Limits on campaign contributions continue to slip away, with high courts ruling against them. First, in the Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission, and then on April 24, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty struck down donation limits in New York. Surprisingly, Crotty acknowledged that there is a link between campaign finance and corruption. Unfortunately, he felt compelled to rule against the measures aimed to prevent this phenomena due to the possibility of infringing on first amendment rights. Many feel that this issue is black and white; namely, that campaign donations are a right of free speech or that they are ruining democracy. Yet, I think it is fair to say that the judicial branch is in a difficult position. A majority of Americans want campaign finance reform, yet, any attempt to do so could be a violation of constitutional rights (so it seems based on recent rulings).

While I would like to see reform, I acknowledge that there is a more concerning problem underlying the push for campaign contribution limits, and it starts with the obvious question, “why exactly do people want to limit contributions in the first place?” The desire to limit campaign contributions arises from the fear of a distorted power distribution. Simply, the people who have the greatest wealth will have the greatest influence in politics.

In order to run a strong campaign, you need a lot of capital, and thus, politicians require significant financial backing. If someone voluntarily provides a politician with large financial donations, then by de facto the politician owes that financial backer, and hence, the corruption referred to by Crotty ensues. The fact that finances are so important in political elections principally gives citizens of wealth more potential value and gives them greater potential access to politicians than regular citizens.

But let’s back up for a minute. We need to ask the next question that naturally follows, “why does it require a lot of money to win elections?” And this question gets us to the root of the problem. Politicians need a substantial amount of campaign finances in order to capitalize on the public’s immediate perception. Unfortunately, Americans are not educated on domestic and international politics and it shows in the polls. As Cato Unbound reports,

numerous polls show that voters grossly underestimate the percentage of federal spending that goes to entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, while greatly overestimating the amount spent on foreign aid[..] Widespread political ignorance isn’t limited to spending and health care[..] only 42% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative and judicial.

American’s knowledge regarding international affairs shows even less promise. So how does the American electorate make political decisions? They rely on heuristics in order to decide whom and what to vote for. A heuristic is essentially a cognitive shortcut that allows us to make decisions quickly, and one of the most commonly employed cognitive shortcuts is the availability heuristic. In the words of Albert Phung, when using this heuristic, people “rely on immediate examples that come to mind. The availability heuristic operates on the notion that if something can be recalled, it must be important.”

Political campaigns know this, and that is why they are constantly trying to get as much attention as possible, which requires a lot of money. Does the term ‘soundbites’ ring a bell? If people hear what a certain candidate is going to do over and over, they begin to think it is important.

The reason we fear unlimited campaign contributions is because the American people do not make educated voting decisions and instead, they are heavily influenced by how many soundbites they are subjected to. If every person were to decide who to vote for based on their own research, it wouldn’t matter how much money politicians raise and spend. But the sad fact remains that American’s do not do the research. My favorite example of this is the Associated Press Report Homer Simpson, Yes — 1st Amendment ‘Doh,’ survey results. According to the AP, “the new McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that 22 percent of Americans could name all five Simpson family members, compared to just 1 in 1,000 people who could name all five First Amendment freedoms.”

[ThinkProgress] [Investopedia] [Gallup] [SupremeCourt.Gov]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured image courtesy of [Wonderlane via Flickr]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Campaign Donation Limits: Why We Really Need Them appeared first on Law Street.

A recent leak of a seventy-page pdf document has caused quite a stir at the American University Campus in Washington DC. This document presents a series of emails and text messages exchanged by the brothers of the Epsilon Iota fraternity, containing explicit racist, sexist, and homophobic content. A Tumblr page (The Fratergate AU) has been created with the intent of displaying a censored version of the the leaked document.

According to the Fratergate AU, “EI is an unrecognized fraternity at American University in Washington, D.C. The group lost their charter after an alleged date rape scandal in 2001, but continue to operate on our campus”– thus some feel more than simply shock at the situation. The creators of this Tumblr page claim to be pursuing some level of disciplinary action against Epsilon Iota, and this pursuit is picking up steam.

AU students have started a virtual petition tiltled, “I Will Not Be Silent” on change.org, with a host of demands they would like to see from the University administration. Chief among their immediate demands is the expulsion of the Epsilon Iota members involved, on the grounds of, “condoning sexual violence, assault, battery, slander and all other actions relevant to physical, sexual, emotional and all other forms of abuse.”

In this article, I have zero ambition to condone the actions of these students. However, it is worth addressing what I see as four major problems with calling for their expulsion on the grounds of a sexual transgression. (It is worth noting that there may be other violations, such as the continued underground operation of a disbanded fraternity chapter, that allow for expulsion, but I will only be addressing the sexual grounds.)

1. There is no admission of guilt within the documents present on the Fratergate AU Tumblr.

I have read through all of the emails and texts that the Fratergate page has published, and I have yet to find any instance where the EI students admit to committing any crimes. There is only one circumstance where there may be an instance of admission, but it is unclear as to how seriously we can evaluate the text. One student wrote the following, “she was not beaten. she assaulted us repeatedly alongside with calling the entire brotherhood a rape gang and worthless piece of shit after what she eventually got slapped back very softly, slipped and fell in the bushes (she was perfectly fine by the way).” This is the closest case in the document to any claim of wrongdoing. The DCist reports this as an ‘alleged slapping’ when they summarize the document contents as follows, “in censored emails[…] Epsilon Iota discuss the alleged slapping of a woman, routinely describe women as ‘bitches’, seek drugs, use racial slurs, and strategize about how to make women feel comfortable at their parties, despite an alleged sexual assault.”

2. These emails do not conform to the definition of sexual assault in the AU handbook

Many are claiming that the EI students who authored these emails have engaged in a sexual transgression, specifically sexual assault. However, the nature of the conversation and context of these comments make it difficult to define it as such. The American University Handbook says that, “what constitutes sexual harassment […] may be described generally as: unwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors; and other oral, written, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” Unfortunately, the definition provided is very opaque, and states that, “the determination of what constitutes sexual harassment will vary with particular circumstances.” It is hard to say exactly how these originally ‘private’ exchanged emails that were not directed towards a victim will fit the schools weak definition of sexual harassment.

3. There is nothing about Petitions in the AU Handbook

While I personally applaud the creation of a petition to show support for student opposition to the horrific nature of the leaked documents, it may have little to no impact on how the AU administration handles the situation. The AU University Codes, Policies, and Guidelines has a specific section titled Sexual Assault Reporting Procedures for Students, which outlines how to report and process cases of alleged sexual violence, assault, and harassment. Unfortunately for the 1600 plus students who have already signed, there is no mention of a petition as part of the processing procedure.

4. AU has policies that protect Freedom of Speech

In the section of the AU handbook titled, Freedom of Expression Guidelines, it is clearly stated that every AU student has the right to freedom of speech and expression as defined by the law. Simply, each individual has the right to make their own disclosure in anyway they please. Freedom of speech does have its limits, but only if what is said or written qualifies as legal obscenity. Unfortunately, it is not clear that the EI emails and texts qualify due to the fact that these messages were private and not intended for the public. Historically, in cases like Miller v. California, we have seen legal obscenity most often applied in circumstances where an obscene text or speech is being sold to the public.

[The Fratergate AU]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured image courtesy of [Jake Waage via Flickr]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 4 Reasons Why Secret AU Frat Might Avoid Trouble appeared first on Law Street.

Jonathan Tobin, a writer for the Commentary, recently argued that ‘Liberals’ hold a contradictory stance regarding the rights of corporations, which has become evident with the Hobby Lobby and Mozilla cases. (To read more about Hobby Lobby’s attempt to overturn the contraception mandate of Obama care check out this article.)

So what are liberals saying about the Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius? They point to historical precedence as the reason why Hobby Lobby’s argument fails. In the past, federal courts have ruled that corporations cannot avoid the law based on religious beliefs, for the simple reason of the bright line problem. Simply, how far can corporations go, in terms of ‘breaking’ the law, to uphold religious beliefs? NPR points out that,

The Justice Department says in its briefs that the government would be unable to function if religious beliefs could be the basis for corporations’ refusing to comply with generally applied laws — be they child labor laws, immunization laws, laws that mandate serving racially mixed groups [etc…]

This is a serious problem with the Hobby Lobby’s argument, because by similar logic and certain unreasonableness, it could entail phenomena like segregated service. (Which is by no coincidence being attempted in certain states with regards to gays.) Thus, liberals want to protect the ‘generally applied laws’, which in this case happens to be health care.

Tobin goes on to argue that by making this argument against Hobby Lobby, liberals clearly contradict themselves when they claim that Mozilla ought to fire Mr. Eich, for the simple reason that he donated $1000 to Proposition 8. (Mr. Eich has since resigned, however it is important to understand that people called for him to be fired). What might a liberal say about this? Someone who promotes intolerant policies should not be leading and representing such a powerful company like Mozilla.

Are these liberal stances in contradiction? Tobin argues yes. He claims that “a corporation ought not enforce its religious beliefs regarding abortion” and “a corporation ought enforce a tolerant belief system” are hypocritical stances. At first glance, it may appear that Tobin has a point. How can liberals contend that corporations should not enforce their religious beliefs, but yet enforce other beliefs, like the fact that Eich’s comments are unacceptable?

The problem with Tobin’s argument is that he is leaving out one critical distinction between the Mozilla and Hobby Lobby cases. Regarding the Hobby Lobby issue, liberals are contending that the company should not be granted legal privilege on the grounds of religion in order to enforce their beliefs. The force of the liberals’ argument here is agreeing with and enforcing the law, and thus, this can be seen as a form of legal pressure against Hobby Lobby. In the case of Mr. Eich at Mozilla, the liberal is simply expressing their opinion that a ‘respectable company’ would refrain from appointing CEO’s who contribute to — in their eyes — hateful and intolerant campaigns such as Proposition 8. The difference here, as compared to the Hobby Lobby case, is that the force of the liberal’s argument is an appeal to moral intuition, and this can be seen as social pressure.

The liberal stance regarding Mozilla and Hobby Lobby is not a hypocritical one as Tobin would have us believe. Once we make the distinction between legal pressure, in the case of Hobby Lobby, and social pressure in the case of Mozilla, it should be clear that the liberal’s position is quite tenable. Further more we should value the liberal’s distinct positions, as they represent the proper workings of a flourishing democracy. I am beginning to notice a frightening trend, that as our society continues to polarize, the parties may begin to try and legislate all of their view-points in order to have the ability to argue them with legal pressure. For instance, South Carolina’s attempt to expand their “Stand Your Ground” laws to fetuses, which in effect, would redefine the personhood status of fetuses. Instead of attempting to prevent something like abortion through social pressure, they will attempt to do so through legal pressure. Anybody who cares about freedom should be concerned about this trend.

[Commentary] [NPR] 

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured Image Courtesy of: [Flickr/Ken Teegarden]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What a Conservative Gets Wrong About Liberals appeared first on Law Street.

It is sexual assault awareness month, and the accusations against Universities’ policies on sexual crime continue to come forth. Before we get caught up in the rage, maybe we should start by asking the obvious question: what role should universities actually play in handling sexual assault crimes?

 At the current moment, universities handle sexual assault cases mainly in two ways. One, they either attempt to squash the complaints of the victims, because the mere appearance of sexual assault on campus is bad for business. Or two, universities process the accusations, commit to an investigation, and set a trial for the accused. This alternative option can be ‘beneficial’ for business, because it makes the university appear to be tough on ‘rape culture’. For obvious reasons, I have a serious problem with the first avenue of simply trying to downplay the accusations of a possible victim. However, there is good reason for us to be skeptical of the alternative.

Universities should have zero involvement in the initial handling of sexual assault crimes, and for the reason mentioned before: colleges can benefit from looking tough on rape culture, and thus, they may institute policies that ensure this desired outcome, at the harm of the school’s own students, specifically the accused. To be fair, universities are in a difficult spot. When you take into account that sexual assault is extremely present on college campus — Sarah Lawrence College reports, “at least 1 in 4 college women will be the victim of a sexual assault during her academic career” — and the fact that sexual assault cases are extremely hard to prove, many women or men can feel helpless and turn to the university to deal with situation.

However, this is also a problematic solution. Since universities have interests outside of justice, they could very easily lose sight of the fact that we assume innocence until proven guilty within our nation’s conception of justice. Unfortunately, we already see this trend starting to actualize, as there are many cases where men have been convicted of sexual assault by their university, while considered innocent in a legal context. Consider the case of Dez Wells where, “local authorities have gone so far as to proclaim the defendant’s innocence[ and yet, he was] expelled from Xavier University on a disciplinary charge of sexual assault.”

If universities begin to convict students of sexual assault crimes, without their guilt being proven in court, two new major problems arise. The first would be those who may be innocent still carry the weight of the conviction. A student like Wells will leave Xavier with no degree, and the marking of a sexual predator. This has profound implications. Wells will most likely struggle to be accepted into another University with an explosion from Xavier — due to sexual assault — on his record. (Dez Wells has since been accepted to University of Maryland, however, his value as an athlete may have helped him in this endeavor. However a student like Peter Yu at Vassar College, who was convicted and expelled in a similar manner, may not be so lucky). The second problem arises from the fact that someone like Wells will have to carry the psychological burden of being identified as a ‘rapist’, yet his innocence was proclaimed by legal authorities, therefore, he shouldn’t have this problem.

These worries make way for another implication of relying on universities to handle sexual assault crimes. Universities cannot offer due process nor due punishment. I feel as though there is no need to say that rape is a serious crime, but I think we forget that it is when we expect an institution like a university to process such an offense. There is a reason that ‘murder’ would never be processed solely on a university campus, for the simple reason that such a serious crime requires proper due process and punishment. It seems apparent to me that we should view sexual assault in the same light. To convict someone of a crime as serious as rape, they should be protected by legal safeguards. Additionally, to ensure that proper justice is served, in the event that sexual assault was committed, we can only rely on the legal system to ensure the proper level of moral reciprocity.

These problems associated with colleges carrying out their own investigations and convictions of sexual assault crimes should deter us from demanding that they commit to action. We must remember that universities have goals outside of upholding justice, which can lead to unfair trials and convictions, ultimately harming students. Thus, students and activists against sexual assault should refrain from pointing fingers at the university. Instead, we need to establish a new avenue that makes it easier to process sexual assault cases, but within the legal domain. This is the only way to ensure proper due process and justice, and treat rape like the serious crime  that it is.

[Reason] [SLC] [ThinkProgress]Shortcode Generator

—

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Universities Should Stay Away from Rape appeared first on Law Street.

A new drug called Sovaldi, developed by Gilead Sciences Inc., is now available on the market that cures between 80-90% of users from Hepatitis C Virus (HVC). This is a ground-breaking development in medicine, as approximately 3.2 million Americans currently suffer from Chronic HVC according to the Center for Disease Control. This new drug is administered as a twelve week treatment and costs $84,000 which is considerably lower than traditional forms of treatment at $300,000. But here is the problem: according to University researcher Andrew Hill, Sovaldi only costs $150 to $250 per treatment. How can Gilead charge such an unreasonable price for a life saving drug?

Bringing A Drug to the Market

Before we draw any conclusions about the reasonability of charging $84,000 for Sovaldi, we must understand the process of how drug manufacturers bring a new product to the market. Our government attempts to guarantee protection for consumers from unsafe products through regulatory oversight, which means that not any product can simply be sold in stores. A new product must complete a twelve step process of human and animal phase-testing, facility inspection, drug labeling, application review, and review meetings.  This process can easily cost a billion dollars, meaning that the initial investment for drug development is steep one.

This high-cost initial investment creates a problem, namely, it can discourage innovation. In order to cover the start-up costs in production phase, a company needs to charge an inflated initial price  to make up for the original high-cost investment. The problem is that another company could easily replicate the drug and make a knock-off product to sell at a much lower price, as they don’t need to worry about making up initial investments. This hiccup, of stifled innovation, has been dealt with by government intervention and protection. In order to incentivize medicinal innovation, the government provides extended patent protection, preventing companies from being undercut by sales replicate drugs at a cheaper price. Such patents can give companies an effective monopoly for quite some time.

The Ethical Concern

Although this form of patent protection ensures continued innovation, there is some concern regarding possible abuse of these safeguards. When we revisit the question regarding the reasonability of Gilead charging $84,000 for the treatment, it is understandable that they must charge an initially high price. However, what happens when these costs have been covered? Mike LaBossiere reports that “when asked if Gilead would reduce the cost once it recovered its money, the vice president [Gregg Alton] of the company said, ‘that’s very unlikely that we would do that. I appreciate the thought.” Alton defends this position by claiming that, “those who are bold and go out and innovate like this and take the risk — there needs to be more of a reward on that. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for people to make that investment.”

Alton’s claim seems reasonable, yet Gilead’s opposition to lowering the price of Solvadi, after covering investment costs,  raises serious concerns regarding public welfare. It appears that a company like Gilead might be exploiting this fact when they develop the “fair price” at which to sell the drug.

The Solution of State-Capitalism

Government patent protection of new medical products should be coupled with temporary partial government ownership of the company as a stockholder. Essentially, for a certain period of time, drug companies would function as a public sector undertaking. This would have two benefits. First, the drug company still functions as a profit based competitive initiative keeping the reward system to spark risky business ventures like developing a new drug. Second, having the government as a large shareholder would help combat extreme price inflation that prevents accessible medicine for the severely and terminally-ill.

Some may be hesitant about the idea of state capitalism, but we shouldn’t be too hasty to throw it out as a possible solution. In fact, government owned businesses are some of the most successful ones in the world. The Economist reports,

State capitalism can also claim some of the world’s most powerful companies. [Such as] China Mobile is a mobile-phone goliath with 600m customers. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation is one of the world’s most profitable chemical companies. Russia’s Sberbank is Europe’s third-largest bank by market capitalisation. Dubai Ports is the world’s third-largest ports operator. The airline Emirates is growing at 20% a year.

If it is the case that government owned businesses have the ability to stimulate innovation, prove successful, and protect the public from exploitation, we may want to consider them as a possibility in cases like drug and medicine development.

 [TPM] [FDA] [NPR] [The Economist]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Need a Cure: It Will Only Cost an Arm and a Leg appeared first on Law Street.

Americans eat too much meat. It is a central staple in every meal of the day. This cultural practice, coupled with our economic system, creates a disastrous outcome: factory farming of animals. I have a problem with this system of meat production. However, the purpose of this article is not to talk about how we treat domestic livestock – rather I want to address a faulty argument that we hear quite often as a reason for diminishing meat production. I want to point out the fallacious nature of this argument, in order to prevent people arguing for less meat consumption from looking foolish.

For instance, I have recently come across two articles that both advocate for reduced meat consumption but on different grounds, and I think it’s worth pointing out that the fallacy-laden argument should be dismissed. In their article, A Tax On Meat Would Reduce Methane Emissions From Livestock, ThinkProgress reports that many environmental scientists are advocating for a decrease in meat consumption because it would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If we want to avoid the problems that accompany climate change, then this is a good argument for eating less meat.

Compare this with a recent, article in the New York Times titled Meat Makes the Planet Thirsty which advances approximately the following thesis: as we continue to face horrible droughts across the country, a good way to reduce our water footprint would be to eat less meat, as meat production requires much more water than growing fruits, vegetables, and crops. The rationale for this argument is basic math. The author points out that, “beef turns out to have an overall water footprint of roughly four million gallons per ton produced. By contrast, the water footprint for “sugar crops” like sugar beets is about 52,000 gallons per ton; for vegetables it’s 85,000 gallons per ton; and for starchy roots it’s about 102,200 gallons per ton.” I have to say I’m very surprised that this argument has made its way into the New York Times because it is highly fallacious.

There are a couple things we need to understand about comparing the water footprint of domestic livestock to other crops.

First, the numbers that McWilliams, the author of the article, uses come from calculations that measure the water intake of cattle eating a grain-fed diet, as opposed to cattle that were raised on their natural diet of pasture grazing. We ought to observe that it makes them drink more water – and we see this makes a huge difference in the water footprint. According to Lierre Keith, author of the Vegetarian Myth, cattle that are raised on pasture will end up consuming 122 pounds of water per pound of meat (and that only includes the muscle and not the organs). If we convert that to tons, we find that the grass-fed cow consumes 244,000 gallons per ton of meat, which is a staggering difference as compared to the four million gallons per ton in McWilliams calculations.

The second thing we have to realize when we talk about the water footprint of foods, is the varying caloric and nutrient content. When we are purchasing food, we are buying energy in the form of calories. Thus, we should think of comparing the relative energy outputs of these foods, not the relative weights when measuring their respective water foot-prints. When we do this, we find that meat is more cost-effective than foods like vegetables and fruits (in terms of water needed to produce), and comes out almost even with crops like wheat. Keith writes,

If you want to compare pounds of water for calories (energy) produced, wheat and grass-fed beef end up almost even. For wheat, sixty pounds of water produces 1524.45 calories, or 25.7 calories per pound of water. For grass-fed beef, it’s twenty-two calories from a pound of water.

This, in my opinion is the heart of the problem with McWilliams argument. Simply comparing foods water-footprint by pounds of a given food against gallons of water is grossly oversimplifying the issue. We need to recognize that not all foods are the same.

This leads to third problem with the argument.

Not only should we be looking at the caloric content of foods, we should also consider the nutrients residing within the calories. Animal products provide very important nutrients such as proteins and fats, that are not found within foods like vegetables, fruits, and grains. Consider the varying levels of protein and fats found within beef as compared with wheat: “21 g of protein vs. 13.7 g, and 8.55 fat vs. 1.87 g, respectively.” Additionally, the proteins that are found within foods like wheat are lower quality because they do not contain the full spectrum of all thirteen amino acids, “and [wheat proteins are] largely inaccessible because it comes wrapped in indigestible cellulose.” (Keith) We can see from the comparison of caloric and nutritional content that beef is a better option when it comes to the water-footprint.

People who wish to see the end of factory farming and reformed meat consumption should drop the water-footprint argument and appeal to more powerful arguments like methane emissions of livestock.

[NY TIMES] [THINK PROGRESS]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured Image Courtesy [Flickr/USDA]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Correlation or Causation: Less Meat Does Not Equal More Water appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, I have noticed with the talk of 2014 midterm elections, articles about minimum wage are starting to pop up more in my daily reading. The problem with these articles (one, two, and three) is no one completely gets the argument right. The problem is not that that the wealthy made more money, but that the rate at which they are making more money is increasing more quickly compared to other groups. Between 1979-2007, the ‘99%’ saw a 53% change in comprehensive income, while the top ‘1%’ had a 314% increase. The concern surrounding this trend has given rise to the hot political debate of a suggested federal minimum wage increase to $10.10. But, as we continue to discuss the validity of minimum wage legislation, we need to be clear on its effectiveness, purpose, and discuss more powerful alternatives like unionization and collective bargaining.

Why Conservatives Are Wrong About the Minimum Wage

There is a very popular myth among conservatives that the minimum wage always hurts job growth and in fact leads to a decrease in available jobs. We need to realize that this not always the case, and in fact, significant amount of data suggests that increasing the minimum wage is a very practical thing to do because it provides needed benefits to workers with zero impact on employment levels. According to Madland and Bunker at the Center for American Progress, “at least five different academic studies focusing on increases to the minimum wage… find an increase in the minimum wage has no significant effect on employment levels.” People often forget that an increase in the minimum wage does have benefits, and it seems these benefits prove to be very effective and helpful during times of high unemployment. A minimum wage increase results in ‘boosts in demand and reduction in turnover’.

Contrary to conservative doctrine, it is actually the consumer that keeps the economy going. This is for two reasons. First, when more people are buying products the economy grows faster. Second, people with less money, spend more money. Director of the CBO Doug Elmendorf notes that “increases in disposable income are likely to boost purchases more for lower-income than for higher-income households,” thus a minimum wage increase provides more money for these families and that results in more spending which boosts demand.

Turnover refers to the process of workers quitting and companies having to re-hire and re-train new employees, thus high levels of turnover create a very inefficient system. Some companies, such as Costco, have implemented ‘efficiency wages’ to avoid high turn-over among workers. Costco pays its employees $15.60 per hour, which is significantly over the minimum wage. Their philosophy is that a higher wage will yield more productivity with less turnover and retention of good workers. This model has been extremely successful. Consider their numbers in comparison to Wal-Mart, which pursues the path of cheap labor.

Why Liberals Are Wrong About the Minimum Wage

What we need to understand is that liberals have two goals in mind with the minimum wage. The first is to create a level of income that constitutes a living wage. The second, and more philosophical reason, has to do with establishing a sense of equity in society. The United States is currently the third most unequal society among OECD nations. We have extremely low social and economic mobility, which means that the likelihood of someone moving from a low-income status to the middle class or from the middle class to a high-income status is extremely unlikely. I suggest that the protection and promotion of unions would be a more efficient policy for achieving both of the liberal’s goals — helping workers obtain a living wage and instilling equity in our society.

Unions and Living Wages

We find that unions, like the minimum wage, are effective in helping ensure workers are making a living wage. Lawrence Mishel and Matthew Walters of the Economic Policy Institute, complete a thorough analysis of data sets, and conclude that “unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20%.” However, one of the advantages of unions over the minimum wage, is that unions do more than just help provide workers with better compensation. Unionized workers are much more likely to receive benefits that many would consider fundamental to a stable economic status. Mishel and Walters also point out that

Unionized workers are more likely than their nonunionized counterparts to receive paid leave, are approximately 18% to 28% more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are 23% to 54% more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans.

These benefits are not included in a minimum wage increase, yet they are extremely important to helping people stay at the ‘living wage’ threshold. It used to be the case that a majority firms offered employer-based health insurance. However, over the last thirty years, the number of firms offering this benefit has been on the decline along with the presence of unions in the labor market. Since it was the strong unionized labor force the procured benefits like employer-provided health insurance in the first place, it shouldn’t be a surprise that as unions have decreased so have worker benefits.

Unions and Equity

 Liberals support minimum wage legislation also to establish a sense of equity in society. This goal will not be achieved through a minimum wage increase, and in fact, supporting an increase may be further perpetuating a system of inequality. In Why Nations Fail, M.I.T. economist Daron Acemoglu and the Harvard political scientist James A. Robinson provide an account of what factors contribute to the constitution of a successful and flourishing nation. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman does a nice job of summarizing the main thesis of the book, “nations thrive when they develop ‘inclusive’ political and economic institutions, and they fail when those institutions become ‘extractive’ and concentrate power and opportunity in the hands of only a few. The important thing is that you need to have both a politically and economically inclusive system, because they depend on each other. Without one, you will lose the other, and that in turn creates a downward spiral into collapse and failure.

What does this have to do with Unions? My contention is this: the best way to ensure that the people experience political and economic inclusivity is through the presence of unions and collective bargaining in the work force.

We have already seen that unions are effective at improving the economic well-being of its members. However, members of society still need political inclusivity. Interestingly, in their conclusion, Mishel and Walters make an important observation, namely that, “unions enable due process in the workplace and facilitate a strong worker voice in the broader community and in politics.” Unlike an increase in the minimum wage, an increase in unionization can help citizens improve their political standing along with their economic position.

Citizen’s United

It is quite clear that we have become a very economic exclusive society with extreme income inequality, relatively high-poverty, and an low social mobility.

When it comes to the status of political inclusivity, things are a little more gray. It would seem that the US must be politically inclusive because it is a democratic-republic and everybody has the right to vote for elected leaders. However, the rise of big-money in politics has greatly changed the political landscape. In the current system corporations have the right to spend money on political campaigns, so companies like Bank of America and Goldman Sach’s donating over a million dollars to political campaigns through Super PACs. These extremely large donations allow significant access to the candidate, and a platform to communicate what they would like to see from their candidate while in office.

Low income and middle class citizens are losing political power, because their one vote is not as valuable as a million dollars in campaign financing, and unfortunately, it seems there is no solution to this problem except for reversing Citizen’s United, which is not a promising outlook.

If this problem cannot be fixed directly through the political sector, maybe it can be solved through unionization. Collective bargaining is a form of political power. Unions have a history of being key players in political movements such as the struggle for civil rights, the fight for Fair Employment Practices Commission, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, etc.

If conservatives and liberals really are interested into making the United States a thriving democracy, we really need to rethink our attitude towards Unions. They may be our best option for preserving and restoring economic and political inclusion which are fundamental components of a successful society.

[EPI] [NY Times] [OpenSecrets] [CBPP] [EPI – Mishel]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/401(K) 2012]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Conservatives & Liberals Are Both Wrong About Minimum Wage appeared first on Law Street.

Before the 2014 midterm elections start to heat up, I want to challenge a popular campaign phrase we are bound to hear from Republican candidates: “we are headed for European socialism.” It was especially, popular with candidates like Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich during the 2012 presidential election as an attack against President Obama. Republicans have offered no case as to why this is such a dubious fate; rather they are expecting it to be self-evident that we shouldn’t want to be like our allies in Europe. I did some research on how these countries compare to the United States. It became quite apparent that contrary to what conservatives claim, becoming more like the most ‘socialist’ nations (the Nordic countries – which ascribe to what the Nordic Socialist Model) in Europe would in fact be a great thing.

1. Citizens of European Nations Have More Freedom

Every year the Legatum Institute produces a Prosperity Index, which attempts to rank nations productivity by including more factors than just GDP growth. They claim that “most people would agree that prosperity is more than just the accumulation of material wealth, it is also the joy of everyday life and the prospect of being able to build an even better life in the future.” Thus, the Prosperity Index not only measures economic growth, but also accounts for the overall well-being of a nation’s citizens in its attempt to index countries’ prosperity. One of the subcategories that helps them develop their Prosperity Index is the level of personal freedom citizens have with in a given country. According to their 2012 report, the United States ranks 14th in terms of the level of personal freedom its citizens experience. Ahead of the United States are ten European nations, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. Additionally four of the six countries that adopt the Nordic Socialist Model are ahead of the United States. This ranking was based on measurements of tolerance for immigrants, tolerance for minorities, civil liberty & free choice, and satisfaction with freedom of choice.

 2. European Countries Have the Lowest Gender Gap

According to the 2012 Global Gender Gap Report by the World Economic Forum, the United States ranks 22nd in the level of equality between men and women. Ahead of the United States are thirteen European nations including all six of the countries that adopt the Nordic Socialist Model. In fact, three of the top four nations with greatest equality between men and women are Nordic countries. These rankings are developed by measuring economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.

3. European Nations are the Happiest Countries in the World

The 2013 World Happiness Report ranks the United States as the 17th happiest nation in the world. There are eight european nations ahead of the United States, and all six of the nations within the Nordic Socialist Model are included in those eight. In fact, the top five happiest countries in the world are all Nordic, and Finland is just two spots behind at seventh.

4. European Nations are More Economically Free

The Cato Institute’s “Economic Freedom of the World: 2013 Annual Report” ranks the United States as the 17th most economically free nation in the world. Ahead of the United States are three of the six  countries (Switzerland, Finland, and Denmark) within the Nordic Socialist Model. The remaining three are not far behind at 29th, 30th, and 31st respectively. According to the Cato Institute, “The foundations of economic freedom are personal choice, voluntary exchange, and open markets.”

5. European Countries Have Better Youth Education

The OECD produces an annual comprehensive world education ranking report, known as PISA, which scores students of industrialized nations in reading, math, and science. According to the 2012 report, students of the United States rank 36th overall, and specifically 24th in reading, 36th in math, and 28th in science. Ahead of the United States are twenty-one european nations, and five of them belong to the Nordic Socialist Model.

6. European Nations Have Less Income Inequality

In addition to PISA, the OECD ranks industrialized nations based on levels of income inequality. The calculate what is known as the GINI coefficient for each country, “which is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income distribution of a nation’s residents.” Out of all thirty-four nations that were ranked, the United States (with a GINI coefficient of approximately 0.37) is the fourth most unequal society behind Turkey, Chile, and Mexico. The top ten nations with the least amount of inequality are all European countries, and four of them are Nordic. The other two Nordic Socialist countries can be found within the top fifteen most equal nations in the world.

7. European Nations Have Much Lower Levels of Poverty

If you don’t think severe income inequality is a problem, maybe you will find this statistic to be more eye-opening. The OECD also creates a ranking system for the level of poverty found within industrialized nations. In their 2010 report, they found that the United States is the country with the fifth highest level of poverty, among the thirty-four nations they ranked. Ahead of the US is Turkey, Chile, Mexico, and Israel. Just like with income inequality, the top ten nations with the lowest levels of poverty are all European countries, with four of the belonging to the Nordic Socialist Model; the other two Nordic countries can be found in the top sixteen nations.

8. European Nations Have Greater Levels of Social Capital

The Prosperity Index of the Legatum Institute also produces a ranking of countries based on social capital. They calculate this ranking by measuring the level of certain factors such as reliability of others, volunteering, helping strangers, donations, religious attendance, trust of others, and marriage. The Legatum Institute’s 2012 report has the United States as the 10th country with the highest level of social capital. Also within the top ten, and ahead of the United States, are seven european nations, and five of them are Nordic Socialist countries.

9. European Nations Have a Freer Press

An organization named Reporters Without Borders produces an annual report ranking nations based on the freedom of their press. Their mission as an organization is to “promote and defend the freedom to be informed and to inform others throughout the world.” According to their 2013 World Press Freedom Index, the United States ranks 32nd. Ahead of the US are more than a dozen European nations and all of the Nordic Socialist countries. In fact, five of the top ten nations with the freest press are all Nordic.

10. European Nations are Healthier / Have Better Healthcare

For the first time in its history, the World Health Organization produced a ranking of nations based on the overall quality of health care back in 2000. They have yet to produce another ranking, as there was great controversy surrounding the project. Nevertheless, their findings still may be of interest. They found the United States to have the 37th best health care system in the world. This very low placement is quite shocking considering how much money we spend on healthcare. Again, more than a dozen european nations are ahead of the US in this ranking, including all six of the Nordic Socialist Countries. Many dispute these findings by questioning the methodologies that were employed. Regardless, the fact remains that Europeans are healthier than Americans. According to Bloomberg’s World’s Healthiest Countries Ranking, the United States is the 33rd healthiest nation in the world, behind many european nations and all six of the Nordic countries.

So what would it be like to live in the most socialist of the european countries? You would be happier, have more personal freedom, be better off as a woman, be more economically free, your kids would be smarter, you would be subject to less income inequality, there would be less poverty, you would have access to more social capital, you would have a freer press, you would pay less for better healthcare, and you would be healthier. So let’s drop the ‘we are headed for European Socialism’ argument and discuss the real issues in America.

 —

Bo Donoghue

Featured Image Courtesy of [tpsdave via Pixabay]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debunking Election Myths: 10 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Fear ‘European Socialism’ appeared first on Law Street.

Colleges all over the country are banning smoking on campus. Many students feel as though such measures are a challenge to their rights, while others are strongly campaigning for the smoking bans. As schools continue to deliberate on whether they will follow the national trend, they must answer another difficult question: should electronic smoking devices be included? E-Cigarettes are becoming more popular, especially with youths, and is now a 1.5 billion dollar industry based on 2013 estimates.

Some universities have already taken a proactive stance on this issue. The University of Illionis and Ohio State University, in addition to many others, plan to ban e-cigarettes along with the smoking of all tobacco products. Is it possible that such action against e-cigarettes is just a knee-jerk reaction to a misunderstood piece of technology? It seems that a brief investigation into the potential dangers of e-cigarettes and tobacco will help shape our ethical intuition on whether they should be included in the bans.

Most people align electronic smoking devices with traditional tobacco products because intuitively it makes sense to lump them all together. Thus, a ban on smoking tobacco ‘should’ entail a ban on using electronic smoking devices. I think it is fair to say that this ‘lumping together’ may be a hasty action. There are noticeable differences between such products, and further research will only continue to confirm this. Those who want to ban smoking tobacco from college campuses have a justification for wishing to do so. The question is, do e-cigarettes meet the justifications that support banning smoking of tobacco? If they do, then maybe it is intelligible to lump them together with tobacco products. If not, then maybe it is an unfair move to prohibit such devices on campuses.

What is the justification for sweeping bans against tobacco smoking?

The most powerful argument for ‘legislation’ that supports the banning of smoking would be the harmful effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). There have been many studies such as the 1997 Californian Environmental Protection Agency that report on the health effects of exposure to ETS. They “concluded that chronic, cumulative exposure—such as experienced by those living for years with smokers or who work in indoor environments where smoking is permitted—can increase the probability of dying from lung cancer by 20 percent, from heart disease by 30 percent, and can exacerbate asthma in children by 60 to 100 percent.” However, these documented health concerns, and many others, arise from exposure to second hand smoke while indoors. We find that the risks involved with second-hand smoke and the threat of ETS changes quite significantly when smoking occurs outside. This has to do with the fact that smoke can dissipate at a much greater rate because “unlike indoor tobacco smoke, which can persist for hours, researchers found that outdoor smoke disappears rapidly,” says Neil Klepeis, assistant professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

In fact, research published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene documented the presence of ETS on college campuses in the outdoors. They found that exposure to ETS is highly relative to the proximity of the smoker. Once you are more than six feet away from the source of the ETS, the risks greatly diminish to the point where no threat is present. In a six week experiment by researchers at the University of Georgia, “students spent periods of six hours at a time seated in outdoor areas—including a bar, restaurant, and open area on the school’s campus—where smoking was permitted.” Interestingly, they found that, students sitting in an open-air part of campus experienced negligible levels of tobacco exposure.

Does this mean anybody should be able to smoke anywhere outside? Probably not. Researchers have discovered that when you are in close proximity to a smoker outdoors, you are exposed to high concentrations of toxic ETS. However, there seems to be good evidence to support the safety of designated smoking areas. The data indicates that there is no risk of exposure to the negative effects correlated with ETS when one is a safe distance away (usually more than six feet). It appears that the justification for campus wide bans on traditional tobacco products may stand on shaky ground and is ethically questionable.

What does this mean for electronic smoking devices?

It is clear that banning devices such as e-cigarettes is simply a convenience policy and one that lacks substantial justification. This is for two reasons. First, e-cigarettes do not release nearly the same amount of toxins into the air associated with tobacco products. I will say that there is still more research that needs to be done on e-cigarettes, and that my claim could be proven false with more research. However, preliminary studies have shown these devices to be much less dangerous than tobacco. In a recent study published in Nicotine and Tobacco Research, change in air quality was measured as people and machines generated vapor in an enclosed space. (Vapor is produced from e-cigarettes, as opposed to smoke.) There were two important discoveries from the study. The first is the significantly smaller levels of nicotine in the air. Reuters reports,

the researchers measured nicotine levels of 2.5 micrograms per cubic meter of air in the first study. Nicotine levels from e-cigarettes in the second study were slightly higher at about 3.3 micrograms per cubic meter. But tobacco cigarette smoking resulted in nicotine levels ten times higher at almost 32 micrograms per cubic meter. 

Compared to tobacco, electronic smoking devices release twelve times less nicotine into the air. It is also important to note that nicotine is not as dangerous as some may believe. Maciej Goniewicz, a cancer researcher in the Department of Health Behavior at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, says “the exposure to nicotine is lower when compared to exposure from tobacco smoke. And we also know that nicotine is relatively safer when compared to other dangerous toxicants in tobacco smoke.”

Another important finding from the study was that the presence of toxins was also significantly less. The researchers found that “E-cigarettes also produced some particulate matter, but regular cigarettes produced about seven times more. E-cigarettes didn’t change the amount of carbon monoxide or other gases in the air.” The distinction between the level toxins and nicotine released into the air from electronic cigarettes and tobacco should give cause for universities to cease from lumping them together. There really is a difference.

Second, banning e-cigarettes lacks substantial justification is that all of the stated harms associated with e-cigarettes have been discovered from studies conducted indoors, in enclosed spaces. There has yet to be any research into the effects of e-cigarettes on air quality when it occurs outside. However, I think we can make some assumptions what the research will yield, based on the findings from traditional tobacco smoke. We see a significant drop in the threat of ETS when smoking occurs outside. It seems plausible to conclude that e-cigarettes, when smoked in the outdoors, will not present a serious threat to others around them. We also know that indoors, electronic smoking devices produce much smaller amounts of nicotine and particulate matter. At the very least, designated smoking areas seems to be more than enough precaution. Universities should halt their hasty, and unsubstantiated, movements to rid these devices from campus. They need to justify their case for such actions, as it appears to be ethically and scientifically questionable.

 [NY Daily News] [Tobacco Control] [Stanford] [Time] [BusinessWeek] [The Lantern]

—

Bo Donoghue

Featured image courtesy of [Lindsay Fox via Flickr]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Banning E-Cigarettes on College Campuses is a Questionable Policy appeared first on Law Street.