Key Points

• The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are the greatest and most significant examples of proper use of free speech. After seeing that their cries for change had fallen on deaf ears, the Founders set forth a system of checks and balances that would allow for grievances to be effectively addressed.
• Regulation of free speech is a removal of those checks and balances. If one cannot address his views of a problem without fear of sanction, he has no avenue in which to protect his freedoms.
• While the Fairness Doctrine doesn’t provide direct sanctions against speech, it takes steps in that direction by limiting the amount that can be said. Effectively slicing broadcast time in half, it forces stations to cap the discussion from either side of any issue. Failure to provide equal airtime to either side (or to find someone willing to fill the necessary time slots for both sides) would result in sanctions.
• Plato said, “Where no contradiction is evident, there is no cause for reflection.” Opposing views are needed in the debate process to help us refine our views of truth and error.
  However, forcing the public to listen to views that are unprincipled or flat-out wrong will cause gradual acceptance of these ideas. Sales trainings often teach that repeated exposure to a concept will eventually break down objections and build familiarity and acceptance. This is also a tactic of the socialist agenda.
• Continued exposure to diametrically opposed ideas will lead to schizophrenic confusion and inaction (if the public are dumb enough to not turn off the radio when needed). Liberals foster this sense of helplessness in order to create a need for and dependence on government solutions, which is also a tactic of the socialists.
• In the free market system intended by the Founders, there is no need for a doctrine to mandate fairness. People are free to share their opinions and the system will sort out good from evil, truth from concoction. Dollars follow value and market will see that voices that are meant to be heard are heard.

Conclusion

Because a free market system will see that truth is brought to the forefront, one must question the motives of anyone who seeks to regulate or eliminate that system. If elected officials are doing what they believe is right, they will feel no need to regulate what is said about their actions. As they often have no idea what is right or do things that they know to be wrong, they fear people’s opinions and shy away from criticism.

It has been said that no single drop feels that it is responsible for the flood. But, regulated speech is always one of the first drops to hit the masses as the floodgates of socialism are opened. Viewing the Fairness Doctrine as either fair or harmless shows a wanton disregard for the principles that maintain and guard our freedoms. To see such a doctrine being considered in a free country is ludicrous. To see that it is being pushed by liberal minds who have often considered themselves the defenders of free speech is infuriating.

Action Items

1. Read the First Amendment to the Constitution.
2. Post here as to what you believe the Founders intended with this amendment and how Americans have mistranslated that intent.
3. Consider contacting your Congressman to express your concern about the loss of freedom that the Fairness Doctrine would lead to.
4. Support freedom in talk radio—listen to FreeCapitalist Radio live or via podcast, or check your local listings for a chanel in your area.

MRFC Principles: (7, 9, 11, 12)

Source

“Fairness Doctrine Vote Not In The Cards”, FMQB.com, Aug 1, 2008.

(Matthew Pilling is a member of the FreeCapitalist movement known as the Canadian Capitalist. Despite his time in the Great White North, Matthew loves America and all that it stands for. He lives with his wife and two children in Taylorsville and works in finance.)

With its low price focus, Wal-Mart may appear to help the U.S. economy. But, the reality is that with its poor wages and benefits, massive China sourcing and tax avoidance, Wal-Mart makes its workers and the communities where it operates poorer.

How is it possible for a company that hands out millions of paychecks every year to be “making its workers and the communities where it operates poorer”? No matter how small the paycheck and benefits are, can you actually become poorer by getting paid? Would even a 10-cent paycheck not make you 10 cents richer than you were before? If you could magically wave your hand and make the Wal-Mart disappear from your neighborhood, would people suddenly start becoming wealthier? Maybe the writer believes that unemployment benefits and other government programs are the key to wealth.

Think about what even a small raise for Wal-Mart’s 1 million+ workers would mean nationally, or what it would mean to your city or town if everyone at your local Wal-Mart got a raise.

What a great idea! Here, the writer, from the perspective of someone outside the relationship between Wal-Mart and its workers, proposes changing the terms of employment for the good of the community. He doesn’t bother to ask how to accomplish it, nor does he consider any consequences other than the presumed benefit to the people as a whole. In this mentality, it is assumed that the costs of such an idea will simply be borne by the wealthy, who have enough already and can afford to give more to everyone else. Presuming a beneficial outcome for “the people” is supposedly justification enough. Readers of Atlas Shrugged will immediately recognize this philosophy, and the consequences of imposing it on the producers of value by force.

As our nation’s largest employer and most financially-successful company, Wal-Mart is a singular American institution. It occupies a unique position in our world by virtue of its size, reach and responsibility for the livelihoods of millions of workers and the needs of billions of consumers. And with such overwhelming influence comes certain moral responsibilities. It is the acceptance or rejection of those responsibilities that determines greatness.

There is both praise and damnation in this statement, acknowledging Wal-Mart’s success while simultaneously using that status as tool of condemnation. These words embody the very morality of the modern socialist mentality. It is a sentiment that views profit as guilt, a burden to be relieved by giving it to others. It is the claim that the degree of one’s success is the degree of one’s indebtedness to others – that it is an indication not of the value one has created, but of a debt owed to society by virtue of its ability to do so. Here, greatness is measured by obedience to “certain moral responsibilities”, which are unnamed, undefinable, and subject to no standard other than the self-loathing of the moocher. No recognition is made of the effort required to succeed, only demands made of the fruits of those efforts – as if such fruits were simply a matter of luck and required better allocation.

Ironically, if a person were to win the lottery, few would claim that the prize should be redistributed to all those who weren’t lucky enough to win (despite the fact that those winnings were created from the pockets of all those who participated freely). But when the prize is earned through value creation and free exchange (from the pockets of the customers of Wal-Mart), many call for the profits to be more “fairly spread”. Such a mentality rewards gambling and penalizes effort, and breeds the idea that the lottery is a fair game where no one wins at the expense of others, while mercantile exchange is a dirty business.

Wal-Mart has rejected those responsibilities and because of that choice, the money spent there does nothing of what it could to strengthen our economy. Higher salaries, quality affordable healthcare and paying what they owe like any good American, are just three things Wal-Mart can do tomorrow that will make them a company worthy of our money.

By ignoring the debate about whether government handouts (taken from the taxpayers or from the printing presses) are even capable of “strengthening our economy”, and proclaiming the presumed evils of Wal-Mart, this writer has successfully avoided any meaningful discourse on how to effectively stimulate any economy. In the process, he has revealed his true agenda: to discourage people from shopping at Wal-Mart due to their failure to adhere to the moral standards of the moochers and looters.

Conclusion:

At the core of this argument is the presumption that if everyone who worked for and shopped at Wal-Mart knew (as the writer claims) the “hidden costs” of doing business with Wal-Mart, they would cease to do so on moral grounds. The fact that millions of people choose freely to accept wages and purchase goods from Wal-Mart is the greatest evidence of the morality of its business, and a far greater indicator than the complaints of this writer. As is usually the case in the socialist mindset, the writer presumes to know better than millions of free individuals how best to use their resources (even their own labor) – and given the power (of government), would likely use force against the villain he condemns, claiming to do so “for the good of the people”. And like every other well-meaning tyrant in history, would ignore the evidence and the freedom of the actions of “the people” for their own sakes.

If Wal-Mart – or any company – is not in the business of creating value for its employees and its customers, it will not be in business very long. Thus Wal-Mart’s success is evidence of the value it has created (Principle 6: Profit is the Tool of Validation). As long as its business does not rely on force or deception in its transactions, whether for wage labor or for cheap laundry soap, there can be no greater statement of the value it provides to each individual and thus, to our economy as a whole, than this confession by the writer:

“…our nation’s largest employer and most financially-successful company”

Action Steps:

• Examine your relationship with the people and companies you do business with – are your dealings with them voluntary, and free of force or deception?
• Write a letter to the editor in your local newspaper in support of those businesses (big or small) that are successful as a result of the value they create for you.
• Research what laws are being proposed in your community (from the city council to the state legislature) that seek to control prices, wages, or other terms of free exchange. Contact your representative and express your opinion.

MRFC Principles: 6 (5,7,8,9)

References:

Why Wal-Mart Does Not Strengthen Our Economy – by David Nassar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-nassar/why-wal-mart-does-not-str_b_99463.html

Key Points

• Rand teaches, “Any material element or resource which…requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” In other words, the person who put forth this Human Life Value should be the rightful owner of his efforts.
• The Internet exists in name only, for it is merely a system of wires, hardware, and software, no matter how high tech; all assembled by individuals and therefore individually owned, operated and maintained. The government neither owns nor controls these devices collectively.
• There are many levels of ownership involved with the Internet. For example, those who own the servers, routers, cables, etc; and those who own the intellectual property stored and transmitted on these devices.
• An individual user owns the data he created, an email for example. He is simply renting the rest. He therefore has no more right to those devices than a driver on the road has a right to owning the guardrail or the lines painted on the street.
• Though acting more like a pipeline than hauling buckets, the transmission of data through this web of communication is only facilitated by the work of human hands.
• Ayn Rand explained, “It is the proper task of the government to protect individual rights and, as part of it, to formulate the laws by which these rights are to be implemented and adjudicated. It is the government’s responsibility to define the application of individual rights to a given sphere of activity—to define (i.e., identify), not to create, invent, donate, or expropriate.” In other words, if the dispute over ISPs discriminating between pieces of data does come to government’s doors, government should ask one question: “Whose property is this?” When the owner is sufficiently found, government should then say, “Great. All the rest of you, do what the owner says.”
• However, there is a great sickness in our land. It is the sickness of collectivism. Too many people believe in the mantra what’s yours is mine. Dunbar reported beautifully on this when he quoted Justine Bateman, the TV actress, “The idea of your site succeeding or failing based upon whether or not you paid the telecom companies enough to carry your amterial or allow quick access is appalling.” A closer look at this statement reveals an entitlement attitude regarding activity on the Internet, and a lack of understanding of how the web works.
• A great way to sort this out is to return to the first statement: “Any material element or resource which…requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.” With this it becomes understandable that individuals own the Internet and it is their agency and stewardship to manage data traffic the way they see best. If customers are dissatisfied, they have the right to seek out a more satisfying Provider and become their customer. If data traffic is handled inefficiently, the market will decide who stays in business, and who finds a different line of work. This is as it should be.

Conclusion

Just as radio revolutionized the way we communicate, the Internet has revolutionized that revolution, making the availability of information almost instantaneous around the world. It has revolutionized the way we communicate, how we do business, how we store information, how we pass time. Properly understanding the hard lines of property ownership will aid each one of us in acting appropriately in this matter. The government’s role is not to demand fairness, as seen in the eyes of those who would rob others of their hard work, but rather to insure that the lines defining ownership are clearly drawn and that those who would cross those lines are duly dealt with. Anything else is an abuse of power.

Action Items

1. Review Ayn Rand’s “The Property Status of Airwaves” (p. 122–129 of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). Decide how her message applies to the question of Internet use and government restrictions.
2. In questions of “Is it good to do _____” (i.e., Is it good to demand that ISPs treat each bit of data equally?), start asking, “Whose property is ______?” Then act accordingly.
3. Evaluate your own life. Identify areas where you may have misunderstood the principle of property rights. Resolve to change your perspective regarding property rights.

MRFC Principles: 13 (11, 12, 13)

Resources

John Dunbar, “Senators Debate Future of Web” AP, Yahoo! News, April 22, 2008.

Ayn Rand, “The Property Status of Airwaves,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Signet, 1967. pp. 122–129.

Key Points:

• Increased use of food crops for fuel production has reduced the amount sold for human consumption, resulting in price increases (supply & demand).
• Where bio-fuels have been more profitable than selling crops for food, some farmers have chosen to sell their crops to the fuel producers.
• Government price controls on food commodities have limited the profit possible to farmers, incentivizing them to seek other markets for their product.
• Government subsidies for bio-fuel production have distorted the economic value of food crops by creating an artificial demand (using tax dollars to stimulate production in the place of buyer dollars, which would demonstrate true demand).
• Acute shortages of subsidized bread, which is sold at less than one U.S. cent a loaf, have caused hours-long lines and violence at some sites in poor neighborhoods in Egypt in recent weeks.
• The supply of subsidized bread has been decreasing. Many people in Egypt believe subsidized bakeries sell some of their flour on the black market rather than make bread.
• Egypt has long been one of the top importers of U.S. wheat, but its U.S. purchases have been falling as it searches for cheaper sellers on the world market, where prices have tripled in the last 10 months.
• Some have criticized the use of food crops for fuel as “uncaring” and an example of “lopsided priorities”, due to the effect it has had on food prices, making it more difficult for poorer people to purchase basic foodstuffs.

Commentary

Not surprisingly, those who are suffering the consequences of government manipulation of the free market are the first to cry for the government to manipulate it further. This mentality believes that all costs are determined by the power of huge corporations, greedy middlemen, and government regulators – thus creating the illusion that the economy is simply a constant struggle between greedy businessmen and “the public” (represented by government protectors), waging price wars, with both sides continually seeking the upper hand. This illusion, during times of economic hardship, leads to the cry for government to be given greater powers to control commerce and trade, and to set “fair” prices.

What is not seen or heard in this debate is the fact that in a free exchange, the price of the product is decided mutually by the buyer and seller. Absent force, neither party can demand the other buy or sell the product – they must mutually agree. Thus, a general rise in the price of a commodity would indicate that someone is willing to pay more for it, and is doing so. Attempts to manipulate such an exchange through force will always result in its collapse, for the buyer will refuse to sell (reducing the amount of product available) and the seller will refuse to buy (creating a surplus in product available). These forces cannot be changed by government edict, and those who clamor for the force of government to be exercised to impose their opinions on what should be sold for what purpose and for how much will reap the consequences of history – shortages, recession, and general economic collapse.

In a real sense, what is being demanded by those who condemn the use of food crops for bio-fuel, is that each individual farmer should not be allowed to sell the fruits of his labor for the best price he can ask. He should be constrained to use his crops only for the benefit of those determined to be “in need” – by selling it only for food use and only at a price that is deemed “fair” by those who are demanding it from him. Such a policy can only be implemented through force, and has only one possible outcome. Eventually, the farmer will cease to produce when it is no longer profitable for him to do so under the coercive terms of the “public good” – and when that happens, there will be no food to buy at any price, no matter how great the need.

In the case of food crops and bio-fuels, both sides of the equation have been manipulated by tyrants – those who wish to control the direction of the fuel industry, and those who wish to mandate the value of a simple food product. Both distortions have aggravated what might have a been a simpler development in our modern economy. When men are free to exchange, temporary disruptions like those created by the invention of bio-fuels are quickly adjusted to, and self-interested people are quick to fill the needs and desires of others, for a profit. And that motivation, whether you revile it or not, is truly what fuels the economic activity of every person on the planet.

Action Steps

1. Read “Capitalism and Freedom” by Milton Friedman (available in the F.C. Primer).
2. Ask a local farmer what determines the sale price and use of the crops he produces.
3. Research the recent trends in the commodity markets – do you know the cost of the sources of your food?
4. Email your congressman and ask his/her opinion about the U.S. Farm Bill.
5. Read “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat – How does the concept of “legal plunder” apply to the issues of production, free exchange, government subsidies, price controls, and other economic manipulation?

MRFC Principles: (6, 7, 8, 9, 11)

Resources
Indian minister attacks biofuels
BBC – March 26, 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7315308.stm

Egypt tries to tackle deadly bread crisis. CNN – March 4, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/24/egypt.bread.riot.ap/index.html?eref=rss_world

“The very first amendment to our Constitution include the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away. I mention this because there’s an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that nay discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides.”

Key Points:

• Radio Broadcasting is already heavily regulated, with licenses (government permission slips) themselves being worth millions.
• Talk Radio as we know it did not exist BECAUSE of regulation 20 years ago.
• Radio station owners and broadcasters are self-interested and seek a profit.
• There are no “public” airwaves, their are government controlled airwaves. This is part of the problem. How the American people have tolerated government “owning” the airwaves for the people is mind boggling.
• Who decides if “all” sides of an issue are “adequately” represented. Do all “issues” have discernible sides?

Commentary:

Tribe mentality aka collectivism sees contradictory ideas as threats, their expression as assault, and force as the remedy. Persuasion is not in the mental conceptual framework of brain-off, emotionally driven lawmakers who want to “make everything fair.” Of course, they don’t have the faintest idea of what fair is. “Fair” to a collectivist means getting what they want. This is what the legislation is all about.

There is no real chance of the “fairness doctrine” coming back today, but it could happen in the near future. More than likely this is a political threat to certain broadcasters to carry more “liberal” talk shows that are desirable in the minds of certain lawmakers. The threatened financial burden on broadcasters just to lobby against the legislation is enough to change radio.

Conclusion:

President Bush’s rhetoric is nice, but the real problem here is that the FCC and congress have any control over the speech on the airwaves. Additionally, his worn out reference to the “public airwaves” is insulting to free men and women who know that this is simply modern vernacular for “government airwaves.” Thank goodness for talk radio, thank goodness for talk radio listeners.

Even conservatives get this one wrong. Its not just that the idea of the “fairness doctrine” is wrong, the government’s approach to the entire subject of broadcasting is wrong. There is no fairness in letting government bureaucrats decide what is fair speech content in any medium. Productivity, and it alone is the standard for business survival.

Recently I had a government regulator suggest that if I wanted his highly questionable, oppressive and likely illegal tactics to end, I should stop criticizing the government on the radio. Of course, this is the purpose of political speech and mediums such as broadcast, print, film, etc. Should we have a “fairness” doctrine for movies and magazines and newspapers and while we’re at it – would these same lawmakers suggest that we have a fairness doctrine in elections – making sure there is always an opponent to their re-election representing every side of every issue?

Action Steps:

1. Read Ayn Rand’s 1964 Essay, “The Property Status of Airwaves.”
2. Listen to more talk radio. Refer your friends.
3. If you are interested, post your opinion online, and while you do realize that some commissar (commie-czar) might be advocating in the near future that you ought not to be able to do that unless your adversaries are given equal time and access.

Reference(s):

Date: Tuesday March 11, 2008
Source: Austin American-Statesman – Bush: ‘Fairness Doctrine’ unfair
Author: Ken Herman
MRFC Principles: (8, 10, 11, 12)

“Ms. Giani allegedly was made aware of illegal activities taking place within the division and responded by telling employees that she didn’t care if the actions of the division were legal or not – but that employees were to perform the jobs without question.”

Some Utahans are hoping that the current controversy will allow the public to clearly separate “lip-service giving do-gooders” in government positions from authentic leaders who care about civil liberties, small business and simple concepts such as fairness. At the core of this issue the question is, “How far up the chain does the corruption go?” In recent years the State has behaved with little concern for small business owners who find themselves entangled in the Department of Commerce’s web of scandal and corruption. One of the State’s highest elected officials recently commented:

“Francine Giani is the single greatest threat to small business and personal liberty in the State of Utah.”

“The world of [regulation] is reminiscent of Alice’s Wonderland: everything seemingly is, yet apparently isn’t, simultaneously…It is a world in which the law is so vague that businessmen have no way of knowing whether specific actions will be declared illegal until they hear the judge’s verdict – after the fact.” (Greenspan, Alan. Later Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Paper given at the Antitrust Seminar of the National Association of Business Economists, Cleveland, September 25, 1961.)

Quiet whisperings have become all too common in Salt Lake City among government employees, elected officials, and community leaders about this rogue agency stealthily persecuting small businesses. Over the last 12-15 months Ms. Giani’s commissars in the State’s Division of Securities have come under the most serious scrutiny.Allegations of corruption, incompetence, mismanagement and “too many unfair prosecutions“under a cloud of controversy are growing relentlessly frequent and more substantial. Last week, apparently in an effort quell the unraveling of her department – Giani reportedly pressured Securities Director Wayne Klein to resign

“They obviously haven’t told me the results of the audit but I’ve heard words like [the division is in] ‘disarray’ and the ‘deeper we [the auditors] go, the deeper we need to go,’ “ (Representative Bird testimony last week during the Utah Legislature’s meeting of the House Business and Labor Committee.)

Klein’s resignation, however, is not likely to insulate Ms. Giani (or several other employees involved in this mismanagement such as Securities Enforcement head Mr. Michael Hines who is also suspected of official wrongdoing in the Department) from the political and legal fallout yet to come. Apparently hoping this will all blow over quickly, Ms. Giani has tried to appear disconnected recently asserting, absurdly, of Klein;

“He has been a good director, and in terms of his background in the securities industry, there is no one better.”

Utahns can only hope Ms. Giani is simply posturing here. Wayne Klein is not only personally vindictive but has a fairly well known reputation in the legal community from his previous positions both in the Utah Attorney General’s office as well as with the State of Idaho for being a loose cannon, an unjust prosector, and having contempt for legal restrictions on his own activities. It makes one wonder, in light of all the information that is now coming out, how Mr. Klein was appointed with the approval of the Governor and the legislature in the first place. According to Ms. Giani’s recent statements to the press, Klein is precisely is the “type” of regulator she strives to appoint in her department. Yet, Klein is quite simply a commissar (listen to the Free Capitalist radio broadcast archives from August 31, 2007 for elaboration). Specifically, he has increasingly become an embarrassment to government and legal professionals. He and his staff routinely fail to demonstrate even basic familiarity with the A-B-C’s of securities law. Reportedly, his own agenda is more important than the letter of the law and he is known to stammer and hesitate when trying to describe even the most basic federal standards for simple concepts such as what constitutes an accredited investor.One of Klein’s former government employers recently remarked that he, and a number of other government officials are not surprised at the recent discoveries about Klein and Giani’s philosophy of government.

“Mr. Klein is the worst kind of loose cannon. He’s often going after someone who’s offended him, regardless of the law. He’s really only effective if someone with very strong supervisory skills watches his every move and Francine is not that capable.”

Securities attorneys in Utah should not only be alarmed and offended at Ms. Giani’s defense of Klein, especially given his track record, but extremely diligent in working to ensure that there is serious reform in the Department. With Ms. Giani still at the helm she’ll likely just pick another “Wayne Klein” to run the Division. As reported by a notable Salt Lake City attorney recently,

“It has become common practice in Utah for knowledgeable, reputable, and highly educated attorneys to have to grovel to Giani, Klein (and their heretofore behind the scenes bulldog Mr. Michael Hines, Director of Enforcement in the Division of Securities). None of whom have shown much if any appreciation for the details of the law. It’s embarrassing.”

In 2007 a group of private citizens and business owners, fed up with the egregious behavior of an entire section of state government, began a private investigation on their own to look into the State’s activities. So far, the investigation has uncovered a remarkable cache of written documents and audio recording. The evidence includes recordings and transcripts of private meetings, official and unofficial conferences, lunch meetings, early morning meetings (as early as 6:30am at the home of one resident) and late night investigative activities (with government workers showing up to the homes of some “witnesses” as late as 10:00pm). The mounting evidence shows a disturbing pattern of Giani, Klein, and Hines each engaging in deception, incompetence, misstatement of the law, and abuse of the legal processes. Perhaps even more telling, the evidence is beginning to show a growing rift in the Department of Commerce between those public servants who want to carry out the legitimate duties of the Department and those like Hines who reportedly remarked recently that he hopes to retire by “writing a book” about one of the cases he’s currently investigating. The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that it is precisely this internal rift between real public servants and self-serving bureaucrats that brought about the legislative audit working to uncover the details of this brewing scandal.

“After hearing from several division staff members who expressed concerns about how the agency was being run, Rep. Jim Bird, R-West Jordan, late last year requested that the Legislative Auditor General’s Office audit the division.”

This kind of situation makes for a very unfriendly business environment and is embarrassing to everyone in government. With a formal audit underway, it appears Ms. Giani is simply buying herself time to try and get out from under the explosive details now coming to light. Consider a few embarrassing examples of the work being conducted by Ms. Cruella and her henchmen.

1. Wrongful Accusation of Criminal Behavior against Utah Citizens.
2. Misuse of the Courts and Legal Process.
3. Lying to Government Officials.
4. General Incompetence when it comes to explaining rudiments of the law.
5. Defaming Members of the Legislature who scrutinize the Department.
6. Punishing Citizens with Evidence Against the Department for their Political Activity.
7. Demanding “prior restraints” on Utah Citizens’ free speech, in an attempt to silencecriticism of the Department’s methods in public or in the courts.
8. Government employees lying to the public in order to “create” causes for investigation.
9. Disseminating confidential information obtained during investigations to private sector colleagues to enrich their business efforts.
10. Offering jobs and/or job referrals to witnesses who are willing to lie or distort the truth to defend the Department.

This kind of behavior is precisely what Ronald Reagan warned America about as early as 1964 when he deplored:

“It is time we realized that socialism can come without overt seizure of property or nationalization of private business. It matters little that you hold the title to your property or business if government can dictate policy and procedure and holds life and death power over your business. The machinery of this power already exists. Lowell Mason, former anti-trust law enforcer for the Federal Trade Commission, has written “American business is being harassed, bled and even blackjacked under a preposterous crazy quilt system of laws.” There are so many that the government literally can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute.” (Reagan, Ronald, A Time for Choosing, Speech given October 27, 1964)

Legislation has recently passed the Utah House of Representatives that would rein in the powers of the division and its director in an effort to secure more just handling of the Department’s responsibilities. However, as reported on FreeCapitalist Radio Monday February 12, 2008 this attempt to “rein in” the powers of Ms. Giani and her flying monkeys is being received about as well as the “Wicked Witch of the West” receiving Dorothy and her ruby slippers. For example, after Bird’s HB83 passed the Utah House, Giani defender Utah Senator Curt Bramble (R-Provo), apparently in an effort to help Giani and the Governor’s office stall the brewing controversy, strategically stalled the legislation from being considered by the State Senate indefinitely.

Reminiscent of something behind the iron curtain in the 1980s the outgoing commissar Klein remarked to the attorneys of a Utah citizen recently, who was cooperating with State legislators in their attempts to get to the bottom of the abuses going on in the Department that: because of his political activities the Division was “forced” to take tougher action. In a similar case Klein justified:

“Part of the problem is that I’ve been painted in a corner because your client has gone on the radio and publicly accused us of stuff. He’s got legislators out there trying to cut our powers because what we’re doing as if he’s entirely right in what he’s doing and government is unfairly coming after him. So ordinarily we have more flexibility but where I’ve got public attacks coming in saying we’re being accused of being unfair…[interrupted].”

Ayn Rand also famously warned us of situations like the present scandal brewing in Utah under Ms. Giani’s watch.

“This means that a businessman has no way of knowing in advance whether the action he takes is legal or illegal, whether he is guilty or innocent. It means that a businessman has to live under the threat of a sudden, unpredictable disaster, taking the risk of losing everything he owns or being sentenced to jail, with his career, his reputation, his property, his fortune, the achievement of his whole lifetime left at the mercy of any ambitious young bureaucrat who, for any reason, public or private,may choose to start proceedings against him…It is a form of persecution practiced only in dictatorships and forbidden in every civilized code of law. It is specifically forbidden by the United States Constitution. It is not supposed to exist in the United States and it is not applied to anyone-except to businessmen.”(Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, pg. 50 – from a speech given at the Ford Hall Forum, Boston, on Dec. 17, 1961)

The official audit of Ms. Giani and her staff is still under way. Potential legal action is reportedly pending against the State from private parties alleging damages in the hundreds of millions. Additional complaints are coming in from victims of the Department’s abusive handling methods including complaints against the Division of Real Estate, Licensing, Securities, and Consumer Protection. Transcripts and audio recordings of Commerce employees lying about Utah businessmen and their activities and other highly problematic behavior on the part of government employees are being delivered to government officials and media outlets. In the mean time, Utah citizens (the real Ma’s & Pa’s Mr. Hines is so fond of talking about while he pursues his agenda) are getting tired of being scammed by the so-called “scam busters.” Some investors have recently been told according to evidence obtained through recorded conversations that (consistent with what has been reported about Giani’s style of administration) if citizens want the State to help them they have to be willing to distort the truth and cooperate with the State’s agenda – independent of the facts involved. One local businessman recently complained,

“For more than two years now the Department of Commerce has been after me. They have come at me from every angle, from the Real Estate division, the Securities Division, Consumer protection etc. Every time, I’ve been able to demonstrate that they have no evidence against me and that I and my associates have done nothing wrong. Yet, the government continues to make horrible allegations, publicly bad mouth me and my colleagues and even accuse me of being a criminal to legislatures, business colleagues, and some of my closest associates. All of this so that Francine Giani, Wayne Klein, and Michael Hines can “look” like they’re doing their job. They’ve got all my clients in an uproar, they’ve told this story about what my business “really is,” all truth be damned, and their efforts have cost dozens of real Utahans their jobs and as essentially bankrupt me and my partners to the tune of millions of dollars. All this and not one charge filed, not one official action taken, and not one person in government responsible. There’s not even a forum where I can defend my case, I simply have to wait until these very powerful men and women are done playing politics with me, my investors, my customers, and my business. Maybe I’ll get an apology like Mr. Teran received from the Department, after they’ve succeeded in destroying my company.”

While the citizens of the State wait for the Governor to weigh in on the issue, thank goodness for good legislators and government leaders who don’t hesitate to reach for the pail of water when the Wicked Witch comes around. On a side note, sources suggest that Ms. Giani may already be preparing for her exit, vying for a position as an investigative journalist (Geraldo watch out!) back at Utah’s local Channel 2, KUTV along side consumer watchdog Bill Gephart. If it’s true, it’s likely that Ms. Giani can serve the people of Utah better there – for certainly there’s a role for consumer watchdogs. If she does return to the media perhaps she’ll feel less burdened, being freed from sticky things like State law, due process, fairness, etc.

Its time for Utahns (including our Governor) to get past the old cliché of Utah being among the “scam” capitals of the world, and start taking a closer look at the corrupt bureaucrats irresponsibly promoting that myth to the detriment of good people in a good state working hard to do many good things. Once again scandal is brewing in Utah. This time it’s the government in need of systematic reform. Perhaps Mitt would accept an invitation to come save the day in Salt Lake City one more time. Stay tuned…