Cards, Courts and Congress

Court Got It Right on Chevron
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, January 30, 2024, p. A6
Ever heard of Bryan Berg? Me neither.

Iowa State graduate and faculty member, Brian Berg, collects world records for number of playing cards in a house of cards. In 2010 he spent 44 days constructing a replica of the Venetian Macao with 218,000 cards.

Now imagine you created that playing card replica and pranksters think it cool to smash it and watch all 218,000 cards flutter down.

Why do I ask you to imagine?

Because that’s the best analogy I can think of for the Supreme Court’s stretching its long arm of the law into matters the Constitution considers political. Stirring this poisonous stew, bubbling on the back burner behind the curtain, that will forever change our lives. [Photo credit: Supreme Court Historical Society. See, "SOURCES," below for names of current Justices.]

The Constitution leads with, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Art. I, Sec. 1.

For the last 40 years the Court has followed its unanimous holding in the Chevron case, giving deference to “reasonable” agency interpretations of laws. (“Policy arguments . . . should be addressed to legislators or administrators, not to judges. The EPA's interpretation of the statute . . . represents a reasonable accommodation . . . and is entitled to deference.”)

Congress publishes its laws in the 60,000-page U.S. Code. Few Representatives and Senators have the time to read all of them, let alone enforce their daily administration. What do they do? They create agencies with the power to administer the laws, to write and enforce nearly 200,000 detailed regulations in 242 volumes – under Congress’ watchful eye.

This column is not a legal opinion. But it does draw on experience: Supreme Court law clerk, associate at corporate law firm, head of executive branch agency (MARAD), commissioner of regulatory commission (FCC), presidential advisor, reformer. To borrow from Joni Mitchell, “I’ve looked at Chevron from all sides now.”

My conclusion? Chevron got it right.

In 2022 four percent of the House and Senate candidates received $1 billion in political contributions. Four billion was spent on 12,000 lobbyists. Big corporations need not violate the law because they help write the law – and help select the heads of agencies. Employees move from companies to agencies and back again. Business neither deserves nor needs the Court’s help.

There are already plenty of checks on agencies’ abuses of their power. Congress writes the laws and shapes the agencies’ powers. It hears the complaints of big business – and too often yields. Congress can always change any law or agency regulation. Each agency gets annual congressional oversight by budget and oversight sub-committees.

Big corporations already have too much control over what the Constitution and prior Supreme Courts have ruled is the sole responsibility of Congress. That business keeps knocking on the Supreme Court’s door to grub for more would be as hilarious as a Kathleen Madigan stand-up routine if it were not so outrageous, dangerous, unconstitutional – and costly.

Nicholas Johnson believes, with Winston Churchill, that a constitutional democracy is the least-worst form of government. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES Justices' photos "The Supreme Court -- Current Justices," Supreme Court Historical Society, "Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States," https://supremecourthistory.org/supreme-court-justices/

(Names:

"Front row, left to right — Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Elena Kagan.

Back row — Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.")

Bryan Berg “Bryan Berg,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Berg (“In 2010, Berg exceeded his own record by using over 218,000 cards to construct a replica of the Venetian Macao, which took 44 days.”)

Constitution and Congress U.S Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 1, “The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription,” America’s Founding Documents, National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript (“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Art. I, Sec. 1.)

Art. I, Sec. 8 contains 18 clauses; e.g., General Welfare; Spending and Commerce; Post Offices; Copyright; Maritime, Military and War Powers

“Art. I, Sec. 8: The Congress shall have Power [Clause 1] . . .. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” [Clause 18.])

Chevron Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (June 25, 1984), Justia, U.S. Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/837/ (“Annotation, Primary Holding: A government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in ambiguous situations as long as its interpretation is reasonable.”) (pp. 859-866. “Parsing the general terms in the text of the amended Clean Air Act -- particularly the provisions of §§ 302(j) and 111(a)(3) pertaining to the definition of "source" -- does not reveal any actual intent of Congress as to the issue in these cases. To the extent any congressional "intent" can be discerned from the statutory language, it would appear that the listing of overlapping, illustrative terms was intended to enlarge, rather than to confine, the scope of the EPA's power to regulate particular sources in order to effectuate the policies of the Clean Air Act. Similarly, the legislative history is consistent with the view that the EPA should have broad discretion in implementing the policies of the 1977 Amendments. The plantwide definition is fully consistent with the policy of allowing reasonable economic growth, and the EPA has advanced a reasonable explanation for its conclusion that the regulations serve environmental objectives as well. The fact that the EPA has from time to time changed its interpretation of the term "source" does not lead to the conclusion that no deference should be accorded the EPA's interpretation of the statute. An agency, to engage in informed rulemaking, must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis. Policy arguments concerning the "bubble concept" should be addressed to legislators or administrators, not to judges. The EPA's interpretation of the statute here represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests, and is entitled to deference.”)

No authoritative list Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., “How Many Federal Agencies Exist? We Can't Drain The Swamp Until We Know,” Forbes, July 5, 2017, https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2017/07/05/how-many-federal-agencies-exist-we-cant-drain-the-swamp-until-we-know/?sh=61f82b281aa2 (“[The] recent Sourcebook of United States Executive Agencies -- had the following to say: ‘[T]here is no authoritative list of government agencies. For example, FOIA.gov [maintained by the Department of Justice] lists 78 independent executive agencies and 174 components of the executive departments as units that comply with the Freedom of Information Act requirements imposed on every federal agency. This appears to be on the conservative end of the range of possible agency definitions. The United States Government Manual lists 96 independent executive units and 220 components of the executive departments. An even more inclusive listing comes from USA.gov, which lists 137 independent executive agencies and 268 units in the Cabinet.’ That's right: There is ‘no authoritative list of government agencies.’")

“A-Z index of U.S. government departments and agencies; Find contact information for U.S. federal government departments and agencies including websites, emails, phone numbers, addresses, and more,” USA.gov, https://www.usa.gov/agency-index .

U.S. Code United States Code,” House of Representatives, https://uscode.house.gov/detailed_guide.xhtml (“The United States Code ("Code") contains the general and permanent laws of the United States, arranged into 54 broad titles according to subject matter. The organization of the Code was originally established by Congress in 1926 with the enactment of the act of June 30, 1926, chapter 712.”)

60,000 Pages in US Code “GPO Produces U.S. Code with New Digital Publishing Technology,” GovInfo, https://www.govinfo.gov/features/uscode-2018 (“The U.S. Code is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States, and is produced in a Main Edition every six years. The 2018 Main Edition is approximately 60,000 pages encompassing 54 volumes, and is prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.”)

Code of Federal Regulations Clyde Wayne Crews, “Tens of Thousands of Pages and Rules in the Federal Register,” Competitive Enterprise Institute, June 30, 2021, https://cei.org/publication/tens-of-thousands-of-pages-and-rules-in-the-federal-register-2/ (“The Expanding Code of Federal Regulations The page count for final rules in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is not as dramatic as the yearly count of tens of thousands of pages in the Federal Register, but it is still considerable. In 1960, the CFR contained 22,877 pages. Since 1975 until the end of 2019, its total page count had grown from 71,224 to 185,984, including the index—a 161 percent increase. The number of CFR bound volumes stands at 242 for the past four years, compared with 133 in 1975.”)

Nicholas Johnson experience See, “Nicholas Johnson,” Website, nicholasjohnson.org, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/about/njbio04.html and “Nicholas Johnson, Retired Adjunct Faculty Member,” University of Iowa College of Law, “People,” https://law.uiowa.edu/people/nicholas-johnson

Joni Mitchell Joni Mitchell, “Both Sides, Now,” incredible rendition by Joni Mitchell at 2022 Newport Folk Festival, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9evpH6yjxrI

“Both Sides, Now,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Both_Sides,_Now

Campaign Contributions; federal, 2022 “Fundraising Totals: Who Raised the Most?” Open Secrets, https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/fundraising-totals (Top 10 House Members, Top 10 (of 33 Senators running) Senators; the total raised by each, when totaled for all 20: $940,895,001). House 435, Senate 100 (one third run every two years). 435 + 33 = 468. Top 20 fundraisers represented 4.273504 percent of 468.)

Registered lobbyists; spending Taylor Giorno, “Federal lobbying spending reaches $4.1 billion in 2022 — the highest since 2010,” Open Secrets, Jan. 26, 2023, https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/01/federal-lobbying-spending-reaches-4-1-billion-in-2022-the-highest-since-2010/ (“At least 13,784 organizations deployed 12,609 federal lobbyists throughout 2022. . . . Total federal lobbying skyrocketed to $4.1 billion in 2022, a new OpenSecrets analysis of federal lobbying disclosures found.”)

Winston Churchill “The worst form of Government,” International Churchill Society, Feb. 25, 2016, https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form-of-government/ (“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947)

# # #

War, Who's It Good For?

War, Who’s It Good For?
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, June 27, 2023, p. A6
How have we become the global participant in forever wars? Spending half our discretionary federal appropriations on war. More than the next 10 nations combined. Running up debt of $32 trillion, with interest payments over $600 billion annually.

We are as far from what the founders provided as could be imagined. They wanted to avoid wars.

In the U.S. House of Representatives' own website there’s a discussion of its constitutional war powers (Article I, section 8, clauses 11-16). “The Congress shall have power … to declare war . . .."

In the website’s discussion of the founders’ intentions it says, “The decision to send the nation to war is perhaps Congress’s gravest responsibility . . .. For the Members, to declare war against a foreign power is to send their constituents, their neighbors, their family, and even themselves into harm’s way. . . . The founders felt that war should be difficult to enter, and they expected congressional debate to restrain the war-making process.”

They presumed wars would require a draft and pay-as-you-go financing.

How’s that been working for us? Pretty well through World War II -- the last time Congress complied with the constitutional requirement it “declare war.” Following WWII the war budget was around $14 billion (in today’s dollars).

Then things began to change.

The Viet Nam War protests made clear that if the U.S. wanted to actually use the military taxpayers were paying for, the one percent who actually fought the wars would have to be either volunteers or the mercenaries of defense contractors. [Photo credit: Vietnam War protesters, the Pentagon, Oct. 21, 1967, Frank Wolfe, Lyndon B. Johnson Library, via Wikimedia.]

So, the draft was abolished, January 27, 1973. House members could quietly go along with fighting a war without either supporting, or opposing, the declaration of one. No mothers cried; their sons stayed home. The financial cost of wars could be camouflaged from taxpayers by putting it on a credit card and increasing the debt limit.

The military’s best and brightest explained the need for a rationale for war, the benefits and costs of fighting one, and the need for exit strategies. But few House members seemed to be listening.

In 1969, the song writers gave us “War, What’s It Good For? Absolutely Nothing.” It doesn’t get a lot of play these days. Besides, what we should be singing is, “War, Who’s It Good For?”

There’s an answer to that one.

Decades ago, my research revealed that the payback on corporate campaign contributions ran at least 1000-to-one. Give a million, get a billion (e.g., federal contracts, tax cuts, tariffs).

Today that’s increased a bit. With a trillion-dollar budget for war, it’s not only too big to fail, it’s too big to audit. But some numbers are available.

One contractor’s political contributions for one year were $3 million. A 1000-to-one return would have been $3 billion. But this contractor got $40 billion in contracts. Not a 1000-to-one return; a 13,000-to-one return.

Meanwhile, Congress talks about cutting the budget -- while continuing to add more for war than even requested.

Nicholas Johnson, as U.S. Maritime Administrator, had some responsibility for sealift to Viet Nam. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES Congress spending half on war. “Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023; SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATIONS PROVISIONS BY SUBCOMMITTEE,” https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/FY23%20Summary%20of%20Appropriations%20Provisions.pdf (“The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 totals $1.7 trillion in discretionary resources across the fiscal year 2023 appropriations bills. In total, the regular 12 appropriations bills include $800 billion in non-defense funding, a $68 billion—9.3 percent—over last year. This is the highest level for non-defense funding ever and a larger increase in both dollar and percentage than fiscal year 2022. The bills also provide $858 billion in defense funding.)

“Current US Defense Spending” [2021-2024], US Government Spending, https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_history (military, veterans, foreign aid, total defense: 2024 $909.4 billion $322.1 billion $73.7 billion $1.3052 trillion)

More than next 10 nations combined. “The United States now spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined,” Peter G. Peterson Foundation, April 24, 2023, https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/04/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-10-countries-combined (“[T]he United States now spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined (up from outspending the next 9 countries combined in 2021.”)

$32 trillion debt. For an opportunity to watch the numbers climb in real time, sliced and diced into more categories than you could have imagined, check out the “U.S. Debt Clock,” https://www.usdebtclock.org/

Federal debt increase. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny Record Date Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings 6/13/2023 $25,103,112,337,735.63 $6,872,182,398,142.32 Total Public Debt Outstanding $31,975,294,735,877.95

Foreign ownership of US debt. Kimberly Amadeo, “Major Foreign Holders of U.S. Public Debt; Who Owns the U.S. National Debt?” The Balance, Jan. 19, 2023, https://www.thebalancemoney.com/who-owns-the-u-s-national-debt-3306124 ($3.242 trillion with top 5 countries; Japan, China, UK, Belgium, Luxembourg; China = $870 billion) This is amounts and percentages of “public debt” (e.g., not including Social Security and other “intragovernmental holdings”). Current public debt is $25.103 trillion. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny

Over $600 billion in interest. “What is the National Debt Costing Us?” Peter G. Peterson Foundation, May 12, 2023, https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/05/what-is-the-national-debt-costing-us (“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that interest payments will total $663 billion in fiscal year 2023 and rise rapidly throughout the next decade — climbing from $745 billion in 2024 to $1.4 trillion in 2033. In total, net interest payments will total nearly $10.6 trillion over the next decade.”)

Founders wanted to avoid wars/House Website. “Power to Declare War, Origins & Development: From the Constitution to the Modern House,” United States House of Representatives, https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/ ("If America was going to survive as a republic, they reasoned, declarations of war required careful debate in open forums among the public’s representatives. “there was a growing sense that such monumental responsibility belonged with the legislative branch. “Like George Mason of Virginia, the founders felt that war should be difficult to enter, and they expected congressional debate to restrain the war-making process. “to declare war against a foreign power is to send their constituents, their neighbors, their family, and even themselves into harm’s way.”)

WWII last Congressional declaration of war. “Power to Declare War, Origins & Development: From the Constitution to the Modern House,” United States House of Representatives, https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/ (“Congress has not declared war since 1942”)

Post-WWII war budget $40 billion. “Military Expenditure by Country, In Local Currency, 1949-2022,” United States, SIPRI [Stockholm International Peace Research Institute], 2022, https://www.sipri.org (“All figures are expressed in terms of the current currency.” In US dollars: 1949 14 088 155 591 1950 14 926 997 114 1960 47 346 552 670 1970 83 407 993 005 1980 143 688 354 873 1990 325 129 313 986 2000 320 086 324 211 2010 738 005 000 000 2020 778 397 200 000 2022 876 943 200 000)

“Current US Defense Spending” [2021-2024], US Government Spending, https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_history (military, veterans, foreign aid)

“World military spending reaches all-time high of $2.24 trillion; Surge in spending reflects Russia-Ukraine war and ‘increasingly insecure world’, according to leading think tank,” AlJazeera, April 24, 2023, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/4/24/world-military-spending-reaches-all-time-high-of-2-24-trillion (“World military spending reached an all-time high of $2.24 trillion in 2022, … Global spending rose for the eighth consecutive year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said on Monday in its annual report on global military expenditure.”)

And see, “Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_International_Peace_Research_Institute

Percent who fight wars. Elliott Ackerman, “Why Bringing Back the Draft Could Stop America’s Forever Wars,” TIME, Oct. 10, 2019, https://time.com/5696950/bring-back-the-draft/ (“The burden of nearly two decades of war–nearly 7,000 dead and more than 50,000 wounded–has been largely sustained by 1% of our population.”)

Draft abolished 1973. Amy Zipkin, “The military draft ended 50 years ago, dividing a generation,” Washington Post, Jan. 27, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/01/27/draft-end-conscription-1973/ (“On Jan. 27, 1973, with the Paris Peace Accords signed and U.S. involvement in Vietnam over, Defense Secretary Melvin R. Laird announced the end of the military draft, after 25 uninterrupted years of conscription.”)

“War, What’s It Good For?” “War,” Lyrics, https://www.lyrics.com/lyric/25707922/Edwin+Starr/War (“’War’ is a counterculture era soul song written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong for the Motown label in 1969. Whitfield first produced the song – an obvious anti-Vietnam War statement – with The Temptations as the original vocalists. After Motown began receiving repeated requests to release "War" as a single, Whitfield re-recorded the song with Edwin Starr as the vocalist, with the label deciding to withhold the Temptations' version from single release so as not to alienate their more conservative fans.”)
NOTE: If any person or corporation would like these publicly-available lyrics removed please email: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org and they will be deleted.

Edwin Starr - War (Original Video - 1969), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, uhh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
War, huh (good God)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me, oh
War, I despise
'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives
War means tears to thousands of mother's eyes
When their sons go off to fight
And lose their lives
I said, war, huh (good God, y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, just say it again
War (whoa), huh (oh Lord)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) Friend only to The Undertaker
Oh, war it's an enemy to all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die? Oh
War, huh (good God y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War (uh-huh), huh (yeah, huh)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) It's got one friend that's The Undertaker
Oh, war, has shattered many a young man's dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much too short and precious
To spend fighting wars each day
War can't give life
It can only take it away, oh
War, huh (good God y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again
War (whoa), huh (oh Lord)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
It ain't nothing but a heart breaker
(War) Friend only to The Undertaker, woo
Peace, love and understanding, tell me
Is there no place for them today?
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way, oh
War, huh (God y'all)
What is it good for? You tell me (nothing)
Say it, say it, say it, say it
War (good God), huh (now, huh)
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it (nothing)

Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Barrett Strong / Norman Whitfield
War lyrics © Royalty Network, Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC

1000-to-one Return on Contributions. Nicholas Johnson, “Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000,” Des Moines [Iowa] Sunday Register, July 21, 1996, p. C2, https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/politics/general/campaign.html

Can’t audit Defense Department budget. Bill Chappell, “The Pentagon Has Never Passed An Audit. Some Senators Want To Change That,” npr, May 19, 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/997961646/the-pentagon-has-never-passed-an-audit-some-senators-want-to-change-that (“Despite having trillions of dollars in assets and receiving hundreds of billions in federal dollars annually, the department has never detailed its assets and liabilities in a given year. For the past three financial years, the Defense Department's audit has resulted in a ‘Disclaimer of Opinion,’ meaning the auditor didn't get enough accounting records to form an assessment. . . . Now lawmakers are introducing a bipartisan bill that would impose a penalty for any part of the department, including the military, that fails to undergo a "clean" audit. "’The Pentagon and the military industrial complex have been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud and financial mismanagement for decades. That is absolutely unacceptable,’ said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who co-sponsored the bill with Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, along with Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mike Lee, R-Utah.”)

Contractor with 13,000-to-one return on contributions:

Payments to Top 6 Defense Contractors. “The Top 10 Federal Defense Contractors,” Bloomberg Government, July 14, 2022, https://about.bgov.com/top-defense-contractors/

Top 6 (of 10 largest defense contractors in FY 2021) Lockheed Martin Corp. - Obligations: $40.2B Boeing Co. - Obligations: $22.1B Raytheon Technologies Corp. - Obligations: $20.7B General Dynamics Corp. - Obligations: $17.8B Pfizer Inc. - Obligations: $13.3B Northrop Grumman Corp. - Obligations: $12.9B

“Biggest Defense Companies in the Stock Market,” Motley Fool, https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/industrials/defense-stocks/biggest-defense-companies/

Contractors Political Contributions. “Defense,” Open Secrets, https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php Defense Defense Aerospace Defense Electronics Defense/Foreign Policy A

Defense aerospace (2021-2022) Lockheed Martin $3,110,453 Colsa Corp $2,421,419 Northrop Grumman $2,190,417 Raytheon Technologies $2,154,719 Collazo Enterprises $2,112,300 General Dynamics $2,084,195 [Total $14,073,503

Top Contractor Return on Contributions. 13,000 to One ($40 billion/$3 million) (40,200/3.110,453 = 12,924.1625)

# # #

What Happened to Radio?

Right-Wing Takeover of Radio
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, February 8, 2023, p. A6 NOTE: For space constraints, text [in brackets] was removed by editors; text (in parentheses) was added by editors.

How did millions of Americans come to believe that the components of authoritarian dictatorships will better protect their “freedoms” than our democracy?

The answers fill a long list. I’ve selected one: radio.

[Radio? That’s right, radio.]

Before radio, political consensus emerged from conversations, meetings, newspapers, and the occasional political speech on the village square.

With radio, a station owner could speak to the hundreds or thousands within the station’s signal area.

The 1920s and 1930s increased public awareness of the manipulative power of advertising and political propaganda. [After TV, Harvard economist Ken Galbraith declared radio and television to be “the prime instruments for the manipulation of consumer demand.”]

Ironically, the 1920s Members of Congress were more aware of the potential dangers of radio than their successors have been.

As Texas Congressman Luther Johnson [(no relation to President Johnson)] put it to his colleagues in 1926, “American thought and politics will be at the mercy of those who operate these stations. . . [If] placed in the hands of a single selfish group then woe be to those who dare to differ with them.”

The Radio Act of 1927, Communications Act of 1934, and FCC regulations constrained this potential threat to democracy. The public owned the airwaves, not broadcasters. Broadcasters needed an FCC license to use a frequency – initially limited to six months.

The granting and renewal of licenses turned on whether the station’s programming served “the public interest.” Specific FCC requirements gave meaning to those words.

The Fairness Doctrine required stations seek out local “controversial issues of public importance” and provide, not “equal time,” but a range of views. If stations gave one political candidate free time it triggered a right in opponents to an “equal opportunity.” Anyone attacked had a right of reply.

Other regulations encouraged diversity of views. Limitations on the number of stations one licensee could operate in a single market – or throughout the country. Restrictions on common ownership of newspapers and stations, or concentration of station ownership within a state or region.

This lasted roughly 60 years.

[So, what happened?]

What happened (then) was that Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio talk show hosts, and station owners carrying their programs, saw the Fairness Doctrine and ownership restrictions as a barrier to their goal of a nationwide, constant flow of unchallenged right-wing programming. (If there be doubt about Limbaugh's conservative credentials: "In an unusual departure from protocol, Rush Limbaugh was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Trump during the State of the Union address. [It is] the country’s highest civilian honor." NY Times, Feb. 4, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/us/politics/rush-limbaugh-medal-of-freedom.html Photo credit: Golfing buddies, Trump and Limbaugh, at Trump's Golf Club; White House, Joyce Boghosian)

They successfully persuaded enough FCC commissioners and Members of Congress of their position, (and) the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, along with most ownership restrictions. Soon Clear Channel owned 1,207 stations in 201 of 287 radio markets, and the top 15 right-wing conservative radio talk show personalities were putting out 45 hours of unanswered assertions every day.

Millions of Americans, whose occupations were consistent with all-day radio listening, were getting an overload of a conservative perspective on America in workshops and kitchens, factory floors and restaurants, tractor and semi-truck cabs.

[That’s what happened.]

As the more moderate radio star Paul Harvey would say, “And now you know the rest of the story.”

Nicholas Johnson served as a Federal Communications Commission commissioner, 1966-1973. maiilbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #
SOURCES January 6 Attack. Brian Duignan, “January 6 U.S Capitol Attack; Riot, Washington, D.C., U.S. [2021],” Britannica, Jan. 7, 2023 update (“Because its object was to prevent a legitimate president-elect from assuming office, the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d’état. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law-enforcement agencies also considered it an act of domestic terrorism. . . . [Trump’s] false accusations were indirectly endorsed by several Republican members of Congress who expressed uncertainty about the election’s outcome or who simply refused to publicly acknowledge Biden’s victory. Their calculated reticence helped to spread false doubts about the integrity of the election among rank-and-file Republicans.”)

Radio Act of 1927. Stuart N. Brotman, Communications Law and Practice, 1995, 2006, Law Journal Press, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Communications_Law_and_Practice/FKnhFoQykdgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=radio+act+of+1927&pg=SA1-PA9&printsec=frontcover

Luther Johnson. “Luther Alexander Johnson,” Wikipedia, (“American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations. [If] a single selfish group is permitted to ... dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them." [67 Cong. Rec. 5558 (1926).”)

See generally, Nicholas Johnson, “Breaking Through Power: The Media; Harnessing Progressive Reform to 21st Century Media,” FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com, May 24, 2016, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2016/05/breaking-through-power-media.html (“Lord Reith’s preference for public over private ownership was reflected in the House floor debate about the Act. As Congressman Luther Johnson warned his colleagues, ‘American thought and . . . politics will be . . . at the mercy of those who operate these stations. . . . [If] placed in the hands of . . . a single selfish group . . . then woe be to those who dare to differ with them.’”)
Quoted from, Nicholas Johnson, “Forty Years of Wandering in the Wasteland; The Vast Wasteland Revisited Essays,” note 31, Federal Communications Law Journal, May, 2003, 55 F.C.L.J. 521 (2003), https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/masmedia/55FCL521.html [Full Congressman Johnson quote in footnote 31: “American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations. For publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a Republic, and when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership and dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.”]

Fairness Doctrine. Matt Stefon, “fairness doctrine,” Britannica, Aug. 16, 2017, https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/ICRC/32.pdf (“In 1949 the commission promulgated a report, In the Matter of Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees . . . to promote ‘a basic standard of fairness’ in broadcasting. Licensees had the duty to devote airtime to fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues that were of interest to their home communities. Individuals who were the subject of editorials or who perceived themselves to be the subject of unfair attacks in news programming were to be granted an opportunity to reply. Also, candidates for public office were entitled to equal airtime.”)

“FCC Fairness Doctrine,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine (“The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[5][6]”

Origins
In 1938, a former Yankee Network employee named Lawrence J. Flynn challenged the license of John Shepard III's WAAB in Boston, and also lodged a complaint about WNAC. . . . [I][n 1941, the commission made a ruling that came to be known as the Mayflower Decision which declared that radio stations, due to their public interest obligations, must remain neutral in matters of news and politics, and they were not allowed to give editorial support to any particular political position or candidate.

In 1949, the FCC's Editorializing Report[8] repealed the Mayflower doctrine, which had forbidden editorializing on the radio since 1941, and laid the foundation for the fairness doctrine . . ..

In 1969, the United States courts of appeals, in an opinion written by Warren Burger, directed the FCC to revoke Lamar Broadcasting's license for television station WLBT due to the station's segregationist politics and ongoing censorship of NBC network news coverage of the U.S. civil rights movement.[15]

Conservative talk radio
The 1987 repeal of the fairness doctrine enabled the rise of talk radio that has been described as "unfiltered" divisive and/or vicious: "In 1988, a savvy former ABC Radio executive named Ed McLaughlin signed Rush Limbaugh — then working at a little-known Sacramento station — to a nationwide syndication contract. McLaughlin offered Limbaugh to stations at an unbeatable price: free. All they had to do to carry his program was to set aside four minutes per hour for ads that McLaughlin's company sold to national sponsors. The stations got to sell the remaining commercial time to local advertisers." According to The Washington Post, "From his earliest days on the air, Limbaugh trafficked in conspiracy theories, divisiveness, even viciousness" (e.g., "feminazis").[44] Prior to 1987 people using much less controversial verbiage had been taken off the air as obvious violations of the fairness doctrine.[45]

. . .

On August 22, 2011, the FCC voted to remove the rule that implemented the fairness doctrine, along with more than 80 other rules and regulations, from the Federal Register following an executive order by President Obama directing a "government-wide review of regulations already on the books" to eliminate unnecessary regulations.[4]”)

Ownership. “The FCC’s Rules and Policies Regarding Media Ownership, Attribution, and Ownership Diversity October 27, 2004 – December 16, 2016,” Congressional Reference Service, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R43936.html

https://www1.udel.edu/nero/Radio/pdf_files/T&A_%20Media%20Ownership.pdf (“Clear Channel leads in radio broadcast station ownership with 1,207 stations reaching 201 out of 287 markets in the United States.”)

Right-Wing Radio. Google search: right wing domination of talk radio stations

Paul Matzko, “Talk Radio Is Turning Millions of Americans Into Conservatives; The medium is at the heart of Trumpism,” New York Times, Oct. 9, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/talk-radio-conservatives-trumpism.html (“By the early 2000s, it [the conservatism of talk radio] had embraced a version of conservatism that is less focused on free markets and small government and more focused on ethnonationalism and populism. It is, in short, the core of Trumpism — now and in the future, with or without a President Trump. . . . [J]ust the top 15 shows are putting out around 45 hours of content every day. . . . [T]he dedicated fan can listen to nothing but conservative talk radio all day, every day of the week, and never catch up. . . . Talk radio listeners make up a group at least three times as large as the N.R.A. and are just as committed to a particular vision of America. [Google search: “How many members in the NRA?” 5 million in Dec. 2018; = talk radio listeners  15 m]

Paul Matzko, “When Conservatives Forget the History of the Fairness Doctrine,” CATO Institute, Sept 2, 2021, https://www.cato.org/blog/when-conservatives-forget-history-fairness-doctrine (“But dedicated broadcasters like Limbaugh knew that imposing a rigorous Fairness Doctrine regime would demolish their core operating model. It is no accident that Limbaugh’s show did not receive national syndication until a few months after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

That wariness about the effects of the Fairness Doctrine on conservative broadcasting extended to President Reagan. He might be better known for his screen presence, but Reagan was an old radio hand. Indeed, he delayed formally announcing his presidential candidacy for 1980 so that he could keep his daily radio show Viewpoint on the air on 286 stations nationwide as long as possible.

Their skepticism paid off. Repealing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 enabled the rise of conservative‐dominated talk radio with vast political consequences. Without talk radio, it’s hard to imagine the success of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” in 1994 or the impeachment of Bill Clinton. And the tens of millions of regular talk radio listeners created a coherent audience that could be targeted later by conservative media entrepreneurs like Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. For good or for ill, the conservative movement would look dramatically different today if the Fairness Doctrine had not been repealed.

. . . talk radio had become a key pillar of conservative political success.”)

Al Tompkins, “How Rush Limbaugh’s rise after the gutting of the fairness doctrine led to today’s highly partisan media; Limbaugh’s success after President Reagan declawed the doctrine, gave rise to others and provided encouragement for Fox News’ 1996 launch,” Poynter, Feb. 17, 2021, https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2021/how-rush-limbaughs-rise-after-the-gutting-of-the-fairness-doctrine-led-to-todays-highly-partisan-media/ (“Rush Limbaugh was more than a talk radio host. He was a key element in the development of the highly partisan journalism and other media that envelop us today.

Limbaugh’s talk radio program was not possible until the Federal Communications Commission relaxed the fairness doctrine.”)

Kevin M. Kruse and Julian Zelizer, “How policy decisions spawned today’s hyperpolarized media; The demise of the Fairness Doctrine played an underappreciated role in fomenting media tribalism,” The Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/17/how-policy-decisions-spawned-todays-hyperpolarized-media/ (“In 1987, the FCC announced that it would no longer enforce the Fairness Doctrine. . . . Almost overnight, the media landscape was transformed. The driving force was talk radio. In 1960, there were only two all-talk radio stations in America; by 1995, there were 1,130.”)

Repeal of ownership limits.

Google search: right-wing conservatives pressed FCC to repeal ownership limits

Nikki Finke, “FCC Ownership Rules Blamed For Total Dominance By Right-Wing Talk Radio,” Deadline, June 21, 2007, https://deadline.com/2007/06/fcc-ownership-rules-blamed-for-overwhelming-dominance-of-right-wing-talk-radio-2626/ (“The Center for American Progress and Free Press just released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives. The new report entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” blames the FCC for the current imbalance, in particular . . . the relaxation of ownership rules. . . .

Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006. Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format leads all others. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, it reached 50 million listeners each week.

Of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners this spring, 91% of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9% was progressive.”)

Eric Boehlert, “Former FCC chairman: Deregulation is a right-wing power grab; Reed Hundt says Monday's historic vote was ‘the culmination of the attack by the right on the media,’" Salon, May 31, 2003, https://www.salon.com/2003/05/31/fcc_4/ (“In a historic session on the future of the U.S. news media, Republicans on the Federal Communications Commission voted Monday to ease long-standing rules so that more and more of the nation's newspapers and broadcast stations can be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

Underlying that agenda, Clinton-era FCC chairman Reed Hundt saw something more primal unfolding: an extraordinary conservative power grab that could shape the political landscape for generations.

For all the philosophical conflict over diversity in the media and the efficiency of the free market, Hunt told Salon, the vote is really about an alliance of interests between the political right and the corporate media. ‘Conservatives,’ he said, ‘hope ... that the major media will be their friends.’" . . .

The FCC has long had rules regulating media ownership, based on the assumption that the number of broadcast frequencies is limited. The regulations were designed to ensure that radio and television stations remained diverse, independent voices and could withstand predatory conglomerates. But on Monday the FCC dumped those rules.

. . .

At the time, Hundt was among the few to warn of the consequences. The new laws would allow "a few companies to buy all the radio licenses in the country," he said then. "I don't believe that's good for this industry or for this country."

His words proved prophetic. Since the law's passage, Clear Channel Communications, which in 1995 owned approximately 40 radio stations, has expanded to approximately 1,200 outlets, nearly 1,000 more than its closest competitor.

[Reed Hundt during interview:] “When Newt Gingrich was running the House of Representatives, effective in the fall of 1994, he called all the media owners together in a room down on Capitol Hill, and according to what people who were there told me, he told them he'd give them relaxed rules allowing media concentration in exchange for favorable coverage. Now I wasn't there, but that's what they said they understood he meant.”)

Jeffrey M. Berry and Sarah Sobieraj, “Understanding the Rise of Talk Radio,” Political Science and Politics, Cambridge University Press, Oct. 18, 2011, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/abs/understanding-the-rise-of-talk-radio/25394FEA4F469026712C17BE514A786C (“The number of radio stations airing political talk shows—predominantly conservative talk radio—has surged in the past few years. This massive change in the radio industry says something about the demand for such shows, but attributing the rise of talk radio to a corresponding rise in conservative popular opinion is misleading. We argue that this remarkable growth is better explained by the collision of two changes that have transformed the radio business: deregulation and the mainstreaming of digital music technologies. Regulatory changes have shifted much of radio production and control from local to mass production (managed by industry giants such as Clear Channel Communications) and created a context ripe for nationally syndicated hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Mark Levin.”)

Rest of the story. “The Rest of the Story,” Wikimedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rest_of_the_Story (“The Rest of the Story was a Monday-through-Friday radio program originally hosted by Paul Harvey.[1] . . . The broadcasts always concluded with a variation on the tag line, ‘And now you know...the rest of the story.’")

And see, “Paul Harvey,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Harvey

# # #

Civics Can Save Us

Civics Can Save Us
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, September 7, 2022, p. A5
Like Robert Frost confronting “two roads diverged in a wood,” Americans must choose. One road requires heavy lifting, rebuilding the decaying democracy our founders gave us; the other is an easy stroll down the green fairways of indifference to an authoritarian dictatorship.

As with other public challenges, the outcome will be decided in our public schools – a core institution for a self-governing people.

Boston Latin School was founded in 1635; the first free, taxpayer-supported public school four years later. Pennsylvania created the first statewide free education in 1790.

By the 1830s schools were adding years of instruction, the first high schools, and Alexis de Tocqueville observed, “It is by the attention it pays to public education that the original character of American civilization is at once placed in the clearest light.” He noted laws “establishing schools in every township, and obliging the inhabitants, under pain of heavy fines, to support them.”

“The character of American civilization” can still be judged by the attention we pay to public education. We’ve yet to add an additional two years of free education. Too many students are ignorant of American history and the provisions of our Constitution. MAGA politicians and parents attack underpaid K-12 teachers who ultimately leave their jobs. College tuition soars, while many university presidents are paid $1 million or more (over twice the U.S. president’s take-home pay), and student loan borrowers now owe $1.75 trillion.

The most significant K-12 class for future citizens governing themselves is “civics education.”

Civics education is nothing new, and its content and rationale change over time. In 820 BC the “civics education” Sparta lawgiver Lycurgus encouraged was designed to create citizens devoted to the public good.

By the 19th Century civics education was recognized as a major goal of public schools. In New England, de Tocqueville reported, “every citizen receives . . . the history of [the] country, and the leading features of its Constitution. … politics are the end and aim of education ….”

Today, the National Council for the Social Studies is the go-to source for civics education. Their position paper, “Revitalizing Civic Learning in Our Schools” should be required reading for every superintendent, school board member, principal, teacher, and parent.

It begins, “As Thomas Jefferson, Horace Mann, John Dewey and other great educators understood, public schools do not serve a public so much as create a public. The goal of schooling [is] to equip a citizenry with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for active and engaged civic life.”

Note the words “skills.” It is not sufficient that students read the Constitution and study Congress. As one researcher found, “students did best when discussing current events in class daily, simulating democratic processes regularly and engaging in community service annually.... [With only a] fleeting knowledge base [students] are poorly prepared for the demands of democratic governance.” [Photo credit: Iowa State University; "Legislative Day is an opportunity for youth to learn about one of the core program areas of 4-H — leadership and civic engagement ... Youth participants were able to ... meet members of the Iowa House of Representatives and Senate to discuss issues affecting youth." March 3, 2020.]

Add Claire Nader’s new book for kids, parents and teachers, “You Are Your Own Best Teacher,” and there’s still hope for us.

Nicholas Johnson’s social studies teacher was Dr. John Haefner. mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES
Two roads. Robert Frost, “The Road Not Taken,” Poetry Foundation, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44272/the-road-not-taken (“. . . Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—/I took the one less traveled by,/And that has made all the difference.”)

Boston Latin; the first free; first statewide free. “History of education in the United States,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_the_United_States (“The first American schools in the thirteen original colonies opened in the 17th century. Boston Latin School was founded in 1635 and is both the first public school and oldest existing school in the United States.[1] The first free taxpayer-supported public school in North America, the Mather School, was opened in Dorchester, Massachusetts, in 1639.[2][3]”)

“K-12,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-12 (“U.S. public education was conceived of in the late 18th century. In 1790, Pennsylvania became the first state to require some form of free education for everyone regardless of whether they could afford it. New York passed similar legislation in 1805. In 1820, Massachusetts became the first state to create a tuition-free high school, Boston English.[2] The first K–12 public school systems appeared in the early 19th century. In the 1830s and 1840s, Ohioans were taking a significant interest in the idea of public education.”)

Alexis de Tocqueville. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835/1840) See generally, “Alexis de Tocqueville,” Wikimedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville, and “2. Democracy in America.” Also, “Democracy in America,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America

Quotes from “Democracy in America” used in the column can be found by searching for them in the text: Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. I, 1835, Henry Reeve translation, https://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm#link2HCH0041

Ignorance of history/Constitution. Glenn Ricketts, “Knowledge of American History Rapidly Becoming History,” American History, National Association of Scholars, March 23, 2015, https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/knowledge_of_american_history_rapidly_becoming_history (“Now on the heels of our report comes the US Education Department’s National Assessment of Educational Progress quadrennial survey, The Nation’s Report Card: U.S. History 2010. As the title indicates, this study measures knowledge of the rudiments of US history among K-12 students at the elementary, middle and secondary levels. … eighty per cent of fourth graders, eighty-three per cent of eighth graders and eighty-eight per cent of high school seniors flunked the minimum proficiency rating. And within the senior cohort, a mere two per cent correctly answered a question about the Supreme Court’s 1954 landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.”)

“Editorial: Citizenship 101: Too many Americans are ignorant of the basics of democracy,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 29, 2014, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-citizenship-civics-20141230-story.html (“A survey of adults conducted in September by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania found that only 36% could name all three branches of the U.S. government; 35% couldn’t name even one. Only 27% of respondents knew that it requires a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a president’s veto, and 21% wrongly thought that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision must be returned to Congress for reconsideration. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the director of the Annenberg center, said the survey “offers dramatic evidence of the need for more and better civics education.”

Today, “Warren wrote, ‘education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship.’” [Chief Justice Earl Warren, Brown v. Board of Education, 1954]

“[Retired] Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor … in a 2008 article written with former Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, … argued that ‘civic education has been in steady decline over the past generation, as high stakes testing and an emphasis on literacy and math dominate school reforms. Too many young people today do not understand how our political system works.’”)

Attacks on teachers. Edward Graham, “Who is Behind the Attacks on Educators and Public Schools? The manufactured outrage perpetuated by dark money networks is both a danger to educators and a distraction from helping students and parents,” neaToday, Dec. 14, 2021, https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/who-behind-attacks-educators-and-public-schools (“This peddling of misinformation and fear has led to a sharp increase in threats aimed at educators and school board officials, many of whom have been intimidated and threatened in alarming numbers across the country—outside school grounds, across social media, and, most notoriously, at local school board meetings.

Small groups of radicalized adults, egged on by these bad actors, have been whipped into a furor over COVID safety protocols and the false notion that children are being taught “critical race theory.” Some of these protests have ended in chaos, with school board members in Virginia receiving death threats and protesters in San Diego County forcing their way into a school board meeting and declaring themselves the newly-elected board.

Educators across the country have also shared horror stories about the assaults and abuses they’ve had to endure for simply doing their jobs. Teachers in California and Texas were physically assaulted over wearing masks, and in Arizona, a group of men were arrested and charged after attempting to abduct an elementary school principal for following COVID-19 guidelines.”)

Tuition increases. Melanie Hanson, “College Tuition Inflation Rate,” Education Data Initiative, last updated Aug. 10, 2022, https://educationdata.org/college-tuition-inflation-rate (Numerous calculations. e.g., “After adjusting for currency inflation, college tuition has increased 747.8% since 1963.”)

College presidents pay. Anya Kamenetz, “More College Presidents Join the Millionaires’ Club,” nprEd, Dec. 13, 2017, https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/12/13/569943593/more-college-presidents-join-the-millionaires-club (“The chief executives of 59 private colleges and seven public universities took home more than $1 million in total compensation in 2015, according to an analysis released this week by The Chronicle of Higher Education.”)

Darian Somers and Josh Moody, “10 Public Universities Run by Highest-Paid Presidents; These university presidents make at least $1 million,” USNews Education, Aug. 6, 2019, https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/slideshows/10-public-universities-run-by-highest-paid-presidents (“The U.S. president makes $400,000 per year. But numerous university presidents make more than double that. At least 40 National University presidents earn twice what President Donald Trump does on a yearly basis, according to a 2019 report from The Chronicle of Higher Education.”)

Total student loan debt. Anna Helhoski, Ryan Lane, “Student Loan Debt Statistics: 2022,” Nerdwallet, Aug. 25, 2022, https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/student-loan-debt (“Student loan borrowers in the United States owe a collective nearly $1.75 trillion in federal and private student loan debt as of August 2022, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.”)

Lycurgus. “Lycurgus (lawgiver),” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycurgus_(lawgiver) (“Lycurgus (/laɪˈkɜːrɡəs/; Greek: Λυκοῦργος Lykourgos; fl. c. 820 BC) was the quasi-legendary lawgiver of Sparta ….”)

De Tocqueville, “every citizen.” See above, “Alexis de Tocqueville” and “Quotes from ‘Democracy in America.’”

National Council for the Social Sciences. https://www.socialstudies.org

“Revitalizing Civic Learning in Our Schools.” “Revitalizing Civic Learning in Our Schools; A Position Statement of National Council for the Social Studies,” Approved 2013, https://www.socialstudies.org/position-statements/revitalizing-civic-learning-our-schools (“As Thomas Jefferson, Horace Mann, John Dewey and other great educators understood, public schools do not serve a public so much as create a public.1 The goal of schooling, therefore, is not merely preparation for citizenship, but citizenship itself; to equip a citizenry with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for active and engaged civic life.”)

One researcher found. Shawn Healy [Civic Learning Scholar, McCormick Foundation; taking “con” position], “Con,” Marcia Clemmitt, “Civic Education: Are Students Learning How to be Good Citizens? Pro/Con Should states make the U.S citizenship test a graduation requirement” CQPress, CQ Researcher, Feb. 3, 2017, https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2017020306 (“students did best when discussing current events in class daily, simulating democratic processes regularly and engaging in community service annually. These practices are too often neglected in content-centered courses, and students depart with a fleeting knowledge base and are poorly prepared for the demands of democratic governance.”)

Claire Nader book. Claire Nader, “You Are Your Own Best Teacher: Sparking the Curiosity, Imagination, and Intellect of Tweens,” Essential Books, Washington, D.C., (2022) (Jonathan Kozol (author, “Death At An Early Age”): “[An] engaging book about the need for children . . . to speak without self-censorship and to ‘open their own doors and windows’ …”

Juliet Schor (Boston College Professor of Sociology): “Should we be surprised that young people, such as Greta Thunberg, Leah Namugerwa, and Jamie Margolin sparked the largest climate change demonstration in history? No, says Claire Nader … in this engaging, surprising, and wise book ….”

Plus seven additional endorsements.)

# # #

Democracy Is Not a Spectator Sport

Democracy Is Not a Spectator Sport

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, January 13, 2021, p. A6
On Feb. 14, 2014, Donald Trump told Fox, "When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell, and everything is a disaster, then you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be, when we were great.”

By January 6, 2021, the economy had crashed, our federal government’s pandemic response was the world’s worst, and it seemed like “everything is a disaster.”

It was time for a Trump rally. He claimed “hundreds of thousands of American patriots” were there. The Park Service permit approved 30,000, and with no official count, the media settled on “thousands.”

Trump told them, “After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — to the Capitol . . .because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing."

Minutes later, at the Capitol, we watched his followers’ “show strength” by staging one of Trump’s predicted “riots to go back to . . . when we were great.”

Some Americans are aware of our slowly crumbling columns of democracy, institutions essential to democracy’s creation and preservation. For them, Trump’s January 6 mob was no surprise. Riots are a part of the endgame in an authoritarian-wannabe’s playbook. It was only a matter of time.

Turns out representative democracy is not universally popular among Americans. The Pew Research Center found 13% thought it totally bad; others thought substitutions for elected officials with direct democracy (29%), experts (40%), strong leaders (22%), or military rule (17%) good ideas.

More voted last Nov. 3 than in any election for 120 years. That was 67% of eligible voters. One-third didn’t vote. An Ipsos survey revealed 23% were “not interested in politics.”

A democracy is fragile, and subject to President Lyndon Johnson’s observation that, “It takes a carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can knock it down.”

We cannot know if it will be possible to rebuild our shattered democracy. What we do know is that it cannot be rebuilt just by substituting one president for another. It cannot be rebuilt by those who just “believe in” democracy or merely prefer it to alternatives.

It will require those who recognize and work to oppose attacks on the columns of democracy. A democracy requires an educated electorate, a trusted and independent mass media, a wise and nonpartisan judiciary, and efforts to increase, rather than suppress, ease of voting.

Inadequate education and library budgets are an attack on democracy. So is failure to support media with subscriptions and advertising, talk of “fake news” and “enemy of the people,” reverse Robin Hood legislation, or treating courts as a third political branch of government.

Are you willing to watch a little less television to have time for calls and emails to officials? Share more of the resources you can afford with local media and democracy-promoting candidates? Help sturdy our crumbling columns of democracy? [Image: Constitutional Convention of 1787, National Park Service]

If there are enough of us doing that, we have a prayer of rebuilding our barn, the democracy our founders hoped for. If not, we’re just waiting for the next authoritarian-wannabe, and the next January 6.

Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City is the author of Columns of Democracy (2018). Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES
"When the economy crashes, when the country goes to total hell, and everything is a disaster, then you’ll have riots to go back to where we used to be, when we were great.” “Donald Trump’s 2014 Political Predictions,” Fox News Interview, video, 6:26, Feb. 10, 2014, 2:02-2:12 https://video.foxnews.com/v/3179604851001#sp=show-clips Snopes https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-economy-crashing-quote/

"After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you — . . . to the Capitol . . .. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness, you have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing . . .." Trump, Jan 6, 2021

"Donald Trump Speech 'Save America' Rally Transcript," Jan. 6, 2021, Segment beginning 16:25, https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-tell-supporters-storm/

Crowd size. “How Many Were at the MAGA Trump March & Protest in DC? Crowd Size Photos,” copy of Park Service permit (5000; modified to 30,000). Reports: “thousands” at rally “hundreds” at Capitol. https://heavy.com/news/maga-march-trump-dc-rally-crowd-photos/

NYTimes collection of stories: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/washington-dc-protests

Support for democracy: Richard Wike, Katie Simmons, Bruce Stokes and Janell Fetterolf, “Democracy widely supported, little backing for rule by strong leader or military,” Pew Research Center, Oct. 10, 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/10/16/democracy-widely-supported-little-backing-for-rule-by-strong-leader-or-military/

Percentage voting: Domenico Montanaro, “Poll: Despite Record Turnout, 80 Million Americans Didn't Vote. Here's Why,” Dec. 15, 2020, NPR, https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/945031391/poll-despite-record-turnout-80-million-americans-didnt-vote-heres-why
Ipsos survey: "Nonvoters' reasons for not voting include: not being registered to vote (29%); not being interested in politics (23%) . . .." Ibid.

# # #

Understanding Impeachment

There is so much nonsense spouted about impeachment these days, whether deliberate obfuscation or unknowingly, that you might find these items useful. (The most basic sources, from the Constitution, are Article II, Section 4 (impeachment power), Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5 (possessed by the House), Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 (trial in Senate). You are spared additional footnotes, though specific citations can be provided if desired.)

This material is hoped, intended and believed to be accurate, but does not purport to be, and is not, either a "legal opinion" or "scholarship."

There are three sections to which these links can take you: (1) The Obligation to Impeach, (2) Impeachment Standard Not "Illegality," and (3) Trump Has Violated the Law. [Photo credit: Wikimedia.]

The Obligation to Impeach. Every president, House and Senate member, and federal judge has sworn to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution requires each branch (legislative, executive and judicial) to maintain the balance of power among the three branches and prevent constitutional violations by the other two.

Thus, it can be argued the House has a constitutional obligation to begin an impeachment inquiry when there is reason to believe a president may have said or done things that precedent suggests constitute “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The Congress has no more constitutional right to evade this responsibility, to fail to exercise this specifically granted power, than it has a right to fail to exercise its power to take the census every ten years. It certainly cannot refuse to start an impeachment inquiry because it might be politically harmful to the majority party in the House, or because the president may fail to win reelection. Nor can it fail to impeach because the Senate is unlikely to convict, any more than a grand jury can fail to indict because of the possibility the trial jury may be biased in favor of the accused.

Why? Because there are more reasons for the impeachment power than the potential removal of a specific president. Impeachment is designed to maintain for the future both (1) the standards of presidential conduct required by the founders and (2) exercise of the checks and balances the Constitution compels between the Legislative and Executive branches.

Impeachment Standard Not “Illegality.” President Trump’s defenders have altered their arguments as facts evolved – from, in effect, “he didn’t do it,” to “he may have done it, but he did nothing wrong,” to “he may have exercised bad judgment and done something wrong, but he did nothing illegal,” to “it can’t have been illegal because there was no quid-pro-quo,” to “even if it was illegal, and there was a quid-pro-quo, it is not an impeachable offense.”

As “Late Night” host Seth Meyers would say, “It’s time for a closer look.”

The founders modeled their constitutional standard for impeachment on British practice, which had its origins in 1341. Articles of impeachment in Great Britain included such things as “arbitrary and tyrannical government,” “procuring offices for persons who were unfit, and unworthy of them,” “squandering away the public treasure,” “improprieties in office,” “gross maladministration,” “corruption in office,” “neglect of duty,” excessive drinking and cursing that created “the highest scandal . . . on the kingdom.”

The British practice was to treat impeachment as a remedy separate from the process and standards of the criminal law and to include conduct not expressly recognized as “illegal.”

Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s language is influenced, but not bound, by British history. But American history is almost identical. The writings of Constitutional Convention members Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and James Madison indicate they believed impeachment did not require criminal offences. Nothing in the records of the states’ ratification of the Constitution indicate they believed impeachment was limited to criminal offenses. Of the first 13 impeachments by the House since 1789 (mostly of judges), at least 10 included charges that did not involve criminal law. Finally, Congress has never attempted to define “impeachment” in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (criminal code).

So far, three U.S. presidents have been impeached (Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton) and a fourth (President Trump) is undergoing an impeachment inquiry. None, so far, has been removed from office following the Senate trial. (President Johnson was saved by one vote; President Nixon resigned before his seemingly inevitable formal impeachment.)

Each presidential impeachment has involved some article dealing with other than criminal illegality.

As discussed in ”Trump’s High Crimes and Misdemeansors,” October 31, 2019, President Andrew Johnson’s tenth article of impeachment charged “That the President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States . . . [did] make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces . . . amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled . . ..”

The first of the Articles of Impeachment regarding President Nixon included: “[Nixon] has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice . . .. [He has] engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry [into Democratic National Committee headquarters]; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. “ (This is followed by nine examples.)

Article II, par. 5, alleged that “he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation . . . and the Central Intelligence Agency.” Article III charged that he “has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives . . ..”

President Bill Clinton’s third article of impeachment included, after citing 7 specific items, “In all of this, [Clinton] has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, [and] has betrayed his trust as President . . ..”

Taken together, the evidence is overwhelming that the validity of an article of impeachment does not turn on whether a "law" has been violated. Thus, even if it were true, as some Trump defenders contend, that "he has done nothing illegal" it does not follow that, therefore, he cannot and should not be impeached.

But wait, even if one insists that a violation of law is a requirement for impeachment . . .

Trump Has Violated the Law. Although unnecessary for impeachment, for a response to those who argue “he did nothing illegal” or “there was no quid-pro-quo” it seems clear he did violate the law, and that the law he violated does not require proof of a “quid-pro-quo.”

The law involved is contained in Section 30121 of Title 52, United States Code (“Voting and Elections”).

The relevant words are, “It shall be unlawful for . . . a person to solicit . . . or receive . . . from a foreign national ["a . . . thing of value . . . in connection with a Federal . . . election"].

(The primary subsection is Sec. 30121(a)(2). The [bracketed] words are from subsection 30121(a)(1)(A) because Sec. 30121(a)(2) defines what cannot be received as that which was "described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).")

Thing of Value. Given the quantity of confirming testimony regarding the range of ways that Trump displayed his desire to obtain dirt on former Vice President, and candidate for president, Joe Biden, there can be no doubt he considered such information “a thing of value in connection with a Federal election.”

Solicitation. Notes from Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky included Trump’s now-infamous line, “I would like to ask you to do us a favor, though.” It turns out there was more than one “favor” requested, but one is enough to clearly establish “solicitation.”

Quid-Pro-Quo. Note that the law does not require a quid-pro-quo. So even if there had been no quid-pro-quo that would have been irrelevant to whether Sec. 30121 had been violated. Clearly, it would not have been a defense. But for whatever relevance it may have, it seems to have clearly been the impression of many of those who have testified before Congress that a quid-pro-quo was understood by both presidents.

Without exploring yet another possible crime, the existence of a quid-pro-quo, while irrelevant to Section 30121, may be very relevant to a charge of bribery.

Intelligence Community's Inspector General and Impeachment

Now What?

As I watched the three hours of the House Intelligence Committee's questioning of Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire it increasingly seemed to me that (1) no one was entirely pure, and (2) the Constitution and Acts of Congress are inadequate to resolve the challenges confronting the Committee and the Director. [Photo: Director Joseph Maguire; source: Wikimedia Commons.]

The Trump-can-do-no-wrong Republicans were overstating President Trump's innocence. The Democrats were playing fast and loose with the language of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Act (IGICA) and trying to get Director Joseph Maguire to make statements in support of their case for impeachment that Maguire was at least entitled, if not required, to refuse to make. And Director Maguire was refusing to acknowledge the conflict of interest he had in (a) serving the President who had appointed him and to whom he reported, and (b) carrying out the spirit (though not the language) of the IGICA. [Photo: President Donald Trump; source: Wikimedia Commons.]

This blog is not a "legal opinion." I have read the IGICA -- which can be found here 50 USC Sec. 3033 -- and scanned the 8000-plus-word Responsibilities and Authorities of the Director of National Intelligence Act -- available here 50 USC Sec. 3024. That's not enough research to produce a definitive judgment about the applicability of either or both laws.

But the IGICA's title referencing the "Intelligence Community," its numerous uses of variations of the phrase "programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence" throughout the Act, can reasonably lead one to the conclusion that the probable legislative history of the Act (i.e., events preceding and surrounding its creation, press reports, committee hearings, and debates on the floor) would not support an interpretation of the language of the Act as including the process to be followed in the case earlier before Director Maguire and now before Congress: namely acts of the President alleged to be "fraud and abuse," other criminal violations, or threats to national security. [Photo: House Intelligence Committee Chair, Adam Schiff; source: Wikimedia Commons.]

Of course, this does not mean that the President did no wrong. It is only to say that it is not clear that the IGICA contemplated or addressed, let alone compelled, the Inspector General to investigate, or Director Maguire to send to the Intelligence Committee the Inspector General's findings.

What they clearly could do, and did do, was to refer the whistle-blower's complaint to the FBI.

The central problem, as I now see it, is that neither the Constitution nor acts of Congress address the challenges to our democracy posed by a president like President Donald Trump. Indeed, I doubt that the founders' effort to avoid a monarchy in the White House, and their single choice of impeachment as a check on "high crimes and misdemeanors," envisioned the possibility we would ever elect a president like Trump.

The Constitution provides for impeachment of the president and other officials, Article II, Sec. 4, that the House "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Article I, Sec. 2, clause 5, and that the Senate "shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Article I, Sec. 3, clause 6. (Article II, Sec. 4, provides: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.")

The 25th Amendment, certified by the President in 1967, provides for removal of a president found to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" -- a remedy primarily focused on physical or mental disability.

While the allegations in the whistle-blower's complaint may be among the most serious of Trump's offenses, the challenge confronting Congress is the tsunami of Trump's governance by tweets, over 14,000 false or misleading statements, attacks on columns of democracy (such as an independent media and judiciary), brazen violations of previously accepted required norms, ethics, morality, laws and constitutional restraints on presidents. For a partial list, see, e.g., Max Boot, "Trump Isn't Just Violating Norms -- He's Also Breaking the Law," The Washington Post, April 25, 2019.

What Congress must do is (1) reassert the constitutional powers it has been granted, that have gradually been taken over by the Executive branch, and (2) then address what additional checks are necessary to deal with this unprecedented string of presidential abuses. Perhaps what is first needed is a kind of Congressional Inspector General whose sole job it is to oversee the president and White House staff, receiving whistle-blower complaints, doing its own monitoring, then reporting to the House and Senate leadership and relevant committees. Perhaps this could provide the congressional incentive to create the constitutionally appropriate additional legislation to restrain the variety and quantity of presidential abuses unimagined by the constitution's drafters.

# # #

Why Trump May Win

Trump Will Lose? Don't Be So Sure
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, May 29, 2019, p. A6
(As submitted; asterisks (*) indicate The Gazette modified the text for space reasons: e.g., the previous clause or sentence was deleted, or paragraph heading was run on into previous paragraph; regular formatting was substituted for bold paragraph headings.)

“It is unthinkable Americans would reelect Trump,” a friend said the other day. I told him to think harder. Here’s why.

Trump is president. Most presidents who want a second term get it; recently Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama.*


[Photo credit: Wikimedia.org Commons/White House.]

He has experienced a win. First-timers find Presidential campaigns difficult; they make mistakes. Trump has a tested, winning playbook. [Added May 30: Moreover, he's been continuously campaigning ever since he descended that escalator into a crowd of paid extras June 16, 2015 -- four solid years next month, with 18 months to go.

The economy’s strong. Whatever the full data may show, Trump benefits from the public’s perception of a healthy economy – a major factor in presidential elections.

He’s a media master. He knows how to keep the stories and cameras on himself while diverting attention from his disasters. Worst case, he can start a war; remember “Wag the Dog”?

America’s gone red.* In 2016 Trump won 2,600 counties, 85 percent of our continental land area. Republicans control both houses in 32 states’ legislatures – the most ever.

He’s near the finish line. With his rock-solid 42 percent he only needs nine percent to win. The Democrat must cobble together 51 percent.

He has Russian support. Russia’s role in the 2016 election was no one-off. Their similar techniques throughout Europe and here will only intensify in 2020. Is it serious Russians can hack voting machines? Sure, but the least of our worries. When they can manipulate voters they don’t need to hack machines. Indeed, when they can foment our self-destructive civil war of words they can destroy our democracy from within without firing a shot.

Trump knows social media. He has already spent about as much on it as the top five Democratic candidates combined. (Are you unaware of how Facebook swings elections worldwide by increasing anger, divisiveness and manipulating voters?* We’ll talk about that after you’ve first read Roger McNamee’s book, Zucked (2019) and watched Carole Cadwalladr’s TED Talk, “Facebook’s Role in Brexit – and the Threat to Democracy” (2019), https://tinyurl.com/y4q8mcre.*)

Trump is unrestrained. His willingness to violate our Constitution, laws, social and political norms of behavior gives him a competitive advantage.

He studies and befriends authoritarian leaders. He uses their techniques. Want examples? He turns immigrants, Muslims, asylum-seekers and Democrats into “the enemy.” To expand presidential power he encourages citizens’ distrust in professional journalism, the judiciary and Congress’ constitutional powers. He transforms the Justice Department into his personal defense team.

Trump feeds his base raw meat. Democrats have ignored their base. President Franklin Roosevelt gave Democrats a coalition of the poor, working poor, working class, farmers and trade unionists. Had Democrats served and maintained that base they would win every election from school boards to the White House. Shoe leather and door knocking have given way to some Democrats’ belief that money from the East coast and voters from the West coast are enough to maintain a winning national party.*

He can avoid primaries. The Democratic Party’s primary candidates can’t. They must first raise and spend money on name identification and primary contests. Some will suffer bruises to their reputations. Party activists and voters are splintered. Those supporting unsuccessful candidates may end up with less enthusiasm for the ultimate winner.

Voter suppression benefits Trump. Many Democrats who want to vote won’t be able to.

Is it hopeless for the Democratic Party’s nominee? Of course not. We have an outstanding couple dozen candidates, any one of whom I’d welcome as a next-door neighbor. But to win Democrats must start with a realistic assessment of Trump’s strengths.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson is a native Iowan and three-time presidential appointee; his latest book is Columns of Democracy. Website: NicholasJohnson.org* Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org.*

# # #

Why Net Neutrality is Your Friend

[Note: This blog post was later published by The Gazette as Nicholas Johnson, "Why Net Neutrality is Our Friend," "Insight,"The Gazette, June 2, 2017, p. A6]

[Graphic credit: ACLU]
President Donald Trump kept his promise. He said he’d “drain the swamp” in Washington. He has. What he didn’t tell us was that he would then fill his administration with the creatures that crawled out.

The news media and late night shows have reveled in their good fortune. Trump has provided them a daily flow of stories both entertaining and terrifying to move their audiences between tears and laughter.

But as a result, that 99 percent-plus of the federal government that’s not in the White House is mostly ignored by the media.

Farmers worry over the loss of overseas markets from Trump trade agreements. Public schools must deal with the loss of revenue from school vouchers. The oil and gas industry cheers a removal of regulations that rivals the Teapot Dome scandal that sent one of President Warren Harding’s cabinet members to prison.

And my old agency, now Trump’s Federal Communications Commission, is going about repealing the consumer protection called Network Neutrality. You don’t need to know anything about computers or the Internet to understand that one.

You do need to understand monopoly capitalism.

Most cities of any size have an abundant array of restaurants from which to choose – locations, menus, prices, and atmosphere. Aside from health concerns, “marketplace forces” provide adequate consumer protection.

By contrast, with rare exception most neighborhoods in those cities have no choice among monopolist internet service providers, such as Mediacom.

It’s the business of business to maximize profits by increasing prices and cutting costs (quality and services) until both reach optimum levels.

In a conversation with Chicago economist Milton Friedman he used the example of corporate pollution of rivers. “You are appealing to them to be ethical,” he said. “They can’t afford to be ethical. They can afford to comply with a law that’s also applicable to their competitors. Your answer is in Congress and state legislatures, not preaching in the streets.”

If an Internet service provider (ISP) also profits from distributing content it owns, it can make more money by censoring a competitor’s content, charging more for it, or slowing its delivery to your TV. If it doesn’t own content providers, it can bargain with those who are, providing them unfair advantages for the right price. And ISPs will set customers’ charges at the optimum profit maximizing level.

Harm to consumers will be limited only by the ISP’s imagination.

Once cities have as many ISPs as restaurants we can talk about “marketplace regulation.” Meanwhile, common decency requires that the FCC retain the consumer protection of Network Neutrality.

# # #