James Madison Institute https://jamesmadison.org/ Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:42:44 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://jamesmadison.org/wp-content/uploads/cropped-Dark-Icon-32x32.png James Madison Institute https://jamesmadison.org/ 32 32 yes James Madison Institute false James Madison Institute podcast James Madison Institute https://jamesmadison.org/wp-content/plugins/powerpress/rss_default.jpg https://jamesmadison.org/all-posts/ The Feds Target America’s Innovators, Again. https://jamesmadison.org/the-feds-target-americas-innovators-again/ Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:18:28 +0000 https://jamesmadison.org/?p=9434 March 26, 2024 Every day, millions across Florida will use an Apple device to communicate with family and...

The post The Feds Target America’s Innovators, Again. appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
March 26, 2024

Every day, millions across Florida will use an Apple device to communicate with family and friends, work, socialize, and pay for goods and services. The convenience and advanced features offered by Apple products have created one of the most valuable companies on earth. Being one of the most valuable companies on earth, Apple has a significant economic impact in Florida, directly supporting 3,868 jobs and indirectly supporting 58,200 jobs through its app store ecosystem. 

Despite the value Apple has brought to Floridians and Florida, the Department of Justice recently announced a lawsuit, in conjunction with predominantly Democrat Attorneys General from 16 other states, against the tech giant.  The lawsuit alleges that the company has monopolized the smartphone market, prevented interoperability between iOS and Android devices, and “exercises its monopoly power to extract more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants.” 

While progressives and conservative tech hawks celebrated the lawsuit, the movement against the tech giant is yet another example of the Biden Administration’s willingness to use antitrust law to punish American tech innovators and entrepreneurs.

The Department of Justice’s suit repeats misleading complaints from the largest app developers who have been lobbying for government intervention about Apple’s App Store, claiming that “when developers imagine a new product or service for iPhone consumers, Apple demands up to 30 percent of the price of an app whose content, product, or service it did not create.” 

In reality, the vast majority of developers pay no commission because their apps do not involve selling digital subscriptions or in app purchases. Since 2020, Apple reduced its commissions from 30 percent to 15 percent for developers earning less than $1 million.  As such, those complaining about Apple’s fees are typically not small developers, but billionaires and the largest developers looking to pad profit margins. 

Secondly, these fees are directed toward developing a robust cybersecurity program that protects users from malicious actors, along with an appropriate reward for a business that has invested billions of dollars in developing the IP and ecosystem that allow ordinary consumers to download software without worrying it will break their device.

The government also alleges that Apple discriminates against non-Apple users through the green bubble. In its complaint, the Department of Justice alleges that when an iPhone user receives a message from a non-iPhone user, “the text appears to the iPhone user as a green bubble and incorporates limited functionality: the conversation is not encrypted, videos are pixelated and grainy, and users cannot edit messages or see typing indicators.” The complaint continues to suggest that “many non-iPhone users also experience social stigma, exclusion, and blame for breaking chats where other participants own iPhones.” In essence, the government argues that Apple should invest significant engineering resources to improve Android devices. It also ignores the fact that Apple already announced that it will adopt RCS (Rich Communication Services) messaging support, ending the green bubble without the heavy hand of government.  

Unfortunately for the government, its arguments contradict previous Supreme Court jurisprudence. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “businesses are generally free to choose the parties with whom they will deal, as well as the prices, terms, and conditions of those dealings.” Antitrust liability can only be incurred, the court stated, when a dominant firm engages in practices like predatory prices. As such, it is not a violation of Antitrust law to have messages received on Android devices displayed in green bubbles while those sent between Apple devices are blue. In making this argument, the DOJ risks violating Supreme Court precedent, questioning the constitutionality of their case, by essentially dictating how private companies do business with each other. 

The government’s complaint also conspicuously ignores the vast consumer choice in the smartphone market. Today, if somebody enters an electronics store, they can purchase a smartphone from Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Nokia, Google, Microsoft, or LG. While Apple sells popular phones, it has nowhere near a monopoly of the smartphone market. The mere existence of these competitors shows that consumers are free to choose from a wide array of manufacturers offering devices at different price points and Apple faces plenty of competition. Critically, such competition incentivizes Apple to continue to develop new, cutting-edge products that consumers demand. 

The recent lawsuit against Apple is just another example of how the Biden Administration has misused antitrust law to punish America’s innovators and entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, while those advocating on the right and left for these cases will claim to be acting in the public interest, the reality remains that they are penalizing a company that generates substantial welfare for consumers and provides a significant economic boost for Florida.

The post The Feds Target America’s Innovators, Again. appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
The Washington Times: From Hanging Chad to Ironclad: How Florida Ensures Election Integrity https://jamesmadison.org/from-hanging-chad-to-ironclad-how-florida-ensures-election-integrity/ Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:47:02 +0000 https://jamesmadison.org/?p=9432 Monday, March 18, 2024 In some ways, time flies, and in other ways, it seems like it stands...

The post The Washington Times: From Hanging Chad to Ironclad: How Florida Ensures Election Integrity appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
Monday, March 18, 2024

In some ways, time flies, and in other ways, it seems like it stands still. In November 2000, I was in my mid-30s, a husband and a father of 4- and 1-year-old daughters. It seems like a lifetime ago, yet the years have flown in ways that make it seem like it was only yesterday.

It was also the year of what became the most notable and notorious election in Florida’s history.

On election night 2000, before the results were reported, MSNBC election coverage host Tim Russert held up a whiteboard and proclaimed that the election would come down to “Florida, Florida, Florida.”

The state was initially called for Democrat Al Gore. Then that call was retracted, then the state was called (briefly) for George W. Bush, and then retracted again and placed in the “too close to call” category.

What proceeded over the subsequent 30 days, from the Florida Supreme Court to the Supreme Court of the United States, turned the election on its head and made the Sunshine State pretty much the butt of jokes around the globe. The term “hanging chad” went viral as photos of election workers trying to discern the intent of voters who didn’t quite punch all the way through a butterfly ballot spread in the early days of the World Wide Web.

Ultimately, the state’s result and the presidential election itself had to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark case Bush v. Gore. Subsequently, Congress passed the Help Americans Vote Act, and every state began to develop ways to strengthen its election system to ensure that what happened in Florida in 2000 never happened again.

Fast forward 20-plus years. My daughters are out of college, and one is planning a wedding. I am running a policy think tank, and we are in the middle of recovering from a pandemic we would come to discover most of the world responded poorly to.

Oh, and there was another contested election — but in this case, Florida wasn’t the problem state. Quite the contrary, in fact. As Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia and several other states struggled with allegations of vote tampering, disenfranchisement and fraud (charges that would ultimately lead to then-President Donald Trump refusing to concede the election), Florida’s results were 180 degrees from the experience of 2000.

The Sunshine State, with 4 million more registered voters than there were in 2000, went from hanging chad to ironclad. More than 15 million registered voters spread out across two time zones, and diverse voter demographics mirroring the country at large reported election results with efficiency and effectiveness that were a source of envy. By 11 that night, the results of the presidential vote, 27 congressional seats, one U.S. Senate seat, and countless local races were wrapped up and done.

It raises the question: How?

As with most complex policy issues, the answer is a lot of tough work, done year after year, cycle after cycle, completed by governors, legislatures, secretaries of state, election supervisors and stakeholder groups.

Florida’s conservatives focused on outcomes rather than intentions and enacted reforms over those two decades that bore fruit. These included shifting away from confusing ballot formats and adopting a uniform ballot form, with electronic tabulation coupled with a hard copy record for auditing purposes.

In addition, inspection and audit of voting machines are performed every cycle to ensure that votes are not misread. Florida policymakers implemented voter ID requirements to ensure nonresidents were not illegally casting ballots. While the state shifted to expand its early and mail-in vote options, it also implemented review and curing protocols to validate every vote cast outside the traditional voting day process.

Regarding early and mail-in votes, the state now conducts pre-canvassing before Election Day — registering and tabulating all votes cast prior to Election Day. The result is that when polls close on election night, those results are ready to report (while other states take days to report on absentee and early votes).

In recent years, policymakers have also enacted reforms to secure drop boxes, make ballot harvesting a felony, require regular cleanup of local voter databases, and ban third-party grants to election officials. These are all policies designed to make it (borrowing a phrase) easy to vote and hard to cheat.

While the radical left claims (in a patronizingly racist way) that any method of election security is tantamount to a poll tax and the reimposition of Jim Crow laws, Florida’s path proves without dispute that reality is the opposite. Between 2000 and 2020, not only did Hispanic and African American voter turnout increase in Florida, but it also increased at a rate faster than White voter turnout.

Is Florida’s election system beyond improvement? By no means. Some view the early vote process as too generous and open to fraud, while others assert the need for additional curation of mail-in votes. Securing the integrity of elections will never be a static issue. It will require constant vigilance by policymakers and local officials.

My daughters have no memory of the 2000 Florida election debacle. My memory, however, is vivid. My biggest takeaway is this: Florida’s election system proves that while the left wants to judge policies by their intentions, conservatives rightly judge them by their results.

Originally found in The Washington Times.

The post The Washington Times: From Hanging Chad to Ironclad: How Florida Ensures Election Integrity appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
2024 Florida Tech & Innovation Summit https://jamesmadison.org/techsummit2024/ Thu, 07 Mar 2024 19:01:00 +0000 https://jamesmadison.org/?p=9368 Recent advancements in artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and internet connectivity have revolutionized how education is delivered. While these...

The post 2024 Florida Tech & Innovation Summit appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence, augmented reality, and internet connectivity have revolutionized how education is delivered. While these technologies promise to boost educational attainment and create one of the planet’s most dynamic, entrepreneurial, and innovative economies, roadblocks lie ahead. 

How lawmakers address these challenges could determine whether the United States is ultimately able to create the most robust education system in the world, leading to the most dynamic economy, or an educational system that fails students and an economy that falls behind global competitors like China. 

Join The James Madison Institute and other thought leaders in Coral Gables on June 18 and 19 for our 2024 Florida Tech & Innovation Summit to learn about how policymakers can foster an educational environment that spurs innovation and entrepreneurialism to keep America a global economic leader. 

Stay tuned for more information regarding speakers and programming.

Agenda At-A-Glance 

Tuesday, June 18th — Opening Reception & Small Dinners 
Wednesday, June 19th — Tech Summit

Secure your seat today with the early bird rate of $249 until May 17. Then, ticket prices will increase to $279 from May 18th — June 18th.

Location:
Loews Coral Gables Hotel
2950 Coconut Grove Dr.
Coral Gables, FL 33134

We have a room block available June 17th — June 20th. Book your accommodations here.

For any questions on sponsorship opportunities, email Austin Moser at amoser@jamesmadison.org.

The post 2024 Florida Tech & Innovation Summit appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
Privacy in Association is the Free Speech Issue of Our Time https://jamesmadison.org/privacy-in-association-is-the-free-speech-issue-of-our-time/ Thu, 07 Mar 2024 15:38:50 +0000 https://jamesmadison.org/?p=9408 Heather Lauer In January, a man who stole and leaked the confidential tax returns of thousands of Americans,...

The post Privacy in Association is the Free Speech Issue of Our Time appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
Heather Lauer

In January, a man who stole and leaked the confidential tax returns of thousands of Americans, including former President Donald Trump, was sentenced to five years in prison.

“Any disclosure of taxpayer information is unacceptable,” commented IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel when the charges were brought last fall.

Werfel should know. A decade ago, he served as the IRS’s interim commissioner after multiple senior personnel were forced to resign in the wake of the Tea Party targeting scandal. That black eye for the agency saw IRS bureaucrats launch hundreds of intrusive and unfounded investigations into conservative nonprofits and their donors.

In 2014, a year after that scandal was exposed, the IRS settled a lawsuit from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) after an employee illegally leaked its supporter list to an individual who then shared the sensitive information with one of NOM’s fiercest critics, the Human Rights Campaign. Then, just last year, the IRS announced that over 120,000 confidential tax forms had been accidentally exposed on a public website.

The IRS’s privacy problems are so severe that the agency took the rare step of relinquishing some power over Americans’ confidential nonprofit donation records in 2020. Agency officials admitted they did not use the donor lists collected annually from these groups and that safeguarding such sensitive information was an unnecessary burden. In response, a widely supported agency rulemaking dramatically reduced the number of nonprofits subjected to annual donor reporting.

Yet in legislatures across the country and in Congress, some politicians are pushing hard in the opposite direction. They want to expose Americans’ nonprofit donations in hopes of chilling support for groups that speak out about their agendas or voting records. Their efforts strike at the heart of one of the most important but least celebrated First Amendment rights in our democracy: freedom of association.

“I need to know who my enemies are,” said North Dakota State Senator Jeff Magrum. After a group supported by private donations criticized Senator Magrum’s record on crime and public safety, he sponsored unsuccessful legislation to force certain nonprofits to expose their supporters. His words echo U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who infamously predicted that “the deterrent effect” of disclosing a group’s donors “should not be underestimated.”

Today’s political leaders are keenly aware that when censorship is impossible, retaliation against a group’s financial supporters is the next best weapon. Now, in Washington, D.C. and in states across America, the battle for the right to privately support causes is raging. It is also making strange bedfellows on both sides of the issue.

The Origins of Private Association

Privacy in association was an American value before there was a United States of America. Our founding fathers funded anonymous political pamphlets, wrote under pen names, and formed private organizations to shield themselves from retaliation for their revolutionary ideas. The focus was on the message, not the messenger. The Constitution later enshrined in the First Amendment the freedom of all Americans to speak, publish, assemble in groups, and petition the government.

Modern protections for freedom of association developed significantly in the 20th century, as courts grappled with repeated attempts by government officials to silence burgeoning social movements by targeting their financial supporters. Most famously, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, Alabama attempted to compel the NAACP to reveal its members and donors to officials in the state. The case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in favor of Americans’ right to privately support nonprofit causes and advocacy groups.

“It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as [other unconstitutional] forms of governmental action,” the Court observed.

The dangers faced by NAACP supporters in the Jim Crow South were extreme and unlike those faced by most causes today. Yet, the Court expressed concern about threats to donors that still exist today, such as “economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility.” Americans’ giving records can never be made private again once they are exposed, even if societal attitudes change or political tensions and threats to donors were to rise dramatically in the future.

NAACP v. Alabama stands today as the best-known precedent on privacy in association. Its reasoning, however, has been reinforced in numerous cases that followed. The Supreme Court has since struck down laws requiring nonprofits to publicly reveal their donors, forcing fliers to list their sponsor, and compelling public-school teachers to report what organizations they were members of. The right to privately join and support advocacy groups has been firmly established under the First Amendment.

A New Wave of Threats

Things began to change, however, in the 1970s with the development of campaign finance law. Congress and most states began requiring candidates, political parties, and political action committees to publicly report the donations they received, including each donor’s name, home address, and employer. While these laws were never intended to affect nonprofits, opportunistic politicians seized on the opportunity to argue that groups that merely speak about public officials or political issues should be forced to expose their donors, too.

These efforts gained significant steam after the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that certain nonprofits and other groups of Americans have a First Amendment right to independently voice their support or opposition to candidates for federal office. Senate Democrats responded with legislation they called the DISCLOSE Act to dox supporters of advocacy groups. Although unsuccessful, the DISCLOSE Act has been introduced in every Congress since 2010 and has featured prominently in multiple voting and elections reform packages championed by Democrats.

Unfortunately, many states have seen similar legislation, and some of those bills have become law. Others have seen efforts to place misleading measures on the ballot suggesting that eliminating privacy for nonprofit supporters is necessary to fight “dark money” in politics. The rise of “dark money” as a smear for any organization that protects the privacy of its members has created a rallying cry for efforts to undermine freedom of association.

As politicians demand more disclosure, the dangers have grown. The internet and social media have made it easier than ever before to turn donor records into ammunition to attack Americans for their beliefs. At the same time, our political climate has become nastier and more divisive. Today, a majority of Americans hold political views they do not feel comfortable sharing, and most people believe that this chill on speech is a problem for our society.

The ability to privately give to nonprofits offers Americans a way to continue participating in civic debates without putting their livelihoods or their safety in danger. Yet the statistics on charitable donations are worrying, too. In 2022, for the first time this century, fewer than half of Americans donated to a nonprofit organization. In inflation-adjusted terms, charitable donations fell by nearly 11%, marking just the fourth time giving has declined in the past four decades.

Predictably, nonprofit leaders are feeling the heat. A recent survey found a significant decline in engagement on public policy issues by nonprofit groups. Among the main reasons cited: fear of the IRS and backlash in the current political environment. Better protections for privacy in association could help reverse this trend and improve the state of free speech in America.

Prospects for Privacy Reform

In 2021, the Supreme Court decided the most important associational privacy case in a generation. By then, a handful of states had begun openly defying NAACP v. Alabama by requiring nonprofits to submit their donor lists to state bureaucrats. After the Ninth Circuit initially upheld California’s sweeping demand for nonprofit donor information, the Supreme Court overruled that decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta.

“We are left to conclude that the Attorney General’s disclosure requirement imposes a widespread burden on donors’ associational rights. And this burden cannot be justified on the ground that the regime is narrowly tailored to investigating charitable wrongdoing…” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

In striking down state dragnets of nonprofit donor information, the Court made clear that freedom of association still matters. It also sparked a wave of pro-privacy reforms around the country. Since 2018, 17 states have passed new laws protecting the privacy of Americans’ membership in or support for nonprofit organizations.

Alabama, the state that once went to the Supreme Court to obtain the NAACP’s member list, became the most recent state to pass a law protecting donor privacy. It did so unanimously in 2023, with a Democratic state senator sponsoring the legislation and a Republican governor signing it into law. Threats to privacy in association come from both parties, but so do its defenders.

“People have a right to give to the causes they support without having their information taken and abused,” Alabama State Senator Rodger Smitherman explained.

In addition to winning support from lawmakers of both parties, these privacy bills are frequently supported by a wide range of nonprofit causes. Sometimes, that includes groups on opposite ends of an issue, such as pro-life and pro-choice groups that share a belief in the importance of protecting their members’ privacy.

One state – West Virginia – went a step further this year and reviewed its existing laws for violations of associational privacy. State lawmakers ultimately passed a reform bill to remove unconstitutional provisions and clarify key parts of the law that previously violated privacy rights for nonprofits that speak about policy issues. In other states like Virginia and New Mexico, bills threatening privacy in association met strong opposition and failed to become law.

Not to be outdone, Republicans in Congress have introduced legislation to limit the ability of federal agencies to meddle with Americans’ ability to privately support social causes. That bill, called the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act, addresses many policy areas but contains four separate provisions that protect and strengthen associational privacy. One would prevent the IRS from imposing new rules on nonprofits’ speech to prevent a repeat of the targeting scandal.

The Next Big Fight

However, the news is not all good. Politicians from both parties increasingly use cheap “dark money” rhetoric to attack groups who protect their supporters’ privacy. These smears recast the traditional American value of privacy in association as a nefarious force threatening our democracy. On the House Ways and Means Committee, some Republican members have even publicly wondered whether the IRS should play a bigger role in policing nonprofits’ speech. That would mark a major turnaround for Republicans, who have fought for a decade to limit the IRS’s power over nonprofits.

In Arizona, a former state Attorney General – who blamed “dark money” for his loss in a campaign for secretary of state – finally succeeded on his fourth try in passing a ballot measure that forces many nonprofits to expose their donors. The law attempts to evade NAACP v. Alabama and AFPF v. Bonta by listing certain activities and speech that trigger disclosure, but the list is intentionally expansive, not to mention vague, and the law empowers bureaucrats to make the final call. Any nonprofit that values the privacy of its members will be chilled by the law’s invasive and far-reaching provisions.

Arizona’s law serves as a reminder that threats to privacy in association will never disappear, no matter how many times courts reinforce the principle. Nonprofits have no choice but to fight on. Arizona’s law is already being challenged in both state and federal court on constitutional grounds. Those cases will go a long way in shaping how privacy opponents in other states craft their proposals to undermine AFPF v. Bonta, just like they once undermined NAACP v. Alabama.

In the meantime, lawmakers should not be complacent. They must keep pressing forward to ensure that every American is free to exercise their First Amendment right to support a cause without fear of harassment or intimidation. Legal victories are not enough. We need to defend privacy in association everywhere it is threatened and work to restore it where it has been degraded.

If freedom of speech is suffering under a chill, a blanket of privacy is just what we need.

Heather Lauer is the Chief Executive Officer for People United for Privacy Foundation.

The post Privacy in Association is the Free Speech Issue of Our Time appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
House Must Quickly Pass TICKET Act https://jamesmadison.org/house-must-quickly-pass-ticket-act/ Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:54:38 +0000 https://jamesmadison.org/?p=9406 Watching Taylor Swift hug her beau as he celebrated his team winning the Super Bowl, I had a...

The post House Must Quickly Pass TICKET Act appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
Watching Taylor Swift hug her beau as he celebrated his team winning the Super Bowl, I had a bit of nostalgia. It was right around this time last year that I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing focused on promoting competition and protecting consumers in the live event and ticketing industries — mainly due to the Taylor Swift Ticketmaster crash.

My testimony focused on the fact that there is one dominant player in the industry that uses its power to implement a litany of added hidden fees, compel exclusive ticketing deals with venues that want touring artists to play their stages, and foreclose competition from other ticketing companies. 

It was a productive hearing, and many promises were made by senators about reeling in the behemoth and repairing the many flaws in a system that thrives off the passion of fans. The promises were kept, in some ways, but not without the usual ability in Washington to never let a crisis go to waste.

Several bills have since been introduced in Congress and, by the end of year, two advanced out of their committees of jurisdiction and serve as the marker where lawmakers pick up in 2024. A late-entry piece of legislation in the Senate emerged before the holidays, with the backing of industry. If passed, these bills could add a partial but healthy dose of transparency into the market with regard to junk fees by requiring upfront, all-in pricing. 

They will also ban deceptive marketing of ticketing websites so that consumers aren’t tricked into believing they are buying directly from the team, music artist, or venue if they are not. While none of these bills hold the promise of comprehensive reform or do anything meaningful to shake the system free of monopolistic control, they are worthy of consideration for the strides they take.

The House TICKET Act passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee on December 15 with a bipartisan 45-0 vote. That’s impressive for a chamber often caught in partisan gridlock. 

The bill includes a handful of common-sense protections, such as requiring ticket sellers to disclose all fees upfront to help consumers make more informed purchase decisions. It will also ban deceptive, undisclosed speculative tickets where fans are purchasing the promise of a ticket when the seller doesn’t actually have the tickets at the time of their offering. 

In the interest of transparency, such sales would be banned though fans will fortunately still have access to ticket procurement services that enable them to avoid the disarray of Ticketmaster’s frenetic on-sales, which have seen tech issues, cancelations and excruciating wait times. 

With these “pay now, procure and deliver later” services, fans can easily find a price that suits them along with a money-back guarantee. Finally, the legislation includes refund guarantees if an event is canceled. The James Madison Institute expressed its support of the bipartisan House TICKET Act, which deserves a vote in the full House quickly.

In the Senate, several bills were introduced and one passed by the Commerce Committee, also named the TICKET Act, though the Senate’s version is limited to price transparency and requiring that fees can no longer be hidden until late in the check-out process. 

The Fans First Act, a late 2023 entry to the legislative field, was introduced in December by senators Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, though it is unclear whether the Senate Commerce Committee will have time to consider it since the committee already moved ticketing legislation last year. 

Like the House TICKET Act, it includes some similar worthwhile provisions, though it also features some clever and anticompetitive additions from industry, including a mechanism where Ticketmaster’s competitors would be required to hand over troves of their own customers’ data (name, address, email, etc.) to the ticketing giant. Surely, it came as no surprise to the senators who led the battle cry against Ticketmaster at last year’s hearing when the company immediately and emphatically announced its support of the Senate version of this legislation.

I am sure many companies would like the United States Senate to force their competitors to hand over their customer lists, but that’s not how laws should work.

Rather than waiting for the Senate to move on an imperfect bill that requires more time and fixing, the House should vote on the bipartisan TICKET Act, which enjoys no opposition. In the spirit of its own attempts at legislating something similar, the Senate should mirror or adopt the House TICKET Act, save a lot of time and angst before Washington comes grinding to its election-year halt, and pass a law that will benefit consumers.

Originally found in DC Journal.

The post House Must Quickly Pass TICKET Act appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
The James Madison Institute Opposes New Biden Administration Price Control Scheme on Credit Card Late Fees https://jamesmadison.org/the-james-madison-institute-opposes-new-biden-administration-price-control-scheme-on-credit-card-late-fees/ Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:39:10 +0000 https://jamesmadison.org/?p=9404 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEMarch 6, 2024 CONTACTLogan Elizabeth Padgett850-386-3131 TALLAHASSEE – Shortly after the Biden administration released its rule to expand the...

The post The James Madison Institute Opposes New Biden Administration Price Control Scheme on Credit Card Late Fees appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 6, 2024

CONTACT
Logan Elizabeth Padgett
850-386-3131

TALLAHASSEE – Shortly after the Biden administration released its rule to expand the government’s price controls over credit card late fees, The James Madison Institute released the following statement:

Milton Friedman once said, “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” This is what will happen if the CFPB succeeds in bringing the government’s current price cap on credit card late fees ($32) all the way to $8. Like most feel-good policies, this one — based on fantasy political math that is not grounded in reality — will end in ruin.

Responding to this new government tape, banks (especially the small community banks that many Floridians rely on) will almost assuredly increase their fees and reduce their minimum account balances. The result will be an increase in income inequality despite the Biden administration promising to mitigate wealth distribution and the largest Wall Street banks increasing in size. Meanwhile, the small community bank across the country will dissolve, shrink, and consolidate even more than they have over the last decade.

Rather than try to beat the free market with yet another myopic big-government proposal, the Biden administration should end its tax-and-spend inflationary policies and let the markets do their thing.

###

The James Madison Institute is a 501(c)3 organization dedicated to the ideals of limited government, economic freedom, federalism and individual liberty coupled with individual responsibility. The institute conducts research on such issues as criminal justice, health care, taxes and regulatory environments.

The post The James Madison Institute Opposes New Biden Administration Price Control Scheme on Credit Card Late Fees appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
JMI Releases New Backgrounder on Gaming https://jamesmadison.org/jmi-releases-new-backgrounder-on-gaming/ Mon, 04 Mar 2024 16:15:11 +0000 https://jamesmadison.org/?p=9384 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 4, 2024CONTACT: Logan Elizabeth Padgett850-386-3131 JMI Releases New Backgrounder on Gaming Online gaming, whether...

The post JMI Releases New Backgrounder on Gaming appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 4, 2024
CONTACT: Logan Elizabeth Padgett
850-386-3131

JMI Releases New Backgrounder on Gaming

Online gaming, whether it’s games of chance or skill, makes watching sports fun for many. From a strictly entertainment angle, it can make sports fans of non-fans, and it can make better fans of sports fans. From a fiscal angle, there currently exists an expansive gaming market in the United States in the hundreds of billions of dollars. That level of activity requires a commitment on the part of policymakers to protect competition and ensure that dominant players (monopolies/duopolies) are not engaged in anticompetitive behavior.

In a new backgrounder, “Taking a Chance: Market Dominators Game the System,” JMI Senior Fellow Bartlett Cleland lays out existing law as well as Supreme Court precedent related to the differences in gaming and gambling and explains the importance of competition in the marketplace.

“Too often we see companies gaining a comfortable market position and then, instead of working hard to secure that position, they turn to government to encourage regulations that block out new competitors. Government should not be part of the equation for private sector success – rather, winning over consumers should dominate.” — Bartlett Cleland, Senior Fellow, The James Madison Institute

Click here to read “Taking a Chance: Market Dominators Game the System.”

The post JMI Releases New Backgrounder on Gaming appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
Florida Politics: All Hybrids Are Not the Same; Florida’s Education Policies Need To Reflect This https://jamesmadison.org/florida-politics-all-hybrids-are-not-the-same-floridas-education-policies-need-to-reflect-this/ Mon, 04 Mar 2024 15:46:00 +0000 https://jamesmadison.org/?p=9385 In 1976, the owner of a Nashville salvage yard assembled a crazy-quilt Cadillac inspired by Johnny Cash’s hit song, “One...

The post Florida Politics: All Hybrids Are Not the Same; Florida’s Education Policies Need To Reflect This appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
In 1976, the owner of a Nashville salvage yard assembled a crazy-quilt Cadillac inspired by Johnny Cash’s hit song, “One Piece at a Time.” This “hybrid” vehicle proved to be a clever promotional gimmick for Cash’s song about an autoworker who built a car at home using a hodgepodge of factory parts he collected over a two-decade span.

Now, obviously, a crazy-quilt Cadillac bears little resemblance to a Toyota Prius. And even though both can lay claim to being hybrid vehicles, they don’t exactly belong in the same category.

This brings us to a somewhat similar problem in the innovative world of hybrid education.

In recent years, a growing number of families have sought out hybrid learning plans in which students spend some learning time with a paid instructor and some learning time at home with a parent.

These hybrid education plans come in all shapes and sizes. And they each have much to commend. Still, they don’t all belong in the same category. Because some operate like traditional schools (in which teachers direct students’ education) and some more closely resemble home-schools (in which parents curate their child’s curriculum).

To illustrate this subtle-but-important difference, consider Robert and Freddi Wood’s family. When their eldest child started school two decades ago, the Woods enrolled him in Orlando’s International Community School, a hybrid program in which students learn three days a week at school and two days a week at home. Importantly, the lesson plans for all five days are put together by teachers — not parents.

This appealed to the Woods because they wanted to be significantly involved in their son’s education — but didn’t feel prepared to take responsibility for lesson planning. Plus, in exchange for playing the role of their child’s daytime personal tutors, the Woods saved on tuition — an important consideration since they were paying out of pocket for their child’s schooling.

As time went on, the Woods gained confidence in their roles as parent-educators. And they decided to switch to a different hybrid plan — one in which Freddi (who holds degrees from Emory and UCLA Law) would curate the curriculum while supplementing her at-home instruction with “a la carte” classes purchased from a nearby school.

Now, in a perfect world, it would make no difference whether families like the Woods did hybrid education this way or that. All that would matter is that they got the results they wanted.

But Florida’s K-12 scholarship programs currently cover only parent-curated forms of hybrid education. They don’t cover private schools that meet less than five days a week. As a result, families that want to use their Family Empowerment Scholarship (FES) at a hybrid school are not allowed to do so — even if the school grants diplomas and is fully accredited!

Not only is this bad for families, it’s bad for taxpayers.

You see, hybrid education programs tend to be very cost-effective. They typically deliver high quality at low prices (thanks, in large part, to the significant role that parents play in their child’s education). As such, hybrid arrangements strengthen the price-competitiveness of the K-12 marketplace — helping to deter constant increases in private school tuition and runaway spending in public education.

Given all this, the Florida Legislature ought to change existing policy to make it possible for families to use their FES scholarship at hybrid schools like International Community School.

This subtle but important change would help Florida remain a leader in delivering bang-for-buck in education. And it would acknowledge that every family that wants a hybrid education for their children ought to be able to get one — whether it looks more like the K-12 equivalent of a Toyota Prius or has the creative flair of Johnny Cash’s crazy-quilt Cadillac.

Found originally in Florida Politics.

The post Florida Politics: All Hybrids Are Not the Same; Florida’s Education Policies Need To Reflect This appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
Taking a Chance: Market Dominators Game the System https://jamesmadison.org/taking-a-chance-market-dominators-game-the-system/ Mon, 04 Mar 2024 14:00:00 +0000 https://jamesmadison.org/?p=9377 Bartlett Cleland For a long time, mass entertainment was various forms of media that the public consumed passively....

The post Taking a Chance: Market Dominators Game the System appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
Bartlett Cleland

For a long time, mass entertainment was various forms of media that the public consumed passively. But the rise of the internet did not just disintermediate the entertainment industries we knew—changing the ways movies, music, and news were packaged and delivered—it also allowed the creation of new sources of entertainment, or vastly different versions of old ones. So, while “Web 2.0” made websites interactive and rollicking, like a really vibrant newspaper, the next wave of innovation was already underway, in the hands of the next generation. They were playing games.

The history of online gaming goes back to the 1970s, but it really took off as the propagation and speed of the internet allowed for playing games in real time among large numbers of people. Massive multiplayer online role-playing games, like World of Warcraft, are not the only forms of gaming that people enjoy, of course. There are endless combinations of games, game formats, and styles of play that the market for entertainment continues to discover.

One sub-market of the online entertainment marketplace builds on Americans’ love of sports. This includes a range of games in which people challenge each other’s knowledge of sports teams and players, to traditional gambling on games and athletes’ performances. They are heightened by the im-
mediateness and interactivity of the online environment, so some consider them to be better entertainment.

In the world of sports gaming and gambling, there is a contest underway to determine whether the market will evolve and grow, or whether dominant firms will lock down the market using regulatory fetters to prevent healthy competition. Currently, a pair of companies that operate as online sportsbooks—gambling operations—are using their market position to prevent games like daily fantasy sports from having their place in the entertainment world.

The work of market dominating FanDuel and DraftKings, collectively with 80% of the market, to prevent competition is a threat to continued growth and vibrancy of sports gaming and gambling. Regardless of what an individual’s position is on the expansion of gambling in the state, whenever either an individual or pair of firms use outsize market presence to eliminate competition, there should be concern.

The irony in the efforts of FanDuel and DraftKings is their use of the moral arguments concerning gambling, even though those companies helped modernize public policy in this area. Having helped break the moral-illegal framework and expand safe and responsible sports gambling to a desirous public, the companies now revert to the moral-illegal framing to close the door on competitors.

The competition these companies fear comes from operators of “daily fantasy sports” (DFS) games, such as PrizePicks, Underdog, and others. Their games, in which players pick a suite of statistical outcomes that they predict will occur based on their knowledge of players and teams, are games of skill—not gambling—according to well-settled law. But the two dominant market players are pressing state officials to treat these competitors as gambling outfits like themselves. The curious argument they push is, “They’re bad like us.” That’s not the way to think about gaming or gambling today, and it should not be a way to head off competition in the American entertainment marketplace. If they are found to have used these arguments to discourage businesses from having relationships with DFS providers, that is not just ironic. It violates the antitrust laws.

As opposed to the simplistic arguments put forth to government as the two seek to leverage the government do what it apparently is afraid it cannot, that is win in the marketplace, a broad array of issues converge in this market segment and all speak to how it should be regulated.

Read “Taking a Chance: Market Dominators Game the System” here.

The post Taking a Chance: Market Dominators Game the System appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
Statement from the James Madison Institute on Governor DeSantis’ Veto of HB 1 https://jamesmadison.org/statement-from-the-james-madison-institute-on-governor-desantis-veto-of-hb-1/ Fri, 01 Mar 2024 20:59:04 +0000 https://jamesmadison.org/?p=9383 TALLAHASSEE – Legislating to address real issues that affect every Floridian is fraught with challenges, trade-offs, and landmines....

The post Statement from the James Madison Institute on Governor DeSantis’ Veto of HB 1 appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>
TALLAHASSEE – Legislating to address real issues that affect every Floridian is fraught with challenges, trade-offs, and landmines. If the issue of teen online safety were an easy one, the legislature would have solved it by now. We truly appreciate Speaker Renner’s sincere intent to solve the harms associated with excessive social media use among our youth. We understand the rationale behind Governor DeSantis’ veto of HB1 and we hope lawmakers and the Governor can work together to craft meaningful policy that helps parents and teenagers but also withstands constitutional scrutiny. JMI looks forward to engaging with policymakers in the days and weeks ahead to make that happen.

#

The James Madison Institute is a 501(c)3 organization dedicated to the ideals of limited government, economic freedom, federalism and individual liberty coupled with individual responsibility. The institute conducts research on such issues as criminal justice, health care, taxes and regulatory environments.

The post Statement from the James Madison Institute on Governor DeSantis’ Veto of HB 1 appeared first on James Madison Institute.

]]>