By Baxter Oliphant, Pew Research*
If the 2016 presidential debates move forward as planned, voters have some clear preferences about what issues they want to hear the candidates talk about more – or less – in those forums. Given the chance to decide how much time is spent on each issue, voters would allocate more time to discussions of the candidates’ plans on keeping the US safe from terrorism and on economic growth and much less time to discussion of abortion policy.
In a Pew Research Center American Trends Panel survey conducted in June, 3,767 registered voters were asked to imagine they were moderating a 100-minute national debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton and to allocate that time across 10 issue areas.
On average, voters allocated 15 of a total 100 minutes to hearing the candidates’ plans for keeping the US safe from terrorism. Just over half of voters (53%) earmarked more than 10 minutes to this topic, while only 18% gave it less than 10 minutes (29% gave it exactly 10 minutes).
Both Trump and Clinton supporters want to hear more debate on terrorism compared with other topics, but Trump supporters allocate even more time than Clinton supporters (17 minutes vs. 13 minutes). Four-in-ten of Trump’s backers (40%) would devote at least 20 minutes of the debate to the topic while 17% of Clinton supporters would allocate 20 minutes or more.
Voters also say they would allocate somewhat more time on average to the candidates’ plans on economic growth (12 minutes), the nation’s budget deficit (11 minutes), health care policy (11 minutes), and foreign policy and dealing with other countries (11 minutes). There are modest differences between Trump and Clinton supporters in the time devoted to these topics, with Trump supporters generally setting aside a few more minutes for economic growth (13 vs. 11 minutes) and the deficit (12 vs. 11 minutes), and Clinton backers setting aside two more minutes than Trump supporters for health care (12 minutes vs. 10 minutes).
Though voters overall give immigration 11 of the 100 minutes, Trump supporters are interested in hearing more about the issue: They allot 12 minutes on average (42% want to hear more than 10 minutes on issue, while just 22% want to hear less than 10 minutes). By contrast, Clinton supporters allot nine minutes, or slightly less than the average amount. Just 19% want to hear more than 10 minutes on immigration, while 39% want to hear less than 10 minutes on the issue.
The pattern is roughly reversed for gun policy, with Clinton supporters allocating 11 minutes to the issue and Trump supporters allotting just eight minutes. In a separate survey also conducted in June, Trump supporters and Clinton supporters were about equally likely to say gun policy is very important for their vote in 2016. Though the overall allocation of debate minutes on most issues corresponds to the importance of these issues to their vote, there are some cases, like gun control, where this is not the case.
Overall, voters give less debate time for climate change (7 minutes), Supreme Court nominations (7 minutes) and abortion policy (5 minutes). Both Trump and Clinton supporters give less time than average to the Court and to abortion, but there is a wide partisan gap over hearing about global climate change. Clinton supporters would give it 10 minutes of the debate time, while Trump backers would give it just four minutes, including 44% who would give it zero minutes in the discussion (by comparison, only 13% of Clinton voters give it zero minutes).
Presidential approval a stronger indicator of voter choice than satisfaction with the country
It may seem at first glance like a political riddle: How can President Obama’s job approval rating be above 50% when only about a third of the public is satisfied with the way things are going in the country?
In a survey last month by Pew Research Center, 53% approved of Obama’s job performance while 42% disapproved. In three of four surveys since March, Obama’s job approval has been in positive territory – the first time this has occurred in more than three years.
But just 31% said they were satisfied with the way things were going in the US, while more than twice as many (66%) were dissatisfied. Public satisfaction with the state of the nation has been very low for many years. In fact, it has not consistently reached 50% since late in Bill Clinton’s administration.
National satisfaction and presidential job approval are both important measures of the public’s mood, but they measure different things. And when it comes to which presidential candidate people plan to vote for in November, presidential approval is a much stronger indicator than satisfaction with the state of the nation. This also was the case in 2008 and 2000, the last elections with no incumbent.
Partisanship, presidential approval and national satisfaction
Measures of national satisfaction have been in negative territory throughout Barack Obama’s presidency – as they were throughout most of the presidencies of his recent predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Over the course of Obama’s more than seven and a half years in office, overall public satisfaction with the state of the nation has never been higher than 34%.
But Obama’s job performance ratings have consistently outpaced levels of national satisfaction, and by wide margins – a dynamic that is not unique to Obama. Over the past quarter-century, the public has been more likely to approve of the president’s job performance than to express satisfaction with the state of the nation.
Defying the Nazis: The Sharps’ War, A Documentary by Ken Burns
Waitstill and Martha Sharp at the Christening of their son Hastings, 1932; Sharp Family Archives
“My husband and I felt that something should be done. Refugees in the Sudetenland had been murdered, and people had been imprisoned and hurt.”
“I knew I would miss the children terribly, but we would only be away for a few months. I was torn between my love and duty to my children and to my husband.”
— Martha Sharp, 1939
Defying the Nazis: The Sharps’ War, scheduled for Tuesday, September 20th on PBS at 9 p.m., is an account of a daring rescue mission that occurred on the precipice of World War II. It tells the story of Waitstill and Martha Sharp, a Unitarian minister and his wife from Wellesley, Massachusetts, who left their children behind in the care of their parish and boldly committed to multiple life-threatening missions in Europe. Over two dangerous years they helped to save hundreds of imperiled political dissidents and Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi occupation across Europe.
In January of 1939, as Americans remained mostly detached from news reports of the growing refugee crisis in the escalating war in Europe, Waitstill received a call from the Rev. Everett Baker, Vice President of the American Unitarian Association, asking if they would travel to Czechoslovakia to help provide relief to people trying to escape Nazi persecution. He invited Waitstill and Martha to take part in “the first intervention against evil by the denomination to be started immediately overseas.” The mission would involve secretly helping Jews, refugees and dissidents to escape the expanding Nazi threat in Europe. If they were discovered, they would face imprisonment, probable torture and death. Seventeen other members of the church had declined. With two young children at home, the Sharps accepted. They expected to be gone for several months. Instead, their mission would last almost two years.
A Refugee in France, photographed by Martha Sharp, 1940; Sharp Family Archives
During this time, the Sharps would face harrowing encounters with Nazi police, narrowly escape arrest and watch as the Third Reich invaded Eastern Europe. Their marriage would be tested severely and the two children they left behind would be saddened by their parents’ absence. But dozens of Jewish scientists, journalists, doctors, powerful anti-Nazi activists and children would find their way to freedom and start new lives as a result of their efforts. To recognize their heroic sacrifice, Martha and Waitstill were honored at Yad Vashem in Israel and declared ‘Righteous Among the Nations.’ Of the thousands so honored, there are only five Americans, including the Sharps.
Defying the Nazis is cinematically told through the letters and journals of the Sharps, with Tom Hanks as the voice of Waitstill and Marina Goldman as the voice of Martha. It features firsthand interviews with the now adult children whom the Sharps saved, as well as leading historians, authors and Holocaust scholars, including William Schulz, Deborah Dwork, Modecai Paldiel, Ghanda DiFiglia and Yehuda Bauer.
Stories of Moral Courage
In advance of the airing of Defying the Nazis: The Sharps’ War, a new film by Ken Burns and Artemis Joukowsky, scheduled for Tuesday, September 20th at 9:00 p.m. on PBS, the Sharp Rescue Committee has issued a Call for Stories of Moral Courage.
A Sort of Drawing-Room Tobogganing Exercise: John Singer Sargent’s Mrs. Carl Meyer and Her Children
Few paintings by John Singer Sargent better exemplify his artistic prowess as a portraitist than Mrs. Carl Meyer and her Children. Seductive and revealing, this bravura painting captures the world of a privileged family of Jewish origin in late Victorian England. On view at the Jewish Museum through February 5, 2017, Mrs. Carl Meyer and Her Children will highlight this remarkable portrait — contextualizing it with other family portraits, ephemera, documents, personal correspondence, and caricatures.
On loan from the Tate Britain, it has been over ten years since the painting was on view in the United States. The work depicts Adèle Meyer, a wealthy British philanthropist, well-known society hostess, and political activist, with her children, Elsie Charlotte and Frank Cecil.
When he painted the Meyer family in London in 1896, Sargent was the most sought after society portraitist in Britain and the United States. Within four years of its creation, the large-scale work (79 ½” x 53 ½”) was shown in three venues to great popular and critical acclaim. Sargent’s painting was a highlight of the Royal Academy’s exhibition in 1897. It was subsequently shown at the Copley Society of Boston in 1899, where it was considered one of the artist’s masterworks. In 1900, the picture was awarded a medal of honor at the Exposition Universelle in Paris. Sargent carefully staged his stylishly dressed sitters against 18th century French furniture and architectural elements. The animated Mrs. Meyer is posed just to the right of center at the edge of a canapé. She wears a dress of satin, velvet, and organdy which may have been supplied by Worth in Paris. A rope of oriental pearls drapes across her prominently featured bodice, touching the tips of her shoes. Sargent’s worms-eye view troubled some critics and left much room for sly commentary. One caricature in Punch (1897) in which the two children struggle to keep their mother from falling off the sofa, was described as “a sort of drawing-room tobogganing exercise.”
Wild Bees, a Critical Piece of the Pollination Puzzle
Credit: Quinn McFrederick
A team of researchers, including several from the University of California, Riverside, have found that flowers are a hot spot of transmission of bacteria that end up in the microbiome of wild bees.
The research, which was just published in the journal Microbial Ecology, shows for the first time that multiple flower and wild bee species share several of the same types of bacteria. Bees therefore obtain both food and bacteria from flowers. These bacteria may play important roles in bee health.
The research on the wild bee microbiome, or the community of microorganisms that live in the bee, follows similar work on the human microbiome that has surged in popularity in the past decade. There has been research on the microbiome of honeybees and bumblebees, but very little on wild bees.
While wild bees don’t get the same amount of attention as honey bees or bumblebees, they are a critical piece of the pollination puzzle. Wild bees could become more important because of the decline in numbers of honey bees due to colony collapse disorder, which has resulted in the loss of more than 10 million hives in the past decade.
Currently, honey bees are relied on for almost all commercial pollination needs.
“We are putting all our pollination needs in one basket,” said Quinn McFrederick, an assistant professor of entomology at UC Riverside who is the lead author of the paper. “What if this collapses?
Like honey bees, wild bees pollinate crops, but there is no way to effectively manage them so they can be shipped to a site, like honeybees are, to pollinate a specific crop, such as almond trees in central California.
“People have said that wild bees are like an insurance policy,” McFrederick said. If we can’t meet our pollination needs with honey bees, we need to better understand wild bees.”
For this research, McFrederick and co-authors collected bees and flowers at two sites in Texas and one on the UC Riverside campus. He simulated bee nests by drilling holes into wood and placing these nests in fields with wildflowers. (The wild bees naturally nest in abandoned holes in trees created by beetles.)
The bees established nests in wood and McFrederick collected them and analyzed the microbiomes of their guts and the pollen they were carrying.
At the same sites, he also collected flowers that the bees visited and flowers that they didn’t visit. To ensure flowers had not been visited by bees, he placed bags over them before they bloomed and then picked them once they matured and opened.
He found that the bacteria were present on the flowers whether they were bagged or not. The presence of bee-associated bacteria in bagged flowers suggests the bacteria may be transmitted to flowers via plant surfaces, the air or small insects, he said.
The UC Riverside researchers believe the bacteria shared by flowers and wild bees may be beneficial. Their current research is studying that more closely.
One reason McFrederick believes the bacteria is beneficial is because of the presence of Lactobacillus bacteria, which were found on all the flower and bee samples.
Lactobacillus is a group of bacteria that includes many species used by humans to preserve everything from kimchi and pickles to sourdough bread and sauerkraut. McFrederick believes that the bacteria might help preserve the nectar and pollen the wild bee stores in her nest as a food source for her soon-to-be born larvae.
The paper is called Flowers and wild megachilid bees share microbes.
Hearings: Child Marriage, Holocaust Art, Social Security and Bills Introduced: Child Safety & Family Violence, SNAP, Zika Virus Response & Preparedness
On September 6, the House approved, by unanimous consent, the Survivors Bill of Rights Act (H.R. 5578), sponsored by Rep. Mimi Walters (R-CA). The measure establishes several rights for sexual assault survivors, including the right to free forensic examinations and preservation of evidence collection kits. The bill also grants sexual assault survivors the right to be notified of any result of a sexual assault evidence kit and date of intended disposal of such evidence.
Representative Mimi Walters, Republican, California
Among other provisions, the bill would authorize grants to inform survivors of their rights and require the Justice Department to create a working group to develop and share best practices for assisting sexual assault survivors and handling of evidence collection kits.
The House Judiciary Committee approved and earlier version of the bill on July 7 (see The Source, 7/8/16).
Child Protection
H. Con. Res. 150 – Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)/Judiciary (9/9/16) – A concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that child safety is the first priority of custody and visitation adjudications, and that state courts should improve adjudications of custody where family violence is alleged.
Family Support
H.R. 5925 – Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)/Agriculture (7/21/16) – A bill to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
S. 3299 – Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)/Commerce, Science and Transportation (9/8/16) – A bill to direct the secretary of Homeland Security to notify air carriers and security screening personnel of the Transportation Security Administration regarding permitting baby formula, breast milk, and juice on aircraft, and for other purposes.
Health
H.R. 5925 – Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY)/Energy and Commerce (7/21/16) – A bill to require the label on certain menstrual products to include an ingredient list, and for other purposes.
S. 3290 – Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)/Armed Services (9/7/16) – A bill to mitigate the risks of the Zika virus to members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian personnel stationed in or deployed to areas affected by or that may soon be affected by the Zika virus, to authorize the secretary of Defense to transfer funds to counter or control the Zika virus, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5958 – Rep. Curt Clawson (R-FL)/Appropriations (9/8/16) – A bill making supplemental appropriations for Fiscal Year 2016 for Zika response and preparedness.
Human Trafficking
H.R. 5975 – Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC)/Judiciary (9/8/16) – A bill to provide mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for certain trafficking offenses, and for other purposes.
Violence against Women
H.R. 5972 – Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)/Judiciary (9/8/16) – A bill to provide protection for students that report sexual assault, and for other purposes.
Designing More Effective Opioids: A Search for a Potential Pain Reliever with Fewer Side Effects
Opioids are a class of powerful pain-relieving drugs that work by activating opioid receptors on nerve cells in the body and brain. These pain relievers are generally safe when taken for a short time and as prescribed by a doctor, but are frequently misused because they also produce euphoria. When misused or abused, opioid pain relievers can be addictive and dangerous.
Scientists have identified 3 types of opioid receptors: mu, delta, and kappa. The mu receptors are responsible for opioids’ pleasurable effects and ability to relieve pain. Studies suggest that once activated, the mu receptor turns on 2 signaling pathways. One pathway, mediated by the G protein Gi, underlies opioids’ pain-relieving properties. The other, mediated by the beta-arrestin protein, leads to the undesirable side effects of opioids, such as constipation and slowed breathing.
To search for a potential pain reliever with fewer side effects than current opioids, a research team led by Dr. Bryan Roth at the University of North Carolina and Dr. Brian Shoichet at the University of California, San Francisco, screened more than 3 million compounds for those that may be able to turn on the Gi-mediated pathway, but not beta-arrestin. The study was funded by NIH’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). The findings were reported online in Nature on August 17, 2016.
Using computer modeling, the scientists evaluated each compound in over 1 million structural configurations to determine how well the molecules can physically interact with the mu receptor. The team chose 23 molecules for further pharmacological testing. The researchers then focused on optimizing the structure of the most potent molecule, which strongly activated the Gi pathway but had little effect on beta-arrestin. The resulting compound, called PZM21, was assessed for its effects on pain in mice.
Mice treated with PZM21 showed pain relief comparable to those treated with the opioid morphine, but the effects lasted longer. Unlike morphine, PZM21 did not slow the animals’ breathing, and it caused less constipation. Further, PZM21-treated mice didn’t display the drug-seeking behaviors of those given morphine, suggesting that the drug may have less addictive potential.
“This work demonstrates the power of structure-based design to speed up the development of drugs with optimal signaling and therapeutic properties” explains Dr. Laurie Nadler, who heads NIMH’s neuropharmacology program.
Further study will be needed to determine whether PZM21 could serve as a safe and effective pain reliever in people.
Related Links
- Opioid Pain Relievers May Prolong Pain
- Up Close With Opioid Receptors
- Halt the Hurt! Dealing with Chronic Pain
- Medications: Use as Directed
- Pain: Hope Through Research
- Opioids
Reference: Structure-based discovery of opioid analgesics with reduced side effects. Manglik A, Lin H, Aryal DK, McCorvy JD, Dengler D, Corder G, Levit A, Kling RC, Bernat V, Hübner H, Huang XP, Sassano MF, Giguère PM, Löber S, Da Duan, Scherrer G, Kobilka BK, Gmeiner P, Roth BL, Shoichet BK. Nature. 2016 Aug 17:1-6. doi: 10.1038/nature19112. [Epub ahead of print]. PMID: 27533032.
Funding: NIH’s National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); Michael Hooker Distinguished Professorship; German Research Foundation; Stanford University Medical Scientist Training Program; and the American Heart Association.
“Hispanic Voters Are Poised to Have an Unprecedented Influence on the 2016 Election”
By Nancy Murphy
Stanford historian Albert Camarillo. Image credit: Worldview Stanford
Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority group in the United States, and their concerns will have a major impact on the 2016 election.
In order to understand the origins and current reality of US Hispanics,Worldview Stanford interviewed Stanford history Professor Emeritus Albert Camarillo, founding director of the university’s Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity and of the Center for Chicano Research. The excerpted conversation with Camarillo below is part of Wide Angle: Election 2016, a Stanford media series that offers scholarly, nonpartisan perspectives on the upcoming election.
This is a benchmark year for the Hispanic voting population. Between 2012 and 2016, you have 3.2 million more eligible US-born Hispanic voters. Add to that another 1.2 million people who’ve become citizens since the last general election. If you start doing the math, 3,000 more Hispanics are eligible to vote every day. It’s a young population: 800,000-plus of native-born eligible voters every year in the last four years, in addition to the new immigrants that are naturalizing. It’s unprecedented: more than 27 million eligible Hispanic voters. An estimated 13, maybe 14 million, will cast a vote, depending on their motivation. That’s why people are saying that the Latino vote, especially in the critical battleground states where Hispanic voters constitute substantial voting blocks, will make a huge difference.
If you look at the most critical states people are talking about now, they would not have been on the map 20 years ago. Colorado, Arizona — no one would’ve thought that Arizona would be a state in play, but the demographics of the state and its eligible voters have shifted. Hispanics have contributed significantly to that. Florida — another hugely important battleground state.
If you look at the national polls that have sampled the Hispanic origin population by national origin group and Hispanics overall, three things have defined their interest: education — a no-brainer; jobs for what’s basically a working-class and aspiring middle-class population; and immigration. Those are the defining issues for 2016.
Joint Statement from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior Regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. US Army Corps of Engineers
Friday, September 9, 2016
The Department of Justice, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Interior issued the following statement regarding Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. US Army Corps of Engineers
“We appreciate the District Court’s opinion on the US Army Corps of Engineers’ compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. However, important issues raised by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other tribal nations and their members regarding the Dakota Access pipeline specifically, and pipeline-related decision-making generally, remain. Therefore, the Department of the Army, the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior will take the following steps.
The Army will not authorize constructing the Dakota Access pipeline on Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe until it can determine whether it will need to reconsider any of its previous decisions regarding the Lake Oahe site under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or other federal laws. Therefore, construction of the pipeline on Army Corps land bordering or under Lake Oahe will not go forward at this time. The Army will move expeditiously to make this determination, as everyone involved — including the pipeline company and its workers — deserves a clear and timely resolution. In the interim, we request that the pipeline company voluntarily pause all construction activity within 20 miles east or west of Lake Oahe.
“Furthermore, this case has highlighted the need for a serious discussion on whether there should be nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes’ views on these types of infrastructure projects. Therefore, this fall, we will invite tribes to formal, government-to-government consultations on two questions: (1) within the existing statutory framework, what should the federal government do to better ensure meaningful tribal input into infrastructure-related reviews and decisions and the protection of tribal lands, resources, and treaty rights; and (2) should new legislation be proposed to Congress to alter that statutory framework and promote those goals.
“Finally, we fully support the rights of all Americans to assemble and speak freely. We urge everyone involved in protest or pipeline activities to adhere to the principles of nonviolence. Of course, anyone who commits violent or destructive acts may face criminal sanctions from federal, tribal, state, or local authorities. The Departments of Justice and the Interior will continue to deploy resources to North Dakota to help state, local, and tribal authorities, and the communities they serve, better communicate, defuse tensions, support peaceful protest, and maintain public safety.
“In recent days, we have seen thousands of demonstrators come together peacefully, with support from scores of sovereign tribal governments, to exercise their First Amendment rights and to voice heartfelt concerns about the environment and historic, sacred sites. It is now incumbent on all of us to develop a path forward that serves the broadest public interest.”
Is ‘Going Green’ Unmanly? How Can Men Be Encouraged to Recycle?
Writer: David Trilling
The issue:
Green labels that promise consumers their purchases are eco-friendly appear on all sorts of goods these days, from yogurts to urinals. The label can mean many things: The item has sustainable packaging. It’s organically grown. It’s locally made. Or it is just a little less damaging to the planet? With growing concern from government officials and others about pollution and climate change, going green is a hot marketing strategy.
But is the push to be more environmentally friendly working?
Scholars have found that men tend to litter more, recycle less, have a larger carbon footprint, and feel less responsible than women for environmentally destructive behavior. In general, environmental concerns are more associated with femininity than masculinity, according to a 2011 study by the public-relations firm Ogilvy & Mather that has been repeatedly cited in academic research.
So how can men be encouraged to recycle?
An academic study worth reading:
Is Eco-Friendly Unmanly? The Green-Feminine Stereotype and Its Effect on Sustainable Consumption, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, August 2016.
Study summary: Aaron Brough, an assistant professor of marketing at Utah State University, and James E.B. Wilkie, an assistant professor of business at the University of Notre Dame, led a study that examines why men are less likely than women to engage in so-called green behaviors. Brough, Wilkie and their colleagues hypothesize that men are more likely to avoid green behavior ‘in order to safeguard their gender identity.” This group of scholars draws on previous research, which shows not only that concern for the environment is stereotypically associated with femininity, but that “men tend to be more concerned than women with gender-identity maintenance.”
Women’s greater concerns about the environment — an effect that has been documented across age groups and countries — may be because women have been associated with more concern with the future and health. Brough, Wilkie and colleagues sought to understand the underlying reasons for men’s un-green behavior. They designed seven experiments — including one carried out in China — to gauge whether male behaviors can be changed.
Findings:
- Men are more likely to donate to an environmental non-profit organization that has an overtly masculine logo or branding than to an organization that is perceived as being feminine. Such an effect was not recorded in women.
- Men are less likely than women to buy products marketed as environmentally friendly, or “green.”
- Both men and women perceive consumers who buy green products and make efforts to recycle as more feminine.
- Both men and women view green products as less masculine than non-green versions of the same products.
- Women are unlikely to be concerned if packaging looks masculine.
- Men’s disinclination for green behavior “may be partially explained by an association between green behavior and femininity that threatens the gender identity of men.”
- Men are more likely to avoid green products in public as well as in private, suggesting they are concerned both with managing judgments of themselves, as well as their own self-perception.
Boosting Sales Targets: CFPB Fines Wells Fargo $100 Million For Widespread Illegal Practice of Secretly Opening Unauthorized Accounts
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) fined Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. $100 million for the widespread illegal practice of secretly opening unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts. Spurred by sales targets and compensation incentives, employees boosted sales figures by covertly opening accounts and funding them by transferring funds from consumers’ authorized accounts without their knowledge or consent, often racking up fees or other charges. According to the bank’s own analysis, employees opened more than two million deposit and credit card accounts that may not have been authorized by consumers. Wells Fargo will pay full restitution to all victims and a $100 million fine to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund. The bank will also pay an additional $35 million penalty to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and another $50 million to the City and County of Los Angeles.
“Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to hit sales targets and receive bonuses,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Because of the severity of these violations, Wells Fargo is paying the largest penalty the CFPB has ever imposed. Today’s action should serve notice to the entire industry that financial incentive programs, if not monitored carefully, carry serious risks that can have serious legal consequences.”
The full text of the CFPB’s Consent Order can be found at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/092016_cfpb_WFBconsentorder.pdf
Wells Fargo, headquartered in Sioux Falls, S.D., is one of the biggest banks in the country and offers many consumer financial products and services, including savings and checking accounts, credit cards, debit and ATM cards, and online-banking services. In recent years, the bank has sought to distinguish itself in the marketplace as a leader in “cross selling” these products and services to existing customers who did not already have them. When cross selling is based on efforts to generate more business from existing customers based on strong customer satisfaction and excellent customer service, it is a common and accepted business practice. But here the bank had compensation incentive programs for its employees that encouraged them to sign up existing clients for deposit accounts, credit cards, debit cards, and online banking, and the bank failed to monitor the implementation of these programs with adequate care.
According to today’s enforcement action, thousands of Wells Fargo employees illegally enrolled consumers in these products and services without their knowledge or consent in order to obtain financial compensation for meeting sales targets. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act prohibits unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. Wells Fargo’s violations include:
- Opening deposit accounts and transferring funds without authorization: According to the bank’s own analysis, employees opened roughly 1.5 million deposit accounts that may not have been authorized by consumers. Employees then transferred funds from consumers’ authorized accounts to temporarily fund the new, unauthorized accounts. This widespread practice gave the employees credit for opening the new accounts, allowing them to earn additional compensation and to meet the bank’s sales goals. Consumers, in turn, were sometimes harmed because the bank charged them for insufficient funds or overdraft fees because the money was not in their original accounts.
- Applying for credit card accounts without authorization: According to the bank’s own analysis, Wells Fargo employees applied for roughly 565,000 credit card accounts that may not have been authorized by consumers. On those unauthorized credit cards, many consumers incurred annual fees, as well as associated finance or interest charges and other fees.
- Issuing and activating debit cards without authorization: Wells Fargo employees requested and issued debit cards without consumers’ knowledge or consent, going so far as to create PINs without telling consumers.
- Creating phony email addresses to enroll consumers in online-banking services: Wells Fargo employees created phony email addresses not belonging to consumers to enroll them in online-banking services without their knowledge or consent.
Enforcement Action
Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against institutions violating consumer financial laws, including engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. Today’s order goes back to Jan. 1, 2011. Among the things the CFPB’s order requires of Wells Fargo:
- Pay full refunds to consumers: Wells Fargo must refund all affected consumers the sum of all monthly maintenance fees, nonsufficient fund fees, overdraft charges, and other fees they paid because of the creation of the unauthorized accounts. These refunds are expected to total at least $2.5 million. Consumers are not required to take any action to get refunds to which they are entitled.
- Ensure proper sales practices: Wells Fargo must hire an independent consultant to conduct a thorough review of its procedures. Recommendations may include requiring employees to undergo ethical-sales training and reviewing the bank’s performance measurements and sales goals to make sure they are consistent with preventing improper sales practices.
- Pay a $100 million fine: Wells Fargo will pay a $100 million penalty to the CFPB’s Civil Penalty Fund. Today’s penalty is the largest the CFPB has imposed to date.