Former presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and his supporters launched the promised post-primary initiative called Our Revolution last Wednesday. The 501(c)(4) social welfare organization is intended to empower millions to continue their fight for progressive change. The live stream of the launch reached more than 2,600 watch parties in homes and meeting places across the country. Sanders’s new book, Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In, will be on sale November 15^th, a few days following the general election.

Our Revolution vows to set out with three main goals: to revitalize American democracy by bringing millions of both working and young individuals into the political system; empower the next generation of progressive leaders; and elevate political consciousness by educating the public about issues confronting the country.

By staying in the race as long as he did and by staying engaged through the primary, Sanders laid the groundwork for Our Revolution by pushing the Democratic Party to pass the most progressive platform in its history. The Our Revolution “movement” will carry on that work initially by supporting seven ballot initiatives and more than 100 candidates this year.

On August 23^rd, Politico reported that the “the revolution is already tearing itself apart.” The board, chaired by Sanders’s wife Jane, was troubled about how the group might handle “dark money” issues from anonymous groups. The 501(c)(4) social welfare organization structure contradicts the pride the campaign took in its average contribution of $27 during the primary. Our Revolution is permitted by law to collect unlimited amounts of anonymous money. Such organizations may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. Organizing for Action is a similar organization that arose following President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign.

Underlying all this, though, are deep, still-raw tensions left over from the presidential campaign which by the end had become a war between the older aides who felt that their experience and planning explained Sanders’ ability to translate his message into votes, and younger aides who felt dismissed by older aides whom they felt didn’t appreciate how much of what Sanders achieved was because of their digital and organizing prowess, which turned the senator into a sensation.

Sanders’s decision to hire his former campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, to lead the new organization caused eight of his key staffers (more than half his staff) to resign in a dispute over the group’s leadership and legal structure.

NPR provides Weaver’s justification for the structure of Our Revolution.

But Weaver says there is a difference between a presidential campaign and a group like Our Revolution. In a presidential race, he said, “You don’t want somebody elected, who is beholden to wealthy individuals or interests.” But in the case of a nonprofit like Our Revolution, Weaver added, “I have nothing to offer people in return for their support” other than pushing forward the progressive goals and agenda that those who supported Sanders share.

Not everyone agrees—namely, the staff that abruptly left the organization and likely many of the organization’s would-be supporters. Sanders will not have a leadership role in Our Revolution because, as a U.S. senator, he is constrained by limitations onfundraising for other candidates. As for Weaver, Sanders and he go back to 1986, when Sanders recruited him to run his gubernatorial campaign in Vermont. About Weaver, Sanders said this at the launch of Our Revolution: “He had just been expelled from Boston University for protesting the racist apartheid policies that then existed in South Africa. I thought those were pretty good qualifications for the job.” Weaver is staying.

Turmoil is, of course, not foreign to the internal dynamics of movements, but it always needs to be honestly interrogated for the truths it encompasses. Our Revolution, off to a bit of a rocky start, will have a lot to prove

Aubrey McClendon was a major benefactor to the North Carolina school his wife, his children and he attended. Over $20 million in gifts supported everything from building construction to restoring the pipe organ in the university’s chapel. Mr. McClendon died in a car accident last March, leaving $9.94 million in pledges unpaid. Duke has gift agreements and related documents to substantiate the pledges, and there is no dispute from the estate that the pledges were made.

So why did Duke choose to sue the major donor’s estate? Simply put, to preserve Duke’s place at the table among many secured and unsecured creditors while a complex and uncertain estate is settled. McClendon’s fortune was tied significantly to the shale oil business in the U.S., which boomed in the last decade and then busted as crude oil prices plummeted a couple of years ago. At one time, McClendon was reportedly worth more than a billion dollars, but his expensive ouster from the company he cofounded, Chesapeake Energy, spurred him to borrow heavily against his assets to attempt a comeback.

It will take some time for the estate’s administrators to come to terms with the almost 200 companies in which McClendon held investment interests and the network of creditors holding close to $500 million in loans against those investments. Some have speculated that the estate is, in fact, insolvent, but the estate’s administrators dispute that. However, the estate’s value is heavily dependent on commodity prices, so estimated values may change frequently.

Duke has been quick to emphasize that the legal action is not punitive and not intended to cast aspersions on McClendon’s reputation. In a statement, the university expressed its position that McClendon was “one of Duke’s most passionate and generous alumni. […] This is a routine transaction that in no way diminishes Duke’s respect for the McClendon family and our gratitude for their relationship to Duke.”

The importance of Duke’s communicating its action and motivation cannot be overstated, as other donors will no doubt be watching what happens. When the word “lawsuit” is used in media stories, it’s easy to assume a hostile and adversarial situation is unfolding, but this is not the case here. If anything, Duke’s “adversaries” are the other creditors, not the estate and the family.

Duke’s leaders share the fiduciary duty to protect and pursue their university’s legitimate interest in the estate while not appearing predatory or greedy. Doug White, former director of the nonprofit management program at Columbia University, said, “How positive is it to see a university sue a donor? If it were up to me, I wouldn’t push it that hard.”

Microfinance is making India’s big banks look bad. Small lenders that help the poor buy everything from bicycles to sewing machines are back and growing at breakneck speed after the industry nearly collapsed six years ago.

The last boom ended badly after a number of borrowers committed suicide. That prompted authorities in Andhra Pradesh to effectively stop micro lenders collecting debts. The state once accounted for up to 40 percent of industry loans. The Reserve Bank of India has since capped usurious lending rates.

India’s microfinance firms typically focus on lending to women in groups where they act as guarantors for one another. That ensures social pressure to repay. Scale, technology, and shared credit data has helped the industry to thrive again in a segment underserved by big banks.

Bharat Financial Inclusion is the ultimate comeback kid. The group, formerly known as SKS Microfinance, shrunk after the crisis and is now growing fast. Lending rates are now below 20 percent – not too far off what big banks offer well-heeled unsecured borrowers.

Net interest income grew almost 70 percent year on year in the first quarter, gross non-performing loans are almost negligible at 0.1 percent, and BFI earns a 29 percent return on equity.

That’s much better than India’s largest lender, State Bank of India, where interest income is growing at 4 percent, gross NPLs are 7 percent, and ROE is below 8 percent. Other state banks are in worse shape.

Banking is a preferred way to bet on rising consumer power. But the poor health of India’s traditional lenders, after years of crony capitalism, has forced investors to look elsewhere. That helps explain why BFI shares have risen 50 percent this year, while shares in smaller rival Ujjivan Financial Services have risen almost as much since it listed in May. U.S. private equity group TPG also recently led another fundraising for Bengaluru-based Janalakshmi Financial Services.

BFI looks fully valued at almost 4 times book value but other measures suggest room to run. Eikon data shows the lender trades at just 15 times forward earnings, a measly premium to SBI on almost 14 times. Super-fast growth is always risky in finance but microfinance firms are well-placed to meet the huge demand for credit from India’s poor.

Source; Care2 “Causes”

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed suit against the state of Mississippi for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act. The allegation is that the state has forced people into psychiatric hospitals instead of providing them with community-based care that would prevent escalation of illness and trauma, and that in so doing, it has failed in its duty of care.

This suit is one among approximately a dozen filed against states, and it should come as no surprise, since the DOJ issued a report in 2011 finding that appropriate services to adults and children with mental illness and intellectual and developmental disabilities were not being provided by Mississippi.

According to a statement from the DOJ and Attorney General Loretta Lynch:

When individuals with mental illness receive the services they need, they are better able to find meaningful work, secure stable housing, build personal relationships, and avoid involvement with the criminal justice system. For far too long, Mississippi has failed people with mental illness, violating their civil rights by confining them in isolating institutions. Our lawsuit seeks to end these injustices, and it sends a clear signal that we will continue to fight for the full rights and liberties of Americans with mental illness.

“When individuals with mental illness get the services they need and the care they deserve, they can live and work in their own communities,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Mississippi violates the ADA by denying residents with disabilities the services the law requires and the support they deserve, forcing them to cycle in and out of state hospitals, emergency rooms and jails. The Justice Department’s lawsuit demonstrates our firm commitment to vindicate the rights of people with mental illness.”

This is not the only lawsuit pending on this issue of inappropriate institutionalization of mentally ill community members in Mississippi. In a 2010 lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center, it is alleged that the state violated the Medicaid Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act by illegally confining mentally ill children in institutions instead of ensuring that they can be treated at home. That suit is still pending.

The 1999 Olmstead v. United States case saw the Supreme Court rule that the Americans with Disabilities Act protects the right of people with mental health issues from being forced into institutions in the following circumstances:

·       If community care is deemed appropriate by medical professionals

·       If that care will be less restrictive; if community care is agreed on by the individual

·       If the placement can be reasonably accommodated by the state

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant has criticized the DOJ for the lawsuit, dubbing it “another attempt by the federal government to dictate policy to the states through the courts.”

The state of treatment for mentally ill people in this country is scandalous, with states and insurance companies actively trying to simplify or offload their responsibilities under the law. The DOJ’s pursuit of these cases has been critical for sending a coherent national message to the states, but we wonder what might happen to these efforts to see the ADA enforced properly once the presidential administration changes.