October 5, 1999
The Supreme Court Hears Shrink
Talking Title I
A Healthy Debate?
No Sale For Cuba
The Supreme Court Hears Shrink
The Supreme Court today will hear arguments in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, which deals with whether Missouri's contribution limits for state candidates are constitutional. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court has ruled that the state's $1,075 limit violates the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court decision could overturn contribution limits in federal campaigns.
"As the Court held in Buckley, to be constitutional, campaign finance regulations must not violate basic principles of political freedom and free political speech recognized and protected by the First Amendment… A 'major purpose' of the First Amendment, the Buckley Court said, was 'to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.' In that regard, contribution and expenditure limitations 'operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities.' Thus, limitations are subject to strict judicial scrutiny: they must serve a 'compelling state interest' and employ the 'least restrictive means'," Roger Pilon said in testimony before Congress on campaign finance reform in July. "Applying that strict standard of review, the Buckley Court distinguished limits on contributions to campaigns and limits on expenditures by citizens and candidates… Whether that distinction will itself withstand strict scrutiny has been a matter of no small debate, of course. In the 1996 Colorado case, for example, Justice Thomas joined the many critics who would give contributions the same protection expenditures enjoy. And this fall, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Adams, its first contribution limits case since Buckley. For the moment, however, contributions can be limited if the purpose is the compelling one of preventing corruption--'the attempt to secure a political quid pro quo from current or potential officeholders'--or the appearance of corruption. Five years after Buckley, the Court reiterated that holding, emphasizing the narrowness of the exception: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is the 'single narrow exception to the rule that limits on political activity' are contrary to the First Amendment."
Talking Title I
The House Education and the Workforce Committee begins marking up Title I education funding today as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization. "The ADA requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. But the specific accommodations mentioned in the act are anything but reasonable. For example, for an employer to provide qualified readers or interpreters-- considered 'reasonable' under the ADA-- without regard to the employee's payscale, can be very costly. The facts indicate that by a cost-benefit standard, Title I has been less than successful," Edward L. Hudgins wrote in the Regulation article "Handicapping Freedom: The Americans With Disabilities Act". Hudgins later notes that "Title I, section 102 (c)(2)(A) of the ADA states that an employer 'shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.' An employer might easily determine the effect of a disability and screen out those not qualified for a job by giving an applicant a test-- for example, asking a wheelchair-bound individual to place a heavy box on a top shelf in a warehouse, if that were one of the essential functions of the available job. But a more difficult problem is how to determine future costs that might only become apparent after an applicant is hired. If he is not allowed to make inquiries, how can an employer know before the fact whether an employee will add an 'undue hardship' or 'substantial costs' to his business? And once an individual is hired, firing him because of a disability, no matter how costly that disability is to the business, virtually guarantees an ADA suit."
"The scope of title I is broad. It covers all employers with 50 or more employees after June 1994 (25 or more after June 1992) except the U.S. government, Indian tribes, and private membership clubs. Employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management committees are covered. However, the exemption for small business firms under title I provides little relief. Although title I may not affect small employers directly, those businesses that are considered 'public accommodations' fall under the control of the ADA's title III, which provides no exemption for small businesses. Consequently, the ADA will affect almost all American businesses in one way or another," Robert P. O'Quinn wrote in the Cato Policy Analysis "The Americans With Disabilities Act: Time For Amendments".
A Healthy Debate?
The House this week takes up plans to reform managed care and insurance. No less than three bills will be debated, though the bipartisan Norwood-Dingell plan is the most likely to pass. But Republican Reps. Tom Coburn and John Shadegg, who introduced a bill over the objections of House GOP leaders, are trying to win defectors from the Norwood-Dingell bill. The Coburn-Shadegg bill allows patients to sue their health plans, but within limits.
According to two Cato Policy Analyses, however, medical savings accounts would be a better option. "Economists from across the political spectrum understand that one of the major factors driving health care costs is our third-party payment system that insulates consumers from the cost of their health care decisions. Medical savings accounts (MSAs) are the one health care reform proposal designed precisely to counter that fundamental cost-control problem. They restore direct incentives to consumers to control costs and stimulate true market cost-control competition," Peter J. Ferrara wrote in "More Than a Theory: Medical Savings Accounts at Work". And Michael Tanner wrote in "Medical Savings Accounts: Answering the Critics" that "critics of consumer-based health care reform are mounting a counterattack. An examination of the evidence shows that their criticisms of MSAs are just plain wrong… MSAs represent a significant step in solving the problems facing our health care system. Supporters of MSAs should not be distracted by flawed and misplaced criticisms."
No Sale For Cuba
Republican congressional leaders dropped a proposal to allow U.S. food and medicine sales to Cuba from a $69 billion Agriculture Department funding bill, CNN reported. The measure was removed after lawmakers from Florida and other states who oppose the rule of Cuba's Communist president, Fidel Castro, threatened to vote down the entire bill. "I'm for sales to Cuba too but it should be to Cuba, not the dictatorship," Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) told CNN. U.S. farm groups had lobbied hard for an end to the embargo, saying Cuba could become a $1 billion a year market for food exports. The Cato Handbook for Congress offers recommendations on Cuba policy including a call for Congress to "end all trade and investment sanctions against Cuba and allow U.S. citizens and companies to visit and establish businesses in Cuba as they see fit."