Nicholas Johnson's Mike Wallace Memories

May 2, 2012, 7:50 p.m.Mike Wallace: May 9, 1918 – April 7, 2012
"I can't let the life, and now death, of Mike Wallace go without comment," Tim Weiner, "Mike Wallace, CBS Pioneer of 60 Minutes, Dies at 93," New York Times, April 9, 2012, p. A1; see also "Mike Wallace (journalist)," Wikipedia.org. (Photo credit: Wikimedia commons)

Mike Wallace was both a significant part of my television viewing experience since the 1950s, and of my professional experience during the 1960s and 1970s -- during which at least two interviews have been recalled. Excerpts from the transcript of our exchanges during my "Face the Nation" guest appearance on September 14, 1969, and my legal assistant, Tracy Westen's memory of a Mike Wallace interview in my FCC office, are reproduced below.

CBS, I can now confess almost 40 years after leaving the FCC, was kind of my favorite family network. It featured Dad in its Peabody Award-Winning interview show, "The Search." In fact, I think it was that program that convinced Dad -- after I'd left for college -- to buy a TV set; apparently that experience finally brought him to the insight that there might be at least some programs worth watching on television.

Like many Americans, I was a fan of CBS' Edward R. Murrow, and his then-partner Fred Friendly -- whom I came to know when Fred served as CBS News President, professor at Columbia University, and at the Ford Foundation. "Harvest of Shame" (about migrant workers) and their presentation of Senator Joseph McCarthy (that played a major role in his downfall) are both major milestones in American broadcasting, history.

My sister, Kate, got an early start on her broadcasting career. While in high school her proposal for a "Teen Talk" radio program won a local contest, and gained her the role of its host on local radio station KXIC-AM, where she also hosted the "Breakfast Club." She created two TV shows for WMT-TV in Cedar Rapids: "It's Fun to Find Out" (a science program for kids) and "Hobby Hunt" (either while still in high school or during summers when in college). After college, in Europe, she fed stories to NBC's "Monitor" radio program, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (where she worked with a TV predecessor to CBS' "60 Minutes," "This Hour Has Seven Days").

She began at CBS with, among other assignments, Mike Wallace's radio program, "Mike Wallace at Large." She ultimately worked for CBS Television News for a few years, including Walter Cronkite's "CBS Evening News," where she continued occasional assignments with Mike Wallace.

I found watching the in-studio creation of Cronkite's Evening News -- with directors barking orders, and film (as it then was) arriving, and being processed, only minutes before the show, more exciting than any sports match. As improbable as it seemed during the countdown to air, somehow it always came together. And to my delight Cronkite extended a standing offer to come by anytime I was in New York, or they were doing the show from Washington, at the CBS offices just a block or two down the street from the FCC building.

My next door neighbor and one of my best friends at the time, Bob Pierpoint, had been one of "Murrow's boys," and was then working as the CBS White House correspondent. Although I never met Murrow, I do remember a dinner party at Bob's that Murrow's widow, Janet, attended.

In the midst of Washington's lobbying pressure, and good old boys' use of raw power as an alternative to rational persuasion, I used to say, sarcastically and dramatically to make the point, that most industries had at least one CEO who had attended college and has some sense of the public interest. When Maritime Administrator my memory is that Mærsk McKinney Møller and Jakob Isbrandtsen (of Isbrandtsen Lines) helped show the way to ship operations without government subsidy, and that my interests in cutting down port costs (often 90% of the cost of trans-ocean shipping), as well as the subsequent rail and truck costs, were substantially accelerated by Malcolm McLean, a former trucking company owner, who created Sea-Land and the containerization revolution I was advocating.

Anyhow, in broadcasting the one network CEO who was head and shoulders above the rest was CBS' Frank Stanton, often chosen (wisely) by the other broadcasters to be their spokesperson -- and who, among other things, got the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which had no congressional appropriation) off the ground with his own $1 million contribution. (Among group station owners it was Don McGannon, of Westinghouse, who led the way by removing cigarette commercials, and creating his own "family viewing hour," before being ordered to do so.)

When CBS started "60 Minutes," it got off to a slow start. In fact, the network was considering canceling the program almost before it got off the ground. I had been encouraging broadcasters to provide more substantive programming in general, and supported "60 Minutes" in particular. I can't recall the format it took – whether it was a speech, article, or just a conversation – but I do recall encouraging the network to stick with it, confident as I was that if they'd give the program a chance it would ultimately build an audience. Reflecting back, it turned out to be one of, if not the, longest running programs in television history.

When news of Mike Wallace's death reached him, one of my brilliant, creative, charming and personable former FCC legal assistants, Tracy Westen, emailed me the following:

I saw the news this morning that Mike Wallace just died, which is certainly a shame, but it reminded me of a story involving you . . ..I remember the time Wallace interviewed you in your office (probably some time in 1970). He already had a reputation as a fearsome interviewer, so we were all a little apprehensive. His crew came in and set up a one-camera setup, with the camera focused on you in your desk chair. The interview proceeded; he asked tough questions; your answers were great.Then they reversed the camera to get reaction shots of Wallace, shooting over your shoulder. They said just "make conversation" while Wallace nodded, as if he were listening to your answers. (Was that a form of news staging?)Then, you started asking Wallace tough questions. I don't remember what you said, so I'll make it up, it was something like this:"Isn't it true, Mike, that you're really just a corporate shill for CBS, and that your news stories are just designed to sell your sponsor's products?" (Something like that.) Poor Mike, he had to sit there, and nod, as though he was listening to one of your answers -- but the hilarious part was that you were forcing him to "agree" (nod in assent) to all your critical questions.He left shortly after that, seemed a bit disgruntled, but, as I recall, gave you a good interview when it aired.I still remember that and will always associate it with Mike Wallace, and your undaunted wit in the face of a notoriously tough reporter.

There are a number of stories regarding the "Face the Nation" program from which the transcript excerpts of my exchanges with Mike Wallace are reproduced below.

One of the producers of the program, whom I had met but never dated, told me the following amusing story. Apparently someone with CBS in New York wanted to use as a backdrop on the "Face the Nation" set in Washington a large graphic including my face, and made a very early call to the Washington producer. Assuming she and I had a relationship of some sort, he asked her, "Does Nick Johnson still have his mustache?" (It was subsequently featured on the cover of the Rolling Stone.) Flummoxed, irritated at being awakened and at her caller's assumption, she told me she replied, "Just a minute, I'll roll over and look."

We received in my FCC office something like 7000 letters regarding the program. The network informed me that they got more mail for that particular "Face the Nation" than for any other.

This was especially noteworthy, since I had noticed TV Guide listed the program for the wrong time. Thus, anyone who watched it saw it by accident. Indeed, one woman wrote me how pleased she was to have caught it. She was dusting her TV set when it accidentally went on, and there I was.

When I commented about this to one of the show's producers, she explained, "What you have to realize, Nick, is that you're not paranoid; you have real enemies." So I did.

So here are the excerpts from that program that involve the exchanges between Mike Wallace and myself (plus an opening and closing with CBS moderator, George Herman). (The third reporter was Richard Burgheim, of Time magazine.)

FACE THE NATION
CBS Television and Radio Networks
Sunday, September 14, 1969 -- 12:30-1:00 PM EDT
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Herman: Commissioner Johnson, you are noted for some very critical views about the television industry. Your organization, the Federal Communications Commission, is far older than television. It presided over the birth and growth of the industry. It licensed and regulated the television stations. If there is something wrong with television, what is wrong with the FCC?

Commissioner Johnson: I think the FCC suffers from the problems that confront many of what we call sub-governments in Washington DC: the virtual domination of its day-to-day activities by the very industries that it is supposed to regulate. The political power of the broadcasting industry is, in my judgment, unsurpassed by that of any other industry in America today. * * *

Mr. Herman: Commissioner Johnson, if the FCC is dominated by the industry, is there something wrong with the members of the FCC, or is it the setup?

Commissioner Johnson: No, I think it's a not uncommon phenomenon in this town. The concept of a sub-government Is very important to an understanding of how its decisions are really made in Washington. In most areas of decision-making, the power is really outside the domain of Congress or the president. It rests with a very small group of individuals who have an economic interest in the outcome. This would apply to areas of subsidy, of government contracts, with bestowal of monopoly rights as in broadcasting, setting of rates; any matter of that kind that involves tremendous economic interests.

And in that area of decision-making, generally the decisions are dominated by a group made up of the trade magazines; the trade associations; that segment of the Washington bar which represents the industry involved; the principal spokesman for the industry, those from the major companies making up the industry; the government agency that is involved in dispensing the economic largess; and the subcommittees and staff within Congress that is responsible for this area.

And this group tends to enjoy a symbiotic relationship: the members of the various components of the sub-government end up working for one another at one time or another. And, it's a long, long way from democratic control of political decision-making.* * *

Mr. Wallace: You were persuaded to stay, and now Dean Burch, who worked for Barry Goldwater during the 1964 campaign, Dean Burch, it is said, is going to be the new chairman of the FCC. And Nick Johnson, those who know him best say, is very unhappy about that. Why?

Commissioner Johnson: Well, I would make every effort to assume the best about any new appointee to the FCC, and endeavor to work well with him to the extent possible.

Mr. Wallace: But what's wrong with the Burch appointment, if indeed it comes, Commissioner Johnson?

Commissioner Johnson: Well, I wouldn't really comment on that. The president hasn't nominated anyone yet, and I'm not sure it would be appropriate then for me to comment on it. I think that the thing that everyone will be watching on whomever president Nixon does ultimately decide to choose, is once again, just how far the political power of the broadcasting industry has gone. Surely, President Nixon is very much aware of the kinds of problems that president Eisenhower got into during the 1950s with his FCC and the ex-party scandals at that time. He's very mindful of the, really, the outrage on the part of many Americans at the seeming business domination of the regulatory commissions. So that, if he ends up making appointments that principally serve the interests of the broadcasting industry, I think we can assume that he is doing so knowingly and fully mindful of the tremendous political price that he will pay for such an appointment, and that he is presumably doing so only because of a tremendous political power that this industry does have, not only over Congress but over the presidency itself.

For he is, after all, in the same position of any other elected official. The only way he can reach his constituency, the only way any elected official can reach his constituency, is by knocking on the broadcaster’s door and begging him for a little time. It is the broadcaster, after all, who controls what information the American people will receive, what candidates they will be permitted to view and to hear from, what issues they will be permitted to know about. And every elected official is very mindful of this power. The question is, to what extent is it also a power applicable to the presidency itself. And as I say, I think that will be tested as these appointments come up.* * *

Mr. Wallace: Have you never helped out, Commissioner, been consulted by or offered encouragement to any specific group that was trying to replace the current licensee of any station across the country?

Commissioner Johnson: In my judgment, it would be inappropriate for a Commissioner to, I don't know what your words were, but to represent in the way a lawyer might, any party before the commission during a hearing. We have express rules on this, and once a case is set, it's up to the parties to get counsel and take care of themselves. Prior to that time, my door is open as is that of other Commissioners. I try to answer my mail and answer my phone calls and see people who request an opportunity to visit with me. I talk with representatives of the broadcasting industry and the telephone company; I talk with representatives of public groups. I try to see as broad a cross spectrum of those people who want to see me at times when it is appropriate and it is possible.

Mr. Wallace: My words were "helped out, been consulted by or offered encouragement to" any specific group. In other words, did you help any group? For instance, at KRON-TV; did you talk – people are trying to get their license. Or KNBC in Los Angeles, or WMAL-TV here in Washington. There are specific groups that are trying to get those licenses. Have you offered any encouragement to or specific help to any of those groups at any time?

Commissioner Johnson: I think the fair answer to your question is no, to the extent that you are asking have I done anything more than I would have done or have done in the past for industry representatives or any other American citizen, and the answer to that clearly is no, I have not.* * *

Mr. Wallace: Would you like to see the FCC regulate or somebody regulate the prices that are paid for political broadcasts?

Commissioner Johnson: Well, that rather assumes, Mr. Wallace, that a price ought to be paid. In my judgment it is absolutely preposterous that in an industry that is earning, many stations well in excess of 100% return on depreciated capital investment, an industry that is using public property, the airwaves, an industry that is permitted to make private profit from the use of public property only in exchange for the use of that public property in the public interest, an industry that has an obligation to put on some public service programming and is doing very little of it, for that industry to hold up the elected public officials and make them pay to get time from public property in order to permit the people of this country to hear from their elected officials, it's – you know, the rationing of the time and then charging for them, it's kind of like a criminal stealing a woman's wedding band after he's raped her, you know. * * * [D]uring election time, I think this one-third of the time ought to be devoted to a discussion of public issues and candidates, yes.

Mr. Wallace: By both networks and local stations?

Commissioner Johnson: Yes. Now, you raised the question of what about the splinter parties. This has been adequately handled by every other civilized nation in the world. It's not impossible of solution here. In Great Britain, the proportion given to splinter candidates is roughly apportioned in terms of their vote. Broadcasters in this country complain that because of the equal time rule they are compelled to give all candidates time, and if only we'd suspend the equal time rule, they'd be willing to give more free time. The fact of the matter is that well over fifty percent of the broadcasters, as many as two-thirds in many areas, have not given free time when there were only two candidates.* * *

Mr. Wallace: Let's get to censorship, if we may, Commissioner. Recently you wrote – you said virtually the same thing again here today – you wrote in TV Guide that network officials are “keeping off the television screens anything,” your word, "they find inconsistent with their corporate profits or their personal philosophies." And you talk about "corporate tampering with the product of honest and capable journalists." "Sometimes," you say, "there is a deliberate alteration of content." Do you at genuinely believe that?

Commissioner Johnson: Yes, I genuinely believe that.

Mr. Wallace: What you're saying really, is that –

Commissioner Johnson: As do most former network newscasters who bothered to write books about the matter genuinely believe it. Edward R. Murrow said that the final and most crucial decisions in network news are made by top corporate management.

Mr. Wallace: Well, now, wait –

Commissioner Johnson: Fred friendly, who was former president of CBS news, said very much the same thing in Due To Circumstances Beyond Our Control. Robin McNeal, who was with NBC, in his book, People Machines, documented very much the same story. These are not imaginings of mine, Mr. Wallace. My only source of information, necessarily, is from those who are now in this business and are willing to talk, not for attribution, or those who have been in the business in the past and have written books about it.

Mr. Wallace: Well, Commissioner, you say, again, "Network officials keep off the screen anything they find inconsistent with their corporate profits or personal philosophies." You wrote it in TV Guide, next week's TV Guide. And I believe you have a copy of Dick Salant, who is the president of CBS News, his statement says, "in the eleven years I was corporate officer and the six years I've been president of CBS news, to my knowledge," and he is not an unknowledgeable man I think you'll agree, "there is no issue, no topic, no story that CBS News has ever been forbidden or instructed, directly or indirectly, to cover or not to cover by corporate management." Now –

Commissioner Johnson: Well, are you familiar with the inner-office memorandum that was published in Variety from CBS management to the news department on how coverage of the New York Yankees, a ball club owned by CBS, was to be handled by the news department?

Mr. Wallace: Candidly, I am not. But the word "anything"? And let's say that you were right one percent or five percent –

Commissioner Johnson: Edward R. Murrow said it. He said look at prime time television. He said 8:00 to 11:00; I think you could extend that time a little bit. He said, see how much you see there of relevance to what is going on in our society today. He quoted Stonewall Jackson as saying, "When the war breaks out, you draw your sword and throw away your scabbard." And here is television, rusting in its scabbard.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Johnson –

Commissioner Johnson: It's a sign of crisis.

Mr. Wallace: – aside from the New York Yankees, what are the issues that you think are in – have not been covered on television, on CBS news? How many times have George Herman or I, for instance, on CBS news, because I don't want to talk about the – been instructed to tamper with our product? You know what you're calling us when you say that?

Commissioner Johnson: I didn't call you anything. If you read the article carefully, you will see that I said that I would far rather leave the judgment as to what is going to be in America's marketplace of ideas to the creative writers and performers and journalists in this business, individuals from all sections of the United States, than to leave these decisions to committees of frightened financiers in New York City. * * *I would much rather, Mr. Wallace, that you were making those decisions on your own. I would much rather that you were deciding, Mr. Wallace, how much time in the evening schedule of CBS was going to be devoted to something that matters.

Mr. Wallace: You're not talking about timing in your article, Mr. Johnson; you're saying –

Commissioner Johnson: I am talking about time. I'm saying that one of the ways that you censor is by putting on so much tasteless gruel, by keeping America asleep, when important issues need to be discussed, when the people need to have information, and they watch television. Notice that – I think it was a week and a half before the ABM Senate vote, a Gallup poll revealed that sixty percent of the American people had either never heard of the ABM or didn't know enough about it to have a position on the issue.

Mr. Wallace: Commissioner –

Commissioner Johnson: I think it's rather interesting, if I can finish this point, that sixty percent of the American people also tell Elmer Roper that they get most of their information and opinion from television. Now, whether this happened to be the same sixty percent that was watching television that didn't know enough about the ABM to form an issue on it or not, I don't know. But I do know that the American people are woefully uninformed if they are dependent solely upon television news. Walter Cronkite said as much. And if you cannot find authority in Edward R. Murrow and Fred Friendly, who was Dick Salant’s predecessor, and Walter Cronkite, who’s now anchoring your evening news show, I don't know what authorities I can cite to you, although I can find them from other networks as well. The ABC executive who says we censor ourselves was also quoted in the pages of TV Guide.

Mr. Wallace: . . . You say, "Network officials are keeping off the television screens anything they find inconsistent with their corporate profits or personal philosophies." Now, those are your words.

Commissioner Johnson: Well, this was in part based upon CBS's experience with the Smothers Brothers, where I think it's demonstrable, in that instance, that they were not acting in terms of corporate profit, because the shareholders of CBS have suffered as a result of the cancellation of the Smothers Brother's Show. That was nothing but personal predilection.* * *

Mr. Herman: . . . In your article you complained about several different things that we've kept off the air. Information about cigarettes, cyclomates, black lung –

Commissioner Johnson: You want to talk about cigarettes?

Mr. Herman: I just want to say that I've done several stories on the air on each of those things, and I'm a little troubled to find in the twenty seconds we have left what I did wrong.

Commissioner Johnson: Well, I'll be happy to discuss the cigarette story with you in gruesome detail. There is a prime example of this industry's effort to take all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States the argument that they have the constitutional right to keep from the American people information about the health hazards of cigarettes. The only reason those anti-smoking spots are on the air is because they were ordered to be put on the air by the FCC over the protests of the broadcast industry.

# # #
Addendum, May 4: After writing this, I listened to a repeat of Diane Rehm's interview of Dan Rather. He’s just published a book, Rather Outspoken. He describes what happened, even to CBS News, after the years when I was complaining about corporate control of the networks in the 1960-70s (see "Face the Nation" excerpts, above), and after Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film, “Network.” Rather's take is, on the whole, not only totally confirming of what Chayefsky and I had predicted, described and complained about 30-40 years earlier, it also explains how concentration of control of mass media led to an acceleration of the abuses. See also, "Dan Rather," New York Times Topics; "Dan Rather," Wikipedia.org; and Dan Rather Reports on Facebook.

TIF Towers

April 9, 2012, 4:30 a.m., plus April 18, 2012, Addendum

Giving TIFs the Sniff Test
The following op ed column appeared in this morning's [April 9, 2012] Iowa City Press-Citizen. Its reproduction in this blog enables the addition of the supporting source material in the form of endnotes,, plus a sampling of prior blog entries about TIFs.

[April 18: For some subsequent developments regarding this TIF, sufficiently off-putting to cause two members of the "I've never seen a TIF I didn't like" City Council to vote against it, see "Addendum," below.]

"Moen TIF Proposal Just Doesn't Pass the 'Sniff Test'"
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen
April 5, 2012, p. A7
As Ronald Reagan would say, “There you go again.”[1]

Sadly, our seven recovering TIF-aholic[2] City Councilors have fallen off the wagon.

Fifty years ago tax increment financing, or TIFs, were designed to encourage urban renewal of blighted areas.[3] Is that how you’d describe the Ped Mall? Should they be used to enrich the developers of millionaires’ high-rise condos?[4]

My sources regarding the latest TIF shenanigans? Like the 1930s Will Rogers, “All I know is what I read in the papers.”[5]

The stories indicate this Mark Moen deal is even worse than a TIF. Like other TIFs, it shifts tax revenue away from schools and Johnson County,[6] and it’s unfair to the competing landlords without TIFs.[7]

So why worse? It’s a direct payment to Moen before construction of his $10 million, 14-story tower; a “forgivable loan.”[8] Forgive a $2.5 million loan?! It’s reminiscent of MidAmerican Energy’s demand ratepayers pay in advance for a nuclear power plant.[9]

Why no bank loan? Banks charge high interest and don’t recite the Lord’s Prayer about loan forgiveness.[10] You can’t blame Moen for preferring the Municipal Bank of Iowa City.

Where’s the money coming from? The City will sell municipal bonds. Because bondholders’ interest isn’t taxable, cities can pay them low interest. Even so, 18 years from now, we taxpayers will have paid $3.8 million (including interest) for our Council’s generosity.[11]

Iowa bankers complain about credit unions’ unfair competitive advantage.[12] (Banks pay taxes; credit unions don’t.) Why the bankers’ silence about this tax-free competitor?

Iowa legislators, like most Americans, are focused on “the economy,” special interests’ abuses, and the wisest use of taxpayers’ dollars. Bailouts, subsidies, corporate welfare, earmarks – and TIFs – are not in favor.

It turns out Iowa’s TIF practices are among the nation’s worst.[13] Reforms have been proposed and debated.[14] The ugly facts about TIFs and abuses are being revealed by ever-increasing numbers of legislators, economists, academics and journalists.[15]

So why does our City Council pick this of all moments to spit in their eye, rather than join the reform movement? How did the most urgent need for its next $3.8 million become a gift to Moen for his latest development?

Most Council members are likeable and even admirable, as is Mark Moen. All are creatively thoughtful about our downtown. But I have neither been asked nor volunteered to invest in his personal projects, and don’t appreciate the City Council forcing me to do so.

Why is this a good investment for taxpayers? Apparently it wasn’t a good investment for the combined resources of Moen, family and friends, bankers, and other potential investors sitting on cash and looking for returns.[16] And if it was a good investment for them, why do they need the TIF?[17] Just because he says so?[18]

Why doesn’t he build a 10- instead of 14-story tower, structurally strong enough to add the top floors later, when and if it produces the necessary profits? Or, since we’re paying for one-fourth of the tower, have the City own those floors?

Recipients of TIFs understandably think they are a nifty idea.[19] They argue TIFs pay for themselves with increased taxes later. But in this case the City has agreed the $10 million building may be assessed for property taxes as low as $5.76 million.[20]

Can the Council guarantee the tower’s economic success? That it wouldn’t be built without the TIF?[21] That taxpayers’ interests are protected if it fails, or Moen becomes bankrupt?

So far, this use of taxpayers’ money offers more questions than answers.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law. For more TIF commentary and resources see FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.
__________

ENDNOTES
1. "There You Go Again," wikipedia.com.

2. Editorial, "Rein In Speculative TIFs," The Gazette, April 1, 2012 (hereafter "Editorial") ("Iowa's addiction to TIFs has 'seriously distorted' the property tax system" (emphasis supplied)); Jennifer Hemmingsen, "Time to Rein In TIF Shell Game," The Gazette, April 1, 2012 (hereafter "Hemmingsen") ("This TIF addiction puts the squeeze on taxpayers outside TIF districts, and on county governments and school districts frozen out of the revenue stream.")

3. "The Iowa Picture: Tax Increment Financing; Overdue for Reform After All These Years,"Iowa Fiscal Partnership, March 29, 2012 (hereafter "The Iowa Picture") ("What is TIF? Originally a product of the push for urban renewal in the 1950s and ’60s, tax-increment financing (TIF) was designed to facilitate redevelopment of blighted areas in cities.")

4. Tara Bannow, "Committee recommends approval of Moen tower; 14-story development on Wells Fargo site would raise property's value from about $569,500 to an expected $9.8M," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 14, 2012 (hereafter "Bannow") ("Plans call for a glass-lined, mixed-used building with the first four floors as retail/office space and the remaining 10 floors composed of 26 condos, including two luxury units on the top floor."); Josh O'Leary, "Marc Moen seeks TIF for 14-story tower downtown," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 10, 2012 (hereafter "O'Leary") ("Plans for the new tower call for 16 one-bedroom, 662-square-foot condos; eight one-bedroom, 1,039-square-foot condos; and two luxury units, each about 2,000 square feet.")

5. "Will Rogers," wikipedia.com. Hopefully, these Endnotes will at least provide some sense of when, where, and in which papers I came to "know" what's in this op ed column.

6. "Why We Need Serious TIF Reform, an Iowa Fiscal Partnership Backgrounder," March 29, 2012 (hereafter "Backgrounder") ("Tax shifting is an integral part of TIF. When cities are allowed to divert taxes from overlying entities — school districts, community colleges, transit authorities, the county — those entities are forced to raise taxes to make up for the lost revenue from the increment. Residents of those broader jurisdictions — inside and outside the city — thus pay higher taxes."); Peter Fisher, "Tax Increment Financing: A Case Study of Johnson County," Iowa Fiscal Partnership, November 21, 2011 (hereafter "Fisher"); "Hemmingsen" ("This TIF addiction puts the squeeze on taxpayers outside TIF districts, and on county governments and school districts frozen out of the revenue stream. It’s a growing burden: In 2002, the impact of TIF on state school aid was $5.2 million, according to [Iowa State economist David] Swenson. In 2012, it was $46.8 million.").

7. For a compelling example of the impact of TIFs on the competitors who don't receive them, see the comments of the owners of Iowa City's Alexis Park Inn, contained in "Call the Cops, Robbery in Progress," April 24, 2008.

8. "Bannow" ("Tax increment financing usually provides property tax abatement after development has occurred. However, in this case, the TIF will be given in the form of an upfront, forgivable loan."); Gregg Hennigan, "Iowa City Approves $2.5 Million Loan for High-Rise Building; The $10.7 Million Building is to Have Retail Space, Offices, condominiums and Apartments," The Gazette, April 4, 2012, p. A2 (hereafter "Hennigan") ("The City Council voted 6-0 Tuesday night to approve a $2.5 million tax increment financing agreement with developer Marc Moen for a 14-story structure he plans to build on the Pedestrian Mall. . . . The $2.5 million will be given as a forgivable loan at the start of the project.")

9. Perry Beeman, "Heated battle over nuclear plant nears critical mass," Des Moines Register, March 21, 2012 ("House File 561 would allow the investor-owned utility to do something it has not done with any other power plant: charge ratepayers for a plant before it’s constructed.")

10. Matthew 6:9-13, New International Version of the Bible, BibleGateway.com:

9 “This, then, is how you should pray:
‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,[a]
but deliver us from the evil one.'"

11. "Hennigan" ("The city will sell bonds to cover the cost, which Finance Director Kevin O’Malley estimated at closer to $3.8 million when interest is included. It will take an estimated 18 years to repay the debt."), and "Municipal Bonds," wikipedia.org ("In the United States, interest income received by holders of municipal bonds is often exempt from the federal income tax and from the income tax of the state in which they are issued . . ..").

12. “Credit Union Regulation,” American Bankers Association (within ABA Issues Index/Credit Unions (“Credit unions are a $951 billion industry. Over the next five years, the credit union tax exemption will cost the federal government nearly $8 billion.”)

13. Rod Boshart, "Working group hopeful of TIF reform; Coralville Von Maur deal sparked legislative look," The Gazette, March 28, 2012 (hereafter "Boshart") ("Rep. Tom Sands, R-Wapello, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said there have been mounting concerns that Iowa has some of the nation’s most lenient TIF provisions with less oversight than other parts of the country. . . . 'TIF has got to be addressed,' he said. 'There are some that are wanting to do very little, but it’s real hard for them to defend the abuses of TIF that some cities are using right now. I think if we don’t get it under control, the abuses will continue to grow . . .."); "The Iowa Picture: Tax-Increment Financing; Overdue for Reform After All These Years, Iowa Fiscal Partnership, Updated March 29, 2012 ("[I]n the 1980s, when Iowa cities were allowed to start using TIF for economic development, broadly defined [no] longer did there need to be a finding of blight or decline to implement a TIF district. Rather, city officials could determine it was necessary for economic development. Even then, the presumption remained that a public subsidy of a project under TIF would only be used if a worthy development, carrying a public benefit, could not be expected to occur without it. It was to be a true incentive. Loosely written law has permitted these standards to lapse. The use of TIF in Iowa has expanded well beyond its intended purposes, often going against the principles that are meant to justify it.").

14. "Editorial" ("a bipartisan House-Senate working group is studying Iowa’s tax increment financing rules"); "Boshart" ("A bipartisan House-Senate working group is hoping to craft reforms to the state’s tax increment financing system that can win legislative approval this session, group leaders said Monday [March 26, 2012].").

15. Lee Hermiston, "Residents speak out at forum on TIF practices; Suggestions include giving schools voice in the process," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 22, 2012 (hereafter "Hermiston") ("State Sen. Joe Bolkcom arrived at a community discussion on fixing the problems with tax increment financing with 15 ideas for TIF reform."); "The Iowa Picture: Tax-Increment Financing; Overdue for Reform After All These Years, Iowa Fiscal Partnership, Updated March 29, 2012.

16. "O'Leary" ("The developer is asking for $2.5 million in TIF assistance in the form of a forgivable loan provided by the city before the project starts. Moen would use the money to leverage private financing . . ..").

17. "Hennigan" ("Critics . . . argue a TIF is often unnecessary for a project to move forward — and if it is needed, then the project is not viable on its own.").

18. "O'Leary" ("Moen said the city’s financial assistance is 'absolutely critical' for the new project."); "Hennigan" ("Moen has said the project would not happen without the financial assistance . . ..").

19. "O'Leary" ("'I think Iowa City’s use of TIF is a model of how TIF is intended to use, and has been applauded by everybody,' Moen said."); "Bannow" ("Although Moen has been critical of Coralville’s use of TIF, he said this project [his new tower proposal] represents responsible use, as was the $6 million in TIF that was given to Plaza Towers."); "Hermiston" ("Local developers Marc Moen and Kevin Digmann said TIF, when used responsibly, is a valuable tool, pointing to the Plaza Tower . . . made possible through TIF use.").

20. "Hennigan" ("The agreement also requires the property . . . to have [a] minimum assessed [value] of $5.76 million . . ..").

21. "Hennigan" ("Critics also argue a TIF is often unnecessary for a project to move forward . . .."); "Editorial" ("[M]ost of the state's TIF activity has been use[d] to underwrite commercial and retail development, according to Iowa State University economist David Swenson's research. Much of that development would have happened anyway, Swenson said."); "Backgrounder" ("TIF Reforms . . . State law also should require that TIF funds be used only when necessary"); "Hermiston" ("Many also spoke in favor of requiring TIF projects to undergo a 'but-for analysis' that would prove the project could not go forward without TIF funding.'The but-for measure is the key,' [Johnson County] Supervisor Rod Sullivan said. 'We obviously haven’t been able to get folks to do that analysis locally. I think we need, somehow, we need somebody to play referee. There has to be some kind of but-for analysis.'").
__________

Sampling of Prior TIF Op Ed Columns and Blog Entries
From 2011
"TIFs Wealthy Relatives," December 6, 2011

"TIF Impact Statements," November 29, 2011

"SSMIDs, Taxes and TIFs: The Lessons," November 3, 2011

"The True Price of TIFs," October 1, 2011

"Brother, Can You Spare a TIF," April 25, 2011

And a sampling from some of the earliest ones, 2006-07
"Understanding TIFs," October 5, 2007

"Courage, Councilors," October 3, 2007

"TIFing Your Doctor," September 12, 2007 (with TIF lyrics for "Folsom Prison Blues")

"Public Money, Private Profits," August 24, 2007

"The Terrible TIFs," July 26, 2007

"Why Do They Hate America?" October 4, 2006

"Press-Citizen Says 'Tough TIF,'" September 22, 2006

"TIF-ing My Toolshed," September 2, 2006

"Coralville's Hotel: 'Trust But Verify,'" August 16, 2006

"Are TIFs 'Corporate Welfare'?" July 22, 2006

"More: Justifying Corporate Welfare," July 13, 2006

"Neutral Principles, Anyone? Justifying Corporate Welfare," July 12, 2006

__________
Addendum
April 18, 2012
Remember the old line, "Gravity. It's not just a good idea, it's the law"? On April 17 Chris Gordon reminded us that "Limiting TIFs to precise public purposes is not just a good idea, that also is the law." Chris Gordon, "No Reason for City to Pitch In On New Downtown Tower," Iowa City Press-Citizen," April 17, 2012, p. A7.

He notes that, among many other Iowa Code provisions that appear to be violated by this TIF (some violating the letter of the law, all violating its spirit), "First, Iowa Code 403.5.4 (1) provides that local urban renewal plans that propose residential redevelopment must show that there is a shortage of housing, that existing housing is so deficient as to be a threat to the public welfare, or that land is needed for low-income housing. The City-University Urban Renewal Plan does none of this. Indeed, the detailed objectives for the sub-areas of the plan make no mention of the need for residential development."

I offer no independent "legal opinion" regarding the validity of Gordon's assertions, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which because I haven't done the legal research into the statutory language, the legislative history, and the court interpretations. But it does seem to me there is enough smoke billowing from his campfire that it warrants some lawyer doing so.

Today [the next day, April 18] we learn that Moen would like to change his plans for the building -- two weeks after the Council approved his first proposal -- and that a majority of the City Council sees no problem with permitting him to do so. Mitchell Schmidt, "Council OKs New Moen Tower; Alteration Will Allow a Cantilever Design and Add About 5,600 Square Feet to the 14-Story Building," Iowa City Press-Citizen, April 18, 2012, p. A1:

The Iowa City Council has approved a revision to developer Marc Moen’s 14-story building that would include inserted balconies and an overhanging cantilever design [-- a revision] that “substantially deviates” from the concept presented in the original agreement . . . a cantilever design that would include a 4-foot overhang . . . for the top 13 floors. Inverted balconies would begin on the fifth floor. The roughly 5,600 square feet that would be added [the equivalent of two or three additional houses] . . . would increase the assessed taxable value of the structure by an estimated $1.5 million . . .. Moen noted that . . . the new design would include additional costs . . ..

Why is this not proof that he never needed the TIF in the first place -- even if it was legal, which Gordon suggests it wasn't -- and even if the Council had explained why it fails to trigger any of the dozen categories of reasons why TIFs are a bad idea -- which the Council refused to do (because, of course, it couldn't)? (I am assuming the Council has not provided Moen even more taxpayers' money to cover the "additional costs" of these revisions.) It looks to me like he had enough money available to build the building he first proposed, but wanted what would be (to his aesthetic tastes) a more attractive building that would require, that's right, a $2.5 million TIF. (Given that the City may tax him on approximately half the value of the building, it is not unreasonable to project that the "$1.5 million" in additional assessed value represents about $2.5 million in additional actual value.)

Mayor Matt Hayek and Council Member Jim Throgmorton voted against the revision. Why? It turns out that this little "revision" also involves, in effect, a gift of public property (use of a "public right of way") to Moen that was not originally contemplated, and will stand as a precedent for future developers -- kind of like giving downtown restaurant owners the opportunity to put tables and chairs on the public sidewalk to personally profit from more customers. "Hayek and Councilor Rick Dobyns questioned whether approving the use of the overhang, which would encroach over the Dubuque Street and Black Hawk Mini-Park sides of the tower, would create a precedent for future developers to request the same. 'If we do this, the council’s got to be comfortable with what could be requests to cantilevers in the public right of way on other buildings,' Hayek said . . .."

So far as the newspaper story reveals, the Council made no effort to put a dollar value on this additional gift of public property -- a little bonus on top of the taxpayers' future re-payment of $3.8 million already committed.

# # #

Closing Lab Schools and Eating Our Seed Corn

March 28, 2012, 9:14 a.m.

The U High Idea and the Price of Educational Success
The Iowa Board of Regents wants to close the University of Northern Iowa's Price Lab School in Cedar Falls.

Local citizens have filed suit to delay the decision, arguing that the Board does not have legal authority to close it. Jeff Reinitz, "UPDATE: Lawsuit seeks to overturn Price Lab closure," WCF Courier, March 27, 2012 ("A group of educators, parents and residents is asking the court to overturn the Iowa Board of Regents decision to close Malcolm Price Lab School as part of budget cuts last month."). Gregg Hennegan, "Confusion reigns over legal authority to close Price Lab; Over 2,000 pages were released under an open-records request by The Gazette, KCRG-TV9 and the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier," The Gazette, March 29, 2012, p. A1 ("Part of the confusion on the issue is that two code sections are in play. Chapter 265 deals with laboratory schools. Another, 256G, calls for a research and development school housed in Price Lab. Democratic state senators and representatives from Black Hawk County argue that Price Lab must exist to be the location for the research and development school. The lawsuit says that because the Board of Regents was not granted the legislative authority to establish a research and development school, it does not have the power to “disestablish” the school.")

The closure is even more sad and ironic given UNI's proud history as a teacher training institution: Iowa State Normal School, 1876–1909; Iowa State Teachers College, 1909–1961 (the name by which I knew it as a boy); State College of Iowa, 1961–1967; and, finally, the University of Northern Iowa, from 1967 to the present.

The story reminded me of the commencement address I delivered June 1, 1972, on the occasion of the closing of the University of Iowa's University Elementary and High School. The full text of the transcript of those extemporaneous remarks are here. I was an FCC commissioner at the time, and returned to my home, and the school that had been my home for 13 years, to try to provide a bit of levity on that very sad occasion.

You'll have to go to the source, linked above, for the levity. What's excerpted below is the portion addressing the value of such schools.

I cannot know now about the Price school, as I did not know on that occasion about U High, the degree to which an individual experimental school is living up to its potential, its mission, and meeting its goals.

The comic, Lewis Black, has a routine regarding the ozone hole. Angrily he shouts, "We've got rockets. We've got Saran Wrap. Fix it!!" That's the way I feel about experimental schools. I don't know that there is anything wrong with the Price school. I haven't heard that there is. But if there is, "Fix it!!" Don't close it.

Because what I am willing to contend I do know -- now reinforced with a term as school board member in Iowa City -- is that the idea of experimental schools is as sound now as it ever was. They deserve more support, not less, and certainly do not deserve to be closed.

Here, then, are excerpts from my thoughts about that idea, from the remarks I subsequently titled, "The Last Commencement Address: The U High Idea" -- as applicable today to the "Price Idea" as they were then to U High:

"The Last Commencement Address: The U High Idea"
Nicholas Johnson
June 1, 1972
(Excerpts; with highlighted quotes in bold)
How do you measure, how do you describe, an institution like the University Schools?

"We spent less on the University Schools throughout all those years, in fifty-seven years, than what was spent on the single set of video tapes that we know as 'Sesame Street.'"

It's really not much at all in terms of money--at least not the kinds of money I've been accustomed to administering the last few years.

The total budget for all of the fifty-seven years of the school's existence--based on a doctoral dissertation I looked at--I project to be about six million dollars. Six million dollars for the whole fifty-seven years is approximately twenty percent of the FCC's budget for one year.

And the FCC's budget is one one-hundredth of one percent of the federal budget. We spent less on the University Schools throughout all those years, in fifty-seven years, than what was spent creating the single set of video tapes that we know as "Sesame Street."

Nor is the school much in terms of land and buildings. We have now returned this evening--fifty-seven years later--to a spot just across the yard from where the school was originally. And then in the 1920's it moved down the street to where you all went to school. We still don't have an auditorium. We have to gather at McBride Hall for our last commencement.

No, I think an institution like U High is very difficult to program on a computer or enter on a balance sheet, because basically it's an idea--an idea and the people who shared that idea and participated in it.
[omission]

"The only way to think in terms of the impact of an institution like this is in terms of the people whose lives it has affected, and the ripples it produces throughout the rest of society."

And we shouldn't forget ourselves, I suppose, the alumni of U High, a group that now numbers about twenty-five hundred, including you as of this evening.

Because the only way to think in terms of the impact of an institution like this is in terms of the people whose lives it has affected, and the ripples it produces throughout the rest of society. The effect of U High is felt whenever one of its former staff members goes elsewhere and begins training professors, who teach teachers who teach students. Because in that way his or her influence ultimately spreads a thousand times beyond what it was in terms of a handful of students who were privileged actually to be in their classroom for a semester or so. There are hundreds of of former U High staff, students, and student teachers, who are today university presidents and deans of schools of education, professors and teachers and officials of educational institutions and associations--officials of one kind or another.

The effect of U High has been felt not only through people, but also in terms of the teaching materials and new teaching methods and texts that have been evolved here.

Indeed, I think it's somewhat ironic that U High really began at the behest of the President of the University, Walter Jessup, because of the difficulty he was running into in trying to do some educational experimenting in the public schools. They wouldn't let him do it the way he wanted to do it. And his reaction was very much like that of Howard Hughes. You'll recall Howard Hughes was once staying in a hotel out in Las Vegas and he didn't like the service, so he just bought the hotel. Well, that's kind of what President Jessup did, as Emil Trot recalls it, who was one of U High's first students. He said, "If that's the way you fellows are going to be, all right, I'll just start my own school." And he did.

"The accepted methods of teaching today all had to begin at some time, and in some place; as often as not, when you track it back, it turns out that the place was U High and the time was about twenty years before the ideas were believed to be safe enough to try in the public schools."

Because what President Jessup realized, as I think almost anybody knows who has ever had to deal with large bureaucratic institutions--whether it's the military, or school systems, corporations, government agencies, whatever it is --a television network--is that it's not really a place where genuine creativity and intellectual activity can take place. People who are hired to do a job, to carry out a mission which they do not control, may be superb at what it is they've been hired to do, but they simply don't have the time, the talent or the temperament to expend a lot of effort in challenging the basic assumptions of their own institution.

* The concept of speed reading, which enjoyed a boom nationally in the late 1950's and early 60's, was first tried out on us by Dr. Jim Stroud in the 1940's. I doubt that the testing of such a radical experiment would have been approved by any school board in the nation at that time.

* It was the staff of U High that developed comprehensive curriculum guides in the late 1930's and 1940's that could not be developed within the public school system within the state of Iowa, and guides which were still valued by teachers in and out of the state some thirty years later.

* The concept of interdisciplinary team teaching was evolving in the 1920's and 1930's at U High some twenty years before it became widespread throughout the schools of the nation.

* The work of Dr. Ralph Ojeman in giving junior high school students an awareness of basic psychology was carried out at U High in the 1940's.

* Iowa has pioneered in the field of testing and many of those tests were tested first at U High. This is now one of Iowa City's major industries, as you may know.

The list goes on and on and on:

* foreign language teaching in grade school,

* techniques in music instruction,

* research in physical education (I saw the other day that Lou Alley had written an article or speech about techniques of physical education in the year 2000--so we're still looking ahead in that field),

* new curricula for teaching the sciences,

* innovation in teaching spelling to grade school pupils was done by Ernest Horn here,

* English in high school (Dr. Carpenter's great efforts),

* and new approaches to mathematics by Dr. Price and others.

And so on and so on. The accepted methods of teaching today all had to begin at some time, and in some place; as often as not, when you track it back, it turns out that the place was U High and the time was about twenty years before the ideas were believed to be safe enough to try in the public schools.

The trouble with U High was that it was all done naturally and relatively quietly. U High has never had an Office of Public Information, it never hired a public relations firm, and, to my knowledge, no principal ever called a press conference. And it was that natural sense of concern and commitment, of excitement and adventure about life and about education, that was naturally passed on by the permanent staff of U High to us, to the student teachers and to the junior staff.

Kozol describes in a book called Death at an Early Age how some public schools, almost sadistically, drive any creativity and curiosity and sense of individual worth and development out of their wards.

My wife, who attended the University Schools with me, has told me similar stories over the years about things she has witnessed in public schools where she has taught in Virginia, California, Texas, the District of Columbia.

My own experience is limited to that of a parent; but I must say it has often left me in a state of despair about the quality of education offered my own children by public schools that often brag of their national superiority.

I don't mean to suggest that there aren't good public school teachers. Of course there are. There are a great many who are competent, who are concerned--many more than are ever recognized or thanked or adequately compensated. But I think they all feel the oppression of a bureaucratic system of which they are a part, and none can really feel that he or she is a part of an exciting adventure at the frontiers of educational innovation. Whatever the public schools may be, they are not that.

Even if one is willing to concede that no justification can be offered for providing an elitist education to a privileged few Iowa boys and girls who attend the schools as students, it seems to me that teachers--at some point in their career, and for however short a time--ought to have been exposed to such a faculty and student body.

"Somewhere, in the seventy-billion-dollar, barnacle-encrusted, bureaucratic industry that goes by the name of 'Education,' somewhere in amongst the concrete buildings and the computers and the layers of administrators, somebody better be watching to make sure that the torch of learning has not gone out entirely. If that is not to be the University of Iowa, so be it. . . . But as anybody knows who has tried to keep a camp fire going all night without a match, you can start it up again by blowing on one red hot coal, but once you are left with nothing but ashes you're just going to be blowing dirt into your face and into the darkness."

Somewhere, in the seventy-billion-dollar, barnacle-encrusted, bureaucratic industry that goes by the name of "Education," somewhere in amongst the concrete buildings and the computers and the layers of administrators, somebody better be watching to make sure that the torch of learning has not gone out entirely.

If that is not to be the University of Iowa, so be it. We certainly have lots of company. Lab schools are closed all over the land. It's a respectable position.

But as anybody knows who has tried to keep a camp fire going all night without a match, you can start it up again by blowing on one red hot coal, but once you are left with nothing but ashes you're just going to be blowing dirt into your face and into the darkness.

I don't for a moment think that a lab school can single-handedly reform public education, but it can help.

"School is where you learn about freedom and democratic or popular control. It's the last time you'll hear it mentioned, let alone practiced. . . . Teachers encourage you to challenge assumptions, to ask basic questions. Employers, you will find, fire you when you do."

The fundamental problem, of course, as you will soon discover, is that there is a basic conflict between the values of genuine education that you have been taught at University High School, and the values of the corporate state into which you are now--or in a few years--going to move.

* School is where you learn about freedom and democratic or popular control. It's the last time you'll hear it mentioned, let alone practiced.

* Learning gives you a sense of your unique, individual worth. But your value to the economy--as a consumer and an employee--is not as an individual, but as a predictable piece in a mass merchandised economy (as a consumer), and as a reliable machine in an industrial state (as an employee).

* As your education progresses, you are given more and more choice and control over selecting your own activities and goals. This is called maturity. Once you graduate, however, you are expected merely to execute predefined goals under the close direction of others. You have virtually no control or choice over what you produce, how you produce it, or what it's used for.

* Teachers encourage you to challenge assumptions, to ask basic questions. Employers, you will find, fire you when you do. Paul Goodman has described your dilemma under the descriptive title, Growing Up Absurd. If you haven't read it, you might enjoy it.

Two alternatives are basically available, neither of which do I find very acceptable.

One is to simply drop out. John Prine has a delightful little song in which he puts that bit of advice with the line, "Blow up your TV"--which always delighted me for a starter--"Blow up your TV/Throw away your paper/ Move to the country/ And build you a home." Well, that's not really bad advice, but it's not really going to solve the problem either, because for most of us, at least, it's not very practical.

Now another solution is to try to modify the educational system, and, as Kozol and my wife will tell you, that now appears to be the most widely accepted solution. If we could only train young people in school to really like Barbie dolls, motel decor, neon signs along suburban highway shopping centers, television programs, Detroit cars, hair spray, and Coca Cola, then they won't be so frustrated when they get out.

I saw a film the other day about how they do it in South Africa. It's very similar to our system. It's the way in which they sustain apartheid there. Essential to the state of society upon which the life and economy of that nation is based, is the enforced ignorance of its blacks. They are simply not permitted to see the swimming pools, and tennis courts and schools that their labor, and misery, support.

No, I don't really think that the answer lies in seeing to it that no one in our society--students or student teachers--ever get a glimpse of what a subculture of truly dedicated free minds and educational researchers might look like. I don't think keeping people from that vision is going to solve the problem.

I think they should be given that spark, that vision, that dream, against which to measure their daily lives. John Gardner, whose two books, Excellence and Self Renewal, may very well be among the most important of the Twentieth Century, has said that a nation that does not value excellence in its plumbers as well as its philosophers will find that neither its pipes nor its theories hold water.

No, I believe it is work that must change, not quality education.

The work place is today, as it was in the time when Brandeis described it, the place where we have the greatest abridgment of citizens' rights.

Workers and consumers, you and I, simply must be permitted to exercise greater control over the products, as well as the means, of production. And gradually, in some places in this country and others, that principle is being extended. Because a democracy simply cannot survive when it forces mature people to spend their lives dying in their jobs. We cannot give people the right to grow, and question, exercise discretion, and control their activities for only the twelve years of their lives that they are in school--and that only if they are lucky.

"A citizen cannot be repressed and treated as a machine subject to authoritarian control eight hours a day all year long and then suddenly perform as a mature person of judgment for eight minutes every four years when he or she enters the polling booth."

A citizen cannot be repressed and treated as a machine subject to authoritarian control eight hours a day all year long and then suddenly perform as a mature person of judgment for eight minutes every four years when he or she enters the polling booth.

Well, that's the challenge that confronts you, I think: to put the U High idea into practice, to live your life in ways that argue more eloquently than words or buildings, that those who preceded you as staff and as students were right to have invested in U High what they have.

And, I'm sure, that you will do.

__________
And, as an addendum, now on the fortieth anniversary of those remarks: Iowa farmers have always been a smart lot. You have to be in that business. And two basic bits of advice any one of them could give you are: (1) don't sell off your topsoil (or let it erode away), and (2) don't eat your seed corn.

If only our officials and administrators had as much wisdom. For the educational innovations made possible by our nation's lab schools are the top soil and seed corn that represent America's only hope of growing one of the world's best educated, most innovative, productive and happiest people on Earth.
___________

Why Mitt Romney?

March 22, 2012, 9:05 a.m.

Better Than 'Least Worst' Republican
Every four years I take a look at the Republican field of presidential candidates.

There are two reasons why I'd probably never end up voting for any of them, and at least one reason why I engage in this exercise anyway.

First, over the years I've become increasingly non-partisan, disgusted with both of our money-driven major parties, and willing to give serious consideration to thoughtful ideas from anywhere on the political spectrum.

However, my political activity, such as it has been, is based in the Democratic Party. I've been registered as a Democrat, a Precinct Co-Chair for the Democrats, a member of the Party's county central committee, a candidate for Congress in a Democratic primary, and have received three presidential appointments from Democratic presidents.

Second, no matter how wonderful a presidential candidate of either party might be, he or she brings with them a cast of thousands to which at least some deference must be paid. (Although, as President Obama has shown the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party that got him the nomination and much of the election, it need not be all that much deference.) I'm not thrilled with the national and Iowa leadership of either party. But I think the Democratic Party's gang of party members, major contributors, political consultants, staffers, lobbyists, elected officials, influence peddlers, and hangers-on would be at least marginally better than those who would surround and pressure any Republican president.

So why do I bother evaluating the Republican candidates for president?

Because, given our system, the president is virtually guaranteed to be either a Democrat or Republican -- whether chosen by the voters or the Supreme Court justices. One of the parties is going to win, and their candidate is going to govern us for better or worse. That's why I'm not interested in encouraging the nomination of the Republican candidate least likely to win. I want the Republican candidate who, if she or he wins, will do the best job.

That doesn't mean I'll be sending them money, going door-to-door on their behalf, or voting for them. But every American's conversations at the office water cooler, and family dinner table, contribute something to the national dialogue -- first reflected in public opinion polls, and ultimately in election results. So do blog entries, comments on call-in radio programs, letters to the editor in newspapers, and the other ways we express ourselves.

Of course, corporations, the wealthy -- the plutocracy -- continue to exercise grossly disproportionate influence over both parties, with their campaign contributions directly and now with their "super-pacs." As New York's Boss Tweed used to say, "I don't care who does the electing, just so long as I do the nominating." They are the ones who are doing the nominating for both parties.

But whatever the reasons for, and consequences of, our two party system, the fact is that every American has a stake in the candidates for the presidency offered us every four years by those two parties.

This round, my first Republican favorite was Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. (See IN.gov/gov, and Mitch Daniels, wikipedia.org.) Once Daniels made it clear he was not running, I switched to Jon Huntsman (see "And the winner is . . . Jon Huntsman; Jon Huntsman . . . Better than 'Least Worst Republican,'" June 26, 2011; and "Jon Huntsman, Jr.," wikipedia.org. And see, from 2007, "It's Huckabee; My Republican Pick: Governor Mike Huckabee," July 24, 2007.)

Now it's Mitt Romney.

"Oh, so do you really prefer him to Rick Santorum?" a friend asked, sarcastically.

That's a cheap shot.

As I've learned more about Romney, I've become increasingly impressed with his smarts, education, experience, accomplishments, commitment to public service, and obvious managerial ability in running a presidential campaign. Today I would say of him (as I said earlier about Jon Huntsman), Mitt Romney is much, much better than just the "least worst Republican."

He has a lot more going for him than the fact that he is the obvious best choice from among the final four.

In 2007-08, as the candidates were touting their "experience" as qualifying them to be president, I gave some thought to "Just what is the experience that would qualify someone to be president?" Here's an abbreviated excerpt from an op ed column I wrote on the subject at that time:

There’s no perfect, qualifying “experience.” But two things can help.

One is experience at administering large institutions: a federal cabinet-level department, a state government, military branch, major university or corporation.

The other is the understanding and rapport earned by having worked in institutions with which a president must relate: city, county and state government; the federal executive, legislative, judicial and administrative branches; international organizations and embassies; labor unions and Wall Street, among others.

By these standards both Democrats and Sen. John McCain are unimpressive.

Nicholas Johnson, "Politics: Assessing Candidates' 'Experience,'" The Gazette, March 30, 2008, p. A9, embedded in blog, with links to many more items, in "Gazette Op Ed: Candidates' 'Experience,'" March 30, 2008.

At that time Governor Bill Richardson came the closest to the range of experiences I thought useful. Mitt Romney doesn't rank that high, given his relative lack of experience with the House, Senate, White House, and Cabinet positions. And his work with the Olympics, while useful, is not exactly the same as the State Department, an ambassadorship, or the United Nations, World Bank, IMF or other international organization. But he has been a governor (and in a state where he had to work with Democrats), which comes the closest to any training we have for the presidency, he's administered other large institutions (Bain; the Olympics; this year's campaign), and certainly has ties with Wall Street and the business community.

You may have noticed that I've said nothing so far about his likely positions on the issues, were he to become president. He would probably seldom come up with the solutions that I would. For example, if trade unionism has been, and could be again, America's shortest path to a vibrant middle class -- or if the quickest and cheapest way out of a recession is for the federal government to become the employer of last resort -- Romney would probably prefer driving a paved road (i.e., financial aid to the wealthy "job creators") to walking my dusty path to prosperity.

Many of these differences are candidly laid out in his campaign document, Believe in America: Mitt Romney's Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth, September 1, 2011 (listing "Romney for President" as the author), which is available as a pdf file from the Romney campaign Website and as free Kindle download from Amazon.

For example, in the opening section, "Day One, Job One; Five Bills for Day One; Five Executive Orders for Day One," one of the top five executive orders is "An Order to Empower American Businesses and Workers: Reverses the executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field in favor of organized labor, including the one encouraging the use of union labor on major government construction projects," p. 7. (I suspect there are a good many workers who would willingly forgo this "empowerment.") Among Romney's tax proposals are reducing the corporate tax to 25%, continuing the present low rates on capital gains, and abolishing the estate tax (currently only applied to estates over $5 million) -- proposals unlikely to do much to stimulate consumer spending by the working poor and unemployed, pp. 37-47, 154.)

Moreover, even if he wanted to give a hand up to the 99%, he would be opposed by the same special interests that President Obama is now confronting.

As for his position papers and statements during the past year, this is a Republican primary campaign, after all. Romney needs the support of the members of a party that has largely lost its rational middle. His opponents charge him with not being conservative enough! I give him (and other candidates) some slack regarding what they say and do while campaigning (within limits).

His opponents' charges that he is the "Etch A Sketch" candidate is another bum rap, in my view. Peter Grier, "Romney Etch A Sketch: Is aide's comment a present for his foes?" Christian Science Monitor, March 22, 2012 ("Asked whether Mr. Romney had moved too far to the right for the general election, [senior Romney aide Eric] Fehrnstrom said [on CNN] that the GOP hopeful would hit a reset button for the fall campaign. 'It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch,' he said. 'You can kind of shake it up and restart it all over again.' . . . Romney’s primary opponents immediately seized upon the image of an erasable toy to project their doubts about the depths of Romney’s conservatism. Both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich held up Etch A Sketches at rallies on Wednesday.") Fehrnstrom's choice of metaphor may have been very unfortunate, but he spoke the truth about all candidates. Hopefully candidates don't outright lie during the primary and general election campaigns, but is it really news that they change emphasis and nuance as they must appeal, first to their own party's extremes, and then to the independents in the middle during the general election? Indeed, what they say and how they say it will vary from town to town and audience to audience.

What some others see as his shortcomings, I see as positives. I may well be wrong, but what others see as flip-flopping I see as managerial pragmatism. We've seen what ideological purity, and refusal to negotiate let alone compromise, has produced in Washington. President Obama is kind of a pragmatist, albeit one who gives in too much and too early (in my judgment). Romney's experience as Massachusetts' governor qualifies him to do as well, or better.

Some others are troubled by his Mormon religion. I see it as a positive. Santorum's vision of an American version of the Taliban, using government to impose one group's religious and social values on the rest of us, appeals to me not at all. As a fallen-away Unitarian, I have studied, and participated in, most of the world's most popular religions at one time or another (including the Mormon) as I've worked out my own. Whether you call it religion, ethics, or morality, I think it useful for individuals (and the communities in which they live) to carry a moral compass that they check for directions from time to time. Maybe it's no more than a hunch, but Romney seems to have that.

Nor do I find his seeming inability to speak the language of ordinary Americans disqualifying -- that his tie to NASCAR fans is that he knows a number of folks who own race teams, his appeal to UAW members is that his wife has two Cadillac cars, that his income from lecture fees is only a modest $300,000-plus. I find such unscripted comments almost charming in an odd sort of way. For more from this perspective, see Ashley Parker and Michael Barbaro, "The Retooled, Loose Romney, Guessing Voters’ Age and Ethnicity," New York Times, December 28, 2011, p. A1.

My wife sees in some politicians a quality she calls "Elvis." Bill Clinton had "Elvis." Romney clearly does not.

What I see in Romney is a bright, well informed, analytical, hard working, focused, pragmatic, problem-solving manager. A little touch of "Elvis" would be comforting, but it doesn't trump the other qualities. See Ashley Parker and Michael Barbaro, "Romney Takes Analytic Approach to Campaign Chaos," New York Times, February 28, 2012, p. A16 ("Mr. Romney’s once inevitable-seeming march toward the Republican nomination has endured an agonizing stretch of setbacks . . ., unexpected challenges . . . and verbal mishaps . . .. So the candidate is taking refuge in what he knows best: rigorous analysis of the problem and a calm determination to execute a long-term plan. 'He just sits down and is cold and clinical and analytical,' said John H. Sununu, a former governor of New Hampshire and a Romney adviser who has spent hours with him on the campaign trail.")

Some reports of his relationships as governor with the Massachusetts legislators are a little troublesome. Michael Barbaro, "Legislators Recall Governor Who Didn't Mingle," New York Times, March 10, 2012, p. A1 ("For officials used to the glad-handing and alcohol-lubricated culture of local politics, Mr. Romney was an unfamiliar breed: a data-driven chief executive used to delivering unquestioned orders, a political newcomer who cast the legislature as a foe, a delegator who preferred working with just the leadership and an emotionally remote figure who tended not to socialize — and because of his Mormon religion did not drink. Even though he worked just a few hundred feet from them for four years, Mr. Romney displayed little interest in getting to know lawmakers and never developed real relationships . . ..") A president can probably get by with no "Elvis," but they all need a little "LBJ."

One of the most insightful columns about Romney (meaning the author shares my instincts about the man) is David Brooks, "The Wealth Issue," New York Times, January 20, 2012, p. A27 ("[I]s Mitt Romney’s character formed by his wealth . . . corrupted by ease and luxury? The notion is preposterous. All his life, Romney has been a worker and a grinder. He earned two degrees at Harvard simultaneously (in law and business). He built a business. He’s persevered year after year, amid defeat after defeat, to build a political career . . . the sort of relentlessness that we associate with striving immigrants, not rich scions. . . . George Romney, Mitt’s father, was born in Mexico. But when he was 5, in 1912, Mexican revolutionaries confiscated their property and threw them out. . . . Within days, they went from owning a large Mexican ranch to being penniless once again, drifting from California to Idaho to Utah, where again they built a fortune. . . . Romney . . . may have character flaws, but he does not have the character flaws normally associated with great wealth. His signature is focus and persistence. The wealth issue is a sideshow.")

We have been well served by some presidents, governors and senators of wealth; George H.W. Bush, Franklin Roosevelt, the three Kennedy brothers, and the Rockefellers come to mind. Wealth can carry with it a sense of oblesse oblige, a sense of independence from the baser political pressures. I don't know enough about Romney today, or his Massachusetts record, to have a sense of how he scores on this quality, or would as president. But while I don't think wealth "is a sideshow" in this context, neither should it be disqualifying.

And that's my response to the question: "Why Mitt Romney?"

# # #

Into the Valley of Silicon Rode the 600

March 3, 2012, 11:20 a.m.

esr's "Open Letter to Chris Dodd"
Armed and Dangerous Blog
February 23, 2012

Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
-- "The Charge of the Light Brigade"
Alfred, Lord Tennyson, 1854

Former Senator Chris Dodd, the Motion Picture Association of America's impossible effort to reincarnate Jack Valenti, recently went charging into the Valley of Silicon with a brigade of lawyers, lobbyists and publicists at least equaling Tennyson's 600, and with results no more victorious.

What they encountered was as initially invisible and unexpected as that which greeted the British brigade in the Ukraine -- or the British redcoats 80 years earlier in America. Those whom esr describes as "technologists" had embedded their bunkers in the code they had written; what Larry Lessig first described as "west coast code" (as distinguished from the "U.S. Code" created by Congress on the east coast); the Internet which supports today's global business, education, finance, journalism, politics, social relations -- and entertainment.

Eric S. Raymond, sufficiently well-known and revered (in some quarters of his community) to go by "esr," in a true gesture of combative fairness, took it upon himself to explain to Senator Dodd why he had lost when "Into the Valley of Silicon road MPAA's 600."

Although I agree with much of what esr has to say, I'll add a little overly simplistic comment about my own position. The complaints of some copyright owners, including some Hollywood studios and producers, I find quite reasonable. Imagine if you had invested $100 million of your own money in the creation of a feature film, and then found pirated DVDs of it available (at a fraction of what they would someday sell for in America) on the streets of Beijing, Moscow and Singapore -- before you've even had your first showing of the film in a motion picture theater.

That's not to say the solutions the MPAA proposes make political, public interest, pragmatic, or even economic sense. It's just to say that their outrage and frustration is understandable.

Ironically, many over-compensated, multi-million-dollar corporate CEOs are not as swift as one would assume they'd be when it comes to designing business plans to optimize bottom line profit. Take the recording industry, for example. Few executives saw the genius in the Grateful Dead's willingness to let concert goers tape, and share, their concerts. Few saw the reasonableness of their customers' reluctance to pay $15 or $20 for a CD, when all they wanted was a single cut. After further alienating their customer base by suing everyone from teenagers to the elderly, they've finally come to see the wisdom in Apple iTunes' sale of multi-billions of individual songs.

It's important to recognize the distinction between ends and means when it comes to the constitutional intellectual property protection called copyright. The end, the goal, in Article I, Section 8, is that "The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, . . .." The means is a limited time copyright (originally 14 years, and now expanded by Congress to over a century, in response to Disney's desire to control Mickey Mouse).

"Fair Use" is an effort to promote the ends, the goal. It provides a four-factor guidance to the circumstances under which copyright material may be used without violating the copyright law. The two most significant are commercial considerations. Will the use adversely impact the income of the true copyright owner? Is the purpose of the user to make a profit, or are they using it in a classroom, a book review, or other commentary? The other two relate to the nature of the work, and the amount used. Use of factual material, historical accounts, or news are more likely to be considered fair use than use of creative works, such as songs, poetry, novels or plays. And the amount used is critical. The entirety of a song, poem, short story, or other work will have a tougher-to-impossible time passing as fair use than, say, a single sentence or paragraph from a 400-page book. All four factors are relevant; for example, just because it's "history," or the user isn't profiting from it, doesn't mean the user can reproduce an entire chapter or book.

The reason for this diversion into "fair use" is because legitimate corporate efforts to protect their intellectual property (such as films) from criminal taking, reproduction, and profitable sale, can sometimes take the form of a gross overreaching that encroaches on users' legitimate fair use utilization or other user rights under the copyright law.

From my perspective, that's what the fight is, or should be, about. Such revisions as there may be to the copyright law need to meet a "least restrictive alternative" standard -- remedies that simultaneously protect corporate intellectual property from criminal profiteers, while enhancing rather than curtailing efforts to "promote the progress of science and useful arts," and the fair use doctrine, by enabling the widest possible use of copyright material.

As esr hints in the last line of his essay ("if you’d like to discuss some ways of fighting piracy that don’t involve trampling on us and our users, we do have some ideas"), he and presumably other technologists are even willing to help out in designing such balanced standards.

Now, here is . . .

An Open Letter to Chris Dodd
Posted on Thursday, February 23 2012 by esr
Mr. Dodd, I hear you’ve just given a speech in which you said “Hollywood is pro-technology and pro-Internet.” It seems you’re looking for interlocutors among the coalition that defeated SOPA and PIPA, and are looking for some politically feasible compromise that will do something against the problem of Internet piracy as you believe you understand it.

There isn’t any one person who can answer your concerns. But I can speak for one element of the coalition that blocked those two bills; the technologists. I’m not talking about Google or the technology companies, mind you – I’m talking about the actual engineers who built the Internet and keep it running, who write the software you rely on every day of your life in the 21st century.

I’m one of those engineers – you rely on my code every time you use a browser or a smartphone or a game console. I’m not exactly a leader among them as you would understand the term, because we don’t have those and don’t want them. But I am a well-known philosopher/elder of the tribe (I’ll name two others later in this letter), and also one of our few public spokespersons. In the late 1990s I helped found the open-source software movement.

I’m writing to educate you about our concerns, which are not exactly the same as those of the group of firms you think of as “Silicon Valley”. We have our own culture and our own agenda, usually coincident with but occasionally at odds with the businesspeople who run the tech industry.

The difference matters because the businesspeople rely on us to do the actual technical work – and since the rise of the Internet, if we don’t like where a firm’s strategy is going, it tends not to get there. Wise bosses have learned to accommodate us as much as possible and pick the few fights they must have with their engineering talent very, very carefully. Google, in particular, got its huge market capitalization by being better at managing this symbiosis than anyone else.

I can best introduce you to our concerns by quoting another of our philosopher/elders, John Gilmore. He said: “The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”

To understand that, you have to grasp that “the Internet” isn’t just a network of wires and switches, it’s also a sort of reactive social organism composed of the people who keep those wires humming and those switches clicking. John Gilmore is one of them. I’m another. And there are some things we will not stand having done to our network.

We will not have it censored. We built the Internet as a tool to make every individual human being on the planet more empowered. What the users do with the Internet is up to them – not up to Hollywood, not up to politicians, and not even up to us who built it. Whatever else we Internet geeks may disagree on among ourselves, we will not allow our gift of fire to be snuffed out by jealous gods.

Because we will not have the Internet censored, we are also implacably hostile to any attempts to impose controls on it that could be used for censorship – whether or not that is the stated intent of the controls. That is why we were absolutely unanimous against SOPA and PIPA, and a significant reason that you lost that fight.

You speak as though you believe that the technology industry stopped SOPA/PIPA, and that by negotiating with the industry you can set up the conditions for a successful second round. It won’t work that way; the movement that stopped SOPA/PIPA (and is now scuttling ACTA) was much more organic and grass-roots than that. Silicon Valley can’t give you the political firepower or cover you’d need. All you’ll get from them is a bunch of meaningless press conferences and empty platitudes from CEOs who have nothing actually to gain by helping you and really wish you’d go away so they can get back to their jobs.

Meanwhile, the engineers inside and outside those companies will take it as their duty to ensure that you lose that battle again if you try to fight it again. Because there aren’t a lot of us, but the vast mass of Internet users – who do vote in numbers large enough to swing elections – have figured out that we’re on their side and we’re their early-warning system. When we sound the tocsin – as we did, for example, by blacking out Wikipedia – they will mobilize and you will be defeated.

Accordingly, one of the cardinal rules for any politician who wants to have a long career in a 21st-century democracy has to be “don’t screw with the Internet”. Because it will screw you right back. At least two primary challenges to SOPA/PIPA sponsors are in the news right now because they wouldn’t have happened without the popular outrage against it.

Hollywood wants you to screw with the Internet, because Hollywood thinks it has problems it can solve that way. Hollywood also wants you to think we (the engineers) are foes of “intellectual property” and in willing cahoots with criminals, pirates, and thieves. Neither of these claims is true, and it’s important that you understand exactly how they’re not true.

Many of us make our living from “intellectual property”. A few of us (not including me) are genuinely opposed to it on principle. Most of us (including me) are willing to respect intellectual property rights, but there’s a place where that respect abruptly ends. It stops at exactly the point where DRM threatens to cripple our computers and our software.

Richard Stallman, one of our more radical philosophers, uses the phrase “treacherous computing” to describe what happens when a PC, or a smartphone, or any sort of electronics, is not fully under the control of its user. Treacherous computers block what you can see or hear. Treacherous computers spy on you. Treacherous computers cut you off from their full potential as communications devices and tools.

Treacherous computing is our second line in the sand. Most of us don’t actually have anything against DRM in itself; it’s because DRM becomes a vehicle for treachery that we loathe it. Not allowing you to skip the advertisements on a DVD is a small example; not allowing you to back up your books and music is a larger one. Then there was the ironically pointed case of the book “1984″ being silently disappeared from the e-readers of customers who had paid for it…

Some companies propose, in order to support DRM, locking up computers so they can only only run “approved” operating systems; that might bother ordinary users less than those other treacheries, but to us would be utterly intolerable. If you imagine a sculptor told that his new chisel would only cut shapes pre-approved by a committee of shape vendors, you might begin to fathom the depths of our anger at these proposals.

We engineers do have an actual problem with Hollywood and the music industry, but it’s not the one you probably assume. To be blunt (because there isn’t any nice way to put this) we think Big Entertainment is largely run by liars and thieves who systematically rip off the artists they claim to be protecting with their DRM, then sue their own customers because they’re too stupid to devise an honest way to make money.

I’m sure you don’t agree with this judgment, but you need to understand how widespread it is among technologists in order to get why all those claims about “piracy” and lost revenues find us so unsympathetic. It’s bad enough that we feel like our Internet and our computers are under attack, but having laws like SOPA/PIPA/ACTA pushed at us on behalf of a special-interest group we consider no better than gangsters and dimwits makes it much worse.

Some of us think the gangsters’ behavior actually justifies piracy. Most of us don’t agree that those two wrongs add up to a right, but I can tell you this: if you make the technologists choose between the big-media gangsters and the content pirates, effectively all of us will side with the content pirates as the lesser of the two evils. Because maybe both sides are stealing on a vast scale, but only one of them doesn’t want to screw with our Internet or cripple our computers.

We’d really prefer to oppose both groups, though. Our sympathies in this mess are with the artists being ripped off by both sides.

Consider this letter our “Don’t tread on me!”. Our agenda is to protect our own liberty to create and our users’ liberty to enjoy those creations as they see fit. We have no give and no compromise on either of those, but long as Hollywood stays out of our patch (that is, no more attempts to lock down our Internet or our tools) we’ll stay out of Hollywood’s.

And if you’d like to discuss some ways of fighting piracy that don’t involve trampling on us and our users, we do have some ideas.

Awash in Advertising

February 5, 2012, 11:20 a.m.

Manipulating Us Into Buying
Poor Quality Products We Don't Need,
With Money We Don't Have,
To Impress People We Don't Like
It's Super Bowl Sunday, February 5, 2012. "Only a game"? You've got to be kidding. It's the top rated TV show of the year; an advertiser's dream -- albeit an expensive one, at $3.5-4 million per 30-second message.

Indeed, our acceptance of advertising is now such that there is almost as much interest among some TV watchers in the ads as in the game.

Put "Super Bowl commercials 2012" into Google and up pop 2.2 million links to Web sites.

When I was a kid you could earn money by walking around town carrying advertising boards front and back. The companies paid you to advertise their products. Today's kids stand in line, willingly paying the companies extra, for the privilege of possessing goods carrying the companies' logos.

Shirts, pants, shoes, hats, drinking cups, backpacks are sought, and proudly worn or carried, because of the ads.

Advertising has entered the schools, from the ill-fated TV commercials on "Channel One," to wall posters, to event programs, to scoreboards. Colleges find no conflict in forbidding athletes to bet on games, while running ads for gambling casinos on the scoreboard; or bemoaning students' binge drinking, while profiting from the beer ads during those televised games. I have a law school colleague who has jokingly suggested we use advertising revenue to reduce tuition by including, say, a "Microsoft Minute" at the beginning of each class period. (I suspect that some day it will no longer be considered a joke.)

It's still possible to be paid for wearing advertising -- if you're a NASCAR driver . . .
















. . . , or a college football or basketball coach who can put a Nike swish on every player's uniform.

There are even those, among whom I have included myself on occasion, who believe that public officials should not only be permitted, but required, to wear the corporate logos of those who fund their campaigns. Not everyone bothers to read, let alone understand, campaign contribution disclosure reports. A more meaningful form of "public disclosure," immediately apparent when they appear on television or at public events, would be to require of them the same honest disclosure that NASCAR drivers impose on themselves -- like this:



With the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, and other opinions appearing to take the corporate view of things, some (not I) have even advocated this approach for the justices:



While not exactly the same thing, the Oklahoma legislature has taken a rather permanent step in this direction, with corporate sponsorship of the entire state capitol building.A couple I know -- whose known hobbies include biking across the country, world championship poker playing, high class public service, and European travel -- also include a nearly-completed goal of visiting every state capital in the 50 states. A recent trip included Oklahoma City and the Oklahoma State Capitol building -- and its backyard oil well.

Much to their surprise and mine, inside the dome, around the base, are inscribed the names of the corporations that hold up the building (and perhaps its occupants and the taxpayers as well).

The only name on display in this picture is "Hobby Lobby Stores" (no pun intended), but I was assured the names continue around the entire base.

If it's worth $3.5-4 million for a 30-second commercial on a super bowl game, imagine what it would be worth to have your corporation's name enshrined forever inside the capitol dome of the national capitol building in Washington -- or even your state capitol building. Future generations of visiting school children and your potential customers could look upwards toward the heavens, see your name and logo, and give thanks for what you've contributed to making ours the best government money can buy.
# # #