In an excellent piece in today's Wall Street Journal, Scott Atlas of Stanford University highlights…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Want to Address Drug Costs? Avoid Price Controls, Eliminate PBMs and Don't Weaken Patents

In an excellent piece in today's Wall Street Journal, Scott Atlas of Stanford University highlights how Americans enjoy far greater access to new lifesaving drugs than patients in Europe and elsewhere, and how the movement to impose government price controls would only restrict access to new drugs and degrade Americans' health outcomes, as we at CFIF have been emphasizing:

America has superior treatment results for virtually all serious diseases reliant on drug treatment, including cancer, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure and diabetes.  Price controls would jeopardize that advantage...

Pegging drug prices to those of foreign countries, as both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have proposed, would ultimately lead to the same consequences Europeans endure - reduced access…[more]

February 14, 2019 • 05:20 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
A Victory for Free Speech or More of the McCain? Print
By Sam Batkins
Thursday, September 10 2009
A 'proper' disposition of the case could sweep McCain-Feingold’s anti-free speech legislation where it belongs, into the dustbin of history.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.  Rarely has a 90-minute argument meant so much for the cause of free speech.

In fact, a “proper” disposition of the case could sweep McCain-Feingold’s anti-free speech legislation where it belongs, into the dustbin of history. 

The oral argument this week is actually the second time the Supreme Court has heard the case this year.  The difference this time, however, was that the Court asked the parties to address the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s “electioneering communication” provision directly. 

Under the Gordian Knot of federal regulations created by McCain-Feingold, communication to the public was divided up into three categories.  First, there is express advocacy: “Vote for Candidate X” or “Defeat Candidate Y.”  Second, there is issue advocacy: “X is an unwise policy decision.”  And, finally there is a middle ground that often strangles even the most benign speech: the “electioneering communication” provision under Section 203 of the law.

Section 203, according to the twisted guise of federal regulators, means 1) “any broadcast” advertisement that refers to a candidate for election, 2) is distributed 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary election, and 3) is targeted to the relevant electorate.  Even though the purpose of a broadcast ad might be issue advocacy, if it even mentions a candidate, then it could fall within the maddening rubric that is “electioneering communication.” 

In addition, the troubling 2003 decision of McConnell v. FEC, which upheld McCain-Feingold and its “electioneering communication” provision, also expanded the statutory language somewhat to include the “functional equivalent” of “electioneering communication,” further dampening free speech rights. 

What does this mean for free speech advocates?  Well, during the first oral arguments heard by the Court in Citizens United earlier this year, some of the justices indicated that Congress and the FEC might have taken speech regulation to new highs (or lows, depending on your perspective). 

Indeed, the justices went so far as to ask if a hypothetical 500-page book that reviewed the life and times of a Senator were published (read, “broadcast” under bureaucratic jargon) within 30 days of a general election, and on page 250 of the book the text read: “Vote for X,” would the book then fall under the provisions of the law and be banned?

Thankfully for the First Amendment, the Court might finally realize that the current state of campaign finance regulation is the result of an ugly marriage between Congress and federal regulators, inflamed by the tortured logic of fractured Supreme Court opinions.

As eight former FEC Commissioners noted in their amicus curiae brief (a document filed by interested parties urging the Court to rule a certain way) to the Supreme Court, the current state of McCain-Feingold is untenable.  They noted, “The pristine simplicity of the First Amendment’s proscription of any law abridging speech yielded first to urgent circumstances, but now is replaced by a flood of complex restrictions.  The complexity requires citizens to hire specialists to speak.  Specialists cost money.  Errors risk penalties.  Core political speech is chilled.” 

During this week’s oral arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia was especially suspicious of the government position supporting McCain-Feingold.  Justice Scalia noted that it is the government that has the burden, through a compelling interest, to prove speech should be suppressed.  Justice Scalia went further by stating, “We are suspicious of Congressional action in the First Amendment area precisely because I doubt that one can expect a body of incumbents to draw election restrictions that do not favor incumbents.  Is that excessively cynical of me?  I don’t think so.”  The government attorney (shockingly) disagreed, and the audience let out a cynical laugh of its own.

With any hope, the Justices are currently in conference debating the end of Section 203 and a large chunk of current campaign finance reform regulations.  As the holiday season approaches in December, free speech advocates could awake to a present that should never have been taken away in the first place: the right to petition one’s government for the redress of grievances and speak out against offensive policies and reprehensible politicians, especially those who seek job security by silencing their critics with the threat of jail time. 

By December, or perhaps sooner, we will all know whether the tenets of “Congress shall make no law” are still sacrosanct, or whether the Court will bow to Congress and extend McCain-Feingold’s failure further into the First Amendment’s uncertain future. 

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
How many votes need to be cast in the affirmative in order to expel a member of Congress from either Chamber?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Amazon does not need New York City. There are many advantages to operating in a city such as New York, which offers experiences and opportunities that well-paid tech-company executives are not going to find in such business-friendly alternatives as Houston or Las Vegas. But Amazon has decided that these are not worth the price of admission, which in this case would be subjecting itself to a political…[more]
 
 
—Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
— Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

Given the hard-left turn of Democratic Party leaders and many rank-and-file elected officials, how do you think Democrats will fare in 2020 elections?