[link removed]
Good evening,

From its beginning, NCInnovation has been plagued ([link removed]) with questions and concerns about its purpose, its lack of transparency, its relationship with lobbyists, and if it was a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars.

The most recent controversy, as reported ([link removed]) by The Carolina Journal, is its audit committee's decision to delay approval of its IRS tax forms.

This should be the final sign that the state government should sever its ties with NCInnovation, and claw back the entire $500 million in taxpayer dollars it has already received.

Thankfully, the General Assembly is taking aim at NCInnovation, but only the House is proposing a full clawback of funds and severing of ties (the Senate would continue funding, at a much smaller level).

There are many good reasons for defunding NCInnovation.

North Carolina taxpayers should not be forced to fund a private organization picking winners and losers in the marketplace. Business investments should be voluntary choices made by market participants willing to risk their own capital, not a taxpayer committee.

Similar programs ([link removed]) in other states have also been plagued by scandal, poor performance, and lack of transparency.

There are higher-priority uses for the $500 million that NCInnovation is now sitting on, such as Hurricane Helene recovery.

It’s not too late for state legislators to undo their mistake and completely cut ties with NCInnovation. Instead, they could reclaim and redirect that half a billion in taxpayer dollars to help victims of one of the most devastating natural disasters in state history.

You can read more about the issues with NCInnovation here ([link removed]) , here ([link removed]) , and here ([link removed]) .

Esse quam videri,

Donald Bryson
CEO
John Locke Foundation

See our latest video on free trade!
[link removed]
More from Locke
🏛️🏛️🏛️ Are Americans finally ready for equal rights under the law? ([link removed])
* House Bill (HB) 171 ([link removed]) , currently before the General Assembly, would prohibit state agencies from discriminating “on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, nationality, country of origin, or sexual orientation”
+ The bill was approved by the House at the end of April, and is now under consideration by the state Senate
+ The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the North Carolina State Constitution all explicitly banned various forms of discrimination
o But, in a series of decisions starting in the 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed “diversity” as a justification for violating anti-discrimination bans
+ Consequently, organizations (including North Carolina state agencies) adopted “diversity” statements and policies, leading to the creation of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI)
o DEI initiatives were based on the assumption that Americans would go on accepting diversity as an excuse for discrimination forever
* But, as it turns out, Americans didn’t have limitless patience for DEI
+ Not only did DEI initiatives not eliminate discrimination, they prompted a widespread backlash
+ Since taking office, President Trump has been vigorously combatting DEI initiatives, through both executive orders and Civil Rights Act investigations
+ In North Carolina, proposed bills like HB 171, SB 227 ([link removed]) , and SB 558 ([link removed]) aim to eliminate DEI policies in state agencies, public education, and higher education
* Now, there are good reasons to think DEI’s days are numbered, both nationally and here in North Carolina
+ The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decisions in SFFA v. Harvard ([link removed]) and SFFA v. UNC ([link removed]) ruled that “diversity” no longer justifies discrimination in higher education
+ Additionally, a recent unanimous Supreme Court decision this year in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services ([link removed]) , made a similar decision regarding discrimination by employers
+ Now that the Supreme Court has decided that “equal” means “equal,” we have another opportunity to become the kind of country the Founders wanted us to be: one in which the government protects the equal rights of all the people
+ Wouldn’t that be a nice way to celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence?

You can read more here ([link removed]) .

📵📵📵 NC lawmakers address student safety, tech, and school schedules ([link removed])
* Education is an important part of North Carolina’s 2025 legislative agenda, with lawmakers debating several bills that could affect classrooms, curricula, and student experiences across the state, including:
+ Protecting K-12 teachers and students from discrimination (SB 227 ([link removed]) )
o The bill aims to eliminate DEI ideology from the state’s public school system and would prohibit schools from having DEI departments, personnel, or organizations
o It would also prohibit instructing students, or compelling belief, in 12 “divisive concepts” (e.g., racial/sex superiority, unfairness of merit-based systems)
o The bill also aims to ensure compliance with federal regulations, necessary to continue receiving $3.1 billion ([link removed]) in federal K-12 education funding, and to restore merit and neutrality to public education
+ Limiting technological distractions (HB 87 ([link removed]) )
o This bill proposes banning cell phone use by K-12 students during instructional time in public schools
o It has received strong bipartisan support, passing the House almost unanimously
o Local districts will determine how to enforce it, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach (many of which already have a cell phone policy in place)
+ Offering school districts flexible scheduling (Senate Bill 754 ([link removed]) )
o This bill would allow school districts two options for when to start the school year: either follow the current law, or start a week earlier, finishing by the Friday before Memorial Day
o School districts taking the second option must guarantee equal semester lengths
o Because every district has unique needs, decisions like this are best made locally — not mandated by the state

You can get the full picture here ([link removed]) .

🗳️🗳️🗳️ Green Party drama shows that party recognition law needs tightening ([link removed])
* All states, including North Carolina, must balance the rights of political parties to ballot access and practical, voter-friendly election administration
* A recent vote at the State Board of Elections (SBE) on the status of the Green Party exposed the need to clarify party recognition law
+ North Carolina allows minor parties access to the ballot, but makes those parties jump through one of several hoops to gain that access
o Their gubernatorial or presidential candidate received at least 2% of the vote in the last election
o They submit a petition signed by 0.25% of voters from the most recent gubernatorial election
o Their presidential nominee was on the ballot in at least 70% of all states in the prior presidential election
+ Democrats on the SBE have manipulated the verification process to try to keep minor parties off the ballot, taking too restrictive of an approach
o It took lawsuits from the Green Party in 2022 and the Justice for All Party in 2024 to get on the ballot
* On June 19, the SBE voted 3-2 along party lines to allow the Green Party to retain ballot access
+ Why was the vote not unanimous?
o The debate centered on interpreting the "70% of states" rule
o The majority (Republican) on the SBE erred on the side of more voter choice
o The minority (Democratic) argued that the law's intent was to ensure "a significant modicum of support" for the party itself, not just its candidate's ballot presence through other means
+ The General Assembly could help by clarifying the law - reducing the likelihood of future split board votes and lawsuits

You can read the full report here ([link removed]) .

Donate ([link removed])

============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Link ([link removed])
** LinkedIn ([link removed])
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.