Liberty & Law: IJ's Bimonthly Newsletter (December 2010)

8/7/2019 Liberty & Law: IJ's Bimonthly Newsletter (December 2010)

1/12

IJs New City Studies:Want to Create Jobs?

Remove Red Tape.

Volume 19 Issue 6

IJs Time to Shine

2

IJ WinsMajor Free Speech

Victory

3

F eed m f Fa me s

8

Arizona Tax CreditGoes to U.S. Supreme Court

9

December 2010

Published Bimonthly by theInstitute for Justice

visit us online:

www.ij.org

Inside This Issue

By Dana BerlinerLets face it: American government at every level

works diligently to stop entrepreneurs from ever getting their small businesses off the ground. Sure, governmentofficials claim they support entrepreneurship. But inreality, they often just support a few hand-picked or politi-cally connected businesses, granting virtual monopoliesto favored businesses while shutting out newcomers.They do not support true freedom or entrepreneurship.

Since our founding in 1991, the Institute for Justice has litigated to free would-be entrepreneursfrom arbitrary and abusive government action. In thaspan, we have represented hairbraiders, casket sellerscomputer repair techs, book peddlers, florists, vacuum

vendors, interior designers, bagel and doughnut shopowners, eyebrow threaders, taxi drivers, limo drivers,

van drivers, tour guides, people who file horses teethCity Studies continued on page 4

The Institute for Justices city studies feature real-world entrepreneurs from eight different cities across the nation. Chicago entre-preneur Dee Busch , left, says requiring her to obtain a landscape architecture license would only raise the cost to consumers; it

would not raise the quality. When Nick Harris started Nicks Towing Service, he could work anywhere in the city of Houston.But the city gave just 11 towing companies the exclusive right to freeway tows, and now Nick is shut out of the freeway market.


2/12

By Chip Mellor

Although the recent electionbrought a welcome rebuke of the statist

juggernaut and fiscal irresponsibility, it

will not be enough to ensure that federaland state legislatures refrain from busi-ness as usual. Only constraints imposedon government by the Constitutionwill do that. This means courts mustfulfill their role, which James Madisondescribed as acting as bulwarks of liberty. Unless the judiciary fulfills thisrole and upholds constitutional limits ongovernment, we will be left to rely onthe self-restraint of government officials.History and common sense show that to

be no limit at all.For too long the courts havedeferred to legislative and executiveauthority, effectively amending theConstitution in the process. The resultis that today, key provisions of theConstitution designed to limit govern-ment power have been negated (includ-ing the Privileges or Immunities Clause,and the Contracts Clause) or trans-formed into Orwellian grants of greatergovernment power (as we have seenwith the Commerce Clause, the GeneralWelfare Clause and the Takings Clause).It is no exaggeration to say that to theextent that there is debate, it is overwhether there are provisions of the

Constitution that provideany meaningfullimit on government authority. That iswhere the Institute for Justice comes inand why we look to the next year witheager anticipation.

All of our cases involve constitu-tional provisions that must be restored if we are to have the freedom envisionedby the Founders. IJ is already preparing a bumper crop of cases we will launchin the next year vindicating economicliberty, property rights, free speech andschool choice. Each case will serveas a civic alarm clock for the judge itcomes before, urging judicial engage-ment on vital constitutional issues toreplace the blind deference judges have

too often given to the other branchesof government when those branchesexceed their constitutional authority.Simply put, the Institute for Justiceintends to forcefully, persuasively andpersistently make the case that thecourts must strike down laws and gov-ernment actions that exceed the consti-tutionally enshrined limits on the powerof government.

Texas Supreme Court Justice DonWillett described what this means in arecent opinion: There must remain

judicially enforceable constraints onlegislative actions that are irreconcilablewith constitutional commands. If leg-islators come to believe that the police

power is an ever expanding constitution-al trump card they can play whenever itsuits them, overreaching is inexorable.He wrote that if courts defer such thatthe legislature has limitless power to

declare its actions justified by the policepower, At that constitutional tipping point, adjudication more resemblesabdication.

That makes eminent sense, butbecause of the precedents that are thelegacy of decades of judicial deference,it will require tenacious and long-termadvocacy.

The good news, however, is thatthe recent excesses of the federal gov-ernment have made all but the most

obstinate disciples of judicial restraintrecognize how dangerous uncheckedlegislative and executive power canbe. Thus, the country is ready likenever before for a concentrated effortto revitalize the Constitution through thecourts. And no one is better equippedthan IJ to do that. IJs program com-bines cutting-edge litigation, award-win-ning media relations, in-depth strategicresearch, energetic grassroots mobiliza-tion and expert legislative counseling tomaximize the real-world impact of everycase we take on.

As the Institute for Justice entersits twentieth year, that time-testedapproach gives us confidence andoptimism about meeting the challengesahead. u

Chip Mellor is IJsPresident and General

Counsel.

Need for Judicial EngagementMakes IJ More Critical Than Ever

The Institute for Justice intends to forcefully, persuasively and persistently make the case that the courts must strikedown laws and government actions that exceed the consti-

tutionally enshrined limits on the power of government.


3/12

December 201

IJ Scores Major Free Speech Victory For Parker North Neighbors

By Steve Simpson

In November, a federal appellate

court ruled that six neighbors in thetiny subdivision of Parker North, Colo.,should not have been forced to regis-ter with the government and complywith burdensome campaign financelaws simply for opposing a ballot issueinvolving the annexation of their neigh-borhood.

In Sampson v. Buescher , apanel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously recognized thesevere burden Colorados campaign

finance laws imposed on grassrootspolitical activists. The court ruled,The average citizen cannot beexpected to master on his or herown the many campaign financial-disclosure requirements set forth inColorados constitution, the CampaignAct, and the Secretary of States RulesConcerning Campaign and PoliticalFinance.

IJ client Karen Sampson said,This ruling is a complete vindication of what weve said all along. Campaignregulations and red tape serve nopurpose in local ballot issue electionsother than to make political participa-tion more difficult for ordinary citizens.

For a brief and funny videodiscussing this lawsuit, visit IJs site:www.ij.org/2504 .

Sampson and her neighbors firstlearned about Colorados campaignfinance laws when they organizedto oppose the annexation of theirneighborhood into the adjacent town

of Parker. The group talked to neigh-bors, circulated postcards and planted

yard signs. But in Colorado and otherstates, when two or more peoplespend more than $200 to speakout about a ballot issue, they mustregister with the state as an issuecommittee and comply with rulesand regulations that rival the tax lawsin their complexity. Issue committeesmust appoint a registered agent, openseparate bank accounts, and discloseall contributions and expenditures of more than $20 for things like yardsigns and fliers. Because Sampsonand the others failed to register withthe government before speaking, theprincipal proponents of the annexationused Colorados campaign financelaws to sue them.

This ruling means that grassrootspolitical activists in Colorado and theother states in the 10th Circuit canspeak freely without fear of being

sued by their political opponents. TheCourt recognized that states havelittle or no interest in requiring groupsthat simply wish to speak out for andagainst ballot issues to register andcomply with complicated disclosurerules.

Freedom of speech means thatcitizens, not government, get to decidewhether to disclose their identitieswhen they speak out about ballotissues. For those who dont trustanonymous speech, the solution is tonot listen to it.

The courts decision is supportedby IJs strategic research. CampaignFinance Red Tape , Dr. Jeffrey Milyo of the University of Missouri asked 255people to fill out the registration anddisclosure forms for a small politicalgroup. Not one participant man-aged to do so correctly. The averagecorrect score was just 41 percent.

No one should be afraid to speak about issues orpolitics for fear of being sued, and no one shouldhave to hire a lawyer to put up yard signs.

IJ client Karen Sampson

Parker North continued on page 10


4/12


5/12

December 201December 201

permitting processes; pointless educationalrequirements for occupations; or even just out-right bans.

In every city we studied, overwhelming

regulations destroyed or crippled would-be busi-nesses at a time when they are most needed.For example, to operate a used bookstore inLos Angeles, the government demands that theowner get a permit from the police; record thepersonal information of everyone who bringsin books for exchange or resale, including theirnames, addresses and book titles; and makethis information available to the police. In somecases, the bookstore owner even has to thumb- print patrons who bring in books and file dailyreports with the police. In Washington, D.C.,to give sightseeing tours for compensation,the city requires you to first get a government-issued license. Similar requirements exist inPhiladelphia and elsewhere. So, as tour guidespass the National Archives, which houses origi-nals of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,they dont have the freedom to describe thosecharters of freedom without first getting the gov-ernments permission.

Time and again, these reports documenthow local bureaucrats believe they should

dictate every aspect of a persons small busi-ness. Government officials want to choose whocan go into which business, where, what thebusiness should look like and what signs will

be put in the windows. And if that means thatbusinesses fail, or never open, or can operateonly illegally, or waste all their money trying toget permits so they have nothing left for actualoperations, thats just too bad. This attitudewould be bad enough in prosperous times, butin a period of financial strain and high unem-ployment, its also incredibly foolish.

The studies were released in October andhave already received significant media cover-age, including an editorial fromThe Wall Street Journal , an op-ed I co-authored with Chip Mellorfor USA Today online, and op-eds and newspieces in the cities studied.

In the coming months, we will use thesestudies as a source for new litigation, toadvance the cause of entrepreneurs nationwideand to remove some of the barriers that crushentrepreneurs struggling to startor grow their businesses.u

Dana Berliner is an IJsenior attorney.

MIAMI: Little Havanas historic character comwith a price for local businesses, which must gegovernment permission for minor alterations to theibuildings. Marta Ismail waited seven monthpermission for an awning outside her gallery.

LOS ANGELES: Jill Bigelows most frustexperience while trying to open her restaurant wawhen an inspector would not allow her to opebecause her previously approved wall tile did nhave enough reflective value.

Philadelphia entrepreneur, Aaron Ultimo , left, has waited more than one year for agovernment-issued license to serve beer. Every week that goes by is less revenue in thegovernments pocket, he points out. Nasir Kahn opened his dream business, a hot dogrestaurant, in Milwaukee, investing his and his wifes savings, only to have a city aldermanarbitrarily shut it down on his first day.


6/12

By Paul ShermanUnder the First Amendment, the only

thing you should need to talk about politicsis an opinion. After all, as the U.S. SupremeCourt has recognized, the First Amendmentwas designed to protect a marketplace of ideasthat is uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.

Yet across the country, ordinary Americansfind their right to associate with one anotherand speak out on the most important politicalissues of the day stifled by burdensome regu-lations.

Consider Nathan Worley, Pat Waymanand John Scolaro. At least once a week, thesethree talk politics as part of a Sarasota-areapolitical group. But when a controversialconstitutional amendment made it onto theFlorida ballot, they decided it was time to takepolitical action.

Nathan, Pat and John were worriedabout proposed Amendment 4 to the FloridaConstitution, which, if passed, would requiremunicipalities to submit all changes to theircomprehensive land-use plans to a referen-dum. Nathan and the others feared that thiscostly and time-consuming requirement woulddevastate Floridas economy, prolonging anddeepening the current recession. To preventthis, they wanted to pool a modest amountof money to run a simple radio ad before theNovember election, urging Florida voters toreject Amendment 4an amendment that ulti-mately was defeated.

Unfortunately, Nathan and the otherscould not simply call up the radio station andplace their ad because Florida made doing soillegal. Under Floridas campaign finance laws,these three could not join together and spendmore than $500 to speak to the public unlessthey first registered with the state as a politi-cal committee and complied with all of theregulations that political candidates hire law-

yers and accountants to deal with. These lawsare so onerous that earlier this year the U.S.

Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal

Election Commission ruled that identical federallaws are unconstitutionally burdensome even forcorporations and unions.

Laws that are unconstitutionally burden-some for well-heeled institutions like GeneralMotors and the AFL-CIO are unconstitutionallyburdensome for ordinary Americans. That iswhy Nathan, Pat and John are fighting back.

On September 29, they joined with theInstitute for Justice to file a federal lawsuitseeking to strike down Floridas unconstitu-tional campaign finance laws. Their lawsuit,Worley v. Roberts , is the first in the Institute for

Justices new nationwide effort to ensure thatgroups of ordinary Americans have the free-dom to band together to amplify their voiceswithout having to deal with burdensome redtape.

Although Nathan and the others neverhad the opportunity to make their voices heardbefore the electiona federal judge denied amotion that would have allowed them to speakwhile their lawsuit was pendingFlorida votersnonetheless resoundingly rejected Amendment4 on November 2. Despite having been

silenced, Nathan and the others will continue

their legal fight to ensure that they and allFloridians can speak freely in future electionsIn addition to filing this lawsuit, IJ

released a groundbreaking report on howburdensome campaign finance laws stiflegrassroots speech (see next page) and sentletters to government officials nationwideurging them to bring their states campaignfinance laws in line withCitizens United , sothat grassroots groups of citizens can enjoythe same freedom to speak in elections as cor-porations and unions.

Participation in political debate is not aprivilege reserved for political insiders who caafford to retain lawyers and accountants; it is aright that belongs to all Americans. We aim trestore this fundamental principle and ensurethat all Americans can speak freely about theissues that matter most to them. u

Paul Sherman is an IJstaff attorney.

IJ Launches Nationwide Defense

Of Citizen Speech

IJ client Nathan Worley filed suit in Florida, which demands that he and his politically minded friendsregister with the government and comply with other burdensome requirements before they speak.

ST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH FIRST AMEND


7/12

December 201

Keep Out!Campaign Finance Lawsas Barriers to Entry

Camp Politics VideoTeaches with Humor

By Lisa Knepper

Entrepreneurs bring vitality to themarketplace, driving innovation andchange. But all too often, establishedinterests respond to such competitionnot by competing in turn, but by collud-ing with government to pass laws like

occupational licensing rules that keepupstarts out of the market.

In the political arena, campaignfinance laws have the same effect,as University of Missouri economistand campaign finance expert JeffreyMilyo shows in a new IJ strategicresearch report, Keep Out: How State Campaign Finance Laws Erect Barriers to Entry for Political Entrepreneurs. (For a copy of thereport, visit: www.ij.org/KeepOut .)

Whether it is the civil rightsmovement of the 1960s or todays teaparty movement, outsiders in Americanpolitics have always played a crucialrole in challenging the status quo bypushing new ideas to the fore andinspiring newcomers to run for publicoffice, writes Milyo.

Such political entrepreneurs bring vibrancy to American democracy andkeep the political establishment on itstoes. Yet campaign finance laws in all50 states erect barriers to entry thateffectively tell newcomers to keep out.

Milyo shows how contribution limitsand campaign finance red tape make itharder for political entrepreneurs to formnew groups and reduce the resourcesavailable for political advocacy.

Consider IJs clients in our CitizenSpeech case in Florida (see previouspage). They wanted to make their voic-es heard with their own messagenotdonate to support some other more-established groups message. But

Florida ties them up in red tape if theyspeak out on their own.

Or consider SpeechNow.org . The

group wanted to defeat candidateswho favor campaign finance laws, butfederal contribution limits made largedonations to its efforts illegal. Milyoshows that such new groups in particu-lar need large contributionspolitical

venture capitalto get off the groundand attract support. With help fromthe Institute for Justice and the Centerfor Competitive Politics, SpeechNow.org defeated the federal limits, but similarlaws remain in nearly two dozen states.

To political pros, these laws arebarely nuisances. But to would-bepolitical entrepreneurs, they are barri-ers to the political arena. That is howcampaign finance laws lead to fewernew voices and cement the status quo.Indeed, that is entirely the point.u

Lisa Knepper is IJsdirector of strategic

research.

KEEPO U TKEEPO U T

How State Campaign Finance Laws ErectBarriers to Entry for Political Entrepreneurs

By Jeffrey Milyo, Ph.D.September 2010

www.ij.org/CampPolitics

Download the report: www.ij.org/KeepOut .

Public policy and legal issues may start out as boringand complicated topics, but no one ever said they muststay that way.

So, to better help the public understand the dangersof government-imposed campaign finance restrictions, theInstitute for Justice breathed some life and humor into thisoften dry and complicated subject. Through a video calle

Camp Politics, which was written by IJ Senior AttorneyBert Gall, the Institute for Justice showed how politiciansuse campaign finance laws to silence their political oppo-nents. As part of the Institutes broader Citizen Speechinitiative, IJ is working to illustrate how these laws harmordinary people who want nothing more than to speak totheir friends and neighbors about politics.

Our tongue-in-cheek video (available atwww.ij.org/CampPolitics ) focuses on the dirty little secret behindcampaign finance laws: Incumbent politicians like thembecause they make it harder for those outside the politi-cal establishment to speak out against their reelection.

Camp Politics offers a mock advertisement for a childrenssummer camp that trains aspiring politicos. At CampPolitics, kids learn how to kiss babies, survive scandals,dine on pork, andmost importantlycircumvent the FirAmendment in order to remain in office.

Although we want the videos viewers to laugh, ourprimary goal is to show them that there is nothing funnyabout the damage these laws do to Americans FirstAmendment rights.

So far, 20,000 viewers have enjoyed their trip throughCamp Politics. If you have not visited yet, be sure to enjothis video today and share it with your friends. And while

you are at it, check out the Institutes videos on othercases, too. u

EE SPEECH FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEEC


8/12

8

By Anthony Sanders

Farmers and consumers in Lake Elmo,

Minn., and across the nation recently wona victory for interstate trade and farming freedom. Thanks to pressure brought tobear by an IJ lawsuit filed in May of this

yearas detailed in the August 2010 edi-tion of Liberty & Law the Lake Elmo CityCouncil repealed its ban on farmers selling produce grown outside the city. Now, farm-ers may make those sales once they applyfor a simple permit.

The change is an important victorynot only for our clients, the Bergmannfamily, who may now keep selling producegrown outside the city as they have donefor almost 40 years, but it also protectsthe right of our out-of-state clients fromWisconsin, Nebraska and North Carolina,who merely wanted to sell their pumpkinsand Christmas trees to the Bergmanns. IJhelped the city of Lake Elmo better appre-ciate that the right to interstate trade isprotected by the Constitutions CommerceClause.

The case demonstrates how pressurefrom principled litigation can shape legisla-

tion. Three months after filing our suit, afederal magistrate judge issued an opinion

recommending that our motion for a prelim-inary injunction be granted. He stated thatthe citys ordinance likely unconstitutionallydiscriminates against interstate commercebecause it squelches competition . . .altogether, leaving no room for investmentfrom outside. Recognizing that the lawcould have a devastating effect on inter-state trade, he stated that the result fromenforcement of the law will be the oblitera-tion of the Lake Elmo markets in pumpkinsand Christmas trees. . . . In fact, Plaintiffshave shown that the markets will be wipedout.

With a likely defeat staring them inthe face, city officials made sure that theypassed a new ordinance allowing sales of interstate produce, such as the pumpkinsand Christmas trees our clients sell, withoutdiscriminating in favor of produce grown in-state rather than out-of-state.

IJs victory in this case will helpfarmers in future legal fights tear downgovernment-imposed restrictions on whatthey may sell on their land. Nationwide,

a patchwork of zoning regulations forbidsfarmers from freely selling their own prod-

ucts to each other and their customers.Some jurisdictions allow farmers to sell onlyproducts they grow while others require thatno more than a certain percentage of theirsales be grown elsewhere. As IJ demon-strated in this case, many of these restric-tions have an adverse impact on interstatecommerce and unconstitutionally favor localinterests over Americas nationwide market-place. The Institute for Justice will be onthe lookout for similar challenges that helpus preserve our nations long history of freeand open trade among the states.

Because of this victory, the Bergmannsand our other clients will not only help theircustomers celebrate the holidays, but theythemselves can celebrate the importantrole they played in vindicating the kind of free and open marketplace that AmericasFounders envisioned.u

Anthony Sanders is anIJ Minnesota Chapter

staff attorney.

An IJ Victory Down on the Farm

Thanks to a legislative amendment spurred by IJ litigation, the Bergmann family of Lake Elmo, Minn., may nowsell pumpkins from Wisconsin and Nebraska, and Christmas trees from North Carolina on their Minnesota farm.


9/12

December 201

By Tim Keller

On a bright, clear and cold November morn-ing in the heart of our nations capitol, 800 smiling Arizona children faced out from the U.S. SupremeCourt while the Justices inside questioned lawyersabout the constitutionality of a tax credit scholarshipprogram those children rely on to attend privateschoolsschools chosen by their parents. And IJ

was in the thick of the battle to save these childrenseducational futures. IJ represents parents and chil-dren in the case who use these scholarships andhope to preserve this educational lifeline.

The children outside thecourtroom were notphysically pres-ent, butthanksto the creativityof IJs Directorof Activismand Coalitions

School choice showdown atU.S. Supreme Court

AZ School Choice continued on page 10

Christina Walsh and the graphic design wizardryof IJs Production and Design team members DonWilson and Robyn Pattersonthe children werethere when we unfurled a 50-foot banner featuring photographs representing many of the 27,000 chil-dren who depend on the scholarship program. Thebanner declared in simple and stark terms: Facesof School Choice in Arizona: Real Children, Real

Consequences.Inside the courtroom, months of intensebriefing and preparation played out in a dramatic

and intense oral argument.There are twolegal ques-tions at issuein Garriott v.Winn. Thefirst questionis whether

a small handful of Arizona taxpayerswho oppose school choice even havestanding to challenge the program.The standing question asks whetherthe plaintiffs have been harmed by theprogram. Through our litigation andbriefing, IJ has consistently argued thatthese plaintiffs have not been harmed

because they have not paid a singlepenny in taxes to support private orreligious schools. In fact, everybodybenefits from increasing parental libertto choose the school that best fits theirchilds individual learning style. Andthe government benefits financially frobeing relieved of the obligation to payfor the education of those children whoparticipate in the scholarship program.

IJ attorneys Dick Komer , left, and Tim Keller , right, look on as IJ client Glenn Dennard speaks after the U.S. Supreme Court argument in Garriott v. Winn to defend Arizonas schoolchoice tax credit program.

D.C. Parents for School Choice spokesperson Virginia Walden-Ford and otherparents were in attendance to support the Arizona families. They held up a ban-

ner featuring the faces of 800 children who benefit from the choice program.


10/120

If the Court determines the plaintiffs were not harmed, it will notreach the second question, which asks whether the program violatesthe Establishment Clauses prohibition against laws respecting anestablishment of religion. The Court has consistently upheld schoolchoice programslike Arizonasthat are based on private choice,where private individuals rather than government bureaucrats choosewhere the aid is used. And private choice is the defining characteristicof Arizonas scholarship program.

But the Courts liberal blocJustices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kaganand Sotomayorasked questions that seemed generally hostile to the

program. The questions Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scaliaand Alito asked suggested they believed the program operates likethe Cleveland school voucher program the Court upheld in its 2002Zelman v. Simmons-Harris decision (a decision in which JusticeKennedy joined). Justice Thomas, as is his custom, asked no ques-tions, and the Courts presumptive swing vote, Justice Kennedy, askedprobing questions of both sides.

Now comes the hardest part of allwaiting for a decision, which isexpected to be announced sometime this spring. When it does come,we expect the Court will, even if by a narrow margin, reaffirm that theConstitution permits school choice programs that empower parents tochoose the school best suited to meet their childs educational needs.

That will help set the stage for next year when we expect to seea groundswell of new legislative initiatives for school choice across thenation. IJ will be on call to help craft and defend those programs, too,even if it means another long journey to the SupremeCourt.u

Tim Keller is the IJ Arizona Chapterexecutive director.

Watch IJs video, Arizona School Choice Fight Goes to U.S.Supreme Court.

www.ij.org/WinnVideo

Each person could have been subject to fines andpenalties in real life. Like those in Parker North,participants found the red tape was worse than theIRS! and said it would make them less likely to getinvolved in politics. Milyos research was featured onABCs20/20 .

This is yet another important victory in theInstitute for Justices efforts to protect free speechfrom government-imposed restrictions in the guiseof so-called campaign finance reforms. In March,IJ, working together with the Center for Competitive

Politics, won in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appealson behalf of SpeechNow.org, a group of individu-als who are now free to pool their money withoutlimits to run independent political ads for or againstcandidates based on their support for the FirstAmendment. As of last month, at least 50 newSpeechNow-styled groups were established toparticipate in the 2010 election. Last year, IJ suc-cessfully challenged Floridas electioneering com-munications lawthe broadest regulation of politicalspeech in the nation. And on November 23, theU.S. Supreme Court will have considered whetherto accept the Institute for Justices challenge toArizonas so-called Clean Elections system.

With all of this progress, plus the launch of IJsCitizen Speech endeavor, IJ continues to set thepace and the direction in the fight for free speech.u

Steve Simpson is an IJ senior attorney.

Watch IJs video, Karen Sampson & Free Speech.

www.ij.org/2504

School choice back at the

U.S. Supreme Court

Parker North continued from page 3

AZ School Choice continued from page 9


11/12

December 201

Quotable QuotesFox Business

Stossel

IJ Senior Attorney Dana Berliner: Cityand state governments, and the federalgovernment, really see it as their role toprevent people from going into and starting small businesses, really from doing anything creative.

WTTG-TV (Fox)Washington, D.C.

IJ Staff Attorney Robert McNamara:In this country, we rely on people to decidewho they want to listen to. We dont rely onthe government to decide whos going to beallowed to speak. The First Amendment pro-tects your right to communicate for a living.And thats true whether youre a journalist, astand-up comedian or a tour guide.

WTXL-TV (ABC)Tallahassee, Florida

IJ Staff Attorney Paul Sherman: TheFirst Amendment protects the right of individ-uals to speak and think for themselves. Andour clients political message has nothing todo with their identity.

Entrepreneur Magazine

This week, the nonprofit Institute for Justice in Virginia released a series of studiesof business conditions in eight major cities, including Chicago, L.A. and Washington,D.C. . . . In essence, the growing complexity of local and state laws about how andwhether you can operate a particular type of business in a particular place are chok-ing the life out of small business.

Freedom Needs IJ.IJ Needs You.

Donate Today!

Never in recent memory has

the need for constitutional

constraints on government

power been more painfully

obvious.

Thats where the Institute for

Justice comes in.

We produce immediate,

real-world results for our

clients and others like them,

while restoring constitutional

limits on the power of

government.

Please give generously today.

www.ij.org/donate

(703) 682-9320 ext 233

901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900Arlington, VA 22203


12/12

Institute for Justice901 N. Glebe RoadSuite 900

Arlington, VA 22203

Read the Institute

or Justice study and

oull better under-

tand why the busi-

ess of America is

o longer business.

ts bureaucracy.

The Wall Street Journal

NoN-ProFIT orG.

U . S . P o S T A G E

P A I D

I N S T I T U T E F o r

J U S T I C E

My home means everything to my family and me.

But my city wanted to take my property away so a politically connected developer could build condos.

I fought to protect my property rights . . . and yours.

And I won.

I am IJ.

Documents

Liberty & Law: IJ's Bimonthly Newsletter (December 2010)