Add First Lady Michelle Obama and various members of the Democratic Party to the chorus of politicos…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
A More ‘Proportional’ Response than Impeachment?

Add First Lady Michelle Obama and various members of the Democratic Party to the chorus of politicos discussing the possibility of impeaching President Barack Obama.

The First Lady warned a group of donors that, “If we lose these midterm elections, it’s going to be a whole lot harder to finish what we started because we’ll just see more of the same out in Washington – more obstructions, more lawsuits, and talk about impeachment.”

A series of fundraising email blasts was then sent on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee begging immediate donations to thwart a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate. “ALL GIFTS TODAY ARE TRIPLE-MATCHED!” blared the emails.

Despite all this, impeachment is still seen in most quarters as far-fetched. Simple math says…[more]

July 28, 2014 • 08:11 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.
Home Press Room CFIF Joins Coalition Reiterating Opposition to Dubiously Named "Internet Radio Fairness Act"
CFIF Joins Coalition Reiterating Opposition to Dubiously Named "Internet Radio Fairness Act" Print
Thursday, August 01 2013

August 1, 2013

Dear Representative:

The undersigned organizations wish to reiterate our opposition to the so-called “Internet Radio Fairness Act,” which would require the government to grant subsidized, below-market rates to Internet radio companies for their input costs. This approach moves in the wrong direction by rejecting free-market based rates and involving the government more subjectively in the compensation paid to property owners.

While consumers have more choices than ever before in how, where and when they listen to music services, many of which are licensed in the free marketplace, artists and recording companies are still subject to government compulsory licensing with respect to digital radio services that compete with the market services, with rates set by the government. In other words, digital radio services get special favored treatment compared with their competitors. Currently, Internet radio companies at least must pay a government rate that is based on the rate paid by their competitors in the marketplace. The “Internet Radio Fairness Act” would instead have the government subjectively set a rate that would protect entrenched incumbent services. The proposed standard, created in the 1970s, is intended to prevent disruption of established services, according to supporters of the legislation. Therefore, the bill would deliberately keep new, young, innovative services from replacing current industry leaders.

As long as the government is involved in setting rates, a truly free market cannot exist in compensating music owners and creators for their work. The best way to achieve parity among music distributors is to get the government out of the rate-setting business, rather than to further involve government by granting below-market rates to favored entities. Competitive companies can flourish under a rate set by a true free market because successful on-demand music services such as iTunes, Spotify, Rhapsody, and Rdio already pay rates set by the marketplace. At the very least, the current system of setting rates based on market indicators is certainly better than government-forced below-market prices to benefit a particular company or service type.

There is nothing fair about government picking winners and losers in the music industry or any other marketplace. Therefore, we urge you to oppose the “Internet Radio Fairness Act.”

Sincerely,

Al Cardenas
American Conservative Union

Duane Parde
National Taxpayers Union

Tom Schatz
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Phil Kerpen
American Commitment

Jeff Mazzella
Center for Individual Freedom

David Williams
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
Mandatory vaccination laws were first enacted in the U.S. to prevent the spread of which one of the following communicable diseases?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Congress can overturn an executive order. It can overturn parts of an executive order. If the executive order is based on a statute, Congress can change the statute, thereby nullifying the order. Congress can also refuse to fund activities stemming from all or part of the executive order. ...  In addition, a targeted move to overturn an executive order on immigration -- an order which could, according…[more]
 
 
—Byron York, The Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent
— Byron York, The Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

Is significant, proven plagiarism sufficient to disqualify, in the minds of voters, any candidate for public office?