Featuring Jeff Flake (R-AZ), United States Senator; Dave Brat (R-VA-7), United States Congressman; Michael F. Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute; John C. Goodman, President, Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research; moderated by Peter Russo, Director of Congressional Affairs, Cato Institute.
In Lukewarming: The New Climate Science that Changes Everything, Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger explain the real science and spin behind the headlines and come to a provocative conclusion: global warming is not hot—it’s lukewarm. Climate change is real, it is partially man-made, but it is clearer than ever that its impact has been exaggerated—with many predictions now being rendered implausible or impossible. This new paperback edition of the book is an expanded edition of last year’s ebook-only edition of Lukewarming, and includes updates in science and policy following the accords reached at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.
The Cato Institute has released its 2015 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. The thousands of individuals who contribute to Cato are passionate about freedom and committed to ensuring that future generations enjoy the blessings of liberty, unencumbered by an overreaching state that seeks to control their lives. This is Cato’s optimistic vision for the future, and it would be unimaginable without the Institute’s longstanding partnership with its Sponsors. We will continue our diligence and dedication to seeing this vision realized.
Featuring John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute, and Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies and Editor-in-Chief, Cato Supreme Court Review, Cato Institute.
On April 22, just as Pennsylvania Democrats go the polls in the last large primary before their nominating convention, the Supreme Court will hear yet another challenge to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law: The Millionaires’ Amendment attempts to discourage congressional candidates from spending more than $350,000 of their own money on their election campaigns. It penalizes expenditures above that threshold by allowing increased contribution limits and unlimited coordinated party expenditures for the self-financing candidate’s opponent. Does this penalty unconstitutionally chill protected political speech, or is there a compelling governmental interest at stake? How does self-financing impact corruption or the concept of a level playing field? Please join Cato scholars John Samples and Ilya Shapiro for a lively exploration of the Millionaires’ Amendment and other election regulations affecting this campaign season.