COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
VOL. 31, NO. 4 | WINTER 2018
FEATURED ARTICLES
A Case for an Executive Order to
Rein in “Regulatory Dark Matter”
4 BY CLYDE WAYNE CREWS, JR.
BY RYAN YOUNG AND IAIN MURRAY
D
Trump’s Trade War eterioration of checks and balances
Hurts Americans via regulatory overreach and over-
delegation by Congress to agencies are
central to most modern critiques of the
administrative state. Less appreciated,
though, is the extent to which administrative
agencies can influence policy without going
7 through the established rulemaking process.
Agencies have issued reams of guidance
BY ANGELA LOGOMASINI documents consisting of general statements
Unfounded Accusations of policy and interpretive rules—as well as
Regarding Bees and Glyphosate memoranda, interpretive bulletins, and other
issuances—over the years that can carry
regulatory weight.
Congress should both streamline such
decrees and reaffirm that such policy making
via guidance is not binding. However, given
that congressional action is both slow and
10 unlikely in the short term, the president should
issue a new executive order to highlight
BY TREY KOVACS and strengthen the review and control
A Labor Reform both Democrats of sub-regulatory guidance documents.
and Republicans Can Get Behind Over-delegation by Congress to agencies,
overreach by those agencies, and court
deference to that state of affairs have led to
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE this proliferation of regulation.
The 1946 Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) established the public consultation
Congress Already Ruined Sports Betting
Once; Don’t Let Them Do it Again. . . . . . . . . . 5 rulemaking process, which consists of
More Realistic Fuel Economy Rule Would advance notification of rulemaking to
Cut Traffic Fatalities and Lower Gas Prices. . . 6 give the public the opportunity to provide
A Decade after the Financial Crisis, the comment on a published proposed rule
Government Fuels another Housing Bubble.8 before it is finalized in the Federal Register.
Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Unfair Despite its purported safeguards, the APA’s
Class Action Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 rulemaking process allows for wiggle
The Government Should Allow T-Mobile room via its “good cause” exemption, by
and Sprint to Merge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 which an agency may deem notice and
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. . . . . . . . . 14
Media Mentions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
End Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
comment for certain rules as “impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.”
To worsen this weakening of checks and
balances, the APA enables administrative
agencies to influence policy and exert
preferences and biases, without writing
notice-and-comment regulations at all.
The catalog of allegedly sub-
regulatory decrees goes on, encompassing
memoranda, notices, circulars, FAQs,
administrator’s interpretations, bulletins, and
other forms of “regulatory dark matter”—
including even press releases and blog posts.
Such guidance can subvert the APA as a
safeguard against overregulation. Worse,
such widespread use of guidance displays
disregard for constitutional norms.
Such agency edicts are not supposed
to be legally binding on the public, or even
on the agencies themselves. Yet, agencies
sometimes invoke or refer to guidance in
correspondence or interaction with regulated
entities. While businesses frequently request
clarifying guidance, even the Administrative
Conference of the United States (ACUS)
acknowledges that “members of the public
may feel bound by what they perceive as
coercive guidance” and “sometimes find they
have no practical escape from the terms of a
policy statement.”
In addition, a significant amount of both
regulations and guidance is invalid, not
having been submitted to Congress or to
the Comptroller General of the Government
Accountability Office as required by the
1996 Congressional Review Act—which
gives Congress 60 legislative days to review
a final major rule and pass “resolutions of
disapproval” to repeal certain agency rules.
(continued on page 3)
 A Winter Escape from the Regulatory Blahs
by Kent Lassman
M ore than 30 to one. That is the typical ratio of
new regulations issued by agencies to laws
passed by Congress and signed by the president
each year. It is a remarkable and damning
statement about the lack of accountability of the
regulatory state.
However, before that number gets us down too
much, it is worth noting that the Trump administration
FROM THE PRESIDENT
has implemented a rudimentary regulatory budget,
a reform long proposed by CEI that can be an
important first step in reversing the unrestrained
growth of the administrative state. In this issue of CEI
Planet you can read about the next step in CEI’s plan
to limit and right-size regulatory agencies. Wayne
Crews explains how an executive order can further
restrict regulatory dark matter.
In addition, this issue features several articles
to give you more background on critical issues
like Trump’s trade war and a win for federalism on
sports betting. The former need not be a foregone
conclusion and the latter is an area where freedom is
winning. There are updates on regulatory action that
affect safety on America’s highways and how we
grow our food. We bring you the latest on the most
recent case CEI has brought to the Supreme Court,
Frank v. Gaos.
From topical news like a major
telecommunications merger—and how federal
regulators see it as an opportunity to micromanage
the business climate—to critical workplace trends
like members-only unions, the Planet is your window
into how and where the team at CEI is building
momentum steering regulatory policy in the direction
of greater freedom.
You can hear from many of your favorite CEI
experts, who will be in Savannah, Georgia for
our next policy summit February 21-24. Join us for
a mid-winter vacation from the regulatory blahs.
CEI’s Wayne Crews, Iain Murray, Daniel Press,
Marc Scribner, Sam Kazman, and other members
of our team will share with you details on promising
Publisher
Kent Lassman
Editor
Ivan Osorio
Ph (202) 331-1010
Fax (202) 331-0640 Associate Editor
info@cei.org Richard Morrison
ISSN#: 1086-3036
2 CEI.ORG
regulatory reform initiatives, the prospects for
autonomous vehicles, and insights into the future of
FinTech and consumer finance.
In addition to CEI’s stars, several outstanding
guests are planning to join us in Savannah. Aaron
Brown, former chief risk manager at AQR Capital
and author of The Poker Face of Wall Street,
will lead a dinner conversation on the coming
cryptocurrency revolution. As a launching point
for the talk, Aaron will unravel the foresight and
contemporary implications of Friedrich Hayek’s
seminal 1976 volume, The Denationalization of
Money, and the current radical innovation of bitcoin.
Will trustless value exchange on the Internet,
intermediated by cryptocurrencies, change the
concepts of ownership and identity? You may never
own or use cryptocurrencies, but if you live until
2030, Brown argues, they will change who you are,
what you own, and what you can do.
Two respected longtime allies from the think
tank community will also participate to discuss
their recently published books. We’ll hear from
American Enterprise Institute scholar Peter Wallison
on his strategy to reverse executive agency
overreach, which makes up the core of his new
book, Judicial Fortitude: The Last Chance to Rein in
the Administrative State. And Reason co-founder
and policy scholar Bob Poole will outline a radical,
economically sound solution for transforming
our failing roads, as described in his new book,
Rethinking America’s Highways: A 21st Century
Vision for Better Infrastructure.
To participate in this exciting conversation, make
sure to reserve your space. Contact any member
of the CEI team for more information on how to
get involved. We look forward to seeing you in
Savannah!
The CEI Planet is produced by the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, a pro-market public interest group dedicated to
free enterprise and limited government.
CEI is a non-partisan, non-profit organization incorporated in
the District of Columbia and is classified by the IRS as a 501
(c)(3) charity. CEI relies upon contributions from foundations,
corporations, and individuals for its support. Articles may be
reprinted provided they are attributed to CEI.
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
 Dark Matter, continued
Pruning back agency rules,
or pausing their issuance, is only
a first step toward reining in the
administrative state, given agencies’
inclination to resort to regulatory dark
matter to influence policy. Bringing
regulation and guidance under
control and strengthening democratic
accountability will require reining in the
bureaucracies that enable and sustain
rule by unelected professed experts.
Guidance creates a loophole for
regulation. It merits the same high-level,
formal executive branch treatment rules
receive. When government increasingly
dominates vast sectors of human
enterprise and seeks to expand into
new ones, it need not trouble itself with
such formalities as issuing regulations
at all. Over time, agencies discouraged
from issuing traditional rules—whether
by executive order or regulatory
reform legislation—would tend to shift
toward sub-regulatory guidance as a
workaround.
If Congress sees a flurry of new
reports on guidance documents in
part triggered by a new executive
order, that may be the impetus for Help the Competitive
it to finally take steps to scale down Enterprise Institute carry
the administrative state more broadly
by addressing the issue of over- on its work for generations
delegated power. If Congress wants by joining the Legacy
a new rule or guidance, it can vote to
enact it. It is long past time to rein in of Liberty Society
agency overreach via regulatory dark
matter. We must, one way or another,
learn whether guidance is governable.
Thanks to the generous support of our friends,
the Competitive Enterprise Institute has
remained a successful advocate for liberty for
Wayne Crews (wayne.crews@cei.org) is nearly 35 years. The Legacy of Liberty Society
Vice President for Policy at CEI. recognizes the faithful support of any donor
who desires to advance the principles of free
enterprise and limited government through
his or her will, trust, life income gift, retirement

CEI Summit 2019

plan, life insurance dedication, or another
planned giving instrument.
Contributions to CEI are tax deductible. We
accept gifts via check, credit card, cash, or

Savannah, Georgia, Bitcoin—as well as stock or other securities

and assets. CEI also accepts contributions in a

February 21-24, 2019

will or trust. Including CEI in your estate plans
is easy, and can be altered as needed.
Consult your tax professional about the limits
and conditions regarding charitable deduc-
tions and your tax situation. For contributions
in a will or trust, consult a tax or estate profes-
sional for language that is appropriate for
your estate and financial situation.

Join CEI in the charming “Business Belle of the South”

If you would like to join the Legacy
for its third annual summit. Stay with us at the new Perry of Liberty Society or learn more
Lane Hotel, in the heart of Savannah’s historic district, and about the impact you can make
engage with CEI policy experts, special guest speakers, through one of CEI’s giving societies,
please contact CEI’s Philanthropy
and friends for an intellectually stimulating weekend.
team at (202) 331-1010 for more
information.
This is a ticketed event. To secure your spot or for additional details, please Andy Yuan
contact Amanda France at amanda.france@cei.org or 202.331.2764. Philanthropy Department
andy.yuan@cei.org | (202) 331-1010

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE C E I . O R G 3

 Trump’s Trade War Hurts Americans
of goods from the United States, both
BY RYAN YOUNG AND IAIN MURRAY sides are better off. Americans have
gotten $592 billion worth of value
When governments
T he Trump administration recently
announced a trade agreement that
from trade with the EU, while sending
only $500 billion of goods across
impose retaliatory
will replace the 24-year-old North
American Free Trade Agreement
the Atlantic. The “deficit” is actually a
surplus of value. Both sides win.
tariffs, they are
(NAFTA) with the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement. The new
Governments can prevent that
win-win from happening by imposing
essentially saying:
agreement is not that different from
NAFTA. Given the president’s affinity
tariffs or regulatory standards that
raise the cost so much that their citizens
“We are going to
for government-managed trade, that’s
a good thing. Although the negotiations
are no longer willing to pay. In doing
so, governments deny their citizens
hold our consumers
missed some significant reform
opportunities, the new agreement
the opportunity to improve their lives.
When governments impose retaliatory
hostage until you
leaves intact the mostly tariff-free
relationship between the United States,
tariffs, they are essentially saying:
“We are going to hold our consumers
stop holding your
Canada, and Mexico.
The most obvious missed
hostage until you stop holding your
consumers hostage!”
consumers hostage!”
opportunity is that recent U.S. tariffs Yet, the full effects of tariffs are
worse than that. They amount to In fact, the Tax Foundation calculates
against Canadian and Mexican steel
government intervention in the market that the effect of tariffs imposed so far
and aluminum will remain in place,
to favor some economic activities over already outweighs the benefits of the
allegedly for national security reasons.
others. Thus, a new steel plant has to tax cuts.
These tariffs are unjust and harmful to
be viewed alongside the increased There are other ways to achieve
American consumers. Some American
costs to industries that use steel as an the administration’s goals that do not
businesses are going under because
input. Some of those businesses may require imposing pain on American
of them. Jobs are being lost. Prices of
close. Some people gain jobs, others citizens. America and the European
consumer goods like dishwashers are
lose them, but the jobs that are created Union can join together to use the
going up. Meanwhile, ever-increasing
are jobs that exist only because of World Trade Organization to put
tariffs on imports from other countries
the government’s industrial policy pressure on China, for instance, by
like China will further exacerbate
masquerading as trade policy. revoking its status as a developing
these problems. To fully understand
The president’s stated goal of country, which it uses to justify
why these tariffs are not the “win” the
reducing all trade barriers to zero is many of its worst practices. The U.S.
president and his supporters make
a worthy one. He also has a point steel industry can be promoted via
them out to be, we have to think clearly
when he says that China’s predatory deregulation, especially in relation to
about what international trade actually
practices should be held to account. its energy needs, not trade protection.
entails.
Forced technology transfer and What the administration should
We often talk about trade between
requiring companies doing trade not do is impose significant pain on
nations as if it were done between
in China to include the Chinese American citizens. That’s exactly what
governments. But “Mexico” does
Communist Party in their charters are is happening with Trump’s tariffs. This is
not trade with “America.” The actual
examples of bad trade practices that why the president’s trade policy is not
trade is between individuals, to the
need to stop. Yet, trying to achieve working.
tune of billions of transactions a year.
That trade is win-win by definition. these objectives by imposing pain on
Individuals only give something up if Americans is simply bad policy.
This administration has provided Ryan Young (ryan.young@cei.org)
they expect something better in return.
significant relief to American businesses is a Fellow at CEI. Iain Murray (iain.
That means the term “trade deficit”
and consumers by removing some murray@cei.org) is Vice President for
is incredibly misleading. When
burdensome regulations and reducing Strategy at CEI. A version of this article
Americans buy $592 billion worth of
taxes. A prolonged trade war will was originally published at Morning
goods from the European Union (EU),
negate the gains from these policies. Consult.
and the EU buys $500 billion worth

4 CEI.ORG COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

 Congress Already Ruined Sports Betting
Once; Don’t Let Them Do it Again
BY MICHELLE MINTON
A fter a prohibition lasting more than
two decades, Americans outside
Nevada can finally bet on sports
without breaking the law. The newfound
freedom is thanks to a May ruling by
the Supreme Court that overturned the
federal law blocking states from legal-
izing sports betting. Since then, four
states have joined Nevada in offering
legal gambling on sports. Those states
are already reaping the benefits, collect-
ing millions in tax revenue and licensing
fees. More importantly, legalization
undermines the vast illegal sports
gambling industry—a win for consumers
and sports integrity. So why is Congress
discussing a proposal that could bring
this progress to an abrupt end?
The federal ban aided the rise of
illegal sports betting, an estimated
$150 billion a year industry in the U.S.,
that for 25 years Congress did nothing
to stop. Yet some in Congress now insist
that the federal government is better
equipped to regulate the burgeoning
legal industry.
A September 27 House Judiciary
Committee hearing focused on the
Supreme Court ruling’s implications for
federal sports betting regulation. So
far, the only proposed framework for
federal sports betting regulations comes
from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).
Like those who originally endorsed the
sports betting ban, Schumer argues that
federal interference in sports betting
is necessary to protect sporting events
from criminals who might try to corrupt
the games and profit by wagering on
fixed outcomes. However, the plan
details make it clear the motivation for
regulating sports betting is less about
safeguarding consumers or markets than
about protectionism and rent-seeking.
Even before the Supreme Court
ruling, it was clear that the end was
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
near for the federal sports gambling
ban. In January 2017, the major U.S.
sports leagues began lobbying state
lawmakers to ensure that, were sports
betting to be legalized, the subse-
quent regulations would guarantee
the leagues a cut of the gambling
profits.
A key component of the leagues’
plan was an “integrity fee.” Under this
plan, sports books would be required
to pay the leagues 1 percent of all
bets wagered. That might sound like
a pittance, but the fee would actually
amount to about 20 percent of gam-
bling operators’ profits, since they only
keep a portion of the money wagered,
while paying out the rest to winners.
State legislators have almost unani-
mously rejected the leagues’ demand
for integrity fees; they likely under-
stand that imposing them would limit
the nascent legal gambling industry’s
ability to attract customers and gen-
erate tax revenue for states. But the
leagues seem to have had better luck
with Congress. Though Schumer’s plan
doesn’t mention integrity fees, it would
grant leagues a price monopoly.
Schumer’s proposal gifts the
leagues a data monopoly, allowing
the leagues to charge as much as they
want for their data. It would require
gambling operators to rely exclusively
on “league data” to determine the
outcome of bets. This means gambling
operators would be prevented from
using third-party sources of information
about games (even public sources) and
forced to buy the data needed to make
bets from the leagues.
In Europe, third-party data com-
panies compete to sell data to sports-
books on the basis of price, speed, and
accuracy. Schumer’s proposed frame-
work would eliminate that competi-
tion, essentially giving the leagues the
power to force sportsbooks to pay as
much as the leagues want for the data.
C E I . O R G 5
Giving the leagues a data monop-
oly also allows them to decide what
types of bets gambling companies can
make, because they can withhold data
if they don’t want certain bets made.
This would give the leagues an extraor-
dinary advantage over the gambling
industry when negotiating contracts.
Schumer’s proposal would be a
windfall for the leagues—all of which
are headquartered in Schumer’s
home state—but would do nothing to
safeguard consumers or the integrity of
sporting events. The opposite, actually.
Match-fixing is more likely to
occur when betting markets are illegal
because it is easier for criminals to hide
their behavior. And the more criminals
profit by illegal gambling, the more
money and incentive they have to
attempt to corrupt players and officials.
Congress set the stage for this
exact scenario in the U.S. when it
barred states from regulating sports
betting, giving consumers no other
option but the black market. Now
they are considering proposals that
will make it harder, if not impossible,
for legal gambling operators to offer
the same types of games, odds, and
payouts as the illegal market, ensuring
that customers continue to spend their
money illegally.
If we allow Congress to set the rules
that govern sports gambling again, we
will be stuck with those rules and their
unintended consequences for decades.
One can debate the merits of the specific
laws that govern sports gambling, but
after a 25-year failure to address illegal
sports betting, it is difficult to argue
Congress would be more effective than
the states at regulating the industry.
Michelle Minton (michelle.minton@
cei.org) is a Senior Fellow at CEI. A
version of this article was originally
published at the Washington Examiner.
 More Realistic Fuel Economy Rule Would
Cut Traffic Fatalities and Lower Gas Prices
BY MYRON EBELL
T he Trump administration has
proposed to halt the steady
increases in corporate auto fuel
economy (CAFE) standards that were
concluded as part of backroom deals
made by the Obama administration
with the State of California and
automakers between 2009 and 2012.
In doing so, the administration has
struck a blow for consumer choice that
will be good news for drivers planning
to buy a new car in the next decade.
That’s because the mileage mandate
is one of the main causes of rapidly
rising vehicle prices. Freezing CAFE
standards will make new cars more
affordable for millions of Americans
and allow many of them to buy bigger
and safer new models.
CAFE standards were first enacted
in 1975 as a response to the 1973
OPEC oil embargo. The idea behind
CAFE was that reducing American
dependence on foreign oil was a
national interest more important than
other factors that people consider
when buying a new car, such as safety,
size, performance, and cost.
Even with CAFE, American
dependence on foreign oil increased
as more people drove more miles
and domestic oil production declined.
However, by 2012 it was clear that
the shale oil and gas revolution was
rapidly increasing domestic production
and would solve the very problem
CAFE was designed to address.
Although Congress has refused to
enact global warming legislation, a
2007 Supreme Court decision allowed
Obama’s Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to repurpose CAFE as
a program to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
6 CEI.ORG
The average mileage requirements
were set to increase rapidly from the
existing standard of 35 mpg by 2020
for passenger cars, pickup trucks, and
SUVs to 54.5 mpg by 2025.
After review, the Department of
Transportation and the Environmental
Protection Agency decided to scale
back the rate of annual increases, and
then flatline CAFE at 37 mpg from
2020 to 2026.
Meeting ever more stringent fuel
economy standards is driving up new-
vehicle prices. Sticker shock is causing
a lot of people to hang on to their
current cars. The average age of all
cars on the road is now at an all-time
high of nearly 12 years.
The Transportation Department’s
analysis shows that having so many
15- to 25-year old cars on the road
poses a major safety concern. Not only Federal CAFE standards have limited
are newer cars safer, but systems such consumer choice and forced consumers
as braking and airbags become less either to buy models they would not
reliable as cars get older. otherwise buy or to put off buying new
How much safer the administration’s cars altogether.
proposal make new cars will be For many people, fuel economy
hotly debated. The Transportation will still be the most important factor in
Department concludes that the choosing a new car. The good news for
proposed changes will prevent about them is that the Trump administration’s
1,000 traffic fatalities a year. If that action will in no way prevent them from
number is anywhere close to reality, buying a model that gets great gas
it will be hard for anyone to argue mileage. The good news for everybody
against making those changes. else is that the choice of models will be
Supporters of CAFE respond by much wider than if the CAFE standard
pointing to polls showing strong public had remained at 54.5 mpg.
support for higher fuel economy
standards. The polls are no doubt
accurate on that one question, but they Myron Ebell (myron.ebell@cei.org)
fail to ask respondents whether they is Director of the Center for Energy
would support higher fuel economy and Environment at CEI. A version of
standards if it meant that the vehicles this article was syndicated by Tribune
they could buy were smaller, less safe, News Service, and appeared in 30
and more expensive. newspapers, including the Los Angeles
There are tradeoffs between Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsday,
price, safety, fuel economy, size, and Sacramento Bee, Wisconsin State
performance. That is the key point. Journal, and Arizona Daily Star.
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
 Unfounded Accusations Regarding
Bees and Glyphosate
BY ANGELA LOGOMASINI
R ecent accusations that a popular
weed killer harms honeybees have
become headline news in a wide range
of sources including CBS News, The
Guardian, and Popular Science. Yet the
solitary study they all cite doesn’t hold
much water.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in
Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is valu-
able to farmers who have genetically
modified plants resistant to Roundup,
such as Roundup-Ready Corn, which
enables Roundup application to control
weeds with low risk of damage to
nearby crops.
Not surprisingly, the genetic modi-
fication and Monsanto connections
have prompted environmental activist
campaigns to seek to ban Roundup.
These activist groups have a long
record of making questionable claims
about Roundup’s risks to both humans
and the environment. They have even
managed to infiltrate the World Health
Organization’s International Agency
for Research on Cancer, which recently
misclassified glyphosate as probably
carcinogenic.
The recent study on glyphosate and
bees latches on to questionable claims
about other chemicals harming hon-
eybees. Published in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences,
it suggests that glyphosate exposure
can upset the development of healthy
bacteria in bees and thereby make
them more susceptible to diseases.
The authors allege that they exposed
bees to glyphosate at levels bees might
experience in the field. However, a
close look at the study shows it has
more holes than a honeybee hive.
The American Council on Science
and Health’s Josh Bloom questions the
claim that exposure levels administered
in the study are akin to field exposures.
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
The researchers mixed the chemical
with sugar water and fed it to the bees.
“Whoa. Here is an assumption that
puzzles me,” observes Bloom. “What
does a dose of 5-10 mg have to do
with the amount of glyphosate that
would be found in, or consumed by, a
bee foraging in weeds that contain a
similar concentration?”
Glyphosate is a weed killer, which
means the flowers on these weeds likely
will die quickly, if the plants even flower
at all, leaving little or nothing for bees
to visit. Indeed, farmers have an incen-
tive to prevent weeds from flowering, to
keep them from producing seeds. This
is reason to doubt that feeding bees
the amount of glyphosate that a farmer
might apply to a plant is not the same
as field exposure.
Bloom also notes that the study did
not find adverse effects among the bees
with the highest glyphosate exposures.
Rather, reduced gut bacteria was found
among bees with lower exposures.
In fact, the author could just as easily
have assumed that bees do better when
exposed to higher levels of glyphosate.
Bloom also notes serious confounding
factors in the study, and the fact that
any effects measured were not par-
ticularly compelling. He concludes that
the study is so flawed that it “should be
returned to the hive.”
Bloom isn’t the only one to question
the study. Science blogger and biolo-
gist Iida Ruishalme penned a lengthy
post on the topic (originally drafted in
June and updated in September 2018),
in which she notes: “Glyphosate is a
herbicide, in other words, it is toxic to
plants. Its target enzyme is not found in
insects or other animals, so it is gener-
ally not very harmful to them—and as
confirmed by a recent study, even direct
sprays are not lethal to bees.”
Ruishalme’s post provides an over-
view of numerous studies related to
glyphosate and bees, which overall do
C E I . O R G 7
not find serious impacts. Some studies
even involved spraying glyphosate
directly on bees without finding ill
effects. Regarding this latest study, she
notes that the levels administered are
“rather high” and don’t reflect the fact
that glyphosate rapidly breaks down in
the environment.
As she points out, feeding bees
sucrose solutions affects the amino acids
in their guts, which may be a reason
why the unrealistically high levels of
glyphosate might have some impact on
gut bacteria. Many of the study findings
are “noisy and inconsistent,” indicat-
ing that the fluctuation of gut bacteria
is affected by factors not necessarily
related to the glyphosate, such as natu-
ral variations of gut bacteria in bees.
“If you care about bees, look else-
where,” says Ruishalme. “We do know
that habitat loss, disease, invasive spe-
cies, climate, and many other factors
have detrimental effects.” As she points,
glyphosate is an important tool for
reducing environmental impacts associ-
ated with farming. It allows for no-till
farming, which reduces runoff that
would eventually pollute waterways.
Ruishalme is right. If we really care
about bees and wildlife, we need to
focus on facts and not simply accept
accusations that wrongly demonize
valuable chemical products like herbi-
cides and pesticides.
Angela Logomasini (angela.
logomasini@cei.org) is a Senior Fellow
at CEI. A version of this article was
originally published on Open Market.
 A Decade after the Financial Crisis, the
Government Fuels another Housing Bubble
BY DANIEL PRESS
T his past September marked the
10-year anniversary of one of the
most dramatic events of the 2008
financial crisis—the collapse of Lehman
Brothers, the fourth-largest investment
bank in the United States. While the
spectacular failures of Wall Street
firms grab most of our attention, it was
the meltdown of the U.S. residential
mortgage market that was prelude to
the failure of the investment banks.
That enormous housing bubble
was fueled not by an unregulated free
market, but by the federal government’s
audacious housing policies. What may
surprise many Americans is that even a
decade after the financial crisis, these
same policies remain in place—and
they appear to be contributing to
another house price boom.
Beginning in the early 1990s,
both Congress and the Clinton
administration sought to dramatically
expand home ownership. To achieve
this, the government compelled two
government-sponsored entities (GSEs),
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to
meet risky affordable housing goals.
Fannie and Freddie were required to
purchase a certain percentage of loans
each year that had been made to
low-income or otherwise underserved
borrowers. Fannie and Freddie initially
had a modest 30 percent quota of
low-to-moderate income loans to
purchase, but that was continually
raised over the years, eventually
topping 56 percent by 2008.
To meet these ambitious goals,
the GSEs had to dive deep into the
subprime mortgage market. They
began to lend to borrowers with little
or no documentation, poor credit,
dangerously low down payments,
and high levels of debt compared
to income—lowering underwriting
8 CEI.ORG
standards across the mortgage market.
The result was that by the middle of
2008, 57 percent of the 55 million
mortgages in the financial system were
either subprime or otherwise of low
quality, with the government backing
76 percent of them. When the housing
market turned sour, Fannie and Freddie,
riddled with toxic mortgages, were
taken over by the government to prevent
their collapse.
One would think such a stunning
failure would force the government to
wind down the GSEs. Yet, 10 years
after the crisis, not only has Congress
failed to reform Fannie and Freddie, the
two are actually backing even more
of the mortgage market than before.
Taxpayers continue to back up to 90
percent of newly written mortgages and
as much mortgage debt today as they
did during the crisis.
The slight reforms the government
imposed on the mortgage market have
been a disappointment. The Bureau
of Consumer Financial Protection,
an astonishingly powerful agency
established after the financial crisis, was
meant to define minimum standards
in mortgages, such as debt-to-income
ratios, in order to ensure mortgage
quality, but it has failed to do so.
The bureau’s Qualified Mortgage
rule, finalized in 2013, includes an
exemption, known as “the patch,” for
loans the GSEs could purchase. That
means that the government housing
agencies can continue promoting
excessive borrower leverage, with
dangerously low down payments
and creditworthiness and high debt-
to-income ratios. As Edward Pinto of
the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
put it, “a loan that would have been
considered a subprime loan before the
financial crisis … will now be marketed
as prime if it is declared eligible for
purchase by Fannie or Freddie” under
the Qualified Mortgage rule.
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
As a result, the same policies that
caused the last housing bubble are
even further entrenched than before.
And housing prices are again rising
rapidly. Since 2012, the housing
market has been on a six-year boom,
with prices higher today than before
the crisis, and rising faster than any
time since 2005. AEI’s National
Mortgage Risk Index shows growing
risk in recent years as the government
housing agencies loosen their
underwriting standards.
But housing booms cannot go
on forever. And when house prices
begin to fall, mortgages must be able
to withstand deteriorating market
conditions. If they cannot, there is a
greater chance of mass defaults and a
broader housing collapse, which would
put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of
dollars of the GSEs’ liabilities.
Clearly, neither Congress nor
federal regulators learned the lessons
of the last housing bust. To prevent
a similar collapse, Congress must
wind down the current government-
dominated mortgage system and
replace it with one backed by private
capital, through legislation such as the
Protecting American Taxpayers and
Homeowners Act.
While winding down the GSEs,
Congress should respect the property
rights of GSE shareholders by offering
them some form of compensation. If
the government housing agencies are
to continue to exist, regulators such
as the Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection should at minimum require
them to adopt sound underwriting
standards by revising the Qualified
Mortgage rule.
Daniel Press (daniel.press@cei.org) is a
Policy Analyst at CEI. A version of this
article was originally published at the
Washington Examiner.
 Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Unfair
Class Action Settlement that Gives Millions
to Attorneys, Zero Dollars to Class Members
O n October 31, the U.S. Supreme
Court heard arguments in Frank
v. Gaos, a landmark case brought by
CEI’s Center for Class Action Fairness
(CCAF) challenging an unfair class
action settlement in which lawyers and
their handpicked pet causes got mil-
lions while class members got nothing.
“The Supreme Court has an oppor-
tunity to stop a clear abuse of the class
action system that shortchanges con-
sumers,” said Theodore H. Frank, CEI’s
director of litigation. Frank is a named
petitioner in the case, and made history
as the first petitioner to argue his own
case before the Supreme Court this
century. “We hope the Supreme Court
will rule against this unfair settlement
and adopt a standard that will protect Attorney Melissa Holyoak. “Now objected to the settlement negotiated
consumers from being preyed upon by that the Supreme Court has heard the by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and Google
their own attorneys in future cases.” concerns of consumers, it is up to the when it provided $0 to class members
“As a class member in this case, Justices to set a standard that ensures but divided millions between the plain-
I would have preferred to receive class members are not taken advan- tiffs’ lawyers and third party organiza-
my portion of the settlement instead tage of by their attorneys.” tions unrelated to the case, under a
of giving it away to the attorneys’ The original class action lawsuit doctrine known as cy pres. A decision
alma maters and other pet causes,” centered on alleged privacy violations from the Supreme Court is expected in
said fellow petitioner and CEI Senior by search engine giant Google. CCAF 2019.

Did You Know … • Go to: https://smile.amazon.com/

• Input your email and Amazon password
… that your Amazon purchases • Scroll down to the “Search Charity” box and
type: Competitive Enterprise Institute
can benefit CEI • Click on “Select”
with the push of a button? • After signing up, every time you want to shop on
Amazon, begin at https://smile.amazon.com
and 0.5 percent of all your eligible Amazon.com
purchases will directly benefit the work of CEI.
It’s an easy way to expand the
boundaries of freedom!

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE C E I . O R G 9

 A Labor Reform Both Democrats and
Republicans Can Get Behind
BY TREY KOVACS
L abor Day was established in the
late 19th century as a way to honor
all the workers who contribute to the
wealth and prosperity of America.
Since then, there’s been a seismic shift
in what jobs and industries dominate
American life. More than ever before,
workers today seek greater freedom
and flexibility at the workplace.
So why has Congress been unable
to significantly change federal statutes
governing private sector employment
since the late 1940s? Both sides of
the political aisle agree that workers
deserve a greater voice in the work-
place, but Democrats and Republicans
don’t often agree on how to achieve
this goal.
Here’s one major reform both sides
should be able to agree upon. Neither
side is particularly fond of “exclu-
sive representation,” which grants
unions monopoly status to represent
and negotiate on behalf of all the
employees at a workplace. This long-
entrenched labor law mandate directly
conflicts with every individual’s right to
freedom of association. It’s also prob-
lematic on a number of other counts.
First, too many people are denied
choice over union representation.
To win an election and become an
exclusive representative, a union must
only receive a majority of votes cast. In
most union elections, not all employ-
ees vote, so this process allows for a
minority of workers to impose a union
on the rest of their colleagues. And
unlike elected officials, unions never
stand for reelection. That means future
generations of workers simply inherit
union representation.
10 CEI.ORG
Second, workers who choose not to
join a union are not allowed to negoti-
ate directly with their employer. This
means that many employees are subject
to the pay and work conditions negoti-
ated by a union they did not vote to
have represent them or decide to join.
In addition, employers are forbidden to
negotiate with any individual employee
or organization other than the exclusive
representative.
Third, labor unions also find fault
with exclusive representation. Unions
complain that non-union workers are
able to “free ride” on union services in
states with right-to-work laws, which
free workers from having to pay com-
pulsory union dues to keep their job.
Unions believe all workers should pay
for representation they receive, even if
they are not members and voted against
union representation.
Fourth, the power of exclusive repre-
sentation deprives unions of an incen-
tive to do the best job they can for their
members. A trio of labor union activists
said it best. In a recent article in the
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
progressive magazine In These Times,
entitled “It’s Time for Unions To Let Go
of Exclusive Representation,” they set
forth a long-held concern regarding
exclusive representation: It “allows lazy
union officials to sit back and collect
their salaries without doing much for
workers.”
All sides may have different reasons
for wanting to repeal “exclusive rep-
resentation” agreements, but together,
repeal of this unfair, antiquated labor
law is a great place to start negotiating
substantial reform of labor policy.
Congress can fix the injustice of
forcing union representation on workers,
and that of forcing unions to represent
workers who do not pay for the service.
All sides of the political spectrum should
embrace the idea of getting rid of exclu-
sive representation.
Trey Kovacs (trey.kovacs@cei.org) is a
Policy Analyst at CEI. A version of this
article was originally published in USA
Today.
 The Government Should Allow T-Mobile
and Sprint to Merge
BY JESSICA MELUGIN AND RYAN
RADIA
O n September 11, 2018, the
Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) announced it
needed more time to review the pend-
ing merger of T-Mobile and Sprint.
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice
is examining the deal’s antitrust implica-
tions. In the interest of consumers and
competitiveness, the agencies should
wrap up their inquiries quickly and
let the nation’s third and fourth largest
mobile carriers merge.
Sprint and T-Mobile need to com-
bine their resources to build a more
efficient company to stay competitive
with the two leading U.S. carriers,
Verizon and AT&T. In fact, the whole
industry needs to innovate and grow as
quickly as possible to win the race to
5G—the fifth generation of mobile con-
nectivity—as companies in countries like
China speed ahead of their American
competitors.
The bosses at T-Mobile and Sprint
have skin in the game, specialized
expertise, and every incentive to keep
consumers happy. That’s more than you
can say for those who seek to block the
merger.
Antitrust interventionists who oppose
the deal claim that consumers are auto-
matically better off with four national
carriers, rather than the three that would
exist if T-Mobile and Sprint joined
forces. But the merger’s foes ignore
the dynamic nature of the wireless
marketplace.
If Sprint and T-Mobile are stopped
from merging, will each company carry
on the same as in the past? Probably
not. The more likely outcome is that
one, or perhaps both, of the companies
won’t survive.
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
When Sprint and T-Mobile
executives testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee’s antitrust panel in
June 2018, Sprint Executive Chairman
Marcelo Claure pointed out that his
company didn’t have the resources to
compete with Verizon and AT&T on its
own. He’s right. Sprint is the most highly
leveraged company traded on the S&P
500, saddled with debts of nearly $40
billion and rising.
By combining Sprint with T-Mobile,
the new company could offer triple
the 5G capacity the companies could
provide separately. Building a top-notch
nationwide 5G network will take a
combination of spectrum licenses, cell
towers, and cash.
A merged Sprint and T-Mobile
would check these three critical boxes.
But if regulators stymie the firms’ rational
business decision to merge, benefits that
would otherwise flow to consumers will
go unrealized. It’s impossible to know
just what innovations never come to be
when the government stops the market-
place from evolving as it would without
interference.
The implications of the merger
between T-Mobile and Sprint transcend
the domestic U.S. economy. If American
companies aren’t allowed to scale up to
meet the challenges of the coming roll-
out of 5G networks, Chinese companies
are more than happy to take the lead.
The deal’s geopolitical implica-
tions alone make this dynamic sector
too important to leave to meddling
bureaucrats. The Wall Street Journal
recently reported: “Companies with
the largest and most reliable networks
will have a head start in developing
the technologies enabled by faster
speeds.” The Journal added that, “the
dominant equipment suppliers could
give national intelligence agen-
cies and militaries an advantage in
C E I . O R G 11
spying on or disrupting rival countries’
networks.”
5G will be up to 100 times faster
than today’s 4G networks, powering
driverless cars, remote surgeries, smart
appliances, virtual reality applications,
and things we haven’t even imagined
yet. Can we really expect federal regu-
lators to correctly comprehend, diag-
nose, and correct for the infinite factors
that go into something as complex as
the 5G communications revolution?
Even with the best of intentions,
regulators could inadvertently derail
any progress made toward securing
the future of 5G, doing more harm than
good for consumers in the process.
Examples of regulatory failure abound.
The FCC itself has a long history of
them—it took “just” 40 years to get cell
phones to market!
Progressive-era thinking may be
back in vogue these days, but ideas’
cultural popularity doesn’t erase their
perils. The invisible hand of the mar-
ketplace, with all its price signals and
nuances, innovates, coordinates, and
corrects better than teams of lawyers in
clunky Washington bureaucracies.
Allowing Sprint and T-Mobile
to merge is a good first step toward
recognizing the wisdom of the market-
place and the folly of antitrust regula-
tion. For the sake of consumers and our
competitiveness, Washington should
keep its hands off the future of 5G
communications.
Jessica Melugin (jessica.melugin@
cei.org) is Associate Director of the
Center for Technology and Innovation
at CEI. Ryan Radia (ryan.radia@cei.
org) is Research Fellow and Regulatory
Counsel at CEI. A version of this article
was originally published at The Daily
Caller.
 CEI EVENTS AND PUBLIC APPEARANCES

Myron Ebell and Sam Kazman Discuss Energy

and Environment Reform
On July 27, Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center for Energy
and Environment, spoke before the annual meeting of the
Independent Petroleum Association of New Mexico, held
in Albuquerque, on the current state of energy policy in
Washington. Then on August 7, he spoke at the America
First Energy Conference 2018, sponsored by the Heartland
Institute, on two panels, “Reining in the Regulators,” and
“Reforming EPA: Lots of Progress, More to Do.” Also at the
conference, CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman spoke on the panel, “CAFE Standards: Why They Need to Go.” Also in August,
Ebell spoke twice at the American Legislative Exchange Council’s annual meeting, in New Orleans, on a panel on the social cost
of carbon and on a panel discussing the progress being made on the Trump administration’s energy agenda.

CEI and Ocean Outcomes Cosponsor Luncheon Panel

on Fisheries Management Innovation
On August 21, CEI co-hosted the panel discussion, “Fishing for Better
Solutions: Achieving Environmental, Business, and Social Goals in
Seafood,” with Ocean Outcomes (O2), an international nonprofit
organization that advocates for sustainable fisheries worldwide. The
panel featured Ocean Outcomes President and CEO Dick Jones and O2
Chief Operating Officer Hoyt Peckham, PhD. The discussion focused on
innovative private sector approaches to the management of the seafood
supply chain that have demonstrated success over the past 20 years, and
the challenges that remain for producers of all types and sizes.

CEI Hosts Luncheon Discussion on the Value of Tipping with Professor

Tony Gill
On September 20, CEI hosted the luncheon discussion, “Tipping Points: An Economic and
Pedagogical Defense of Gratuities,” with University of Washington Political Science Professor
Tony Gill. In his talk, Gill discussed how the time-honored tradition of tipping wait staff at
restaurants has come under fire recently, both in the private marketplace and the voting
booth—including in a recent ballot measure in Washington, D.C., which the city council has
since overturned because of its potential for economic damage. Gill argued that tipping,
while unpopular at the moment, benefits restaurant owners, employees, and customers,
building trust in society in a way that lubricates the wheels of commerce.

John Berlau Hosts Luncheon Discussion on

Regulation’s Impact on Credit Union Members
On October 4, CEI hosted the luncheon panel discussion, “How the
Regulatory State Victimizes Credit Unions and their Members,” featuring
Credit Union National Association (CUNA) President and CEO Jim
Nussle and CUNA Deputy Chief Advocacy Officer for Policy Analysis
and Chief Economist Mike Schenk. Nussle and Schenk discussed the
unique burdens credit unions face because of the red tape of Dodd-
Frank legislation and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, and
how their organization is rallying its members to push back against
overregulation. CEI Senior Fellow John Berlau moderated the discussion.

12 CEI.ORG COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE

 Daniel Press Discusses the Promise of FinTech at Financial Services
Conference
On October 5, CEI Policy Analyst Daniel Press spoke at a conference held by the Financial Service
Centers of America, held in Las Vegas. He discussed the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s
recently announced special purpose bank charter, which promises to allow new entrants into
the financial services field by considering bank charter applications from FinTech firms, not just
traditional banks.

Marc Scribner Offers Free-Market Transportation

Solutions at Cato Institute Book Forum
On October 10, CEI Senior Fellow Marc Scribner participated in a
panel discussion on the new book, Romance of the Rails: Why the
Passenger Trains We Love Are Not the Transportation We Need by
Cato Institute Senior Fellow Randal O’Toole. The panel, hosted by the
Cato Institute, also featured American Public Transportation Association
Vice President of Policy Art Guzzetti and Rail Passengers Association
President Jim Mathews. Panelists discussed the future of passenger
rail in light of transportation alternatives—such as cars, buses, and
airplanes—that promise much like cell phones have replaced land
lines. Cato Institute Editor Jason Kuznicki moderated the discussion.

Ted Frank and Melissa Holyoak Discuss Case Challenging

Abusive Class Action Settlements before the Supreme Court
On October 17, CEI hosted an invitation-only dinner discussion on the
Supreme Court case Frank v. Gaos, which presents an opportunity to set class
action precedent and put an end to cy pres abuse. Named petitioners Ted
Frank, CEI’s Director of Litigation and Director of the Center for Class Action
Fairness, and CEI Senior Attorney Melissa Holyoak discussed strategy for the
October 31 oral argument. Frank v. Gaos challenges the settlement reached
in the Gaos v. Google privacy lawsuit. In that settlement, the class members
received nothing while $8.5 million was divided entirely between the class
action attorneys and cy pres recipients, in this case class counsel’s alma maters
and nonprofits previously supported by Google.

CEI Offers a Toast to Reason

On November 1, Kent Lassman and CEI raised a glass to Reason’s
legacy and future advancing free minds and free markets. The
Toast to Reason kicked off Reason Magazine’s and the Reason
Foundation’s 50th Anniversary weekend at The Edison, downtown
Los Angeles’ first private power plant turned speakeasy.

Left to right: Dana Fares of Birdy Fox Films, DonorsTrust

President and CEO Lawson R. Bader, and CEI Director of
Philanthropy and Partnerships Heather Browning

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE C E I . O R G 13

 THE
GOOD
The Good (but some Bad):
CAFE Rollback Can Save
Lives, but a Bigger Rollback
Could Save Even More
The recently announced Safe
Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE)
Vehicles proposal—issued last August
by the Department of Transportation
and the Environmental Protection
Agency—would partially roll back
the stringent schedule for corporate
average fuel economy standards set
by the Obama administration. Stringent
CAFE standards lead automakers to
produce smaller, lighter cars. They also
make newer cars more expensive. Both
of these effects undercut traffic safety.
The proposed rollback, by reducing
these effects, would save more than
12,000 lives over the next several
decades, according to the agencies’
estimates. However, as CEI argues
in comments filed with the agencies,
if this partial rollback will save that
many lives, then a bigger rollback
would save even more. Using the
agencies’ own models, CEI estimates
that lowering the standards even further
would save an additional 4,000 lives.
14 CEI.ORG
THE
BAD
The Bad: IPCC Reaches
Dire Conclusions Based on
Dubious Models
The latest report of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), published on October
8, promoted headlines regarding the
supposed urgency for drastic climate
policy action, thanks to its alarmist
tone. “The IPCC’s report is the latest
in a series of dire warnings of tipping
points and last chances dating back to
the 1980s. The good news is that the
rate of global warming since 1980 is
much lower than that predicted by the
computer models used by the IPCC,”
said Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s
Center for Energy and Environment.
“Unless the rate of warming increases
dramatically, the drastic and immediate
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
the IPCC claims are necessary to
avoid catastrophe will not be needed.
That’s good because the IPCC’s policy
recommendations would be colossally
expensive—taxes on carbon dioxide
emissions equivalent to adding $29 to
a gallon of gasoline by 2030.”
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
THE
UGLY
The Ugly: EU Seeks to
Ban Plastics
On October 21, the European
Parliament endorsed a proposal to
ban a wide array of popular plastic
products, such as straws, plates, and
cutlery. EU officials claim the proposal,
which still needs to be approved in
negotiations with member states, is
needed to fight ocean pollution. In
reality, it fails at its stated objective,
while burdening consumers. “The
proposed EU ban is simply an attack
on consumer freedom that won’t help
the environment,” noted CEI Senior
Fellow Angela Logomasini.” While
bans on plastic consumer items like
bags, cups, straws, and whatever
else may be great material for
grandstanding by politicians, they
only divert attention from developing
real solutions that actually tackle
the problem of plastic waste in our
oceans. They also ignore the benefits
of products in ensuring sanitary food
service, convenience, and energy
savings.”
 MediaMENTIONS
Fellow Ryan Young explains why
the only way protectionist trade
policies help keep some jobs is at
the expense of many other jobs.
Despite the deal with Canada and
Mexico, the trade war with China
shows no sign of letting up. Meanwhile,
imported steel now costs 25 percent
more, in turn raising domestic
steel prices, passing costs on to
manufacturers.
Saving 33,000 steel-industry jobs
costs the economy 179,000 jobs, a net
loss of 146,000, Ryan Young, a fellow
in regulatory studies at the Competitive
Enterprise Institute, told ABC News.
“Basically,” Young added, “the few
are benefiting at the expense of the
many.”
–October 18
ABC News
Senior Fellow Marc Scribner
sounds the alarm on an
overlooked subsidy inserted
into the Trump administration’s
proposed reform of fuel economy
standards.
Tucked into the EPA’s proposed
Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient, or SAFE,
Vehicles rule released in August is
language that would give companies
credit toward emissions standards for
producing cars that include vehicle-to-
vehicle communication capabilities—
technology that allows autonomous
cars to exchange speed and position
information with each other to prevent
accidents.
“If they were to go forward with
this, this would violate the [agency’s]
pledge to technology neutrality,’
Marc Scribner, senior fellow at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the
Washington Examiner. “What they are
doing is picking technology winners
and losers.”
–October 18,
The Washington Examiner
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Ted Frank discusses his role
as both a named plaintiff and
counsel of record in CEI’s case
before the United States Supreme
Court, Frank v. Gaos.
Theodore H. Frank is familiar with the
adage that a lawyer who represents
himself has a fool for a client. But later
this month, he will stand before the
Supreme Court to argue his own case.
“It was a very tough decision to decide
to do it myself,” he said.
The usual play would have been to
hand the case off to an expert lawyer
who specializes in Supreme Court
arguments. But Mr. Frank, who has spent
the last decade filing objections to class
action settlements he considers abusive,
said he was the right man for the job in
the case that bears his name. He will
join a small group of lawyers who have
handled the Supreme Court arguments
in their own cases. On the whole, they
have done rather well.
–October 15,
The New York Times
Labor policy expert Trey
Kovacs led opposition to the
re-nomination of a National
Labor Relations Board member
who had demonstrated his lack of
impartiality.
Conservative groups are urging
President Donald Trump not to
re-nominate Democratic National Labor
Relations Board Member Mark Pearce,
whose term ends on Monday, pointing
to what they say were a series of radical
pro-union decisions he was involved in
during the Obama administration.
On Thursday, the Competitive
Enterprise Institute and five other free-
market groups sent a letter to Trump
saying that in his eight years at the
NLRB, including more than five years
as its chairman, Pearce has “failed to
represent the public interest” by routinely
ruling in favor of unions.
–August 24,
Reuters
C E I . O R G 15
Vice President
of Policy Wayne
Crews estimates
the cost of the
total federal
regulatory
burden.
As the Competitive
Enterprise Institute
noted earlier this year
in its Ten Thousand Commandments
annual report, federal regulations
cost a lot more than their stated dollar
amount. As of last year, regulation and
federal intervention in the economy cost
Americans an estimated $1.9 trillion.
And that’s one of the lowball estimates
out there.
How much is that? It’s the equivalent
of a $15,000-per-household tax
levied each year in perpetuity. That’s
more than the average family spends
on food, clothing or transportation.
Only housing takes more of the family
budget.
–August 14,
Investor’s Business Daily
Senior Fellow Angela
Logomasini’s criticism of plastic
straw bans was lauded in a
widely published column by
renowned TV investigative
journalist John Stossel.
Want to sip a refreshing beverage this
summer? If environmental zealots and
sycophants get their way, you won’t be
allowed to sip it through a plastic straw.
Banning straws “might make
some politicians feel good,” says the
Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Angela
Logomasini in this week’s Stossel TV
video, “but it won’t actually accomplish
anything good.”
–July 18
FoxNews.com

1310 L Street NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
...END NOTES
Do You Have a Permit for that Jack O’Lantern?
Want to bring some Halloween cheer to your neighborhood?
You may need to check with local officials first—and killjoy
neighbors. Canton, Ohio resident Michael Fillon was recently
forced to shut down the haunted house he had set up outside
his house after getting a call from the local fire marshal. “I
didn’t realize I needed to have a license for a home haunt,”
Fillion said. Most of Fillon’s neighbors were fans of his DIY
haunted house, “Skullman’s Ghastly Garage,” except for one,
who reported him to the township. Now he has to scale back
or face fines. “I was really upset,” said one neighbor. “ It’s a
shame because this has been a great community outreach
and also helping out people who need food.” Fillion did not
charge money for entry, and instead asked visitors to bring
canned goods for a local food bank.
Do You Have a Permit for that Driveway—What, We
Gave You One?
Michael Zydeck has been facing off against the City of East
Lansing, Michigan, over … a driveway. Zydeck, a radiologist
who lives in Plymouth, Michigan, bought a house in Lansing
for his daughter to live in while attending Michigan State
University. The Zydeck family, wanting more room to park,
decided to expand the driveway. After Zydeck’s first contrac-
tor got a permit and began work, a neighbor asked the city
to stop the project, claiming the permit had been wrongly
approved. After months of bureaucratic wrangling and false
starts, the city offered Zydeck $1,500 to shrink the driveway,
which may not be enough to cover the costs. Zydeck’s attor-
ney, Mark Grebner, said: “By my calculations, the city’s errors
have induced my client to spent approximately $18,650 for
a driveway which would have cost $8,000 if he had not had
the misfortune to build it in East Lansing.”
16 CEI.ORG
Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit 425
Southern MD
Do You Have a Permit for that Ramp?
The Texas Ramp Project is a nonprofit that has built tens
of thousands of ramps across the Lone Star State, free of
charge, to help people in wheelchairs to go in and out of
their homes. “It felt freeing to be able to go down the ramp
and out of the house,” said Nancy Miner, of Duncanville,
Texas. “Otherwise, I’m kind of a prisoner in there.” This is
a worthy endeavor to which no one could object—except,
perhaps, code enforcement bureaucrats. Miner said she was
told by a city worker that the ramp did not meet city require-
ments, so she would have to have it torn down or face a
fine. Yet, the ramps, which are all built by volunteers, have
a stellar safety record. “In Dallas County alone, we’ve built
almost 5,000 ramps,” said Gary Stopani, who built Miner’s
ramp. “We’ve built over 15,000 statewide since 2006 and
we have yet to have a ramp fail due to safety.”
Do You Have a License for that Rocket?
A driver in Belgium was fined $78,000 for speeding—at
432 miles per hour, half the speed of sound—in an Opel
Astra, last May. An engineering breakthrough accidentally
uncovered by vigilant Belgian traffic cops? Not quite. The
astonishing recorded speed was due to a speed camera
coding error. Traffic authorities acknowledged the error and
voided the fine. Unfortunately for the driver, police deter-
mined that he did actually speed, going 60 kph (37 mph) in
a 50 kph (31 mph), and issued him a ticket for around €50,
or around $57. The driver posted an image of the bank-
breaking ticket on Facebook, where it got 1,700 likes and
1,200 comments. According to The Telegraph, one com-
menter noted: “What’s the point of having a Lamborghini
when you can go 696kph in an Astra?”
COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE