Featuring Dorothy Robyn, Senior Policy Expert, Clinton and Obama Administrations; Stephen Van Beek, Vice President of Aviation Consulting, ICF International; and Chris Edwards, Editor, DownsizingGovernment.org, Cato Institute; moderated by Peter Russo, Director of Congressional Affairs, Cato Institute.
Of all the rights the U.S. Constitution protects, courts are probably most vigilant about protecting free speech. Freedom of expression is not only a cornerstone of democratic government, but also central to the more ordinary choices citizens make in their daily lives. Yet one class of speech has been almost entirely ignored by the courts: speech by professionals engaged in their business. In the new issue of Regulation, Cato scholar Timothy Sandefur argues that the Supreme Court should make it clear that censoring professionals is intolerable.
Published in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Kelo v. New London, Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America made a powerful contribution to the firestorm of interest in protecting property rights. Now in its second edition, Cornerstone of Liberty has been fully updated by authors Timothy and Christina Sandefur, and examines how dozens of new developments in courtrooms and legislatures across the country have shifted the landscape of private property rights since 2005.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
Ashcroft’s U-Turn: Suing Big Tobacco for a Quarter-Trillion Bucks
Featuring Matthew Myers, President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; William B. Schultz, Partner, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP; Robert A. Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; and Kenneth N. Bass, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis.
Ten months after the tobacco giants and the states settled their differences for a skimpy $246 billion, the federal government decided that it wanted a piece of the pie. So the Clinton Justice Department filed suit, alleging that industry executives conspired to lie about their product, manipulate nicotine content, and target kids with cigarette ads. Then the Republicans took over. Attorney General John Ashcroft, who opposed the suit as a senator, was reluctant to fund litigation that he deemed too weak for trial. But he’s changed his mind. In an astonishing about-face, the Justice Department has now decided to seek an additional $289 billion in damages, with a trial planned for next year if the industry doesn’t cave. Why the reversal? Is the multi-billion-dollar pot just too enticing for the cash-strapped feds? Or is there a real need for one more round in the government’s anti-tobacco campaign? Please join us for a vigorous debate on health, public policy, and the rule of law.