of these organizations in crafting climate disclosure regulations. The Committee's Stance The Committee emphasizes the need to maintain the integrity of the scientific and rulemaking process. Their findings suggest that the selection of CDP and SBTi was not based on merit or accepted science, but rather on arbitrary rulemaking aimed at empowering special interest groups. A Disturbing Conclusion The evidence points towards a concerning reality: the regulation was less about greenhouse gas disclosures and more about institutionalizing CDP's influence. The proposed regulation lacks clear goals or methods, suggesting underlying motives beyond environmental concerns. Awaiting Responses As of now, the CEQ, CDP, and SBTi have not responded to requests for comment. This silence adds to the unsettling nature of these findings. In summary, this story sheds light on a deeply troubling instance of potential political interference and conflicts of interest in environmental policymaking. It underscores the necessity for transparency and integrity in government decision-making, especially in areas as critical as climate change and environmental regulation.

Every year as CPAC Foundation’s Center for Legislative Accountability releases their state scorecards, some states stand out as conservative strongholds and others prove themselves to be Leftist dystopias. After the draconian policies of the COVID-19 pandemic and the current fiasco policies on illegal immigrants, it’s no surprise that one of this year’s losers that proved itself to be a Leftist dystopia is the state of New York. CPAC’s analysis found the Democrat representatives in the state legislature to be on the leftmost end of the political spectrum. CPAC’s average rating of Democrat officials in the Assembly was a pathetically low 1%. Senate Democrats managed to fare even worse with a whopping 0% average. The overall averages for both chambers are among some of the lowest out of all of the states so far at 22% and 25%. Given those numbers, the radical Leftist policies that emerged from the 2023 legislative cycle in the Empire State are again, no surprise. The worst of the legislation were laws that expanded abortion, election fraud, and the DEI and ESG agenda to new levels. The state of New York took a decidedly anti-life stance in 2023 when the legislature passed bill S 1066 that asserts New York as an abortion sanctuary state. The bill strictly prohibits all government employees from assisting out-of-state investigations into abortions. Representatives went a step further to pass bill A 1395 that requires all state universities to provide prescription abortion drugs to students. Their lack of respect for human life was matched by their lack of concern for free and fair elections. The New York legislature openly sanctioned election fraud in 2023 by allowing potentially compromised ballots to be counted and adding vague requirements to poll workers’ responsibilities, opening the door for more instances of fraud and amending the implementation date of these requirements to an earlier date of July 1, 2023. The DEI and ESG agenda, however, clearly took highest priority for New York legislators. CPAC highlighted at least eleven bills that promoted radical gender ideology, discriminatory and burdensome ‘diversity’ rules, and regulations on energy and the environment. One of the most blatant of these bills that passed into law was A 1142 that erases all gendered language from future New York laws and regulations. It was joined by bill A 7355 that added a ban on discrimination based on a person’s gender identity to the state civil rights law and by S 2475 that established New York as a sanctuary state for transgender procedures. Senate bill 1346 also codified radical ESG policy in state law by requiring every state agency to prepare plans before December 2025 for completely transitioning to electric vehicles by 2035. New York legislators established in the 2023 legislative cycle their complete dedication to Leftist ideologies. As CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp commented on CPAC’s scoring of the Empire State, “New York has adopted a fully woke approach to government...It’s no surprise that people are moving away from such a toxic environment and into Republican-led states. This is happening at such a rate that New York is on track to lose at least three congressional seats.” The radical nature of New York’s legislature and the legislation it produces are shooting the state in the foot by driving New Yorkers out of their own state to solid red states by the droves. See the full scorecard and how your state scored at CPAC.org.

Still on the fence about what CPAC ticket best fits your desired CPAC experience? Here’s a breakdown of each ticket type to help you make an informed decision and the best out of your CPAC experience: Student Ticket From the very beginning in 1964, CPAC welcomed young conservative students with open arms to our conferences, and we continue to make our conferences accessible to college students today with our Student Tickets. This ticket is the perfect option for young adults ages 24 and under currently pursuing an education. These tickets include access to all General Session speeches, CPAC Central, general conference events, and a special student reception. The Student Ticket is offered at the discounted rate of $50. Bring a group of five or more friends and ask about our group rate for even more savings on your student ticket. Learn more about our Student Tickets at CPAC.org/ticket/student and about our group rate options at CPAC.org/dc/group. General Admission General Admission is our most popular ticket for a reason! With General Admission, you’ll have access to all the main events of the conference from every Main Stage speech to all the excitement in CPAC Central and Media Row. These tickets are a great value and start at just $95 for a limited time! Visit CPAC.org to purchase your General Admission tickets before it's too late. Premium Experiences If you’re looking for a CPAC experience with all the trimmings, our Premium tickets may just be for you. Our four levels of premium tickets include special extras like designated lounges, photo opportunities, prime seating areas for General Session speeches, and a VIP welcome reception. Gold, Platinum, and Platinum Plus Tickets also come with tickets to the Ronald Reagan Dinner Friday night of the conference. Explore our Premium options today at CPAC.org. Compare all of our ticketing options side-by-side below:

The historic illegal immigration crisis at our Nation’s borders continues unabated. Under President Biden, at least 7 million illegal aliens have been encountered along the southwest border, and 1.7 million known “gotaways,” along with an untold number of unknown “gotaways,” have evaded Border Patrol and escaped across the country.  Most horrifically, our own government cannot locate over 85,000 unaccompanied minors who were brought illegally into the United States. Unsurprisingly, this unprecedented invasion has led to a rise in sex and labor trafficking cases across the United States. We know that modern day slavery in this country is now the second most profitable criminal enterprise – only behind drug trafficking. Thankfully, conservatives are stepping up to hold these criminals accountable. Just this week, the House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jim Jordan, passed legislation to impose criminal penalties on individuals who refuse to comply with orders from and attempt to evade U.S. Border Patrol agents or other federal, state, or local law enforcement officers assisting Border Patrol. Protecting those who protect us is a vital step in ensuring traffickers are not emboldened to defy our laws. Thankfully, it's not just conservatives in Congress stepping up, as red states like Texas, Missouri, Florida, and Georgia are joining the fight. These state legislatures and executives are focused on innovative approaches to support victims, while ensuring prosecutors can build cases against criminal traffickers. Just this week, CPAC’s Center for Combating Human Trafficking spoke with our partners at the Center for Immigration Studies about these efforts, you can learn more by listening here: https://cis.org/Parsing-Immigration-Policy/How-States-Can-Fight-Human-Trafficking.

In a stunning turn of events, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has withdrawn its controversial proposal to charter Natural Asset Companies (NACs). This move is a triumph for economic freedom and property rights, echoing the concerns raised by the CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom. The proposed rule, initially issued on October 4, 2023, posed significant threats to federal land sovereignty, economic stability, and environmental integrity. Several weeks ago we brought this issue to your attention, and were on the verge of filing comments with the SEC. Our team had raised the issue with our coalition partners and had been talking about it extensively in the press. Below are the issues we were raising in our comments: Sovereignty and Management of Public Assets: A key issue with the proposal was the potential enrollment of federal lands, including national parks, into NACs. This posed a direct threat to the sovereignty and traditional management of these lands, potentially shifting control from public to private entities. CRF argued that such a shift would undermine constitutional principles and established frameworks of land management. Environmental and Economic Implications: While NACs aimed to promote environmental conservation, the approach raised fears of commoditizing nature, overshadowing intrinsic ecological values. Economically, NACs could have diverted funds from traditional activities, impacting sectors like mining and agriculture, thus affecting local economies and communities. Legal and Policy Concerns: The proposal challenged traditional property rights, requiring extensive changes to laws and regulations. CRF highlighted the complexity of this legal transition and its potential to conflict with existing frameworks, underscoring the importance of maintaining a balance between conservation goals and broader public interests. National Security and Foreign Investment Risks: A significant concern was the potential for foreign control over American natural resources. CRF emphasized the national security risks associated with allowing foreign entities, especially adversarial nations, to influence public land management. Conservation Easements and Private Property Rights: The authority granted to land trusts to enroll conservation easements into NACs without landowner consent was particularly alarming. This could have led to significant changes in land use and rights without proper oversight, infringing on private property rights and leading to potential constitutional challenges. Ethics, Corruption, and the Dangers of Artificial Markets: CRF raised ethical concerns about the monetization of natural resources and the risks of corruption and mismanagement. Drawing parallels with historical examples like the Teapot Dome scandal, we warned against the creation of artificial markets, highlighting the risks of speculative bubbles and economic instability. Impact on Income Inequality: The proposal was seen as a mechanism that could exacerbate income inequality, benefiting the wealthy while harming rural and urban poor communities. CRF stressed the need for equitable policies that do not exploit public lands for the benefit of a few. The withdrawal of the SEC's proposal is a significant victory for those advocating for the preservation of economic freedoms, property rights, and public land sovereignty. The CPAC Foundation's Center for Regulatory Freedom commends this decision, highlighting the need for careful consideration and balanced approaches in future regulatory developments. This outcome not only protects public interests and environmental sustainability but also upholds legal mandates and respects economic realities.

For over fifty years, CPAC has led the conservative political scene with its annual national conferences. The speeches delivered by the likes of President Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump at the conferences made headlines, drove the news cycle, and set the standard for conservative thought and policy in America. Today, in the early days of 2024 and as we approach another one of our conferences, the lasting, national impact of CPAC has not changed. Our speakers continue to bring the cutting edge of conservative philosophy to our conferences, steer modern conservative policy, and break news that mainstream media refuses to cover. Most importantly, CPAC continues to empower our grassroots attendees by giving them a home, a place of refuge from the onslaught of bigotry from the Left, where they can freely and proudly express their values. Our conferences equip conservatives with the confidence and knowledge to take the conservative message with them when they return home and share it with their neighbors, friends, and family. At the core, CPAC unifies the conservative movement generation after generation by bringing together patriots from all walks of life, showing them that they are not alone, and inspiring them to advance the cause of freedom throughout the nation. We invite you to experience it for yourself this year at CPAC 2024 in Washington, D.C. Visit CPAC.org to reserve your spot.

Each year, thousands of conservatives from across the country travel to CPAC to join in the largest gathering of conservatives in the world and hear from the top conservative leaders who built this movement. Amongst the thousands of attendees who attend CPAC conferences each year lies the heart of the future of the conservative movement, students. Every year, hundreds of students get their first glimpse of what it means to be a conservative at CPAC! Attending my first CPAC as a sophomore in college was the catalyst that inspired me to get involved in growing the conservative movement at my university. I encourage all conservative students and student organizations to consider attending CPAC, February 21-24, in our nation’s capital. CPAC annually hosts the greatest leaders our movement has ever known. From Dr. Ben Carson, to Kari Lake, and even President Donald Trump, each day at CPAC is packed with speeches and panels addressing the issues that we, conservatives, care about most. CPAC is equipping the next generation of conservative leaders with the tools necessary to Protect America Now, a mission that can only be successful with you, our supporters. Help grow the future of our conservative movement by visiting CPAC.org/donate. Student tickets are on sale now for $50 at CPAC.org/ticket/student. The best way to build our movement is to get your friends to attend CPAC as well, so tell all your friends to join us! Bring a group of 5 or more students to receive a $10 discount on student tickets! Learn more at CPAC.org/dc/group. Get your tickets now, and we can’t wait to see you all for the largest gathering of conservatives in the world at CPAC!

Other blue state Dems should take Newsom's small steps in the right direction. The following is a recent article published in The American Spectator by Director Emeritus of the CPAC Foundation Nolan Center for Justice, Pat Nolan: Our major cities struggle with increased crime, sprawling homeless encampments, overcrowded jails, sky high taxes, and exploding budget deficits. Yet most government officials ignore the one factor that contributes significantly to each of these problems: the lack of acute psychiatric beds to treat mental illness. The federal government already spends $150 billion on mental health every year, and states kick in billions more. How is it possible that despite the huge sums we spend on mental health there are too few psychiatric beds? The answer is simple: we are spending those billions helping the wrong people. Most of the mental health dollars are spent on those dealing with minor life crises such as losing a job, breaking up with a girlfriend, being evicted, or the loss of a loved one. While stress and anxiety are common problems, they are not mental illness. They are normal reactions to temporary crises. However, the mental health industry cleverly rebrands it “psychological trauma” and “sub-clinical depression” to give it a gravitas that it doesn’t deserve. The Manhattan Institute described this as a “shift in mental-health funding that deprioritized treatment for the mentally ill in favor of preventing mental illness among the masses.” An example of how the money is spent on the “walking wounded” rather than on those with serious mental illness (SMI), California uses the $2 billion per year raised from a 1 percent tax on millionaires — which had been pledged to help people with “serious mental illness” — to fund activities such as yoga, line dancing, drumming, and “soulful movement,” deeming those individuals as suffering from “subclinical depression.” When the state mental hospitals were emptied, legislators promised to fund community treatment. Sadly, the legislators reneged on those promises. Instead of building acute care beds in the community they built clinics with no beds in the suburbs (far from where the homeless mentally ill congregate). The clinics are only open five days a week, M-F, 8am to 5pm. And the patients often wait over two weeks to schedule appointments. Unfortunately, those suffering from SMI don’t act out during the clinics’ business hours. The clinics are of little help to a person about to jump off a building or whose voices in their head tells them to stab a stranger walking past. The unspoken truth is that mental health providers avoid dealing with the severely mentally ill. It is easier to work with people experiencing a transitory difficulty in their lives; they recover much faster and can articulate their gratitude. On the other hand, those with mental illness are frequently not very likeable. They are ill-kempt, lack personal hygiene, and they are always difficult to deal with. So, the system chooses to deal with the easy cases while the seriously mentally ill are allowed to decompensate on the streets until they are ready for jail. Our prisons and jails have become the default mental health system. It is not law enforcement’s fault. The police would much rather take the non-dangerous mentally ill to facilities with acute psychiatric beds — but those beds are simply not available. The Los Angeles County Jail is the largest mental health institution in the United States. Cook County Jail and Rikers Island in New York City hold the largest mentally ill populations in their states. The video “Prisons and the Mentally Ill” provides an inside view of difficulties prisons and jails must deal with when people with SMI are incarcerated. Though the video was produced 10 years ago, the problems discussed in it remain unchanged. The government has prioritized help for those dealing with minor life crises over helping those who suffer from serious mental illness. Sadness and grief are receiving treatment while those with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are ignored and left to the streets and jails. In New York nearly 40 percent of the most seriously mentally ill receive zero treatment. Mental health dollars should be focused on programs that treat people with serious mental illnesses and “not just making people happier.” Because there are no psychiatric beds available, the most severely ill are turned over to police and law enforcement in record numbers. When they are released from jail they are on their own, without families and social networks to help them obtain the services they need. It is laughable to expect patients with serious mental illness to navigate the mental health bureaucracy to find housing and the professional services they so desperately need. They end up back on the streets, where they languish untreated until they spiral into disorder and violent behavior, get arrested again and continue to serve life sentences on the installment plan. There is a much better way to handle people with serious mental illness. Those billions spent on “mental health” should be used to fund additional acute psychiatric beds in hospitals — rather than in jails. There is a second important step we should take to reduce the number of mentally ill on our streets — enact a process that can require mentally ill people to stay in treatment after they are released. Most of those with SMI can lead peaceful and productive lives — as long as they stay on their anti-psychotic drugs. However, these patients can deteriorate quickly when they stop taking their medicines. They are too sick to realize that they need their medications to remain stable. People with SMI often stop taking their medications due to some unpleasant side effects. They decide that their lives are going well and conclude they don’t need to take the drugs any longer. That decision puts the patients and the community at risk. Several states have established Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), in which a judge can order someone with a serious mental illness to follow a treatment plan, including taking their medications. Data from the New York State Office of Mental Health found that following six months of AOT: 55 percent fewer recipients engaged in suicide attempts or harm to self, 47 percent fewer recipients physically harmed others, 46 percent fewer recipients damaged or destroyed property, and 43 percent fewer recipients threatened physical harm to others. These data indicate that AOT programs reduce arrests and incarceration in excess of 80 percent for those in it. Another study found that individuals in AOT are four times less likely to commit violence than the untreated seriously mentally ill. There is some good news from California. Governor Newsom and the legislature are finally getting serious about its crisis of untreated mental illness. California is home to 12 percent of the country’s population, but the state accounts for half of the people living on the streets nationwide. In the last few months, the state established a court intervention program for people with severe mental illness and passed a law making it easier for relatives and first responders to send people to mandatory treatment. And Governor Newsom announced a $6.4 billion bond proposal to build nearly 25,000 psychiatric and addiction beds statewide. Some are concerned that involuntary treatment can be misused. And that is a reasonable apprehension given the record of governments around the world that have declared political opponents insane. However, the safeguards built into the AOT laws, i.e., hearings must be held in open court with competent counsel for the patient, have proven successful at preventing abuse. The alternative to involuntary treatment is to continue to allow those with SMI to live in homeless encampments, covered in feces, screaming at themselves, lying face down on bus shelter floors with their pants around their ankles, wandering into traffic or fighting with ghosts and with each other — and often dying on the streets. As Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has noted, “It is profoundly inhumane to allow people to suffer mental illness and die on our streets.” AOT laws seek to find a path to protect the right of psychiatric patients to live where and how they want in the least restrictive setting, and those patients and their loved ones to avoid the often tragic effects of the patient’s illness. There are too many cases where the letter of the law was met, and the patient died. Or as one psychiatrist put it, they died “with their rights on.” Hopefully other blue state governors and mayors follow Newsom’s lead and take steps to deal with the seriously mentally ill on their streets so that America’s cities become livable once more. Pat Nolan is the Director Emeritus of the Nolan Center for Justice at the American Conservative Union. He served in the California Assembly from 1978-94, where he was a leading voice for reform of mental illness laws.