Connect with us

Economics

Hispanic men helped propel Donald Trump back to the White House

Published

on

DONALD TRUMP has claimed victory in America’s election, and may even win the popular vote, something he failed to do in 2016. Political pundits are now trawling through results to figure out how he did it. Among counties that have counted almost all of their votes, some of Kamala Harris’s most disappointing results came from Texas, in particular on the border with Mexico. In Webb County her vote share was 13 percentage points lower than Joe Biden’s in 2020. It was ten points lower in Dimmit and Starr, and nine points lower in Zapata. In each of these counties, more than five in six residents are Hispanic—a group that has historically been at the core of the Democratic coalition.

Pre-election polling suggested that Donald Trump had made substantial inroads with Hispanic voters across the country. Partial results suggest this swing has materialised, helping to push the former president over the line in battleground states. And while Hispanic voters as a whole have swung away from Democrats—along with voters of all ethnicities—his gains were particularly concentrated among Hispanic men.

Chart: The Economist

In 2016 Hillary Clinton won Hispanic voters by a margin of 38 percentage points, according to exit polls. By 2020 Joe Biden’s margin had shrunk to 33 points. This year early exit polling conducted by CNN suggests that Ms Harris’s margin of victory among Hispanic voters is just eight percentage points—a remarkable collapse if right. This is reflected in county-level analysis, which shows her winning a substantially lower share of the vote than Mr Biden in heavily Hispanic counties, especially those in Florida (see chart). There are a number of possible explanations for the shift.

One is a long-term trend of racial depolarisation. American politics has realigned along social and cultural lines, making religion and education crucial demographic variables. These characteristics divide Hispanic voters just as they do the rest of the country. Another explanation is that Hispanic voters are more likely than other groups to say the economy is their most important issue, favourable territory for Mr Trump.

These explanations can also account for the fact that Hispanic voters are not moving towards the Republican Party at one pace. CNN’s exit poll finds a dramatic widening of the gender gap among Hispanic voters. Hispanic men have swung from voting for Mr Biden by 23 percentage points in 2020 to voting for Mr Trump by ten points this year. Hispanic women, by contrast, voted for Ms Harris by 24 points. While men of all ethnicities were more likely to vote for Mr Trump, the widening gender gap among Hispanic voters may indicate divides over issues such as abortion.

There is also substantial variation within the Hispanic population based on heritage or country of origin. Mexican voters, especially those in south west Texas, swung dramatically towards Mr Trump in 2020, for example. This year early evidence suggests that counties with large Dominican and Cuban populations swung the furthest away from Democrats, while Puerto Rican and Mexican communities shifted by a smaller margin. This could be the result of the feisty and divisive election campaign—marked by episodes such as a comedian insulting Puerto Rico at one of Mr Trump’s rallies—or of structural differences such as geography, language and generation.

As votes continue to be counted in the west, we will see further data from states, such as Arizona, California, and Nevada, that have large Hispanic populations. In Arizona and Nevada—important battlegrounds in this year’s election—a shift among Hispanic voters could be the difference between Mr Trump or Ms Harris winning the state. But the result of the presidential election is not in doubt. This year has cemented Hispanic voters’ position as a crucial swing constituency. For Democrats looking to what comes next, rebuilding their Hispanic coalition will be a difficult task.

Economics

BOI Reporting and the impact of the recent Federal Injunction

Published

on

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a legislative measure designed to enhance financial transparency

The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is a legislative measure designed to enhance financial transparency and mitigate risks such as money laundering, terrorist financing, and other illicit financial activities. The CTA aims to close loopholes and create a fairer business environment by requiring certain entities to disclose their beneficial ownership information. However, recent legal developments have temporarily impacted compliance requirements, bringing attention to the act’s ongoing litigation and implementation.

Federal Court Decision and Its Implications

On December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al. (No. 4:24-cv-00478). This injunction temporarily halts the enforcement of the CTA, specifically its beneficial ownership reporting requirements. Additionally, the court order stays all deadlines for compliance.

As a result, reporting companies are currently not obligated to submit beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). During the injunction, these entities are also shielded from liability for non-compliance with CTA mandates.

Despite this pause, FinCEN has clarified that companies may still voluntarily submit their BOI reports. This voluntary reporting option remains available for businesses that wish to align with the CTA’s transparency goals.

Overview of the Corporate Transparency Act

The CTA mandates that certain entities provide information about their beneficial owners—individuals who own or control a business. The act is intended to increase transparency, enhance national security, and reduce the anonymity that can facilitate financial crimes.

While the CTA has garnered support for its objectives, it has also faced legal challenges questioning its constitutionality. Courts in different jurisdictions have issued varying rulings, with some upholding the law and others granting temporary injunctions. For example, district courts in Virginia and Oregon have ruled in favor of the Department of the Treasury, asserting the CTA’s alignment with constitutional principles.

Compliance During the Injunction

Currently, the federal injunction exempts businesses from mandatory BOI filing requirements nationwide. This temporary halt will remain in place until further developments, such as a decision by an appellate court or a reversal of the injunction.

In response to the ruling, the Department of Justice, representing the Department of the Treasury, has filed an appeal. While the case proceeds through the legal system, FinCEN has confirmed its compliance with the court order.

Looking Ahead

The legal proceedings surrounding the CTA highlight the evolving nature of financial regulation. As courts continue to deliberate, businesses should monitor updates to remain informed about their obligations. By staying informed and prepared, businesses can effectively manage their compliance responsibilities and contribute to efforts that promote financial integrity and transparency.

Continue Reading

Economics

After a chaotic scramble, Congress strikes a budget deal

Published

on

Donald Trump is the most powerful Republican politician in a generation, but the president-elect is still no match for the most nihilistic members of his own party. The budget chaos that unfolded on Capitol Hill as the Christmas break approached is only a preview of the difficult realities Mr Trump will face when he starts to govern next month.

Continue Reading

Economics

Why Congress is so dysfunctional

Published

on

Budgetary chaos is a sign that governing will be harder than Donald Trump might assume

Continue Reading

Trending