by Hilde Latour | Jul 31, 2017 | News
Covering the philosophy of freedom, an explanation of universal basic income and the economics behind it, Karl Widerquist, vice-chair (at the time of the interview he still was co-chair) of Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), was interviewed by Sam Barton from Talk of Today in Australia.
During the interview, Widerquist talks about what it means to be a fully free person and argues people should regain their freedom from forced labour. “If you are a free person, you can choose to be given and follow orders for 40 hours a week, but you can also choose not to,” Widerquist states. Many people can only survive by paying for resources that are owned by others, and according to Widerquist, people should be “compensated financially for that so they don’t have to work for others if they don’t want to.” As most people can choose their employer, the labour force cannot be compared with slavery, but “to say you are fully free, you have to be free from oppression”, and many people are not, Widerquist argues.
Widerquist explains a Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a means to create a market economy where income doesn’t start at zero and where you can get a higher income from a job on top of that. Some wages will rise as a result of UBI according to Wilderquist. But at the moment, “there are so many people that need their jobs to survive that employers put the wages down.”
UBI can replace a lot of programs that don’t work so well. It will have to be high enough to meet people’s basic needs, but people with special needs, such as paraplegics, will have to get some additional support, as they will need more to meet their basic needs. Other things, such as campaign contributions, can be cancelled in order to finance UBI according to Wilderquist.
Whether or not UBI will cause inflation depends on the balance between taxing and spending, which is a task of the government, with or without UBI.
Info and links
Full interview podcast
Special thanks to Josh Martin and Dawn Howard for reviewing this article
by Guest Contributor | Jul 17, 2017 | Opinion
Written by: Frank Kamanga
INTRODUCTION
This article is inspired by the article titled “Helicopter money and basic income: Friends or foes” authored by Stanislas Jourdan (2017). He made a very important attempt to clear up confusion between two similar and conflicting yet important terms in the global economy at this moment. Hıs article has opened doors for another attempt to compare basic income scheme and cash transfer schemes. This article will explain the definitions of cash transfers (CTs) and universal basic income (UBI), as well as institutional frameworks under which the programmes are implemented. It will also address financing arrangements for the programmes, and linkages between UBI, CT and Sustainable Development Goals, in an attempt to explain the justification of UBIs in the current state of the global economy. Policy issues related to both CTs and UBIs will also be highlighted.
Basic income and cash transfers are not novel ideas for poverty alleviation. A basic income scheme was initiated in North America in the 1970’s and 1980’s with support from prominent economists of that time. Following the successful implementation of such programmes, governments and the World Bank began implementing cash transfers in emerging and developing countries. With the rising discontent toward the neoliberal economic system and austerity measures, poverty alleviation measures such as Universal Basic Income (UBI) have been resuscitated back to life in developed economies. Gradually, governments in emerging and developing countries are carrying out pilot projects to assess the efficacy of basic income projects.
Emerging and developing countries like India and South Africa, which are implementing cash transfers, are also contemplating introducing basic income projects. This demonstrates that there are differences between these two concepts. Indeed, these two programs are similar regarding their purpose of alleviating poverty and their nature of implementation. However, the analysis below will show why UBI stands out as a different programme from cash transfers, and why our current economic circumstances means a basic income scheme should be implemented globally even in developing and emerging economies.
DEFINITION OF BASIC INCOME AND CASH TRANSFERS
CASH TRANSFERS
Cash Transfer Programmes are founded on social inclusion theory in the context of economic development. The social inclusion theory posits that governments should integrate the poor into the general economy by supporting them with a basic amount of cash. Cash transfer programmes fall into two categories: conditional cash transfers and unconditional cash transfers. Under conditional cash transfers, recipients receive cash only if they can demonstrate that their behavior meets certain stated requirements. Under unconditional cash transfer programmes, the payout does not depend on individual behaviour (Forget E.L et al., 2013).
Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT) are used to encourage the behaviour of utilizing public services such as education and health services which lead to a reduction of poverty in the long run. For instance, in Mexico the conditional cash transfer programme provided cash to households on the condition that their children regularly attend schools and also access health services at clinics[1]. Proponents of conditional cash transfers argue that the scheme leads to better investments in human capital through access to social services that improve people’s knowledge and skills. The World Bank is a major supporter of the conditional cash transfer programme.
Meanwhile, advocates of the Unconditional Cash Transfer (UCT) programme look at the situation from a different perspective. They argue that poverty is cyclic and hard to break out of when there are conditions imposed on your spending. For instance, with restrictions on peoples’ spending, some basic needs are left out of the spending equation. To meet these basic needs, people may engage in other risky income generating activities such as sex work. When people are in poverty and desperate for money, we should not condition help on changing their behavior. Therefore, advocates of UCT argue cash should not be given according to certain behaviors. Rather, these resources should be made available to poor families so that they can make spending decisions consistent with their socio-economic priorities regardless of the work or job they are engaged in. UCT programmes are supported by human rights advocates and are consistent with a human rights based approach to development.
Unconditional cash transfers are not only premised on certain behavioural requirements, they also have lower administrative costs than conditional transfers (Capriati 2016). In addition, in countries like Malawi unconditional cash transfers have also been merged with other social services like agricultural farm cooperatives and access to health services, hence improving their effectiveness. In this case, UCTs are more consistent with meeting a broader aspect of sustainable development goals.
This notwithstanding, with regards to impact, lessons from CCT and UCT programmes in Zomba city in Malawi have shown that both programmes have had positive results in terms of reducing child marriages, improving educational attendance, and avoiding early pregnancies. However, it has shown that UCT is relatively more effective in solving several challenges met by the families. This is because based on tastes, preferences, and priorities, families could decide how to spend money without constraints so that intended objectives can be met (Forget E.L et al., 2013).
BASIC INCOME
The concept of basic income is a relatively new phenomenon in the developing world as opposed to the developed world. In Canada, a basic income experiment called MINCOME was carried out as a means-tested negative income tax[2] in the 1970s. Meanwhile, a notable experiment was conducted in Namibia and currently two countries are carrying out pilot projects – Kenya and Uganda. Basic income guarantee or Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) is considered as a UCT income large enough to guarantee everyone in an economy or in the world a minimum level of financial resources on an individual basis without imposed conditions.
Basic Income mainly works on the principles of unconditionality and universality. Proponents of basic income also argue that the programme is based on the intrinsic value of human beings in an economy. This value is generated from their contribution to the creation of the general wealth of the society and also from the inherited value of our ancestors who created the wealth we are enjoying today (Jourdan S. 2017). Just like cash transfers, basic income plays quite an array of roles from poverty alleviation, school attendance promotion, work emancipation, gender balance incentivization, social protection, modernization and early child marriage prevention.
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR BASIC INCOME AND CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMME
The institutional framework of these programmes can be analyzed in terms of implementation, sources of funding, policies and financial infrastructure. Firstly, given the diverse nature of objectives of both cash transfer and basic income projects, different non-governmental organizations and line ministries of central government can implement these projects. The government normally implements both basic income and cash transfer projects in the context of fiscal policies.
Financial sector tools such as mobile payment technology and policies also play a huge role in implementation of both basic income and cash transfer projects. GiveDirectly, a US based NGO, is able to implement a basic income project in Kenya and Uganda due to robust mobile technology payment systems established in these two economies.
FINANCING OF BASIC INCOME AND CASH TRANSFER PROGRAMME
Cash transfer programmes and UBI programmes share some differences in terms of how resources are to be mobilized. There is readily available information in terms of how cash transfer programmes are being implemented and funded in developing countries like Malawi. As for UBI, the information is scant but constantly flowing, as different suggestions on how the scheme should be financed are being put forward by proponents.
From an experience of cash transfer schemes in Malawi, these Conditional Cash Transfers are mainly funded by the World Bank and implemented by the government of Malawi. Meanwhile, Unconditional Cash Transfer schemes are implemented by Unicef, Oxfam, Government of Malawi and several non-governmental organizations. These programmes are financed by various donors including the Government of Germany, EU, World Bank, Irish Aid and the Government of Malawi. At the same time, the government of Netherlands is funding the design of a linkage and referral system of the Social Cash transfer programme.
As for the financing of the UBI programme, the topic is currently being addressed in different circles at policy and academic levels. Some of the topics being discussed include how the resources should be mobilized, what kind of tools should be used and who should fund the programme. Understanding this aspect of the UBI programme can assist in providing information on how to strategize campaigning and advocacy programmes for UBI in different countries.
It is claimed that there are currently no established, in-country funding mechanism for UBI in developing nations, except for external funds, as in the cases of Uganda and Kenya. However, in selected developed countries that are piloting the schemes, governments are implementing the projects through their fiscal space. Given the need for longevity of the schemes, some authors such as Young (2017), Stern (2017) and Santens (2017) have suggested sustainable ways for mobilizing resources for UBI in the United Kingdom and United States of America. Some of the methods may apply to both developing and developed countries, while others are restricted to developed countries. Here we will dwell on Young’s proposal for financing UBI and this can be can be categorized into three main groups: 1. Recalibrating existing tax and benefit systems 2. Replacing CCT 3. Communalizing common assets 4. Direct grants from the private sector can also be utilized.
Advocates for proposal one argue that for UBI to be politically feasible, it must be achieved using the existing infrastructure of taxation and spending. The idea is that UBI is currently at a conceptual stage. To materialize this scheme, governments must begin with existing resources (on a trial basis) and there is neither a need for radical and rapid changes to the system nor additional taxes. In this approach, the UBI scheme can be small in scale, targeting the most vulnerable people across the board. As in the case of developed nations such as the UK, resources can be mobilized through restructuring the existing, inefficient and unfair benefit systems. Under this proposition, UBI can be used as a subsistence or sub-subsistence level of income to be supplemented by earnings from employment and/or disability, housing, or child benefits.
One of the ways in which savings for UBI can be generated is through restructuring existing benefits, as explained by Malcom Torry of the Citizen’s Income Trust. He states that the administrative savings from dismantling the means-tested benefits system are in the range of £8-10 billion. In other words, it is very expensive to decipher who is and isn’t deserving of government support, especially when recipients must prove their worthiness. Restructuring the benefits to look more like a UBI scheme can not only help save money but would also be fairer.
The second proposal for financing UBI is simply replacing the CCT scheme with a UBI scheme in developing and emerging economies. India is already on the way to do this. UBI is more closely related to a UCT scheme, hence all the benefits of a UCT scheme over CCT also accrue to UBI.
The third proposition involves communalizing common assets. Some proponents state this UBI financing mechanism takes a more radical and systematic overhaul approach. These proponents look at financing UBI in its universality context and hence propose financing solutions that span across geographical boundaries of both developed and developing countries. These proponents argue for the abolishment of private ownership of resources – be it physical, cultural, biological, or economic. They argue that resources such as the biosphere, atmospheric carbon, fisheries and forests, and unearned income of technological change should be respected as the common property for all, rather than be the source of exploitative disparities from unequal access and power. The implementation of such a systematic and transformative change requires establishment of new policies, institutions and a new economic paradigm at a global level.
There are several prominent advocates who have come up with several ideas on how resources can be mobilized under the proposal of communalizing common assets. First, Barnes Boyce and James Boyce put forward that charges should be put in place by governments on access and use of ‘communally inherited assets’ and that revenues must be redistributed. They argue that charges could be placed, for example, on polluting the scarce resource that is the carrying capacity of our atmosphere, or on trades of stocks, bonds, and derivatives (the latter of which could raise $300 billion per year). Barnes and Boyce claim that charges on a portfolio of universal assets could grant a US citizen a UBI of $200 a month.
A wealth tax could also provide an alternative for resources for UBI ın some countries. Researchers such as Thomas Piketty suggest measures such as progressive capital taxation. Martin Faley suggests the Georgist land value tax (LVT) in the context of the UK. Faley claims that land taxes coupled with common licenses could fund a £4,500 annual UBI. A globalization fund could also strike a deal. Globalization has had some negative consequences as we can see from recent increased in nationalism and unemployment in developed and emerging economies. Multinational companies exploiting labor and cheap natural resources in developing countries whilst making billions of US dollars should be charged a globalization tax to be fed into the globalization fund. This fund can be used to support a global UBI dividend or grant.
The fourth industrial revolution is mainly characterized by automation of jobs and technological unemployment. Some economists and futurists have found leeway to press for resource mobilization to finance UBI. For instance, Economist Yannis Varoufakis and futurist Kartik Gada have each suggested that the labor savings from automation could (and should) pay for UBI. According to Varoufakis, the proposal is that one-part should be wealth tax and one-part should be ownership restructuring. That is, a small tax is levied on shares from every initial public offering put into a commons capital depository that in effect grants citizens property rights over new technologies that yield financial returns. The Commons Capital Depository would then pay out a UBI to all citizens.
The last proposal that is also being applied already is the financing of UBI activities with funds from the private sector. eBay is financing pilot projects in both Kenya and Uganda. More and more private companies can come in to support such projects in developing countries.
LINKAGES BETWEEN CASH TRANSFER AND UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Cash transfer and basic income share the same theories of how they change people’s behavior or improve living conditions of people in the context of Sustainable Development Goals.
- CT programmes reduce poverty and increase income. As income increases, people spend money to solve diverse needs of their families and they also spend on luxury goods. SDG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9
- CTs and Basic income reduce risk. A CT or a Basic income is a form of social insurance that increases the planning horizon and allows one to take calculated risks. SDG 2,3,4
- CTs and Basic income reduce income inequality. SDG 10
- CTs and Basic income enhance social values of dignity and integrity, hence build communities through interaction. SDG 11, 16, 17
WHY UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME NOW
There are quite a number of reasons to justify the policy shift in favour of basic income in both developing and developed countries. The first reason is that the basic income is guaranteed over a long period, thereby enabling people to make plans for major life decisions ahead of time. The longevity of UBI can also stimulate demand in the global economy, hence leading to increased production and employment in the production sector.
Additionally, just as with unconditional cash transfers, basic income schemes could be cheaper than providing in-kind transfers and conditional cash transfers. In-kind transfers take the form of goods and services like cattle, books, schools, and hospitals. It is claimed that projects involving the provision of such projects have huge administrative, implementation and logistics costs. Besides this, they constrain people on their freedom to spend money on the goods and services of their choice. However, thanks to mobile technologies, basic income programmes are implemented with ease and offer economic freedom on expenditure of the money.
Basic income is also conventionally universal and is regarded as a human right. Basic income programmes target people across the board in an economy. The cash is provided irrespective of your employment status, gender, region, physical ability. Rather, it is based on one’s inability to meet basic needs in a society. Therefore, beneficiaries in a basic income project are diverse and the impact on poverty reduction as well as the multiplier effect on the economy are likely to be huge.
Finally, just as with conditional cash transfers, basic income offers an opportunity for long term investment in human capital. From the recent evaluation survey of GiveDirectly’s basic income project in Kenya, 20 percent of respondents said that they were using the money for payments of school fees for either themselves or their children. As the project is expected to last for some years, recipients of the cash can make long term and secured plans to finance their studies, hence building human capital in the economy.
POLICY ISSUES FOR CTs AND UBI
- Basic Income is more closely related to UCT. Therefore, in terms of cost structure, the cost per unit of outcome will be lower with a UCT and UBI scheme compared to conditional cash transfer scheme.
- UBI has a greater potential for political advocacy and long-term stability despite its perceived greater cost, due to its universality.
- Financial Modelling of UBI in Malawi must be conducted to assess the possibility of carrying UBI and UCT concurrently.
Frank Kamanga is a former Economist of the Central Bank of Malawi. He is a co-founder of Global Hope Mobilization and Centre for Child Development of Research, two local NGOs in Malawi. He is member of the Basic Income Earth Network Outreach Committee and also Global Unification International UBI Africa Committee.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Capriati M. (2016) https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2016/07/whats-so-special-about-give-directlys-basic-income-pilot/ Accessed in April 2017
Forget, E.L, Peden A.D., and Strobel, S.B (2013). Cash Transfers, Basic Income and Community Building. Social Inclusion, 1(2), 84-91.
Jourdan S. (2017) helicopter money and basic income: friends or foes?
Santens S. (2017) How to Reform Welfare and Taxes to Provide Every American Citizen with a Basic Income. Accessed on 6th June 2017.
SDG knowledge platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300. Accessed in April 2017
Stern, A. (2017) Raising the floor. Accessed in June 2017
Young Charlie (2017). Conversation about Basic Income is a Mess. Here’s How to Make Sense of it. https://evonomics.com/basic-income-conversation-make-sense-charlie-young/. Accessed in April 2017.
[1]https://web.worldbank.org/archive/website00819C/WEB/PDF/CASE_-62.PDF
[2]A negative income tax is a progressive income tax system where people earning below a certain amount receive supplemental pay from the government instead of paying taxes to the government.
by BIEN | Jul 15, 2017 | News
Credit to: AT Kearney.
Courtney McCaffrey and others from AT Kearney published an article on the debate around Universal Basic Income (UBI) in markets throughout the world. Politicians, in both Europe and North America, are winning on campaign trails with talk about returning control to the common people from the economic system in the globe.
But one of the big worker displacers is automation and new technologies. Oxford University reported 47% of US jobs will be taken over by automation in the next two decades. A UBI is being offered as an economic buffer for such workplace and technology transitions.
Such a UBI would be universal and unconditional in the application. Past UBI experiments such as Mincome in Canada, projects in Seattle and Denver (USA), and Namibia produced real, positive results empowering those politicians. McCaffrey and her collegues also mention recent major endorsements for UBI, for instance from such luminaries as Elon Musk, Tim O’Reilly, and Marc Andreessen.
Two books are recommended: 1) Utopia for Realists by Rutger Bregman, and 2) Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy by Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght. Other notable cases reported on were Finland, India, and Ontario.
The article discusses pros and cons of UBI, in a general sense. It was noted that citizens with a UBI will spend more time on family and school. The sources of funding for the UBI could be revenues from natural resources and/or more taxes. Some views of critics are following their own political lines, but the major concern revolves around people’s availability to work when they get a UBI covering their basic needs.
Finally, the article summarizes views agains UBI on the political Right and Left. On the Right, the main argument is cost. On the political Left, detractors view UBI as “regressive” because it could dismantle current welfare systems, and that it may not capture different living costs in different areas.
More information at:
McCaffrey, C.R., Toland, T. & Peterson, E.R., “The Best Things in Life Are Free?“, AT Kearney, March 2017
by Kate McFarland | Jul 10, 2017 | News
The Economy Security Project (ESP), a two-year fund launched in December 2016 to support investigation of basic income in the United States, has published the results of a new survey of Alaskans’ attitudes towards the state’s Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD).
The Permanent Fund Dividend
In 1976, the Alaska State Constitution created a permanent fund in which the state must invest at least 25% of its oil revenues, enabling wealth generated from the sale of a nonrenewable resource to continue to benefit future generations of Alaskans. The PFD, created in 1982, distributes a portion of the fund’s earnings as a dividend paid annually to all Alaskans.
Disbursed in equal amount to all adults and children who have lived in the state for more than a year (and intend to remain indefinitely), the PFD is widely regarded as one of the nearest “real world” examples of a basic income. Although its amount is variable, and too small to guarantee even a poverty-level existence, the PFD is universal, unconditional, and paid in cash at regular intervals, entailing that it does indeed satisfy BIEN’s definition of a basic income.
The PFD reached a peak amount of $2,072 per resident in 2015, but fell to $1,022 in 2016 after Governor Bill Walker used a line-item veto to cut the funds allocated to the PFD by the Alaska Legislature by more than half–a controversial decision that provoked a lawsuit from State Senator Bill Wielechowski, seeking to restore the full amount of the 2016 PFD approved by the legislature. Without Walker’s veto, the amount of 2016 PFD would have been $2,052.
At the time of this writing, Wielechowski’s lawsuit is being considered by the Supreme Court of Alaska, having been dismissed by a Superior Court judge in November of last year. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on June 20, but its final decision is likely to take months.
Meanwhile, Governor Walker recently signed the state budget for 2017, without exercising any line item vetoes this year. According to KTOO News, the budget includes $760 million for the PFD, which will amount to about $1,100 per Alaskan.
Popular Opinion Survey
Earlier in the year, ESP commissioned a telephone survey 1,004 Alaskan voters, carried out by the market research firm Harstad Strategic Research. According to ESP, the new survey is the “most comprehensive review of public attitudes about the PFD since 1984.”
Respondents answered a variety of questions concerning their attitudes toward the Permanent Fund and Dividend. Asked how much of a difference the PFD has made in their lives “over the past five years or so,” 40% replied that the dividends have made a “great deal” or “quite a bit” of difference, with 28% replying that the dividends have made “only some” or “just a little” difference, and only 8% saying that the dividends have made no difference. Women were more likely than men to say that the PFD has made “great deal” or “quite a bit” of difference (47% versus 33%), and 70% of those who described their economic circumstances as “barely surviving” stated that the PFD had this degree of impact.
While 87% of respondents agreed with the statement, “How people spent their Permanent Fund checks should not determine whether or not the dividend program continues,” respondents meanwhile do not believe that Alaskans use their annual PFD checks frivolously: 85% of agreed that “Many people spend a large part of their Permanent Fund dividends on basic needs,” and 79% agreed that “The Permanent Fund dividend checks are an important source of income for people in my community.” A comparatively small number, though a sizeable minority (43%), agreed with the statement “Many people have wasted a large part of their Permanent Fund checks on such things as liquor or drugs.” Asked about their own spending behavior, 27% replied that they save all or most of the payments, while 30% say that they use the PFD to pay off credit cards or other debt.
Respondents also view the universality of the PFD favorably: 72% support the fact that “everyone who is basically a full-time resident of Alaska” receives the PFD, and 84% agree that “As owners of the Alaska Permanent Fund, Alaska residents are entitled to an equal share of the earnings of the Fund.” Interestingly, though, only 50% favor the distribution of the PFD to “millionaires and multi-millionaires living in Alaska,” suggesting that framing effects may influence respondents’ expressed attitudes towards universality.
The survey also suggests that–in an apparently pronounced change of opinion since the 1984 survey–a majority of Alaskans would prefer the institution of a state income tax over the termination of the PFD if it became necessary for the state to adopt one of these measures to raise money for government services. The preference for keeping the PFD was strongest among those with annual household incomes under $50,000 (72%) and those who described their situation as “barely surviving” (82%). Even those respondents with household incomes over $100,000 tended to prefer preserving the PFD to avoiding income taxes (58%).
Many other related questions were also included in the survey. For more details and graphical displays, see the links in “more information” below.
More Information
Economic Security Project, “Alaska PFD Phone Survey: Executive Summary,” June 22, 2017. Official Executive Summary of the survey’s findings, prepared by Harstad Strategic Research.
Supplemental materials from Harstad Strategic Research:
Taylor Jo Isenberg, “What a New Survey from Alaska Can Teach Us about Public Support for Basic Income,” Medium, June 28, 2017. Blog post summarizing of survey results, with background about the PFD.
Photo CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 U.S. Pacific Command
by BIEN | Jul 1, 2017 | News
Hamilton, Canada. Credit to: CBC.
As reported before, the majority of the Ontario’s citizens support a basic income, but they want a pilot project. However, most think $17,000 (CAD) is insufficient to meet the basic needs of most citizens.
There was a poll by Campaign Research done on 1,969 people with 53% of people supporting the plan for a basic income. Young people, aged 18 to 24, were the most supportive age group at 59%.
Lars Osberg, professor of economics at Dalhousie University, said the poll was possibly inaccurate with, for example, the Atlantic Canada (63% support for the plan) sample at only 198 people. Liberals (62%) and NDP (63%) were the most supportive.
The pilot project has 4,000 people from three areas: Hamilton, Lindsay, and Thunder Bay. It emphasizes citizens with low incomes. Couples will get $24,027; singles will receive $16,989.
The first experiment will run one year without conditions. The reason for the experiment is to see if the basic income provisions will improve life quality and job prospects.
Osberg noted that the youth are the unemployed or the underemployed, generally, and that the basic income does not disincentivize work. Osberg thinks the basic income would not disincentive work, as some fear.
More information at:
Jack Hauen, “Majority support Ontario’s basic income plan, but many find $17,000 not enough: poll”, Financial Times, May 17th 2017
Eli Yufest, “Majority approves of Ontario’s basic income plan, many find $17,000 per year too little an amount“, Campaign Research, May 16th 2017
