Featuring Alex Kozinski, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.
So many Americans are concerned with how “Washington isn’t listening to them,” and candidates like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ben Carson are stoking that outrage. But maybe Washington isn’t listening because it is so big that only mobilized special interests have the resources and incentives to pay attention. Maybe big government will never really pay attention to the people. If this is so, then maybe people should stop trying to control each other so much.
American leaders have cooperated with regimes around the world that are, to varying degrees, repressive or corrupt. Such cooperation is said to serve the national interest. But these partnerships also contravene the nation’s commitments to democratic governance, civil liberties, and free markets. In Perilous Partners, authors Ted Galen Carpenter and Malou Innocent provide a strategy for resolving the ethical dilemmas between interests and values faced by Washington.
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.
Featuring Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute.
The recent Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life marks a change in direction in judicial doctrines concerning campaign finance. As recently as 2003, a majority of the Court upheld the strictures on free speech enacted in McCain-Feingold. In Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court forcefully stated that the benefit of the doubt lies with freedom of speech and not with the government. What will this decision mean for the 2008 campaign? How has the Court limited the power of Congress to regulate campaign finance and freedom of speech? Will we see a general deregulation of campaign finance compelled by judicial decisions over the next few years? Please join us to hear a leading congressional critic of restrictions on campaign spending and to discuss this vital judicial decision and its implications for Congress and national politics.