Voice For Liberty

Tag: Politics

  • Kansas Health Care Freedom legislation: The real story

    By Kansas Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook, R-Shawnee

    We need honesty and integrity in campaigns. It is crucial that Kansas citizens receive correct information about legislators’ voting records and not just rhetoric with platitudes. Kansas Senate President Steve Morris said he never supported the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. However, his actions and votes indicate he was not willing to protect Kansas citizens and their liberty against the controversial federal health care law.

    Over the course of three years, President Morris was continually asked to allow a vote on the Senate floor for a Kansas Health Care Freedom Amendment so Kansas citizens would be able to vote for it on the ballot this year and continue to act freely concerning their own health care decisions. State sovereignty as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in our U.S. Constitution gives the primary duty to the state to protect the liberty of the people in regards to their health care. However, the legislation was repeatedly given roadblocks in the Senate and it was necessary to maneuver the measure around several Senate leadership-imposed barriers.

    Please review the votes from official Senate journals so you are not deceived by “Washington-DC style politics.” The accurate historical record with links to these journals is on www.kansashealthcarefreedom.com, which also explains the voting gymnastics that transpired over the years.

    In 2010, the proposed constitutional amendment was referred to two committees and a subcommittee (usually a bill is only referred to one committee by leadership). One committee passed it without a recommendation, and the second committee referred it to a subcommittee. In the final hours before adjournment, a motion was made to move the measure out of committee. President Morris voted against this motion. (Senate Journal April 28, 2910. A “Yea” vote was in favor of health care freedom. Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Barnett, Brownlee, Bruce, Colyer, Donovan, Huelskamp, Kelsey, Lynn, Marshall, Masterson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Schmidt D, Taddiken, Wagle. Nays: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Huntington, Kelly, Kultala, Lee, McGinn, Morris, Owens, Reitz, Schmidt V, Schodorf, Steineger, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil.)

    In the 2011 session, I amended the language of the Health Care Freedom Amendment into a prescription health care bill on the Senate floor as the “Kansas Health Care Freedom Act” — a law instead of a constitutional amendment. President Morris voted against the floor amendment. Only after the amendment was added and it was obvious the measure was going to pass is when “every” Republican in the Kansas Senate voted for it. (Senate Journal Mar 22, 2011. A “Yea” vote was in favor of health care freedom. Yeas: Abrams, Apple, Bruce, Huntington, Kelsey, King, Longbine, Love, Lynn, Marshall, Masterson, McGinn, Merrick, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Schmidt V, Schodorf, Steineger, Taddiken, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil, Wagle. Nays: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Haley, Hensley, Kultala, Morris, Owens, Reitz, Schmidt A. Present and Passing: Francisco, Holland, Kelly. Absent or Not Voting: Donovan.)

    In the 2012 session, the Health Care Freedom Amendment was defeated in the Senate. Interestingly, seven senators who voted for final passage first voted to send the measure back to committee. (Senate Journal Feb. 23, 2012. A “Nay” vote is in favor of health care freedom. Yeas: Brungardt, Emler, Faust-Goudeau, Francisco, Haley, Hensley, Holland, Kelly, Kultala, Longbine, McGinn, Morris, Owens, Reitz, A. Schmidt, V. Schmidt, Teichman, Umbarger, Vratil. Nays: Abrams, Apple, Bruce, Donovan, Kelsey, King, Love, Lynn, Marshall, Masterson, Merrick, Olson, Ostmeyer, Petersen, Pilcher-Cook, Pyle, Schodorf, Steineger, Taddiken, Wagle. Present and Passing: Huntington.)

    As far as money being involved in politics, President Steve Morris is in charge of a Senate Leadership PAC that receives out-of-state money and spends massive amounts sending out nasty and false attacks on fellow Republicans who did not vote for President Morris to be in his leadership position. President Steve Morris voted against abolishing this PAC last session.

    When there are conflicting views, please get the facts and evaluate the votes. On Tuesday, August 7, be prepared to vote for the candidates who stand with integrity about their votes.

  • Wichita Eagle voter guide available

    For the voter guide for the November 2012 elections, click here.

    The Wichita Eagle voter guide is now available online.

    This guide may be used in two ways: you can enter your address, and the system will show you information about the candidates that will appear on your ballot. Or, you can browse all the races and candidates.

    The information in this guide is provided by the candidates (except for a brief description of each office), and there is no editorial comment. Some of this information will probably appear in a printed version of the newspaper, but not for contests like precinct committeeman and committeewoman.

    Access the voter guide by clicking on Wichita Eagle voter guide.

  • In Kansas, political signs are okay, despite covenants

    It’s common for neighborhoods to have restrictive covenants that prohibit homeowners from placing any signs in their yard, except for signs advertising homes for sale. But a 2008 Kansas law overrides these restrictive covenants to allow for the placement of small political yard signs starting 45 days before an election. Still, residents of covenant neighborhoods may want to observe their neighborhood’s restrictions, even though they are not valid under the law.

    The bill was the product of then-Senator Phil Journey of Haysville. The bill passed unanimously in both the Kansas House and Senate.

    According to the First Amendment Center, some 50 million people live in neighborhoods with homeowners associations. And laws like the 2008 Kansas law are not without controversy, despite the unanimous vote in the Kansas Legislature.

    While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that governmental entities like cities can’t stop homeowners from displaying political yard signs, a homeowners association is not government. Instead, it is a group that people voluntarily enter.

    Generally, when prospective homeowners purchase a home in a neighborhood with restrictive covenants, they are asked to sign a document pledging to comply with the provisions in the covenants. If those covenants prohibit political yard signs, but a Kansas law says these covenants do not apply, what should a homeowner do?

    Practically: Should you display signs in your yard?

    While Kansas law makes it legal for those living in communities with covenants that prohibit political yard signs, residents may want to observe these convents. Here’s why: If neighbors are not aware of this new Kansas law and therefore still believe that the yard signs are not allowed in your neighborhood, they may think residents with signs in their yards are violating the covenants. By extension, this could reflect poorly on the candidates that are being promoted.

    The people who believe the covenants against yard signs are valid are misinformed, but they may vote. Whether to display yard signs in a covenant neighborhood is a judgment that each person will have to make for themselves.

    The Kansas statute

    K.S.A. 58-3820. Restrictive covenants; political yard signs; limitations. (a) On and after the effective date of this act, any provision of a restrictive covenant which prohibits the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, during a period commencing 45 days before an election and ending two days after the election is hereby declared to be against public policy and such provision shall be void and unenforceable.

    (b) The provisions of this section shall apply to any restrictive covenant in existence on the effective date of this act.

    Or, as described in the 2008 Summary of Legislation: “The bill invalidates any provision of a restrictive covenant prohibiting the display of political yard signs, which are less than six square feet, 45 days before an election or two days after the election.”

  • Wichita fails ethics test

    Yesterday Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and a majority of the Wichita City Council failed a test, showing that Wichita elected officials, except for one, aren’t interested in ethical behavior.

    The problem is worse than portrayed in a Wichita Eagle editorial, which commented on the appearance of the mayor’s and council’s action. In Wichita, we don’t have the mere appearance of a problem, we have an actual and real problem.

    The problem, in a nutshell, is that the mayor and all members of the city council except for Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) don’t see that’s a problem for them to award no-bid contracts to campaign contributors. They also don’t see that it’s wrong to preside over a hearing in a quasi-judicial manner and award contracts to a campaign contributor. See For Wichita government, an ethics tipping point and Wichita City Council can’t judge airport contract.

    In some states and cities, the routine action of the mayor and council members would be illegal. It ought to be illegal in Kansas. There was no discussion from the council bench about this, and none in the executive session council members took.

    Coincidentally, a group spoke during the public agenda portion of Tuesday’s council meeting about their concern for what they say is the corrupting influence of campaign money in politics.

    None of the group stayed to observe the city council provide a lesson in how most of Wichita’s elected officials willfully ignore the issues the group is concerned with. From the bench Vice Mayor Janet Miller (district 6, north central Wichita) spoke approvingly of the group’s cause. But last year Miller voted for a no-bid contract to be awarded to her campaign contributors, and she voted in Tuesday’s airport contract hearing.

    The behavior of Mayor Brewer and most members of the council gives new urgency for the Kansas Legislature to pass pay-to-play laws, which generally prohibit officeholders from voting on matters that financially benefit their campaign contributors. We can call it “Carl’s Law.” See Wichita and Kansas need pay-to-play laws.

    An example of a pay-to-play law is a charter provision of the city of Santa Ana, in Orange County, California, which states: “A councilmember shall not participate in, nor use his or her official position to influence, a decision of the City Council if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, apart from its effect on the public generally or a significant portion thereof, on a recent major campaign contributor.”

    Kansas has no such law. Certainly Wichita does not, where pay-to-play is seen by many citizens as a way of life — the Wichita way.

  • Wichita City Council can’t judge airport contract

    On Tuesday the Wichita City Council will conduct a hearing for review of the award of a contract for the construction of the new Wichita Airport terminal. But because of relationships between nearly all council members — especially Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer — and one of the parties to the dispute, the city council should not participate in this decision.

    The contract, worth about $100 million, was awarded to Dondlinger and Sons and its partner. Dondlinger has built many large projects, including INTRUST Bank Arena. But the city then ruled that Dondliger’s bid is “unresponsive.” The reason is that Dondlinger may not have met bid requirements regarding disadvantaged and minority business enterprises.

    The firm next in line to receive the contract is Key Construction of Wichita. If the city council finds against Dondllinger, Key gets the contract, presumably. That’s the source of the problem the city council faces, as Key is heavily involved in politics, with its executives and their spouses often making the maximum allowed campaign contributions to nearly all members of the council. Personal relationships may play a role, too.

    For the mayor and current council members, here is my tabulation of how much Key-associated persons made to each member’s most recent campaign:

    Carl Brewer: $4,500
    Jeff Longwell (district 5, west and northwest Wichita): $4,000
    Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita): $3,000
    Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita): $2,500
    Janet Miller (district 6, north central Wichita): $1,500
    James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita): $1,000
    Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita): $0

    Is there a pattern to these contributions? That is, does Key make contributions to candidates with a specific political philosophy, such as conservatism or liberalism? Of the top three contributors, two have distinctly liberal ideas about taxation and spending, while the other is touting conservative credentials as he campaigns for another office. Patterns like this suggest that the contributions are made to gain access to officeholders, or for favorable consideration when the donor asks the council to vote to give it money or contracts. Key Construction does that a lot.

    Wichita mayor Carl Brewer with major campaign donor Dave Wells of Key Construction.

    The political influence of Key Construction extends beyond campaign contributions, too. Mayor Brewer’s personal Facebook profile has a photo album holding pictures of him on a fishing trip with Dave Wells of Key Construction.

    These political investments have paid off for Key Construction, as it has received a number of no-bid contracts over the years. Last August the council decided to award Key a no-bid contract to build the parking garage that is part of the Ambassador Hotel project. The no-bid cost of the garage was to be $6 million, according to a letter of intent. All council members except Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) voted for the no-bid contract to Key Construction, although Mayor Carl Brewer was absent. It is likely that he would have voted with the majority, however.

    Later the city decided to place the contract for bid. Key Construction won the bidding, but for a price some $1.3 million less.

    What citizens need to know is that the city council, except O’Donnell, was willing to spend an extra $1.3 million on a project awarded to a politically-connected construction firm.

    So should the Wichita City Council make the decision on the airport contract? City documents don’t indicate whether Tuesday’s hearing is of a quasi-judicial nature, as it is sometimes when the council rules on certain matters involving appeal of decisions made by city authorities. But the council is being asked to make decisions involving whether discretion was abused or whether laws were improperly applied.

    That sounds a lot like the role of judges. In 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, in the words of legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, “… significant campaign contributions or other electoral assistance pose a risk of actual bias. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said: ‘Just as no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause so too can fears of bias arise when a man chooses the judge in his own cause.’”

    Judicial Watch also noted “The ruling will likely affect judges in 39 states that elect them — including Washington, Texas and California — from presiding over cases in which their campaign contributions could create a conflict of interest. The nation’s judicial code has long said that judges should disqualify themselves from proceedings in which impartiality might reasonably be questioned, but the Supreme Court ruling is the first to address hefty election spending.”

    The mayor and council members are not judges. But they’re being asked to make a judge-like decision. If held to the same standards as the U.S. Supreme Court says judges must follow, Mayor Brewer and the five council members who accepted campaign contributions from Key Construction need to recuse themselves from Tuesday’s decision on the Wichita Airport construction contract. A similar argument can be made for city manager Robert Layton and all city employees. Directly or indirectly they serve at the pleasure of the council.

    Finally, this episode is another example of why Wichita and Kansas need pay-to-play laws.

  • SWATing a threat to political speech

    Conservative bloggers are being targeted with an illegal and dangerous tactic with the aim of silencing or moderating their voices. The tactic is SWATing (from the police special forces often named Special Weapons and Tactics). The perpetrator makes a telephone call to police falsely reporting that a crime — usually a violent crime — has been committed or is in progress at a blogger’s home.

    Erick Erickson of the prominent conservative blog RedState relates the story of his SWATing: “Sunday night as my family and sister’s family were around the dinner table and playing outside, sheriff’s deputies pulled into my driveway responding to an accidental shooting at my home. One deputy was in the driveway. Another blocked the end of the driveway with his car. A neighbor tells me another was up the hill from the house. There was no shooting at my home. Someone called 911, claimed to be at my home, and claimed to witness a shooting at my home.”

    Besides the illegality of making a false police report, the tactic is dangerous to both police officers and people at or nearby the targeted address.

    U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia has written to Attorney General Eric Holder expressing his concern regarding the SWATing attacks. In his letter he wrote “Any potentially criminal action that incites fear, seeks to silence a dissenting opinion, and collaterally wastes the resources of law enforcement should be given close scrutiny at all levels.”

    Later he added “The perpetrators appear to be targeting individuals who are vigorously exercising their First Amendment rights to political speech. As you know, these reported efforts to intimidate those who choose to enter the political forum and express their opinions are in conflict with the founding principles of our nation. Regardless of any potential political differences that may exist, threats and intimidation have no place in our national political discourse. Those who choose to enter into that political discourse should not have to worry about potential threats to their or their family’s safety.”

    The purpose of SWATing is to, as Chambliss explained, silence conservative bloggers, or make them less likely to write posts and articles. Besides the attempt to tamp down civil debate and discourse, the SWATing technique is illegal and potentially deadly. It goes beyond bullying. Those who use it are domestic terrorists.

    The use of SWATing against conservatives stands in contrast to a recent New York Times column by Charles M. Blow. In the column, Blow uses the bullying of an elderly bus monitor to draw a larger conclusion: Republicans are bullies. “… bullying has become boilerplate. Hiss and taunt. Tease and intimidate. Target your enemies and torture them mercilessly. Maintain primacy through predation.”

    Later Blow wrote “But bullying is always about power — projecting more than you have in order to accrue more than your share.” That describes SWATing: Illegally summoning police power to target and intimidate your enemies.

  • KNEA email a window into teachers union

    An email from an official of Kansas National Education Association (KNEA) asks union members to switch their voter registration party in order to vote in Republican party primaries.

    The fear of the teachers union is that control of the Kansas Senate may fall into hands of conservative members instead of the coalition of Democrats and liberal Republicans that forms the working majority in that chamber. If that happens, it would not be good for union members’ “professional interests,” says the email.

    The email, printed in its entirety below, is from Tony White, Director of UniServ Southeast. UniServs are regional offices that provide services to teachers union members.

    In the email, White tells union members that state revenues will be reduced by 40 to 50 percent as a result of the recent Kansas tax reform legislation. This is a great exaggeration. Projections by Kansas Legislative Research indicate a decline of revenue of about 12 percent from 2013 to 2014. After that year revenue rises each year, and by 2018 revenue is projected to rise to nearly the level of 2012.

    White also writes that due process — tenure, in other words — and bargaining for salaries may be lost. While both of these reforms would be good for Kansas schoolchildren and taxpayers, they don’t seem likely very soon in Kansas.

    Surprisingly, the email never mentions what the Kansas school establishment and the teachers union fears most: accountability through market-based competition. This could happen through charter schools, vouchers, or tax credit scholarships. It is this accountability that teachers unions fear most. So far Governor Sam Brownback has not forcefully advocated for these reforms that would greatly help Kansas children.

    The tone of the email, overall, is that it is teachers that are important. Never once are schoolchildren mentioned. This email is another example of how the Kansas school spending establishment, of which KNEA is a prime member and political force, exists for the benefit of adults, not children and parents.

    Subject: KNEA Email
    Tony.White@KNEA.ORG 6/16/2012 6:13 PM
    Although this might seem like a rather personal request, I’d like you to register to vote, and more specifically, to register to vote as a Republican.

    That way you can vote for a supporter of public schools in the August 7 primary in either Senate 13 (Marshall v LaTurner) or new Senate 15 (Umbarger v King). The winner of those primaries will undoubtedly be the winner in November, and if you’re not a registered Republican, you don’t get to help make that decision.

    Here’s the email I sent to our members, and the links to change one’s registration.

    AND TELL ANYONE ELSE YOU KNOW THAT CAN HELP OUT. It’s no time for being shy. We’ll regret losing this next election for a long, long time.

    Subject: Registration and Voting

    I am sending this information (and a few opinions, too) to you as a KNEA member in SEK.

    I realize about every election we tell you how important this one is. Those elections sure did seem important at the time. But this summer in the Republican primary Senate races and then this fall in some of the House races, the stakes simply could not be higher for teachers and for schools.

    And right out of the gate, when I talk elections and politics, I means our Kansas races for Kansas House and especially the Kansas Senate.

    With the electoral college system and our current Congresswoman, there’s no point spending any time or energy on the national level. It’s a lost cause. But when it comes to teachers and schools, it matters more what happens in Topeka anyway, and we can affect those!

    If we don’t retain the moderate majority in the State Senate, we will be in a world of hurt. The tax cuts signed this spring by Governor Brownback – if unchecked — will reduce state revenue by 40-50%, and the deep cuts to schools and every other state service or function — will inevitably follow. Teacher protections like due process and the right to bargain salaries will probably be lost. Our current public school system will be unrecognizable.

    That’s if we lose this election. So, let’s win it.

    How can you help?

    Vote in the Republican primary on Tuesday August 7. Vote for our moderate Republican incumbent friends, for 4-term Senator Dwayne Umbarger and for Senator Bob Marshall. They have supported us, and it’s time to step up and help them.

    1. If you’re already a registered Republican, you’re ready to go. Make sure you vote.

    2. If you’re registered to vote, but not registered as a Republican, you need to switch. Otherwise, you can’t vote in the primary, and frankly, these two critical races will be settled in the primary in
    August. The primary winner will cruise in November.

    3. If you’re now a Democrat, you need to switch to a Republican. I know, I know, but otherwise you can’t vote in the election that counts, and that’s the Republican primary. I did it today, just like we have over the years to vote for Jana Shaver or Val DeFever for State Board. You can switch right back after the election, and we promise not to tease you about it.

    How does one register in the first place? Or change registration to a Republican? It’s the same form, and you can even do it online. Here’s the online link: https://www.kdor.org/voterregistration/Default.aspx

    You use your driver’s license. I just tried the link and it worked fine. It’s submitted to the Clerk in Crawford County and they’ll mail me a confirmation. I’m a Republican!

    But if the site gives you trouble, there is also the old-fashioned paper form: http://www.kssos.org/forms/elections/voterregistration.pdf

    One prints it, fills it out and takes it in to the county clerk or mails it in. The addresses for all 105 counties are right there on the back of the form.

    Registration has to be done by July 17 – or you’re locked out of the primary. So get your paperwork right so you can vote to protect our profession and our schools.

    And print off extra copies of the form for spouses, adult kids, neighbors, friends, or kindred spirits. If they will vote to support public schools, we want them and need them on August 7. It’s the same form all across Kansas – it just goes to the appropriate clerk of the county where the person lives. Or use the online link.

    And if you want to get involved in either the Umbarger or Marshall campaign, from planting yard signs to letters to the editor to walking with the candidates – just let me know. They both are clearly better for our professional interests than their primary opponent.

  • In Kansas, redistricting went well, after all

    The Kansas political class is upset because a federal court drew new districts they way they should be drawn — compactly and contiguously, and also considering communities of interest.

    The court, in its opinion, explained: “we have developed new legislative maps that distribute population as evenly as practicable between districts, while also considering to a much lesser degree the state’s legislative policies guiding redistricting.”

    In drawing Congressional districts the court took into consideration the Roeck score, a measure of compactness.

    What the court has done is to ignore the desires of the political class. The legislature’s consideration when attempting redistricting was all politics, all the time. Incumbents were protected and not pitted against each other. The residencies of potential challengers to incumbents were considered. The infighting was so protracted that the legislature failed to produce new districts, and is said to have affceted progress on other important legislation.

    It’s good the court didn’t consider the entrenched political class, because they don’t count. The legislature should not be run as a club. Said the court: “We have subordinated protection of incumbents to other state policy factors and, of course, to the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote. … any efforts to protect incumbents would require our choosing among incumbents, an inherently political exercise that we are neither able nor inclined undertake.”

    In creating the new districts for the Kansas House and Senate, the court — unintentionally — imposed a rough and not complete one-time implementation of term limits. In the House, there are 48 districts with more than one incumbent and 25 districts with no incumbent. This means a lot of turnover, which is good. We need fewer professional politicians and more citizens in legislatures. This is not as large a problem in Kansas as in the U.S. Congress, as our legislature meets for four months each year, and legislators are pretty much regular citizens the remainder of the year. But still, the redistricting battle has reminded us that there is indeed a political class in Kansas that believes it is entitled to office, term after term.

    Further evidence of an entrenched political class is the number — five at current count — of incumbents who moved their residence in order to run.

    I believe that Kansans will appreciate the large number of new members that are likely to take office next January. Hopefully the new members will realize the benefit themselves and implement term limits in Kansas. That would require an amendment to the constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote of each chamber of the legislature. Then, the people would have to pass the amendment by a simple majority. It’s quite likely that voters would approve term limits, as they are consistently popular with voters.

    Kansas Governor Sam Brownback does not play a formal role in passing constitutional amendments. His involvement would be to exercise his influence. Brownback, when elected to the U.S. Senate, imposed a two-term limit in himself, and he held true to that pledge. He has spoken in favor of term limits for members of Congress.

  • Regulation for the sake of business

    There are many examples of how the conventional wisdom regarding regulation is wrong, That wisdom being Republicans and conservatives are in bed with government, seeking to unshackle business from the burden of government regulation. Democrats and liberals, on the other hand, are busily crafting regulations to protect the middle class from the evils of big business. As it turns out, both Democrats and Republicans love creating regulations, and big business loves these regulations. Business often uses government regulation as way to harm its competitors or gain advantage for itself, which is contrary to the principles of free markets and capitalism.

    Holman W. Jenkins., Jr. explains how regulation works in the real world: “When some hear the word “regulation,” they imagine government rushing to the defense of consumers. In the real world, government serves up regulation to those who ask for it, which usually means organized interests seeking to block a competitive threat. This insight, by the way, originated with the left, with historians who went back and reconstructed how railroads in the U.S. concocted federal regulation to protect themselves from price competition. We should also notice that an astonishingly large part of the world has experienced an astonishing degree of stagnation for an astonishingly long time for exactly such reasons.” (Let’s Restart the Green Revolution, Wall Street Journal.)

    Another example of a big business using regulation as a competitive weapon comes from 2005 when Walmart came out in favor of raising the national minimum wage. Providing an example of how regulation is pitched as needed for the common good, Walmart’s CEO said that he was concerned for the plight of working families, and that he thought the minimum wage level of $5.15 per hour was too low. If Walmart — a company the political left loves to hate as much as any other — can be in favor of increased regulation of the workplace, can regulation be a good thing? Had Walmart discovered the joys of big government?

    The answer is yes. Walmart discovered a way of using government regulation as a competitive weapon. This is often the motivation for business support of regulation. In the case of Walmart, it was already paying its employees well over the current minimum wage. At the time, some sources thought that the minimum wage could be raised as much as 50 percent and not cause Walmart any additional cost — its employees already made that much.

    But its competitors didn’t pay wages that high. If the minimum wage rose very much, these competitors to Walmart would be forced to increase their wages. Their costs would rise. Their ability to compete with Walmart would be harmed.

    In short, Walmart supported government regulation as a way to impose higher costs on its competitors. It found a way to compete outside the marketplace. It abandoned principles of free markets and capitalism, and provided a lesson as to the difference between capitalism and business. And it did it while appearing noble.

    Many, particularly liberals and progresives, make no distinction between business and capitalism. But we need to learn to recognize the difference if we are to have a thriving economy based on free-wheeling, competitive markets that foster innovation, or continue our decline into unproductive crony capitalism.

    In the following excerpt from his book The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money, author Timothy P. Carney explains that big business is able to use regulation as a blunt and powerful tool against competitors, and also as a way to improve its image, just like Walmart asking for a higher minimum wage.

    How does regulation help big business?

    Excerpt from The Big Ripoff: How Big Business and Big Government Steal Your Money, by Timothy P. Carney

    If regulation is costly, why would big business favor it? Precisely because it is costly.

    Regulation adds to the basic cost of doing business, thus heightening barriers to entry and reducing the number of competitors. Thinning out the competition allows surviving firms to charge higher prices to customers and demand lower prices from suppliers. Overall regulation adds to overhead and is a net boon to those who can afford it — big business.

    Put another way, regulation can stultify the market. If you’re already at the top, stultification is better than the robust dynamism of the free market. And according to Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman:

    The great virtue of free enterprise is that it forces existing businesses to meet the test of the market continuously, to produce products that meet consumer demands at lowest cost, or else be driven from the market. It is a profit-and-loss system. Naturally, existing businesses prefer to keep out competitors in other ways. That is why the business community, despite its rhetoric, has so often been a major enemy of truly free enterprise.

    There is an additional systemic reason why regulation will help big business. Congress passes the laws that order new regulations, and executive branch agencies actually construct the regulations. The politicians and government lawyers who write these rules rarely do so without input. Often the rule makers ask for advice and information from labor unions, consumer groups, environmental groups, and industry itself. Among industry the stakeholders (beltway parlance to describe affected parties) who have the most input are those who can hire the most effective and most connective lobbyists. You can guess this isn’t Mom and Pop.

    As a result, the details of the regulation are often carefully crafted to benefit, or at least not hurt, big business. If something does not hurt you, or hurts you a little while seriously hindering your competition, it is a boon, on balance.

    Another reason big business often cries “regulate me!” is the goodwill factor. If a politician or bureaucrat wants to play a role in some industry, and some executive says, “get lost,” he runs the risk of offending this powerful person. That’s bad diplomacy. Bureaucrats, by their nature, do not like to be told to mind their own business. Supporting the idea of regulation but lobbying for particular details is usually better politics.