There's a destructive campaign underway to encourage government confiscation of patents from pharmaceutical…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Private Pharma Investment Dwarfs Federal NIH Funding

There's a destructive campaign underway to encourage government confiscation of patents from pharmaceutical innovators and dictate the price for Remdesivir and other drugs.  That's a terrible and counterproductive policy under any circumstance, but particularly now that private drug innovators are already hacking away at the coronavirus.  In that vein, this helpful image illustrates the vast disparity between private investment and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding that some seem to think justifies patent confiscation, price controls or other big-government schemes:

 

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="964"] Private Investment Dwarfs NIH Funding[/caption]…[more]

June 01, 2020 • 10:24 AM

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.
CFIF Praises Court of Appeals Ruling Upholding FCC’s Restoring Internet Freedom Order Print
By CFIF Staff
Tuesday, October 01 2019

ALEXANDRIA, VA – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit broadly vindicated the 2017 Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rulemaking that repealed the Obama Administration’s 2015 Title II internet rules that had suffocated the internet with public utility-style regulation.  In response, Center for Individual Freedom President Jeffrey Mazzella released the following statement praising the D.C. Circuit’s decision.

"Today’s decision by the D.C. Circuit is a huge win for consumers and internet freedom. 

"In 2015, the Obama Administration FCC radically reversed two decades of bipartisan consensus by reclassifying internet service as a 'public utility' under laws enacted in 1934 to regulate old-fashioned copper-wire telephone service.  Since the 1990s, the internet had flourished and transformed our world like no innovation in history for a simple reason:  Administrations of both political parties over two decades, beginning with Clinton/Gore, wisely chose a 'light touch' regulatory approach to the internet.  There was no justification for that sudden reversal, and it was not based upon evidence, law or logic.  The internet obviously wasn't 'broken' or in need of heavy-handed federal regulatory 'fix.'  It was merely a scheme to extend government control over yet another sector of our economy.

"The negative consequences were immediate.  Private broadband investment declined for the first time ever outside of an economic recession. 

"On that basis, the FCC under new Chairman Ajit Pai restored the bipartisan, light-touch regulatory consensus that existed for more than two decades. 

"Despite the Chicken Little predictions by proponents of heavy-handed government regulation, the internet has once again flourished since the FCC reversed the Obama-era Title II rules.  Private sector investment in networks and average broadband speeds have both increased dramatically since the FCC’s 2017 order.

"CFIF applauds the Court of Appeals for unanimously recognizing the merits of the FCC’s 2017 correction, which benefits American consumers, our economy, private investment, innovation and employment."

###

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
The largest-ever helicopter evacuation took place during which of the following conflicts?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Law enforcement is a vital response to any riotous uprising. Indeed, I believe the failure to enforce the laws without apology from the start of the upheaval last week has fueled its ferocity. It would be naive to claim that much of the violence, which is being incited and coordinated by radical groups, might not have happened anyway -- these groups are always on a hair-trigger, pouncing on any opportunity…[more]
 
 
—Andrew C. McCarthy, Legal Commentator, Terrorism Expert and Former Federal Prosecutor
— Andrew C. McCarthy, Legal Commentator, Terrorism Expert and Former Federal Prosecutor
 
Liberty Poll   

Until this week, the U.S. House has required Members to be physically present to vote. Due to coronavirus, "proxy voting," allowing Members to cast votes for absent colleagues, is now being used. Should "proxy voting" be allowed to continue?