This study examines how pharmaceutical companies strategically adjust their lobbying activities in response to regulatory threats, explicitly focusing on the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. Using a difference-in-differences methodology comparing firms directly affected by Medicare price controls against less-affected peers, the research demonstrates that companies with products subject to IRA price negotiations significantly increased their lobbying expenditures by approximately $636,460 per quarter following the legislation's passage. Analysis of quarterly lobbying data from 2018-2025 for the top 20 U.S. pharmaceutical firms reveals that affected companies concentrated their lobbying efforts after the IRA's enactment, emphasizing ex-post influence over implementation details rather than prevention. A detailed case study comparing Pfizer and Sanofi illustrates how lobbying intensity directly correlates with regulatory exposure: Pfizer, with multiple products targeted for price negotiations, dramatically escalated its political engagement across multiple channels, while Sanofi, facing minimal immediate impact, maintained relatively stable lobbying activities. These findings contribute to understanding corporate political strategy by demonstrating that regulatory exposure drives lobbying intensity in a proportional, targeted manner. The research suggests that pharmaceutical pricing reform triggers sophisticated multi-channel political mobilization to shape implementation to mitigate financial impacts. This explains historical difficulties in achieving meaningful drug pricing reform and has implications for designing more effective healthcare policy that minimizes vulnerability to industry influence.

This thesis examines how the Biden Administration’s recent effort to extend Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to include LGBTQ+ rights aligned with and diverged from established legal precedents and societal norms. My analysis contributes to a broader literature aiming to understand the conditions that shape the success or failure of expansions of civil rights for minority groups. I conclude that executive actions aiming to broaden protections are less likely to be enduring when they conflict with constitutional principles and do not reflect public opinion. My analysis centers on the January 2025 decision by the U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves that enjoined the Biden Administrations rule expanding Title IX protections to cover sexual orientation and gender identity. I use Judge Reeves’ opinion as an example of how the judiciary responds to major civil rights policy changes. I argue that Judge Reeves’ ruling reflects judicial precedent that favors a restrained approach to the expansion of civil rights. Judge Reeves declared that the Biden Administration’s extension of Title IX protections to LGBTQ+ students as an overreach of executive power, lacking sufficient legislative backing. Judge Reeves rejected the Biden Administration’s reliance on executive and administrative mechanisms, rather than legislative action, to implement significant policy changes. Judge Reeves’ opinion concludes that the Biden Administration’s proposed rule raises serious separation of powers concerns, indicating a potential usurpation of Congress’s role in enacting the law. My analysis explains why Judge Reeves’ ruling aligns with a broader pattern of judicial restraint and a consistent preference for state autonomy over federal mandates. Additionally, I find that judges are more likely to be skeptical of civil rights expansions when the Executive Branch tries to bypass Congress and thereby risks provoking legal or societal backlash. Broader public support and less controversy tend to mitigate judicial skepticism, as expansions then appear less controversial and more reflective of societal will. Judges view the expansion of civil rights by Congress as a reflection of broad public support and social consensus, whereas executive and agency action are more likely to be viewed as a form of partisan overreach. My research shows that this resistance is especially strong in the context of LGBTQ+ rights, where substantial public division and legal ambiguity confirm the judicial perception that there is a lack of social consensus on rights expansion. My research shows that the expansion of civil rights is unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny when those expansions lack legal clarity, broad public consensus, and legislative support. Courts are more likely to view the expansion of civil rights as overreaching when the Executive Branch sidesteps legislative approval or appears to compromise protections originally established for other groups under existing law, such as sex-based protections that some argue could be diluted by the inclusion of gender identity without explicit legislative endorsement. Moreover, the absence of legislative approval and risk of undermining existing protections for other groups often suggests to judges that public opinion has not yet converged to support civil rights expansion. Crucially, my findings challenge the prevalent notion that opposition of conservative judges to the Executive Branch’s effort to expand civil rights through administrative action is disconnected from public sentiment. Whether public opinion has reached consensus on civil rights expansion is actually an important feature of conservative judges’ legal analysis. Conservative responses to such administrative actions often reflect their views about broader public concerns about the pace and implications of the expansion of civil rights — concerns which my research suggests often align more closely with public opinion than is commonly perceived. At the same time, my research also examines the inconsistency in support for constitutional norms across the political spectrum, and takes into account how both proponents and opponents of civil rights expansion may prioritize political objectives over legal consistency. This thesis demonstrates that for future civil rights expansions to be enduring, they must be anchored in clear legislative mandates, supported by constitutional provisions, and backed by significant public consensus. Such grounding not only helps withstand judicial scrutiny but also guards against political backlash, as illustrated by the fact that President Trump successfully campaigned on the argument that the Biden Administration’s unilateral actions were an overreach, leading to his Administration’s reversal of these policies once back in office. My thesis demonstrates that for future civil rights expansions to be enduring, they must be carefully anchored in clear legislative mandates, supported by constitutional provisions, and backed by a significant degree of public consensus.

How do state-level political structures, party affiliations, and committee memberships shape oil and gas lobbying and policy outcomes? While federal lobbying has been widely studied, state-level dynamics remain underexplored despite its critical role in energy regulation. This paper hypothesizes that oil and gas lobbying strategies vary across state legislatures, dependent on party affiliation, committee memberships, and legislative tenure. Moreover, this thesis suggests that higher campaign contributions correlate with industry-friendly votes with energy committee members receiving higher contributions. Using a comparative case study of Texas, Pennsylvania, California, and Michigan, this study analyzes campaign contributions, legislative votes, and policy outcomes. Findings show that party affiliation is the strongest predictor of voting behavior, with Republicans consistently favoring industry policies. Contributions correlate with support, but outliers highlight limits to lobbying influence. Additionally, energy committee members receive substantially more funding indicating strategic lobbying efforts, while the impact of tenure varies depending on state political ideology.

Following the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, scholars have debated the growing cooperation between China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea that some have dubbed the “Axis of Upheaval.” Many observers have argued that these countries do not share an ideology and are solely united by shared animosity towards the United States. This study challenges these observations and demonstrates the existence of a shared ideology between the Axis of Upheaval consisting of support for multipolarity, anti-imperialism, and viewing the world through a civilizational lens. Using a mixed method approach, this study conducts a quantitative analysis of speeches by the leaders of the Axis of Upheaval, namely Xi Jinping of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Ali Khamenei of Iran, and Kim Jong-un of North Korea. It also conducts case studies of state-controlled media coverage across the Axis of conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. The results demonstrated consistent rhetoric and emphasis on ideologies of multipolarity, anti-imperialism, and civilizationism. The study further revealed that state-controlled media in China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea interpret global events the same way, further suggesting the existence of ideologically driven narratives. Meanwhile, a comparative analysis with speeches by former U.S. President Joe Biden and American mainstream media reveals ideological division between the United States and the Axis of Upheaval. These findings challenge observations that the Axis of Upheaval is purely bound by opposition to the United States and not ideology. These findings also challenge the assertion that the conflict between the United States and countries like China and Russia is not ideological

This thesis explores how three U.S. states—Colorado, California, and New York—have pioneered legislative approaches to address the societal impacts of artificial intelligence. Focusing on algorithmic discrimination, data privacy, and job displacement, it analyzes why each state prioritized different policy dimensions. Colorado’s Senate Bill 24-205 tackles bias in AI decision-making, establishing transparency standards and requiring bias audits. California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) underscores comprehensive data protection, aiming to grant consumers control over their personal information. New York’s legislative efforts target job displacement, proposing task forces, disclosure requirements, and taxes on automated systems that replace human labor. Through comparative case studies and legislative analysis, the thesis identifies key drivers behind these varied approaches, including public opinion, interest group influence, and partisan dynamics. Although the U.S. lacks a unified AI regulatory framework, state-level laws offer critical insight into emerging governance models.

Religious liberty is an important American freedom. Most existing research and current debates over its scope examine its application in everyday life for citizens. But religious liberty is sharply curtailed in America’s corrections, which receives considerably less attention from scholars and advocates. This thesis provides a novel examination into its history in America’s corrections, its current problems, its justifications, and potential solutions. It traces the history from America’s founding to the present to understand the development of religious liberty in corrections. Then, it identifies a litany of on-the-ground problems and legal barriers that inhibit inmates’ exercise of their religious liberty. Next, it analyzes the need for religious liberty in corrections and argues for a theory of “pluralistic rehabilitation” to justify it. Finally, it defends the duty of the federal government to intervene and presents ways in which each of its three branches may be able to remedy some current problems.

This research critically examines the systemic and institutional factors that enable police brutality in the United States and Nigeria, focusing on how these systems disproportionately impact marginalized communities, particularly women and queer individuals. Through a comparative analysis of the Black Lives Matter and EndSARS movements, this study explores the historical, political, and social dimensions of police violence and state repression. Using qualitative interviews with Nigerian citizens, social media discourse analysis, and a review of governance structures and policing practices in both nations, this research aims to uncover the patterns of discrimination, militarization, and impunity that sustain state violence. The study investigates key themes such as gendered experiences of police brutality, the role of digital activism in mobilization, and the failures of accountability mechanisms in law enforcement. Findings reveal that while BLM and EndSARS both emerged as responses to police violence, they have struggled with internal fractures related to gender and inclusion, often sidelining feminist and queer activists despite their central role in organizing. The research also examines the transnational influence of U.S. policing tactics on Nigeria, highlighting how militarized law enforcement strategies and counterinsurgency measures have intensified state repression in both contexts. Additionally, it critiques the structural limitations of grassroots movements that fail to fully embrace intersectional politics, emphasizing that without addressing gender-based violence and systemic misogyny within activist spaces, these movements remain incomplete in their pursuit of justice. Ultimately, this research contributes to ongoing discussions on police reform, human rights, and social movements by advocating for policy changes that address the root causes of police brutality and its disproportionate impact on marginalized groups.

Companies’ involvement with American politics has become a central issue in the media. This thesis aims to address the political intricacies behind why companies get involved with public policy and how consumers react to this involvement. Thus, the main question in this thesis is: why/how do companies get involved with public policy and how does it affect American consumers? Scholarship around this topic has thoroughly examined factors like “corporate political activity” and “corporate social responsibility,” as well as “partisan brand signals,” “political consumerism,” and “agenda setting” to answer these questions. Scholars have found that companies have an increased awareness of the rapport they can build with their customers and stakeholders by being socially and politically responsible. Although, this comes with complex convergences of political actors’ agendas and company agendas. The issue of influential companies’ involvement with politics is a contemporary issue that every American has to reconcile. I form my argument by scraping data from 25 corporate X accounts to analyze the trend of corporate political posting in the media. I pair this trend with surveys on American sentiment towards company involvement with public policy and conduct case studies on Bud Light and Amazon to fully understand how consumers and companies are affected by corporate political involvement. I find a recent downward trend of political posting and of American sentiment towards company involvement with public policy. The implications of my findings are that the relationship between corporate political activity/corporate social responsibility and consumer sentiment is cyclical and thermostatic. This means companies, consumers, and political actors should be able to predict what CPA and CSR will look like in the years to come.

This thesis analyzes the role, or lack thereof the United Nations played during the Rwandan Genocide. Examining the consequences of flawed information processing. Particularly, how mishandling of information, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and cognitive biases influenced decision-making processes, ultimately contributing to delayed and inadequate interventions. By evaluating primary sources, official reports, and scholarly analyses, I was able to identify critical failures in intelligence gathering, risk assessment, and crisis response by the United Nations. The findings bring to light systemic weaknesses in international institutions and ways information processing mechanisms were improved to prevent future humanitarian crises from occurring again.

This thesis investigates how political pressures shape local tax policy by analyzing the relationship between mayoral elections and changes in municipal tax levies in New Jersey. Grounded in principal-agent theory, the concept of voter myopia, and political budget cycles, the study explores whether elected officials strategically adjust their fiscal behavior in response to electoral incentives. Using a mixed-methods approach, it combines original statistical analysis of tax levy changes across hundreds of municipalities with a registered voter survey and qualitative interviews with local finance professionals. The findings provide strong evidence that political pressures routinely factor into municipal tax levy decisions made by mayors and city council members. Voters favor stable or lower taxes and often vote against those they perceive as responsible for burdensome increases. Anticipating this, local officials moderate tax hikes and sometimes implement temporary cuts during election years when political and fiscal conditions permit, aiming to appeal to constituents. This study sheds light on a state and tier of government frequently overlooked in political science, laying a foundation for future research on the intersection of politics and public finance at the local level.

In this Thesis, I examine how the extension of American-ness to Black quarterbacks in the NFL may be contingent on their performance. I hypothesize that, when Black quarterbacks play well or win their games, they are accepted into the American group—but when they play poorly or lose their games, their status as part of this group is called into question. I use archival research and content analysis of historical newspapers about Black quarterbacks of the past; structural topic modeling (STM) in R on Reddit comments about quarterbacks during the 2023-2024 NFL playoffs; and analysis of a poll conducted in 2017 about former 49ers quarterback and current activist Colin Kaepernick to test my hypothesis. Though many of the results of this Thesis were not statistically significant and therefore do not seem to provide conclusive evidence for my hypothesis, I leave open the possibility of quarterbacks’ gameplay and their actions outside of the sport impacting how American-ness is ascribed to them. I also provide direction for future research that can build upon this Thesis.

This thesis investigates whether local legislative bodies—specifically city and county councils—exhibit patterns of partisanship and political polarization, despite institutional structures designed to suppress them. Using Optimal Classification (OC), a spatial modeling technique applied to over 550,000 roll-call votes across 55 councils, I analyze the extent to which party affiliation shapes legislative behavior in both partisan and formally nonpartisan settings. The findings reveal that partisanship is a notable organizing force in local governance: parties form cohesive coalitions, and ideological polarization is present across council types and jurisdictions. These results challenge long-standing assumptions that local politics operates independently from national partisan trends and contribute to a growing body of literature on the nationalization of American political life. Ultimately, this thesis highlights the need for renewed attention to local government as a meaningful site of ideological conflict and democratic accountability.