Joe Biden's inexorable march toward the fanatical left continued this week, as he and Bernie Sanders…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Biden Drug Plan Would Slash Innovation and U.S. Consumer Access

Joe Biden's inexorable march toward the fanatical left continued this week, as he and Bernie Sanders (D - Vermont) introduced their "unity platform" in anticipation of this year's Democratic convention.  We can thus add weaker U.S. patents and drug price controls imported from foreign nations to Biden's existing dumpster fire of bad ideas.

Here's the problem.  As we've often emphasized, and contrary to persistent myth, American consumers enjoy far greater access to new lifesaving drugs than people in other nations, including those in "other advanced economies" (Biden's words) whose price controls Biden seeks to import:

Of all new cancer drugs developed worldwide between 2011 and 2018, 96% were available to American consumers.  Meanwhile, only 56% of those drugs became available in Canada…[more]

July 10, 2020 • 04:52 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 Supports Video Marketplace Reform Bill Introduced by Congressman Steve Scalise
CFIF Supports Video Marketplace Reform Bill Introduced by Congressman Steve Scalise Print
Monday, July 23 2018

ALEXANDRIA, VA – Today, Congressman Steve Scalise (R - Louisiana) introduced "The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act," which would reform America's obsolete and stifling video marketplace laws. In response, Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs Timothy Lee issued the following statement: 

"On behalf of over 300,000 supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF enthusiastically supports the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act, which would reduce federal government interference in the U.S. video marketplace, and allow negotiations between broadcasters and video programming distributors to occur in more of a free market environment.  Current laws, enacted all the way back in 1992, allow the federal government to pick winners and losers by tipping the scales in negotiations that the government has no business distorting. 

"Those rules governing retransmission consent, 'must-carry' obligations and compulsory copyright were created in a bygone era when most television markets were served by a single monopoly cable provider.  Nearly three long decades later, the video market is a very different place.  Today, such alternatives as satellite, internet and alternative cable providers offer a wide array of consumer choices.  Unfortunately, however, federal regulations remain unchanged and don't reflect the tectonic shifts that have occurred in the video market.  What that means is that broadcasters enjoy a bureaucratic advantage during negotiations, which in turn allows them to extract exorbitant retransmission consent fees while retaining the option of invoking must-carry laws.  That prevents the free market from properly functioning in this ever-changing consumer arena, and consumers pay the price. 

"The solution is therefore to remove the federal bureaucracy's finger from the scale, and allow all parties to negotiate in a free market in which neither side enjoys an improper government advantage.  The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act helps accomplish that end by eliminating the outdated retransmission consent scheme, the must-carry obligation and compulsory copyright license and arbitrary broadcast ownership limits in order to let free market cooperation work.  We at CFIF therefore applaud Rep. Scalise's leadership, and urge Congress to pass the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act at long last." 

###

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
In which one of the following years was the National Park Service established?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Allowing third parties to collect election ballots, a term sometimes called 'ballot harvesting,' is unconstitutional if it creates 'wide opportunity for fraud,' Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis says.'I think that ballot harvesting is definitely opening up a ripe opportunity for fraud,' Ellis told Just the News in an interview, while acknowledging there is no language in the Constitution…[more]
 
 
—Carrie Sheffield, Just the News White House Correspondent
— Carrie Sheffield, Just the News White House Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you currently expect your local schools to reopen on time in the fall?