The marriage of Isabel I (Queen of Castile) to Fernando II (King of Aragon) united die kingdoms in 1469. King Juan Carlos helped guide Spain toward democracy, but the royal family's popularity has waned somewhat in recent years, particularly in light of financial scandals involving Princess Cristina. Personal devotion often varies by generation; younger members of the Catholic Church are typically less devoted than older members. Around 3 percent of the population is involved with other (mostly Christian) religious groups.

To be or not to be? To ser or to estar? This question takes an added challenge as you learn to conjugate “to be” in Spanish. As a native English speaker, you’re already somewhat familiar with verb conjugations. For example, you know that you do something, but your friend does something. This conjugation of the verb “to do” is something that every native English speaker can do without much effort. However, many Spanish learners find that verb conjugations in Spanish are a whole new beast. With many conjugation rules to learn and even more irregular verbs that love to break the rules, it will take many hours of dilligent study and plenty of practice to finally nail down the conjugation of every verb. But no need to panic! Taking it slow and steady is the best way to learn all the different conjugations, and this time, we’ll spend a good amount of time going over the different conjugations for the verb “to be” in Spanish. That way, you’ll have a strong grip of this elementary verb by the time you’re done with this article! Let’s get started!

use Oakland's institutions as a meansto run the survival program is to organizeand unify the people, and make those in-stitutions serve the people. But the mainthing to do, of course, is get the racistflunkies and lackeys of the capitalist rulingclass out of the system.

agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) stood idly by takingnotes - with FBI director J. Edgar Hoover later claiming that active inter-ference was beyond the Bureau's purely investigative mission- commonlylead to an assumption that the Bureau's sympathies lay with the support-ers of Jim Crow, including the Klan. Such a conclusion seems further war-ranted when viewed alongside the FBI's massive campaign to "neutralize"Martin Luther King Jr. as well as its counterintelligence program estab-lished against a wide range of (in the Bureau's parlance) "Black National-ist/Hate Groups." Under this program, literally hundreds of black activists,from members of the NAACP to the Black Panther Party, were targeted forsystematic harassment, with (in the case of the Panthers) sometimes fatalresults.

he Emergence of Worthy Targets: Official Framesand Deviance Narratives Within the FBI

At the bride’s house a dramatic public discussion of the brideprice occurs in order to show off both the wealth of the groom’s family and the value of the bride.

When a Mapuche man decides to marry, he presents his plan to not only his direct family, but also his extended family, and even the chief.

The term "revolving door" refers to the movement of high-level employees from public-sector jobs to private-sector jobs and vice versa. The idea is that there is a revolving door between the two sectors as many legislators and regulators become lobbyists and consultants for the industries they once regulated and some private industry heads or lobbyists receive government appointments that relate to their former private posts.

With lobbying, personal interests are aggregated into lobby groups; strengthening their voice, constant pressure is applied to government legislatures whose attention can often be pulled in various directions, and finally with lobbying, legislatures are provided with expert knowledge of a subject matter they may not normally be educated enough on to provide for their constituents.

For perspective on the tremendous size of lobby groups, the total dollars spent in 2022 on lobbying interests totaled over $4.09 billion dollars and the total number of lobbyists employed reached almost exceeded 12,600.5 The money spent on lobbying in 2017 is not an anomaly. Total lobbying spending has exceeded $3 billion since 2008.1

Lobbying is an important lever for a productive government. Without it, governments would struggle to sort out the many, many competing interests of its citizens. Fortunately, lobbying provides access to government legislators, acts as an educational tool, and allows individual interests to gain power in numbers.

The Lobbying Disclosure Act was enacted to ensure that lobbying is publicly registered. While acknowledging the importance of lobbying, the act allows the public to evaluate any undue influences that may be affecting decision making in the government.3

Often overlooked in the many rights protected by the 1st Amendment is the right to lobby. While never expressly using the term “lobby,” the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is specifically noted. This translates into modern times as a right to lobby, a right addressed in the U.S. Constitution.2

Three of the world's major religions -- the monotheist traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- were all born in the Middle East and are all inextricably linked to one another. Christianity was born from within the Jewish tradition, and Islam developed from both Christianity and Judaism. While there have been differences among these religions, there was a rich cultural interchange between Jews, Christians, and Muslims that took place in Islamic Spain and other places over centuries.

Firms that engage in lobbying appear more likely to receive favourable classifications from the FDA. When examining the above results by product type, we find that classification of food recalls seems to be subject to lobbying influence, but the same does not appear to be true for drug and device recalls. Evidence is consistent with the conjecture that the distinction between medical and food firms may be a result of medical firms targeting lobbying efforts at FDA approvals, rather than recalls.

As companies devoted more resources to their own lobbying efforts, they increasingly sought out their own narrow interests. As corporate lobbying investments have expanded, they have become more particularistic and more proactive. They have also become more pervasive, driven by the growing competitiveness of the process to become more aggressive.

Over the past four decades, large corporations have learned to play the Washington game. Companies now devote massive resources to politics, and their large-scale involvement increasingly redirects and constricts the capacities of the political system. The consequence is a democracy that is increasingly unable to tackle large-scale problems, and a political economy that too often rewards lobbying over innovation.

“For years, Congressional efforts to pass legislation needed to address the nation’s long-standing disparities in connectivity have been stopped dead in their tracks in part because of aggressive industry lobbying and the oversized political influence of the largest ISPs,” Common Cause Media and Democracy Program Director Yosef Getachew said of the study.

A new joint study by Common Cause and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union found that the telecom industry spent $234 million on lobbying during the 116th Congress alone, or nearly $230,000 a day. Comcast was the biggest spender at more than $43 million, with AT&T not far behind at $36 million. “The powerful ISP lobby will seemingly spend whatever it takes to keep politicians beholden to them and maintain a status quo that leaves too many Americans on the wrong side of the digital divide,” the groups said.

Additionally, there’s little accountability for groups that aren’t registered as lobbyists. In May, Fostech, a Seymour-based gun manufacturer, offered Republican legislators a discount on personalized AR-15-style rifles during the General Assembly’s session. During the same session, Fostech representatives testified against a bill that expanded Indiana’s definition of a “machine gun.” Because lawmakers are not required to report gifts they receive – from lobbyists or anyone else – Fostech’s backdoor offer could easily have escaped public scrutiny.

A June article from State Affairs found that during the most recent legislative session, lobbyists spent over $1 million on gifts and entertainment for legislators, staff and their close relatives. Out of the spending that could be traced to individual lawmakers, Democratic legislators received an average of $908 from lobbyists, and Republicans received an average of $1,724.

Intuit’s success has made the men who run the company rich. Smith, the CEO who stepped down last year and is now executive board chair, had a stake worth $20 million when he became chief executive. It ballooned to $220 million by last year. Co-founder Scott Cook is now among the country’s wealthiest people, his fortune soaring to $3.3 billion.

Twelve years ago, Intuit launched its own “free” product: the similarly named “Free Edition” of TurboTax. But unlike the government program, this one comes with traps that can push customers lured with the promise of “free” into paying, some more than $200.

For more than 20 years, Intuit has waged a sophisticated, sometimes covert war to prevent the government from doing just that, according to internal company and IRS documents and interviews with insiders. The company unleashed a battalion of lobbyists and hired top officials from the agency that regulates it. From the beginning, Intuit recognized that its success depended on two parallel missions: stoking innovation in Silicon Valley while stifling it in Washington. Indeed, employees ruefully joke that the company’s motto should actually be “compromise without integrity.”