Experts Matter. Find Yours.

James Sample Writes Op-Ed for Verdict

Hofstra Law Professor James Sample penned the op-ed “Bribery Enters its Golden Age,” published recently on the website Verdict. Verdict publishes legal analysis and commentary from Justia.com Excerpt: In a more rational time, the transfer of millions of meme-coin laundered dollars to political leaders’ personal coffers would be an existential scandal. The same would be true of political leaders extracting policy support in exchange for abandoning unrelated criminal prosecutions. Likewise, for “gratuities” paid to government officials by government contractors. Each individual instance is a serious concern. Yet collectively, even more is at stake. When such patently transactional approaches to the rule of law become standard practice, democracy stands to lose more than individual cases. It stands to lose the cause itself.

Defining Oligarchy: The Fusion of Wealth and Power in American Democracy

Oligarchy is being thrown around a lot these days. But what does the term mean? Is America an oligarchy? And how does oligarchy help explain American democracy today? Political rhetoric scholar Luke Winslow, Ph.D., associate professor of communication at Baylor University and author of  “Oligarchy in America: Power, Justice, and the Rule of the Few,” has traced the evolution of oligarchy in the United States to shed light on how modern oligarchy is reshaping America through the increasing fusion of economic power and political influence. Winslow’s research focuses on how the influence of oligarchy has impacted American political rhetoric, as well as how it is showing up in modern politics and political communications. Defining Oligarchy Oligarchy is a term that most people associate with other countries, but it “is not something that just happens in Russia. It's something that happens everywhere, and it always has,” Winslow said. In the simplest of terms, oligarchy attempts to explain the convergence of economic and political power. Winslow offered four key distinctions on oligarchy: Oligarchy is exclusive. It represents a form of governance focused on preserving the political and economic influence of the wealthy by securing the approval of the rest of the population. “It assumes not everyone is qualified to deliberate, participate and legislate,” Winslow said. When it comes to oligarchy, there is a belief that extreme wealth is equated to intellectual fitness across all domains, including governance. Wealth vs. income. It is important to distinguish between wealth and income. Income covers daily expenses, whereas wealth is more easily used to exert political power. “What truly sets an oligarch apart is the political power their wealth can command,” Winslow said. Understated and subtle. Modern oligarchy operates through persuasion by “enticing rather than commanding citizens and maintaining what seems like an absence from political authority,” Winslow said. It is in this absence that oligarchs can influence indirect political actions, especially since they are not (typically) elected officials and cannot be removed from office. Legal Immunity. Oligarchs have no fear of legal consequences because oligarchy itself is not against the law, Winslow said. The First Amendment protects the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” legitimizing lobbying and campaign donations. A robust system of campaign contributions and political lobbying – both of which are perfectly legal – can shape media narratives and put pressure on state and local governments. While wealth and politics have always coexisted, oligarchy is about how these forces merge to create a system where the ultra-rich exert undue influence over democratic institutions, Winslow said. “This convergence has long existed in history but is now unfolding in the U.S. more visibly – and perhaps more accepted – than ever before,” he said. Communication of Oligarchy Winslow’s research shows that American society has come to view billionaires as transcendent figures – individuals whose success in business qualifies them to lead in politics – a mindset that is not new. The Gilded Age of the late 19th century saw figures like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller wield enormous economic and political power, shaping legislation to favor their interests. Winslow’s research traces this historical precedent, suggesting that today’s tech titans are the latest iteration of a long-standing trend. Perhaps the most intriguing question Winslow raises is not just how oligarchy and its fusion of wealth and governance has taken root, but why the American public has been so willing to accept it as natural – perhaps even beneficial. “The arguments being made in public discourse encourage us to go along with it,” he said. “We’re being told, implicitly, that this is just how things work now.” Yet, these practices also reveal how the government serves the narrow interests of the ultra-wealthy, diverting resources from productive economic opportunities for the majority toward political wins that benefit a small, affluent minority, Winslow said. “What's so interesting about oligarchy now is that the cover has been ripped off, the veil has been thrown open and we’re not even hiding the fact that money gets you more influence,” he said. Ultimately, Winslow hopes his work will get people to be curious as to why Americans are now accepting oligarchy in the U.S. “The ways that the extremely wealthy are yielded political power is seemingly acceptable now, and that is a question that we all should be asking,” Winslow said. Looking to know more? Then let us help. To connect with Luke Winslow, simply contact Shelby Cefaratti-Bertin, M.A, Assistant Director of Media and Public Relations now to arrange an interview today.

Red Light Cameras Emerge as a Politically Divisive Issue

Lawrence Levy, associate vice president and executive dean of the National Center for Suburban Studies, is featured in a Newsday article about red-light camera programs and how they are emerging as a divisive political issues on Long Island. He likened the red-light camera program to that of congestion pricing for its “good government motive” aimed to improve traffic safety, charging drivers who violate the law while gaining money to help pay for the county police department. The issue, Levy said, is “a real tough one for politicians to gauge because of the mix of potential court cases and legislative actions that could be taken and the general mood of the public about anything that could be seen as a tax by another name.”

Canada’s RRSP Program Has Too Many Jobs

Summary: Since its inception in 1957, the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) has been a cornerstone of Canada’s retirement system. However, the RRSP has taken on roles far beyond its original mandate, notably through the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP) and the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP). Although these programs provide short-term benefits, they significantly damage the long-term health of Canadians' retirement savings. This article explores how these additional roles are sabotaging retirement savings, highlights statistics about the state of RRSPs today, and discusses the disastrous impact these trends will have on future retirees. While listening to a recent economic presentation by Don Drummond, TD Bank's Chief Economist at the Mortgage Professionals Canada conference, the following stat stood out to me: "Median RRSP savings are $146K (RRSPs have been in existence for 6 decades)" I was stunned by how low this value was. Even with a government pension, in today's economic climate, to achieve a successful retirement, we need more than $146K saved. This prompted me to explore how the average value of RRSPs in Canada could be so low after some of us have had as much as 60 years to save. The average senior aged 65 in Canada receives $18,197 per year from OAS and CPP. If qualified for GIS, they would receive another $15,186 annually, for a total of $33,338 annually. This isn't much income, especially for homeowners who must pay for property taxes, utilities, upkeep, and maintenance. How it All Began At inception, the RRSP was called a Registered Retirement Annuity and was created in 1957. At the time, Canadians could contribute up to 10% of their income to a maximum of $2,500 annually. The goal was to give all Canadians the same tax benefits as members of registered employer-sponsored pension plans. Benefits of the RRSP Plan 1. Tax-Deferral: Contributions to an RRSP are tax-deductible, which can reduce your tax bill. 2. Tax-Free Growth: Your savings grow tax-free while the money is in the plan. 3. Retroactive: You can carry forward any unused contribution room to future years. The Multitasking Disaster Studies show that people are dreadful at multitasking; the same is true of government programs. Here is where the program went wrong. In 1992, the Home Buyer’s Plan (HBP) was made more flexible, which allowed first-time homebuyers to withdraw RRSP funds to buy a house. Then, in 1999, the Lifelong Learning Plan (LPP) was introduced, which permitted withdrawals to pay for education. The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) was not introduced in 1957 alongside the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) creation. Instead, the HBP was introduced in 1992 as a federal initiative to help Canadians buy their first homes by allowing them to withdraw funds from their RRSPs without tax penalties as long as they met specific conditions. Here's a timeline of crucial HBP withdrawal limits since its inception: Timeline of HBP and LLP Withdrawal Limits: 1992 - Introduction of the HBP • Maximum Withdrawal Limit: $20,000 per individual. • Purpose: To help first-time homebuyers purchase or build a home. 1999 – Introduction of Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) • The annual withdrawal limit is $10,000 per individual • The lifetime withdrawal maximum is $20,000 per individual 2009 - First HBP increase • New Limit: $25,000 per individual. • The increase was introduced as part of federal budget changes to reflect rising housing costs. 2019 - Second HBP Increase • New Limit: $35,000 per individual. • Announced in the 2019 federal budget to support affordability for first-time homebuyers. 2019 -HBP Enhancement for Life Events • The HBP was expanded to allow individuals experiencing a marriage or common-law partnership breakdown to participate, even if they were not first-time homebuyers. 2024 - Recent increase • New Limit: $60,000 per individual. • The increase was introduced as part of federal budget changes to reflect rising costs. A Flawed Strategy The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) and Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) were introduced in Canada as tools to make housing and education more accessible. While well-intentioned, these programs effectively allow individuals to borrow from their future retirement savings—a strategy that can have significant negative consequences. Ask any high school economics student, and they will tell you that compromising two of the three main elements (principle and time) in investing growth will lead to a disappointing return. Here is the formula: principle X interest + time = compounded return. Are We Borrowing From the Future to Pay for Today? The Problem with the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP): Addressing Housing Affordability at the Expense of Retirement The HBP permits individuals to withdraw up to $60,000 from their RRSP to buy a first home. In an environment of rising house prices, this measure may help buyers cobble together a down payment, but it drains retirement funds. The funds are unavailable to grow tax-free over decades, diminishing the compounding returns essential for retirement security. The Problem with the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP): Financing Education by Sacrificing Retirement The LLP allows up to $20,000 in RRSP withdrawals to fund education, which can help individuals upskill. However, education often doesn’t yield immediate returns, and the withdrawn funds lose their growth potential, including the compounded returns. Why This Harms Future Retirees Issue #1: Loss of Compounding Growth Withdrawals disrupt the power of compounding, which is vital for retirement savings. For example, $35,000 left in an RRSP for 25 years at a 6% annual return could grow to over $150,000. If that same $35,000 were withdrawn 15 years ago and repaid over the same period as required by the HBP program, it would be worth $54,311, a loss of $95,689 Issue #2: Repayment Struggles While repayments are required, life’s expenses (mortgage, childcare, loans) often make it hard to repay on schedule. Failure to repay means the amount withdrawn is added to taxable income, further reducing the effectiveness of the programs. Issue #3: Insufficient Savings Most Canadians are already under-saving for retirement. Encouraging them to dip into their RRSPs exacerbates this shortfall. Two Different Problems.  One Harmful Solution Housing Affordability Rising house prices are driven by supply-demand imbalances, speculation, and policy failures—not a lack of down payments. Increasing the HBP withdrawal limit does nothing to address the root causes of affordability, but it may drive prices higher by giving buyers more purchasing power. Retirement Security Retirement savings should be preserved and grown to ensure financial stability in later years. Programs like HBP and LLP blur the line between short-term needs and long-term planning. Why Would our Government Do This? Political Expediency Housing affordability and access to education are politically sensitive issues. Allowing individuals to tap into their RRSPs is a cost-neutral policy for the government (unlike direct subsidies or programs). Policies like these help politicians get elected or stay in office. And in proper political form, these policies only tell half the story. Vote for us because we will help you buy your first home, which is a great campaign strategy. Vote for us because we will make it look like we help you buy your first home when, in fact, we will set up a program that will allow you to borrow from yourself at the cost of your retirement, which is political suicide. Short-Sighted Economic Policies Policymakers may believe that homeowners and educated individuals are more financially secure, even if their retirement savings are compromised. The logic might be that owning a home or having better job prospects could mitigate future hardship. Assuming Home Equity is a Safety Net The government might assume that homeownership ensures financial stability in retirement. However, this overlooks that rising housing costs often mean seniors have high debt levels or are "house rich but cash poor." The Bigger Problem with the HBP and LLP Programs: No Warnings or Education Given to Canadians Neither the HBP nor the LLP adequately informs individuals of the long-term consequences of their decisions. To make matters worse, the participants of these programs will likely realize the impact once it is too late to take action. People considering retirement are often in their late 50s to early 60s, past their prime saving years. Borrowing from retirement accounts may seem like “borrowing from yourself,” but this lost growth can never be recouped. Many Canadians are not well enough informed to assess these trade-offs, leading to decisions that harm their financial future. In Case You’re Thinking, These Seniors Have Inadequate Savings - But at They At Least their Homes. The HBP and LLP programs may reflect a government view that seniors would be better off owning a home than relying solely on inadequate savings. But this is flawed for a number of reasons: A home is not a liquid asset—it cannot pay for groceries or healthcare. Also,  Seniors with insufficient retirement savings often need help with financial distress despite owning property. They sometimes need reverse mortgages or sell their homes out of desperation. An Unfortunate Misguided Solution Rather than “quick fixes” that appear to solve immediate challenges while creating long-term problems, the Federal government should instead focus on longer-term, systemic solutions For housing: Governments need to curb speculative investments and provide targeted assistance for first-time buyers. Plus they need to focus on programs that increase housing supply, such as income tax incentives for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These units could be rented out or used for caregivers. Or adopt a policy allowing first-time home buyers to not pay tax on their first $250,000 of income. First-time home buyers could use the tax savings as a down payment. For Education: Governments need to expand grant programs and low-interest loans to prevent reliance on retirement funds.  This will not only help us increase the number of skilled workers to fill critical gaps in vital sectors such as technology, healthcare engineering and the trades.  It will also contribute to a higher GDP and build a more sustainable tax base for future generations. Encouraging Canadians to steal from their future is not a sustainable strategy. Retirement savings should be viewed as sacred - not a piggy bank for solving unrelated issues. Don’t Retire … Re-Wire! Sue

J.S. Held Experts Examine Crypto’s Pitfalls and Potential

The global cryptocurrency market has surged to a staggering USD 3.4 trillion. However, alongside this rapid expansion, significant challenges and risks continue to emerge. The J.S. Held 2025 Global Risk Report examines the evolving landscape of crypto and digital assets, highlighting both the potential and the pitfalls of this dynamic sector. The explosion of cryptocurrency adoption across industries—from gaming to decentralized finance (DeFi)—has led to increased regulatory scrutiny and security concerns. With the expected growth in the number of users to exceed 107.3 million in the market by 2025, every sector is looking at what crypto and this blockchain technology can do to transform their business. Even the gaming industry has entered the crypto space with bridging services offering “Play-to-Earn” (P2E) games. While anonymity remains a key feature in both the risk and success of cryptocurrency, the concept of “Know Your Customer” on centralized platforms is still required but continues to evolve because not all anonymity is evil. Despite regulatory, environmental, geopolitical, and other business risks, the J.S. Held 2025 Global Risk Report reveals how the crypto industry continues to evolve, offering new opportunities for businesses and investors around: Enhanced Transparency & Security Regulatory Clarity Education & Compliance Digital Identity Solutions “With regulatory frameworks tightening globally—from the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) law to China’s outright ban—the future of crypto remains at a critical inflection point,” observes J.P. Brennan, Global Head of Fintech, Payments, Crypto Compliance and Investigations at J.S. Held. “As the industry matures, the balance between risk mitigation and innovation will shape the next phase of digital asset adoption,” J.P. Brennan adds. J.P. Brennan examines the crypto risks and opportunities outlined in the 2025 J.S. Held Global Risk Report in this video: Cryptocurrency and digital asset risk is just one of the five key areas analyzed in the J.S. Held 2025 Global Risk Report. Other topics include sustainability, supply chain, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and data regulations, and managing cyber risk. If you have any questions or would like to further discuss the risks and opportunities outlined in the report, please email GlobalRiskReport@jsheld.com. To connect with J.P. Brennan, simply click on his icon now. For any other media inquiries - contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com

Legality, Next Steps for Canadian Tariffs

Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Professor Julian Ku was quoted in The Globe and Mail article “The best hope for Canada in fighting a trade war with Trump may lie in U.S. courts." “Using IEEPA to impose tariffs has not been done before, so there has never been a court ruling on this question,” said Julian Ku, who studies the interaction of international law and U.S. constitutional law at Hofstra University. Mr. Trump has, however, argued that he is responding to external threats, citing the movement of fentanyl and illegal migrants to the U.S. from Canada, Mexico and China. That is likely to prove a potent defense, Prof. Ku said. “The court has also been deferential to the President on national-security matters, and the language of the statute is very broad, so it is far from clear which way the court would come down on this issue,” he said.

The Legality of Potential U.S. Takeover of Gaza

Hofstra Law Professor James Sample appeared on CBS News New York to discuss the legality of a potential United States takeover of Gaza.

President Trump’s Quick Executive Order Actions

Hofstra Law Professor James Sample discussed the quick pace of President Donald Trump’s executive order actions in the Newsday article “Legal observers say President Donald Trump’s quick pace could be an advantage.” Democratic state attorneys general and legal advocacy groups have said more lawsuits are on the way as they push back against Trump’s directives. But unlike his first term when he was a Washington novice surrounded by a revolving door of competing advisers, this term he is surrounded by longtime loyalists, who have been publicly anticipating the legal battles to come. “I think the strategy here is to flood the zone with orders and actions, knowing that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for opponents of his policies to stop them all,” said James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra Law School.

Legal Troubles Persist for Some Trump Allies

Constitutional Law Professor James Sample was interviewed by The Washington Post about the continued legal challenges faced by allies of Donald Trump who spread falsehoods and tried to reverse his 2020 presidential loss. “It’s almost like the very top of the food chain is going to go and get off without consequence. And the very bottom of the food chain – those who actually engaged in the day-of kind of activities – are going to be pardoned,” said Professor Sample. “But the folks who were in a sense the field leaders … seem to be the ones who are going to have the most lasting consequences.”

Biden's Acts of Clemency Raise Awareness of the Power and Embolden Those Seeking a Second Chance, Villanova Law Professor Says

Just before the holiday season, as he entered his final month as President of the United States, Joe Biden announced that he would be granting clemency to roughly 1,500 American citizens. The clemency acts, which included sentence commutations for individuals placed on home confinement during the pandemic and pardons for 39 individuals with non-violent offenses, were touted by the administration as the most ever in a single day in modern history. A month later, on January 17, he commuted the sentences of roughly 2,500 individuals convicted of non-violent drug offenses, shattering December's mark and giving him the most pardons and commutations of any president in United States history. The unprecedented size of the actions has been underscored throughout The White House’s press materials and has headlined most subsequent news coverage. But for Anton Robinson, JD, associate professor of law and director of Villanova’s Caritas Clemency Clinic in the Charles Widger School of Law, the importance of the clemency went far beyond the impressive scale. “Acts like these bring much needed awareness to the clemency process, and to the epidemic of excessive sentencing in United States courtrooms,” Professor Robinson said. “At our clinic, we are already having people call to ask about opportunities for pardons and additional support for their cases.” Public perception of presidential acts of clemency can, at times, be marred by partisan divisiveness. To some, these latest acts were overshadowed by President Biden’s earlier pardon of his son, Hunter, and eyes are already on incoming President Trump regarding how he might handle those charged in relation to the January 6 insurrection. Professor Robinson acknowledges that acts like these can cause people to “rightfully question the power that is being used,” but those are the outliers, not the norms, and steer the conversation away from the root purpose of clemency. “People deserve a second chance,” Professor Robinson said. “There’s a tendency for system actors to focus primarily on the crime committed when considering whether a person’s sentence should be cut short. But many are different people today—sometimes decades later—than they were at the time of the crime’s commission. “There is also no shortage of individuals in prison for whom a charge doesn’t tell the whole story. For example, a young person’s involvement in a crime, while sufficient for a legal conviction, might be weighed differently today, given increasing acceptance of scientific research on the portion of the human brain which controls decision-making, impulse control and executive function. Research shows all of that continues to develop well into adulthood.” Determining who fits the criteria for clemency, Professor Robinson says, is not always easy to do. Collecting records of good behavior that illustrate change while in a carceral setting is much more difficult than collecting records of bad behavior. That’s why entities like the Caritas Clemency Clinic, in which Villanova Law students work directly on behalf of such clients under Professor Robinson’s guidance, spend so much time talking to anyone who has had a relationship with the incarcerated person. “What we often find is that despite being incarcerated and having very little given opportunity, these individuals make their own opportunities to build community and rich relationships and try their best to contribute to society in a positive way,” Professor Robinson said. A military veteran who helped church members in poor health perform tasks. A nurse who spearheaded COVID vaccination efforts and natural disaster response. A counselor who helps guide youth away from destructive behavior and involvement with gangs. Those are the types of actions Professor Robinson references, all of which were highlighted specifically in the White House’s fact sheet for President Biden's December acts, just before the words “The United States is a nation of second chances.” “I'm hoping that these large acts of clemency encourage folks to think, ‘Hey, what about my loved one? What about me? I am a completely different person than I was 20 years ago, what can I do to try to secure my freedom and my ability to live the life that I've missed out on?’” Professor Robinson said. “It really is a great opportunity to remind ourselves that people are far better than the worst things that they've ever done, and that we have an opportunity to acknowledge that as a society and to encourage more of this action, both on a federal and state level.”