Legislative advocacy efforts are increasingly becoming part of a counselor's professional identity, yet scholarly literature lacks studies about experiences of counseling students involved in legislative advocacy for the counseling profession. The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of the meaning counseling students ascribe to their involvement in legislative advocacy for the counseling profession. Astin's student involvement theory was the conceptual framework utilized to explore the lived experiences of counseling graduate students and recent graduates who participated in a 4-day long American Counseling Association Institute for Leadership Training on legislative advocacy and leadership or in professional legislative advocacy at the state level. Convenient and snowball sampling yielded 8 participants who engaged in semistructured interviews. Using interpretative phenomenological analysis, the data were analyzed to identify essential themes. Thematic analysis was conducted by hand using literature-based codes and lean coding as well as NVivo software. Themes included awareness, faculty mentor, involvement, incorporating legislative advocacy into the curriculum, lack of confidence, student learning and personal development, legislative culture, motivation, student obstacles to professional legislative advocacy, and problems in working with other professions. Findings may be useful for counselor educators seeking to integrate professional legislative advocacy into the counseling curriculum. Implementing a professional legislative advocacy approach into the counseling curriculum might contribute to counselor students' developing a propensity for leadership, advocacy, and professional legislative advocacy beyond graduation.

The late 1990's was a time of great wealth and prosperity in the United States. With this economic fervor came a new era of deregulation of the financial services industry. During this time, Congress passed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, otherwise referred to as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GBLA). This law removed the final barrier (contained in Depression-era Glass-Steagall legislation) between mixing investment banking and commercial banking in the United States. The purpose of this report is to explain the intentions of the law's supporters and detractors, to discuss why this period was a particularly ripe time for such a policy, to examine the leadership decisions that contributed to the passage of GLBA, and to understand the motives behind a "new Glass-Steagall" bill today. This paper focuses only on the deregulatory parts of GLBA relevant to Glass-Steagall's repeal. It does not examine the privacy protections, et al. of GLBA at any length. Also contained in the analysis is a brief discussion of whether GLBA's stated intentions have been violated through the mixing of banking and commerce that has emerged in the present day. Finally, this report ends with a discussion on the fidelity of our national debate on banking regulation, and what it means for the federal government to manage risk in American financial markets in support of the public interest. / text