Obesity remains a serious health problem and it is no secret that many people want to lose weight. Behavioral economists typically argue that “nudges” help individuals with various decisionmaking flaws to live longer, healthier, and better lives. In an article in the new issue of Regulation, Michael L. Marlow discusses how nudging by government differs from nudging by markets, and explains why market nudging is the more promising avenue for helping citizens to lose weight.
In Bootleggers & Baptists: How Economic Forces and Moral Persuasion Interact to Shape Regulatory Politics, economists Bruce Yandle and Adam Smith explain how money and morality are often combined in politics to produce arbitrary regulations benefiting cronies, while constraining productive economic activities by the general public.
Featuring Bradley A. Smith, Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission and Chairman, Center for Competitive Politics; Jamin Raskin, Professor of Law, Director of the Program on Law and Government at Washington College of Law, American University; Maryland State Senator; and John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute.
In January 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the commercials for a film, Hillary: The Movie, violated the section of the McCain-Feingold Act that restricts “electioneering communications” within 30 days before primaries. The United States Supreme Court was expected to rule on this case in the summer of 2009. Instead, the Court asked that the case be reargued, focusing on whether two of its precedents should be overturned. The first precedent upheld part of McCain-Feingold; the second (and more important) decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, upheld government prohibitions on political speech by corporations. The reargument is scheduled for September 9, 2009. Proponents claim that overruling the Austin precedent would unleash business spending on political speech, thereby weakening democracy. Others see, in the end of Austin, an opening toward new era of political speech that is free of government control. Please join us for a spirited assessment of the prospects of a major change in First Amendment law and electoral politics.