Featuring Cato Institute Interns; and Heritage Foundation Interns; with an introduction by Mark Houser, Student Programs Coordinator, Cato Institute; moderated by Christopher Bedford, Senior Editor, Daily Caller.
A limited constitutional government calls for a rules-based, freemarket monetary system, not the topsy-turvy fiat dollar that now exists under central banking. This issue of the Cato Journal examines the case for alternatives to central banking and the reforms needed to move toward free-market money.
Americans are finally enjoying an improving economy after years of recession and slow growth. The unemployment rate is dropping, the economy is expanding, and public confidence is rising. Surely our economic crisis is behind us. Or is it? In Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis, Cato scholar Michael D. Tanner examines the growing national debt and its dire implications for our future and explains why a looming financial meltdown may be far worse than anyone expects.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is not just a framework for utopia,” 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.
Citizens United Redux: The First Amendment Vindicated?
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.