(The Center Square) - The Oklahoma Senate approved changes to the LEAD Act Tuesday as the state awaits a decision from a major corporation.

The LEAD Act is a nearly $698 million incentive package passed last year to draw large companies to Oklahoma. The Legislature passed the bill last April, hoping to lure Panasonic to the state. The company decided to put its electric vehicle battery plant in Kansas instead.

Now the state hopes to use the act to draw another major manufacturer. The state's competition this time is Canada, according to Gov. Kevin Stitt. An announcement is expected by Friday, he said.

The bill approved by the Senate would require the State Department of Commerce to return the funding if the state by April 15 does not receive a binding commitment from a “primary establishment for an investment” that qualifies for the program. The $1 billion would go to the general fund, according to the bill.

Companies that want to utilize the LEAD Act must meet certain conditions, including capital expenditures of at least $500 million and adding a certain number of jobs.

The number of new jobs required dropped from 4,000 in a four-year period to 3,500.

Sen. Julia Kirt, D-Oklahoma City, asked if the reduction of employees required would result in a change to the estimated economic impact.

“I actually believe the economic impact will be greater,” said Sen. Roger Thompson, R-Okemah. “The project that we are now visiting with will have an average salary of about $20,000 higher [than the state average].”

Thompson said the expected starting pay for employees would be between $75,000 to $85,000.

“That’s well above the state average,” he said.

Kirt said she was supporting the bill because of the opportunity for the state but ideally wanted better pay guarantees.

“I’d like to urge us to improve the salary expectations for companies who are receiving this level of support from the state,” Kirt said. “I think that if we raise that standard, we’re going to be investing in jobs that will benefit our state for years to come and will actually make livable wages for years to come."

The bill goes to the House for approval.

(The Center Square) - Gov. Kevin Stitt said he hopes to draw a large company to the state, but politics and competition from Canada could get in the way.

The company is deciding between Oklahoma and Canada for where to locate a facility, according to the governor. He didn't name the company.

"We have a transformative company, a top-ten company in the country, or in the world really size-wise and revenue-wise, that wants to build in the state of Oklahoma," Stitt said during his weekly news conference on Friday.

He called the state's efforts to draw the company a "ninth-hour" effort.

"There's now some politics happening which is really, really disappointing," Stitt said.

Oklahoma is using what is known as Project Connect to attract the company. The governor said his discussions with top legislators signal a potential change to the LEAD Act so that Project Connect could qualify.

Passed in 2022 through House Bill 4455, the Large-scale Economic Activity Development (LEAD) Act is a nearly $700 million incentive package for large companies looking to set up shop in Oklahoma. The company must meet certain conditions to qualify for the incentive package, including hiring a certain number of people and having capital expenditures of at least $500 million, according to the bill.

However, the LEAD Act is facing a new challenge from Rep. Tom Gann, R-Inola, who filed House Bill 1381 earlier this month, which would repeal it. Gann said the LEAD Act was "a failed attempt to entice business to Oklahoma using corporate welfare."

"Oklahomans need tax relief and by repealing HB 1381, the largest corporate welfare in state history, they will secure it," Gann said in a news release announcing the bill. "We need to stop the giveaway of tax dollars to those who don't need it and instead give back to the Oklahoma taxpayer."

Stitt said the LEAD Act simply combined two incentive packages for companies already in legislation and pre-funded them into the $698 million package so that companies couldn't double dip. The incentives are paid out over ten years.

HB 1381 is assigned to the House Appropriations and Budget Finance's Revenue and Taxation subcommittee.

(The Center Square) — Connecticut Attorney General William Tong is leading 33 states attorneys general in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a pair of lower court rulings that could have broad implications for whistleblowers, and the government's ability to go after public fraud.

In a 15-page legal brief, Tong and the other AGs are calling on justices to uphold a pair of federal whistleblower lawsuits accusing pharmacy operators of over billing government health insurance programs for prescription drugs.

At issue is whether private companies can shield themselves from fraud lawsuits by claiming an "objectively reasonable" interpretation of the federal False Claims Act, which allows citizens to file lawsuits on behalf of the government.

Lawsuits filed by whistleblowers against Safeway Inc. and SuperValu Inc., accused the retail pharmacy chains of defrauding Medicare and Medicaid by billing them using "artificially high" pricing schemes, while charging most consumers lower prices for out-of-pocket costs through discount programs.

But in a 2-1 opinion, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago sided with the companies, saying they were acting under a "reasonable" interpretation of the law when they billed the government higher prices than those charged to uninsured consumers.

In its April ruling, the appeals court agreed the companies had overcharged the government, but ruled they can't be held responsible for fraud because their billing practices were supported by an "objectively reasonable" interpretation of the whistleblower law.

The whistleblowers appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which agreed to combine the cases and review the lower court rulings.

In their legal brief, Tong and other AGs argue the Seventh Circuit's ruling "turns the law on its head" and puts states at risk of losing Medicaid and Medicare funds to fraud if they don't issue adequate guidance to companies operating under their jurisdiction.

"Rather than encouraging providers to seek available clarification about the legality of their practices, the Seventh Circuit’s rule rewards providers that put on blinders, take the public’s money, and ask questions (or seek forgiveness) later," the AGs wrote in the legal brief.

In a statement, Tong said the lower court’s rulings "gut the essence" of the False Claims Act and will "jeopardize the integrity of state Medicaid operations."

He said under the Connecticut False Claims Act — which was modeled on the federal law, the state has recovered over $181 million in misspent public healthcare dollars since 2009, when it went into effect.

"Having a strong interpretation of the False Claims Act is vital for the protection of taxpayer dollars, which is why my fellow attorneys general and I are strongly urging the Supreme Court to right this wrong," he said.

Joining Tong are AGs from Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

A shooting at Michigan State University in February left three students dead and five injured. The incident, one of the nation's seemingly endless stream of large-scale gun violence, prompted Michigan State Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks to indicate that the state legislature would be taking action soon to initiate stricter gun control. Among the policies Brinks suggested is more stringent background checks. (These are the states with the loosest gun laws.)

In January, about 2.6 million firearm background checks were initiated in the United States, according to data compiled by the FBI, a slight increase from January 2022, when 2.5 million checks were conducted. Background checks are often used as a proxy for measuring gun sales in the U.S.

The FBI conducted an estimated 25,438 background checks related to firearm sales in Oklahoma in January 2023, up 2.7% from the same period in 2022.

Adjusting for population, this comes out to about 6.3 background checks for every 1,000 people, the 18th most among states. The largest share of background checks in the state were for sales of handguns.

It is important to note that there are a number of reasons background checks are initiated that are clearly not tied to the sale of a gun, such as pawn shop transactions and rentals. These and other background check classifications unrelated to firearm sales were excluded from analysis. A full explanation of our methodology is available here.

RankStateBackground checks for gun sales; Jan. 2023 (per 1k people)Total firearm sale background checks; Jan. 20231-yr. change in background checks (%)Most common type of check1Oregon13.155,58188.7Handguns2Alabama9.749,349-17.1Handguns3Tennessee9.466,1707.3Handguns4Wisconsin8.650,9570.8Handguns5Idaho8.616,7528.4Handguns6West Virginia7.914,09218.8Long guns7Pennsylvania7.8100,7699.0Handguns8Montana7.58,4501.3Handguns9New Hampshire7.310,2549.3Handguns10Washington7.155,5867.9Handguns11Wyoming7.14,109-9.8Handguns12Illinois7.088,50119.4Handguns13Colorado7.040,7660.6Handguns14Alaska6.74,9493.5Handguns15Maryland6.539,819133.6Handguns16Mississippi6.418,9478.6Handguns17North Dakota6.45,0131.6Long guns18Oklahoma6.325,4382.7Handguns19Missouri6.338,8085.6Handguns20South Dakota6.25,680-9.6Long guns21Utah6.220,7997.2Handguns22New Mexico6.112,8499.1Handguns23Michigan5.958,8396.0Handguns24Indiana5.738,8301.5Handguns25Maine5.67,8079.5Handguns26South Carolina5.528,8314.1Handguns27Connecticut5.419,5269.4Handguns28Minnesota5.330,507-8.8Handguns29Virginia5.245,3919.1Handguns30Arkansas5.115,6232.8Handguns31Arizona5.137,66614.9Handguns32Vermont5.03,2442.4Handguns33Kansas4.914,5374.6Handguns34Florida4.9109,3231.9Handguns35Louisiana4.822,056-15.0Handguns36North Carolina4.850,8766.8Long guns37Kentucky4.620,8358.2Handguns38Georgia4.245,787-0.2Handguns39Ohio4.147,866-2.3Handguns40Texas4.0121,5942.0Handguns41Delaware3.94,006-10.1Handguns42Iowa3.912,35816.6Long guns43Nebraska3.16,1766.7Long guns44Nevada3.19,771-26.7Handguns45Massachusetts3.020,95421.4Handguns46California2.495,0503.6Handguns47Rhode Island1.92,059-3.0Handguns48New Jersey1.816,74528.2Handguns49New York1.427,6620.5Long guns50Hawaii1.31,84736.6N/A

The U.S. job market is about to enter an era of unprecedented change that could impact tens of millions of workers. As robotics and artificial intelligence technologies continue to advance, companies will be able to leverage new, cost effective tools to create and deliver their products to the market, while reducing their need for workers.

Several media and tech companies, including BuzzFeed and Microsoft, have already stated their intentions to use artificial intelligence to generate content and improve their products. And while BuzzFeed claims that AI will not impact the size of its workforce, the announcement came a month after the company laid off 12% of its employees to cut costs.

The advantages AI can offer businesses is undeniable, and the implications are impossible to ignore. AI is capable of automating a wide range of tasks that, until now, have been performed by humans. But unlike human beings, an AI does not need regular paychecks or breaks. And as AI capabilities continue to develop, virtually no industry will be left untouched. (Here is a look at the fastest growing industries in America.)

According to a recent report from NetVoucherCodes, a U.K.-based voucher code website, automation and AI pose a high risk to 269,620 jobs in Oklahoma in the coming years - or 20.6% of all jobs considered, the 13th largest share among states.

Distinct from AI, automation - such as the software used in automatic checkout counters or robotics used in manufacturing - poses risk to the largest number of jobs in the coming years. In Oklahoma, automation poses a high risk to 233,800 jobs, compared to 35,820 jobs exposed to risk from AI technology.

All data in this story was compiled by NetVoucherCodes. States are ranked on the share of all jobs that are at high risk of being replaced by AI or automation. Notably, NetVoucherCodes used an AI program to aid in its analysis.

RankStateShare of all jobs at high-risk of replacement (%)Total jobs at high-risk of replacementJobs at high-risk of AI replacementJobs at high-risk of replacement by automation1South Dakota24.889,35015,44073,9102Nebraska21.9176,68018,890157,7903Tennessee21.7547,56061,120486,4404Iowa21.7272,95029,590243,3605Indiana21.6549,86051,210498,6506Arkansas21.2216,26017,340198,9207Wisconsin21.0495,33059,690435,6408Alabama20.9344,40038,310306,0909Ohio20.9929,640107,080822,56010Kentucky20.9327,29033,430293,86011Kansas20.8236,40028,580207,82012Mississippi20.6195,62017,100178,52013Oklahoma20.6269,62035,820233,80014South Carolina20.5368,45032,150336,30015Arizona20.5506,12051,850454,27016New Hampshire20.1109,40013,91095,49017Michigan20.1694,52071,930622,59018North Carolina19.9745,58090,270655,31019Texas19.82,040,080237,0001,803,08020Utah19.7256,97026,650230,32021Missouri19.6455,33056,590398,74022Maine19.697,03012,73084,30023Nevada19.4214,94019,470195,47024New Jersey19.4630,68085,550545,13025Idaho19.4125,00013,780111,22026Florida19.21,406,350172,1101,234,24027Georgia19.0699,46081,910617,55028West Virginia18.9104,94011,72093,22029Oregon18.9285,85035,950249,90030Pennsylvania18.7884,570120,790763,78031Wyoming18.741,6105,50036,11032North Dakota18.562,8008,30054,50033New Mexico18.4120,43014,810105,62034Montana18.371,65012,21059,44035Illinois18.2876,020109,560766,46036Delaware18.267,53011,54055,99037Virginia18.0565,15092,200472,95038Rhode Island18.069,65010,66058,99039Minnesota17.9411,35052,280359,07040Louisiana17.9273,87033,500240,37041Hawaii17.782,11010,29071,82042Colorado17.6387,90064,200323,70043Alaska17.242,0406,76035,28044California16.92,322,630321,9002,000,73045Washington16.7443,70064,540379,16046Maryland16.5346,58051,080295,50047Connecticut16.5222,01030,970191,04048Vermont15.837,8306,28031,55049Massachusetts15.4444,87081,240363,63050New York15.31,119,470200,060919,410

(The Center Square) - A bill that would provide a tax credit for parents who choose alternatives to public school for their child’s education is moving to the Oklahoma Senate.

House Bill 1935 would create the Parental Choice Tax Credit Act, providing an income tax credit of up to $5,000 per student per year attending private school and $2,500 per year for students educated by other means, like home-schooling.

Rep. Rhonda Baker, R-Yukon, said the anticipated cost is $300 million.

Gov. Kevin Stitt said he was pleased the House of Representatives approved the bill Wednesday.

“After many conversations with parents, students, teachers, and legislators, I am emboldened by the prospect of delivering real education reform through the Parental Choice Act,” he said. “By providing families with the option of a 100% refundable tax credit of up to $5,000 per child, we are building a foundation for funding students, not systems, in the state of Oklahoma.”

The bill passed by a 75-25 vote after close to two hours of questions and debate. Reservations against the bill included a lack of provisions for students with disabilities. Rep. Regina Goodwin, D-Tulsa, asked if the bill would disproportionately affect minority students.

“Our philosophy is that it’s the taxpayers’ money, and they have control in how much the government takes by using this tax credit,” replied Baker.

Several opposed to the bill called it a “voucher scheme.”

“We are told that it’s not a voucher because it’s not money that is coming out of the Department of Ed’s appropriation. However, it’s $300 million that will not be appropriated to public ed,” said Rep. Trish Ranson, D-Stillwater. “We can do so much better. We have money that we can put forward to public education. We have money that can go to our core services. We can reinvest in our state where every single citizen of the state wins. Instead, we reward the people who have already made the choice for private school. It’s not an incentive. It’s only funded for the current population.”

Baker said the Tax Commission projected the cost to cover the current private and home-schooled population is $274 million, which means the $300 million provided in the bill would leave room for additional funding if more parents decided to take advantage of the tax credit.

Proponents also pushed back against the idea of it being a voucher scheme.

“This is not a voucher because at the end of the day, it’s a tax credit,” said Rep. Trey Caldwell, R-Lawton, who voted in favor of the bill. “The money is not being withdrawn from the public education money bucket.”

The bill states those applying for the tax credit must retain all receipts of qualified expenses as proof of amounts paid.

“What we’re doing now is saying the quiet part out loud,” said Rep. Jon Echols, R-Oklahoma City, who voted for the bill. “Some of us just don’t trust the parents. It was even argued today that we need more wellness checks for parents who home-school.” He later added, “Parents, I don’t think you abuse your kids and I don’t think your kids belong to the state of Oklahoma. I think your kids belong to you.”

There are 1.36 million people working in internships across America in more than 100 different industries, according to career-search website Zippia. Internships offer college and university students, as well as recent graduates, the opportunity to gain work experience in a particular field - both to build their resume and develop a skill set.

While most internships are paid positions, many are not. The concept of an unpaid internship is a controversial issue. The Department of Labor's Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay employees, but are interns employees or not? FLSA guidelines list seven criteria to make the distinction.

According to the FLSA, these guidelines are designed to "examine the 'economic reality' of the intern-employer relationship to determine which party is the 'primary beneficiary' of the relationship." In other words, to be legal, unpaid internships have to benefit the intern through gained education and experience. If the primary beneficiary is the employer, who hires an intern with the expectation of getting free labor, then the internship must be paid.

A recent report published by online lender CashNetUSA found that 11.1% of all internships in Oklahoma are unpaid, the 19th largest share among states. The same report also found that the average hourly wage for interns working in the state stands at $13.90, the eighth lowest of the 50 states.

To determine these rankings, CashNetUSA reviewed internship salary data from more than 100 U.S. industries. Average hourly pay for paid internships in each state was sourced from the career-search website Zippia.

RankStateUnpaid internships as a share of total (%)Avg. hourly intern pay ($)1Delaware33.5418.312New York27.0318.383Oregon26.9118.884New Mexico26.6712.035California25.7920.786New Jersey25.6916.427Florida17.9414.758Illinois17.5715.999North Carolina17.5314.6810Massachusetts15.8818.1511Pennsylvania15.6516.7512Georgia15.0116.7113Indiana14.8914.4614Rhode Island13.7915.8515Connecticut13.7520.3916Hawaii12.0517.4617Washington11.9320.9218Michigan11.1816.3619Oklahoma11.1113.9020Virginia10.8815.9821Arizona10.0416.6822Missouri10.0014.6923Maine10.0015.7524Louisiana9.9212.1225Alaska9.8416.8026Texas9.4415.3227New Hampshire9.1817.0928Wyoming9.0911.9229Tennessee8.3314.2630Vermont8.3317.7531Maryland7.7816.9132Mississippi7.7715.0133Alabama7.7612.3934South Carolina7.6412.4435Utah7.6415.0936South Dakota7.5815.2137West Virginia7.5817.8238Kentucky6.9214.6339Montana6.6716.4040Idaho6.2515.9941Iowa6.1014.0042North Dakota5.9717.6543Arkansas5.7113.7944Wisconsin5.5617.1245Ohio5.0015.7846Minnesota5.0016.8847Nevada4.9518.8948Colorado4.7316.8649Nebraska4.2414.6150Kansas4.2013.51

(The Center Square) - A bill that would create a single statewide charter school board in Oklahoma passed the Senate Education Committee on Tuesday.

Currently, there are two charter school boards: virtual and brick-and-mortar. Senate Bill 516 would create one statewide board that would oversee charter schools. The bill would also authorize the board to review, approve, or deny contracts that charter schools seek to enter with private vendors.

The bill’s fiscal impact is estimated to be around $1 million and would cover the cost of an executive director and staff for the new statewide charter school board.

Much of the committee’s discussion on the bill focused on how a charter school would receive sponsorship. SB 516 would require a charter school first to seek support from the local school board, which is the largest change from another version of this bill circulated in the legislature last year, said bill sponsor Sen. Adam Pugh, R-Edmond.

“This requires the charter school, in their application process, to first go to the local school district to seek sponsorship from the district, and there’s a time period put in there, and if they are able to continue to work through that process then the district, as is the case with a number of charter schools, can sponsor or the potential charter school can seek sponsorship elsewhere,” Pugh said.

Pugh said charter schools would ideally receive sponsorship from the local school district, and those entities could work together. The bill would also do away with the appeals process if the school district denies sponsoring the potential charter school.

“What all that means is this new state board will be able to override the decision of a local public school district that doesn’t want the entity operating that school district, is that right?” asked Sen. Jo Anna Dossett, D-Tulsa.

“No different than what can happen today,” said Pugh.

The state already does authorizations for charter schools, Pugh said.

“I’ve had schools come to me that said, ‘I will never sponsor a charter school.’ They just won’t. I get that, Pugh said. And that’s certainly within their purview. I think that’s the wrong approach to this process, but that’s within their purview. So when you have school districts saying, ‘I will never authorize a charter school,’ and you have communities of kids or parents who want that option in their community, then I think this is a reasonable approach to try to first make those two entities coordinate and try to get on the same page.”

(The Center Square) – Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey joined 24 other attorneys general in suing President Biden's administration for implementing a rule outlawing pistol braces.

The regulation will "result in the destruction or forfeiture of over 750,000 firearms and will cost the private sector somewhere between $2 and $5 billion," according to the filing.

"As Attorney General, I will defend the Constitution, which includes holding the Biden Administration accountable for blatantly violating the Second Amendment," Bailey said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "I have long held that the Constitution was meant to be a floor, not a ceiling, and the Second Amendment is the amendment that makes all of the others possible."

The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in the U.S. District Court in North Dakota. The document includes information from a patent for a "Pistol Stabilizing Brace," used to secure a pistol to a shooter's forearm to stabilize firing. "Through this design, braces are orthotic devices that allow users to more safely and accurately fire handguns," the document states. Braces are often used by older people and those with limited mobility and prevent recoil and help with accuracy.

The lawsuit states President Biden was frustrated in 2021 with congressional inaction and ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to abandon "a decade of practice under an established statutory framework" and place pistols modified with stabilizing braces under the National Firearms Act. The classification requires owners of a pistol with a stabilizing brace to pay a $200 fee and submit their name and other identifying information to the Justice Department or face criminal penalties, the lawsuit states.

The Department of Justice proposed amending ATF regulations in 2021 to clarify when a rifle is "intended to be fired from the shoulder." The DOJ requested comment on whether firearms equipped with a "stabilizing brace" should be considered a rifle or short-barreled rifle under the Gun Control Act of 1968 or a rifle or firearm subject to the National Firearms Act. The new ATF rule was enacted on Jan. 31.

Joining Bailey in the suit are attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The complaint states the ATF violated the Separation of Powers by implementing the rule and calls the regulation arbitrary and capricious. Last month, a federal appeals court struck down a ban on bump stocks instituted by President Trump after an assailant used it to kill and injure dozens of people in Las Vegas in 2017.

(The Center Square) – Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey joined 24 other attorneys general in suing President Biden's administration for implementing a rule outlawing pistol braces.

The regulation will "result in the destruction or forfeiture of over 750,000 firearms and will cost the private sector somewhere between $2 and $5 billion," according to the filing.

"As Attorney General, I will defend the Constitution, which includes holding the Biden Administration accountable for blatantly violating the Second Amendment," Bailey said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "I have long held that the Constitution was meant to be a floor, not a ceiling, and the Second Amendment is the amendment that makes all of the others possible."

The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in the U.S. District Court in North Dakota. The document includes information from a patent for a "Pistol Stabilizing Brace," used to secure a pistol to a shooter's forearm to stabilize firing. "Through this design, braces are orthotic devices that allow users to more safely and accurately fire handguns," the document states. Braces are often used by older people and those with limited mobility and prevent recoil and help with accuracy.

The lawsuit states President Biden was frustrated in 2021 with congressional inaction and ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to abandon "a decade of practice under an established statutory framework" and place pistols modified with stabilizing braces under the National Firearms Act. The classification requires owners of a pistol with a stabilizing brace to pay a $200 fee and submit their name and other identifying information to the Justice Department or face criminal penalties, the lawsuit states.

The Department of Justice proposed amending ATF regulations in 2021 to clarify when a rifle is "intended to be fired from the shoulder." The DOJ requested comment on whether firearms equipped with a "stabilizing brace" should be considered a rifle or short-barreled rifle under the Gun Control Act of 1968 or a rifle or firearm subject to the National Firearms Act. The new ATF rule was enacted on Jan. 31.

Joining Bailey in the suit are attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The complaint states the ATF violated the Separation of Powers by implementing the rule and calls the regulation arbitrary and capricious. Last month, a federal appeals court struck down a ban on bump stocks instituted by President Trump after an assailant used it to kill and injure dozens of people in Las Vegas in 2017.