Regulatory Watchdogs


Center for Regulatory Effectiveness

Greenpeace International
Public Citizen
Sierra Club

Center for Auto Safety
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Clean Air Trust
Earthjustice
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Environmental Defense
ETC Group
FM Watch
Friends of the Earth
PR Watch
State Public Interest Research Groups
U.S. Public Interest Research Groups

Archives
 


Winston's Column


The Manchurian Electorate
The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision which allows NGOs, unions and businesses to fund campaign ads has caused much angst for many watchdogs while pleasing others. Some civil liberties organizations, such as the ACLU, support the decision. Among other NGOs and countless bloggers, however, the decision has led to an outpouring of xenophobic and anti-corporate sentiment.

Objectors to the decision are concerned that once American citizens are exposed to the new campaign ads, they will blindly do the bidding of various malevolent interests in the voting booth. For example, the Center for Public Integrity asked whether the decision would let "Hugo Chavez and King Abdullah buy U.S. elections?"

Similarly, one Senator stated, that the "decision...could empower the deep-pocketed regimes in the Persian Gulf or the Chinese government to wield unprecedented sway in U.S. politics." The remarks serve as a stern rebuke to anyone who thought that American fear of Chinese brainwashing plots went out with the 1950s.

What if, hypothetically, the Mexican government placed election ads encouraging voters to consider candidates' views on immigration reform? Would that really undermine American democracy?

If a business group puts an ad on television stating that a candidate's position on taxes or trade or health card helps or hurts the economy, are the viewers rendered unfit to vote?

Some NGOs apparently think the answer is yes. Public Citizen for example has started an online petition calling for amending the Constitution to overturn the decision.

John F. Kennedy said that "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the open market for ideas is now far more open.


Recent Regulatory Developments

  • Federal Judge Says Regulators Improperly Banned Genetically Engineered Beet
    A federal judge says farmers can harvest and sell their genetically engineered sugar beets this year.
  • Commodity Trading Regulator Proposes Equal Access Rule For Market Customers
    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is proposing a rule to ensure market participants have equal access to data.
  • Communication Regulators Unveil National Broadband Plan
    Communications regulators are unveiling a sweeping proposal to overhaul U.S. broadband policy.
  • Federal Regulators May Seek More Vehicle Safety Oversight
    Government vehicle-safety regulators may seek greater authority to investigate defects in cars and trucks and are weighing a range of new safety requirements in response to Toyota's recall of more than 8 million vehicles over brake and acceleration problems.
  • Additional News (updated daily)


  • Updated Tuesday, Friday, Sunday

    Beer, College and Affordable Tuition
    College students think a lot about beer. More than that, colleges are crucial to the future of beer. For example, North Dakota State University's Institute of Barley and Malt Sciences provides "research and education for U.S. barley producers and domestic and international malting and brewing industries." Cargill, MillerCoors and Anheuser-Busch InBev are some of the organizations supporting the Institute.

    Simply put, colleges and universities are as essential to malting as they are to microchips, medicine, movies, the military and virtually every other facet of American life. What colleges often are not, however, is affordable.

    Affordability concerns are growing at the same time that states are cutting funding and endowments are diminished by the financial crisis. The result is higher tuition. The Chancellor of the University System of Georgia recently said that it would take a 77% tuition increase to offset planned cuts in state assistance.

    State funding cuts are taking place in an environment that finds the public increasingly skeptical about how well colleges are managed. A study by two NGOs, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and Public Agenda, found "no evidence of sympathy for the argument that colleges and universities are starved for financial resources." An official with the Center for College Affordability and Productivity said that "universities are viewed as being somewhat akin to used car dealers, trying to shake down their customers for as much money as possible."

    There are various initiatives under consideration intended to make college more affordable. Changing the student loan system to bypass banks and institute direct federal government student loans is one example.

    What the debate over college affordability needs is greater input from the most important watchdog over student interests, the students themselves. In addition to first-hand knowledge of affordability, students have a unique perspective on college management. Thus, Watchdog Watch is requesting that current or prospective undergraduate, graduate and doctoral students provide us with their views on the interrelated issues of how to make college more affordable, accessible and efficient. Comments should be sent to levinson@thecre.com. Students' views on college affordability will be published in a future column

    See NDSU's Institute of Barley and Malt Sciences

    disclaimer
    Copyright Notice The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness [Copyright © 2007]. All right reserved.
     
     
     
     
     
    CRE Homepage