The View from Right Field

Hunter Biden’s Paintings Tell Us How to Handle Disclosure of Contribution

Joe and Hunter Biden may have solved the problem of how we handle disclosure of contributions to political causes.  For Hunter Biden’s paintings, the Bidens are considering a plan whereby the paintings will be sold by a third-party art gallery.  The art gallery won’t tell Hunter or President Biden – or the public – who buys the paintings or even who bids on them.  Therefore, there is no possibility of corruption or improper influence.

Which seems like the solution to contributions to political causes, too.  California wanted to know the names of contributors to charities, including ones that take political positions, so it could ensure nothing untoward happened.  But the U.S. Supreme Court said no because of concerns about confidentiality and retaliation.  The Bidens may have given us the solution.

What About That Covid-19 Lab Leak Theory?

Nothing has been proven yet with respect to the origins of Covid-19.  The theory that Covid-19 might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, is only one possibility.  Much more research and investigation need to be done.  We don’t know yet.

Except, we do know.  We know that, instead of the lab leak theory being so absolutely false that Facebook wouldn’t even let it be mentioned and would take down posts that talked about it, it’s now a possibility.¹  It’s definitely not for sure.  But it is, apparently, something that could have happened.  Which means we know what we need to do.

Dr. Seuss – and Phonics

I understand there are people out there who don’t like Dr. Seuss anymore.  Which is fine.  You can like who you want.  But I like Dr. Seuss.

I remember when our kids were young (a long time ago) and learning to read.  I was a big fan of phonics as the best way to teach kids to read (I still am), and when it came to the best books for phonics, it was Dr. Seuss by a mile. 

I’m not talking about Horton Hatches the Egg or How the Grinch Stole Christmas (though those are great books, too, especially Horton).  I’m talking about Dr. Seuss’s “Beginner Books.”  They were the best and probably still are.  Thank you, Dr. Seuss.

Do Uighur Lives Matter? – Part Two: Do We Care?

In an earlier post I talked about why I thought saying “Uighur Lives Matter” could be problematic.  But beyond that, I don’t think “Uighurs Lives Matter” would carry the day in the United States, even if saying it wasn’t problematic.  Let me mention a couple of reasons.  First, a number of Americans just don’t care about what is going on elsewhere in the world.  It is part of their America First approach.  They feel we need to make economic deals with China.  We have to take care of ourselves; we can’t worry about the Uighurs.  This is certainly what former National Security Adviser John Bolton says that President Trump told President Xi Jinping. 

Second, lots of individual Americans and American companies are intimidated by China.  They see over a billion Chinese and decide sales and profits are more important than principles and doing what is right.

Do Uighur Lives Matter?

Black Lives Matter has swept the United States.  It is on tee shirts and signs outside churches.  It is painted on city streets and basketball floors.  Along with the pandemic, it is the thing most associated with 2020. 

My question is: What about “Uighur Lives Matter”?  The Chinese have been cracking down on the Uighurs for years.  The repression has gotten worse since President Xi Jinping took office.  Uighurs are labeled terrorists, and police are everywhere.  Reports are that over a million Uighurs are in forced labor camps, which the Chinese call re-education or training centers.¹

Scaredy-Cat Protestors – And the Role of the Press

With the Donald Trump impeachment hearings on the TV and all over the news, there is plenty of time to do other things.  But let me talk about something possibly related to the news on the impeachment of President Trump: the media and who to believe.  There was a brouhaha over the weekend at the student-run Daily Northwestern, in Evanston, Illinois.  The editorial staff at the paper ran an editorial apologizing for the harm they supposedly caused when the paper ran/tweeted photos of people protesting a speech by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  Apparently, some of the people in these photos felt they were harmed by the publication of the photos.  On Sunday, the paper apologized, saying in part:

“We recognize that we contributed to the harm students experienced, and we wanted to apologize for and address the mistakes that we made that night – along with how we plan to move forward.”

Mass Shootings: After We “Do Something,” Let’s Try to Do Something That Actually Works

With two more mass shootings, in El Paso and Dayton, we are told we must “do something.”  Generally, that means gun control, though it now also seems to include “red flag” laws, as well as more spending for mental health and doing something about violent video games. Okay, let’s do it, subject of course to the Constitution.  Not only the Second Amendment, but also the other ones: the First, Fourth, Fifth, etc.

But after we “do something,” let’s also try to do something that works.  Megan McArdle, at The Washington Post, has a couple of ideas on this subject (here and here).  Aggressive stop-and-frisk policing has seemed to reduce murder rates in places like New York City, but many people don’t like what they see as police harassment of minorities.  Also, given the distrust of the police by many people in places like Chicago, you wonder how it would work there.  Plus, these kinds of tactics wouldn’t stop mass shootings, though reducing day-to-day murders might save more lives than reducing mass shootings over a whole year.

Once Again: Can Americans Be Trusted With Campaign Finance Disclosures?

Last Monday, U.S. Representative Joaquin Castro (Dem, Tex.) tweeted a list of 44 people in San Antonio, Texas, who contributed the maximum amount to President Trump’s campaign in 2019, with this comment:

“Sad to see so many San Antonians as 2019 maximum donors to Donald Trump – the owner of @BillMillerBarBQ, owner of the @HistoricPearl, realtor Phyllis Browning, etc. Their contributions are fueling campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.’”

Mark Zuckerberg Wants to Be Regulated

Of course, he does, the cynic would say.  It’s the best way to protect himself – and his money.  In an Op-Ed in The Washington Post last week,¹ Mr. Zuckerberg called for regulation of the Internet.  Among other things, he wants “a globally harmonized framework” for privacy and data protection.  He suggests that third party bodies set standards on distribution of harmful content.   And he wants laws on “verifying” those who buy/pay for political ads and political speech.

There will be plenty of legislators willing to take Mr. Zuckerberg up on his request.  There is nothing that many people in Washington like more than passing laws and looking like they are doing something.²  Plus regulating speech on the Internet is a great way for incumbents to protect their jobs. 

Can Americans Be Trusted With Campaign Finance Disclosure? – An Update After the Brett Kavanaugh Hearings

Four years ago, I wrote a post asking “Can Americans Be Trusted With Campaign Finance Disclosure?”  I noted that, while some people want to limit political spending either by limiting how much people can contribute or by limiting how much candidates can spend, the First Amendment (at least as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court) doesn’t allow either of those.  Therefore, as I said back then:

“[T]hey fall back on disclosure of contributions.  If we can’t limit spending, they say, at least we can require contributions and spending to be disclosed.  In the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (before he was on the Court), ‘[s]unlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.’”

But, I asked, as I do again in the title of this post: Can Americans be trusted with campaign finance disclosure?  This question recently returned when a federal district court judge threw out a 37-year old Federal Election Commission rule dealing the disclosures that nonprofit advocacy groups have to make with respect to the names of their donors.  Without going into the technical detail of the case,¹ the judge’s ruling increases the number of people whose names have to be disclosed, even though the people aren’t making contributions to candidates, but just to groups that are making independent political expenditures.