Should lottery winners' names be kept secret?

PHOENIX (AP) — When two winning tickets for a record $588 million Powerball jackpot were claimed from the Nov. 28 drawing, the world focused on the winners.
A Missouri couple appeared at a press conference and held up the traditional giant-sized check. The Arizona winner, however, skipped the press conference where lottery officials announced last month that someone had claimed the second half of the prize.
The differing approach to releasing information on the winners reflects a broader debate that is playing out in state Legislatures and lottery offices nationwide: Should the winners' names be secret?
Lawmakers in Michigan and New Jersey think so, proposing bills to allow anonymity because winners are prone to falling victim to scams, shady businesses, greedy distant family members and violent criminals looking to shake them down.
Lotteries object, arguing that publicizing the winners' names drives sales and that having their names released ensures that people know there isn't something fishy afoot, like a game rigged so a lottery insider wins.
When players see that an actual person won, "it has a much greater impact than when they might read that the lottery paid a big prize to an anonymous player," said Andi Brancato, director of public relations for the Michigan state lottery.
Most states require the names of lottery winners be disclosed, albeit in different ways. Some states require the winner to appear at a press conference, like Missouri winners Mark and Cindy Hill did on Nov. 30.
Arizona and other states allow winners not to appear in public, but their names can be obtained through public records laws. The Arizona winner, Matthew Good, was not identified at the news conference a week after the Hills' came forward, and has not given interviews or appeared in public.
When news media including The Associated Press learned of his name through records requests, TV crews and reporters flocked to Good's neighborhood to get reaction from the winner of a lottery that captivated the nation.
Jeff Hatch-Miller, executive director of the Arizona Lottery, said he understands winners' desire for privacy, but he argues they are essentially entering into a large contract with the government that is public. Others argue that appearing at a news conference helps defuse media interest because the winner is available to answer questions that satisfy the media's interest in telling their stories.
In Michigan, Republican state Sen. Tory Rocca pushed a lottery bill that allows winners to remain anonymous. It didn't pass, but in arguing for it, he cited cases where lottery winners were shot and killed because of their newfound wealth.
A Florida woman was convicted last month of first-degree murder after she befriended a man who won a $30 million jackpot in 2006. Prosecutors said she took control of his assets, killed him, buried him in her yard and poured a concrete slab above the grave.
An effort in New Jersey by Democratic Sen. Jim Whelan took a middle ground between public release and privacy, calling for a one-year delay in releasing winners' names. It also didn't make it out of the Legislature last year, but he said he'll keep pressing to get it passed.
Whelan said a one-year delay would give winners a chance to adjust while still keeping the public disclosure lotteries say they need. However, Whelan said he doesn't really buy the agencies' arguments for public disclosure.
"I'm not sure how many people are spurred to buy a lottery ticket because they see a picture of someone in the paper holding up a big check - and I don't think people don't buy a ticket because they think the whole thing's fixed," Whelan said.
Of 44 states participating in Powerball and 33 in Mega-Millions, only Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota and Ohio allow blanket anonymity, said Chuck Strutt, executive director of the Multi-State Lottery Association, which oversees the games.
"Obviously, it is a law that is designed to ensure an open and transparent process, so that the public can be ensured that insiders are not winners," Strutt said. "But in today's world, most of us can understand the wish to remain anonymous."
The most famous modern lottery fraud case happened in 1980 when Pennsylvania Lottery district manager Edward Plevel and TV announcer Nick Perry were convicted of fixing the result of the Daily Number drawing.
Authorities found that some of the ping pong balls used in the game were injected with paint to make them too heavy to float up the winning slots. The result paid $3.8 million, a record at the time, and eight people involved in the fix won a total of about $1.2 million.
Former Missouri child services worker Sandra Hayes shared a $224 million Powerball jackpot with a dozen co-workers in 2006 and said she understands the push for anonymity.
Hayes said she received many requests for money or to make investments, both at work (she kept her job another month) and at home, where she'd find people waiting on her porch. Her lump sum payout after taxes was more than $6 million.
Even if people are allowed to remain anonymous, it's often inevitable that their identities will become known.
Steve Thornton, a lawyer in Bowling Green, Ky., has helped two big lottery winners shield their names through corporations despite rules in his state that require disclosure of winners. Even though they were kept out of the public eye, one winner couldn't stay hidden.
"It was not many months later that lots of people knew who won, even though it was not released, because of their gifts and their spending." Thornton said.

Read More..

Court faults EPA for Bush-era soot regulations

WASHINGTON (AP) — An appeals court is siding with environmental groups that had challenged Environmental Protection Agency regulations on soot as too weak.
The three-judge panel ruled Friday that the EPA regulated soot of a certain size under weaker cleanup requirements than it should have.
The environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, had challenged two rules dating back to the George W. Bush administration. The court sent the rules back to the EPA with instructions to strengthen them.
Soot, or fine particulate matter, is microscopic pollution released from smokestacks, diesel trucks and other sources. Breathing it can cause lung and heart problems, contributing to heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks.
Two of the three judges were appointed by Republican presidents, the third by a Democrat.

Read More..

New ND lawmaker 1 of many drafting drone measures

A freshman lawmaker from North Dakota is one of numerous state legislators around the country suggesting regulations to limit the use of unmanned planes for law enforcement, an effort that's gaining bipartisan support and fostering unlikely political alignments.
The bill proposed by Republican State Rep. Rick Becker, of Bismarck, stems from the 2011 arrest of a Lakota farmer during a 16-hour standoff, an event that sparked national debate. State courts held up law enforcement's use of a drone to help a SWAT team apprehend Rodney Brossart, but Becker says there should be safeguards in place to make sure the practice isn't abused.
Lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills in several states, and although Republicans are mostly leading the charge, the issue crosses party lines in Florida and brought together a tea party member from Virginia's General Assembly and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Becker insists he's not out to hinder police; he says it's a matter of privacy.
"It's a new technology that has really amazing capabilities and can be used in excellent ways for our communities. I don't want to say that drones can't be used," Becker said. "But with the new technology there are also issues, primarily privacy issues, which can come into play."
The sheriff in Cass County, the state's most populous county, says Becker's proposal could set a troublesome precedent.
"Some people have this idea that these drones are some sneak and peek into their private lives," said Sheriff Paul Laney, a former Red River Valley SWAT team commander and a member of a national board for crisis management on issues similar to the Brossart case. "It's no different than a routine patrol when we drive by in a squad car on the road and look down the driveway. We are just doing it from a higher level."
One part of Becker's proposal would require a warrant when drones are used as a part of a criminal investigation. Brossart's lawyer, Bruce Quick of Fargo, said a warrant was not obtained for drone use.
State Rep. Al Carlson, the Republican House majority leader from Fargo, said Becker's proposal warrants serious discussion.
"Obviously, invasion of privacy is always important to North Dakotans," Carlson said. "I think it's a good debate to have and I look forward to hearing it."
Similar legislation will be proposed in many states this legislative session, including California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, Missouri, Michigan and Indiana. In Virginia, the ACLU/tea party-backed measure is expected to be unveiled this session.
In addition, a U.S. House of Representatives bill that targets drone privacy was introduced last month by Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey. He plans this session to re-introduce the proposal that would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant to use a drone except in situations such as imminent danger of death or a terrorist attack.
The Brossart arrest was the first drone surveillance case involving a private citizen to receive attention from national media outlets. The standoff began in June 2011, when Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went onto Brossart's land with a search warrant to look for six missing cows. Janke said he left after he was confronted by three men brandishing rifles.
Authorities used images from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Predator drone to find the location of three Brossart brothers, including Rodney, who lived on the farm and determine that they were unarmed. Police then moved in to arrest them.
State Rep. Ed Gruchalla, D-Fargo, a retired highway patrol officer, opposes Becker's idea and said he heard the same complaints when global cameras were first placed into squad cars.
"I see the same kind of things from the drones. It's new and I don't think people are quite used to it," he said. "I think it will blow over."
Some states are testing drones for uses that don't include investigations. Last month, a Department of Homeland Security drone testing program was launched near Fort Sill in southwestern Oklahoma.
Steve McKeever, the state's secretary of science and technology and vice president of research and technology transfer at Oklahoma State University, said the program is designed to test robotic aircraft technologies for use in public safety applications, such as first responders and search and rescue missions, and does not involve military use.
"All we're doing is testing technologies," McKeever said, noting the program does not involve training in pursuit situations as part of criminal investigations, like the drones were used in Brossart's case.
Brossart, his wife and their four children face several charges, including theft and terrorizing. Quick said he is negotiating a resolution that could be completed in the next month.
Quick, who earlier labeled drone use in the Brossart case as "outrageous government conduct," said he supports Becker's efforts.
"I'm not saying what they're doing is unconstitutional, although it could be in certain circumstances, I just don't like it," he said. "I just think the more that sort of intrusion happens, the less privacy we all have.

Read More..

FDA: New rules will make food safer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration says its new guidelines would make the food Americans eat safer and help prevent the kinds of foodborne disease outbreaks that sicken or kill thousands of consumers each year.
The rules, the most sweeping food safety guidelines in decades, would require farmers to take new precautions against contamination, to include making sure workers' hands are washed, irrigation water is clean, and that animals stay out of fields. Food manufacturers will have to submit food safety plans to the government to show they are keeping their operations clean.
The long-overdue regulations could cost businesses close to half a billion dollars a year to implement, but are expected to reduce the estimated 3,000 deaths a year from foodborne illness. The new guidelines were announced Friday.
Just since last summer, outbreaks of listeria in cheese and salmonella in peanut butter, mangoes and cantaloupe have been linked to more than 400 illnesses and as many as seven deaths, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The actual number of those sickened is likely much higher.
Many responsible food companies and farmers are already following the steps that the FDA would now require them to take. But officials say the requirements could have saved lives and prevented illnesses in several of the large-scale outbreaks that have hit the country in recent years.
In a 2011 outbreak of listeria in cantaloupe that claimed 33 lives, for example, FDA inspectors found pools of dirty water on the floor and old, dirty processing equipment at Jensen Farms in Colorado where the cantaloupes were grown. In a peanut butter outbreak this year linked to 42 salmonella illnesses, inspectors found samples of salmonella throughout Sunland Inc.'s peanut processing plant in New Mexico and multiple obvious safety problems, such as birds flying over uncovered trailers of peanuts and employees not washing their hands.
Under the new rules, companies would have to lay out plans for preventing those sorts of problems, monitor their own progress and explain to the FDA how they would correct them.
"The rules go very directly to preventing the types of outbreaks we have seen," said Michael Taylor, FDA's deputy commissioner for foods.
The FDA estimates the new rules could prevent almost 2 million illnesses annually, but it could be several years before the rules are actually preventing outbreaks. Taylor said it could take the agency another year to craft the rules after a four-month comment period, and farms would have at least two years to comply — meaning the farm rules are at least three years away from taking effect. Smaller farms would have even longer to comply.
The new rules, which come exactly two years to the day President Barack Obama's signed food safety legislation passed by Congress, were already delayed. The 2011 law required the agency to propose a first installment of the rules a year ago, but the Obama administration held them until after the election. Food safety advocates sued the administration to win their release.
The produce rule would mark the first time the FDA has had real authority to regulate food on farms. In an effort to stave off protests from farmers, the farm rules are tailored to apply only to certain fruits and vegetables that pose the greatest risk, like berries, melons, leafy greens and other foods that are usually eaten raw. A farm that produces green beans that will be canned and cooked, for example, would not be regulated.
Such flexibility, along with the growing realization that outbreaks are bad for business, has brought the produce industry and much of the rest of the food industry on board as Congress and FDA has worked to make food safer.
In a statement Friday, Pamela Bailey, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents the country's biggest food companies, said the food safety law "can serve as a role model for what can be achieved when the private and public sectors work together to achieve a common goal."
The new rules could cost large farms $30,000 a year, according to the FDA. The agency did not break down the costs for individual processing plants, but said the rules could cost manufacturers up to $475 million annually.
FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said the success of the rules will also depend on how much money Congress gives the chronically underfunded agency to put them in place. "Resources remain an ongoing concern," she said.
The farm and manufacturing rules are only one part of the food safety law. The bill also authorized more surprise inspections by the FDA and gave the agency additional powers to shut down food facilities. In addition, the law required stricter standards on imported foods. The agency said it will soon propose other overdue rules to ensure that importers verify overseas food is safe and to improve food safety audits overseas.
Food safety advocates frustrated over the last year as the rules stalled praised the proposed action.
"The new law should transform the FDA from an agency that tracks down outbreaks after the fact, to an agency focused on preventing food contamination in the first place," said Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Read More..

Merkel kicks off German election year campaigning

BERLIN (AP) — Chancellor Angela Merkel is highlighting Germany's economic strength and dismissing worries that her party could be dragged down by its struggling coalition partner as she kicks off campaigning for an important state election.
Merkel's center-right coalition faces a tough battle to extend its 10-year hold on Lower Saxony state in the Jan. 20 election. Polls suggest the center-left opposition has a good chance of winning — giving it a significant boost ahead of September national elections in which Merkel will seek a third term.
Merkel, speaking Saturday after her conservative Christian Democrats' leadership met in Lower Saxony, criticized opposition plans for tax increases.
Merkel's party leads polls in Lower Saxony and nationally but its junior partner, the pro-market Free Democratic Party, is very weak.

Read More..