Contact
Subscribe


Give Us Money To Help Us Convince You To Give Us More Money

Apr 19, 2010
By .
Politics & Current Events

People with power or with money (whether their own or somebody else's) like to keep it, and like to get more. Even if they hold that power and money for some ostensible noble purpose, they'll spend it all in an effort to keep it. Money and power are their own justification.

We see that when charities, both genuine and fake, use telemarketers to raise money, even at the cost of the telemarketers keeping most of what they raise. We see it when the TSA reacts to criticism of its exercise of powers not with reflection and change, but with a mascot and a PR campaign.

And we see it when the regulatory state spends taxpayer money to persuade taxpayers that they need to be happy with the regulatory state regulating them and spending their money.

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging the public to create video advertisements that explain why federal regulations are “important to everyone.”

The contest, which ends May 17, will award $2,500 to the makers of the video that best explains why federal regulations are good and how ordinary citizens can become more involved in making regulations. The videos must be posted on YouTube and can be no more than 60-90 seconds in length.

So: federal employees will be spending their time (and your money) evaluating God knows how many videos to pick the ones that best make the public happy about them. Note that the point is not to make the public accept specific regulations based on facts and cogent argument — the point is to make the public accept the process, purpose, and extent of government regulation.

It's pretty much like, say, the EPA spending taxpayer money on ad campaigns to convince taxpayers that they should vote for more EPA bureaucrats at higher salaries. The regulatory state's power is it's own purpose.

So, step up and make a video. But no attacks, please. Stick to the positive message:

Keep it clean. No violence, profanity, sex, or attacks on individuals or organizations.

On the other hand, I think that a skillful filmmaker could produce an indictment of the regulatory state disguised as an informational movie. After all, the feds seem proud about some things that are, to some of us, appalling. As the contest's web page brags:

Almost every aspect of our lives is touched by federal regulations. Even before you leave the house in the morning, government regulations help set the price of the coffee you drink, the voltage of electricity your alarm clock uses, and the types of programming allowed on the morning news.

Your government wants you to be happy about that, and it's willing to spend your money in an effort to make you happy about it.

Last 5 posts by Ken

12 Comments
Tags

10 Comments

  1. Dave (nd)  •  Apr 20, 2010 @6:36 am

    I'm curious how this would have been treated by critics of the Bush administration had it been done 4 years ago.

    Though the cynic in me says it probably was, just in a different form.

  2. Patrick  •  Apr 20, 2010 @6:51 am

    Keep it clean. No violence, profanity, sex, or attacks on individuals or organizations.

    I wonder whether this constitutes a First Amendment violation, for a number of reasons like content and viewpoint discrimination, but most specifically: let's say some budding Tarantino produces a schlock masterpiece involving a samurai who cuts down evil polluters, let's call it "Blood Orgy of Green Death." Could he argue that the EPA's restrictions and rules prevented him from winning a valuable prize despite the fact his art was far superior to the bullshit children's singalong video, "Clean Water is Good for Growing Bones," that will win this contest?

  3. Grandy  •  Apr 20, 2010 @7:30 am

    Repression, going to start on Tuesday
    Repression, going to be a Dalek
    Repression, I am a robot
    Repression, I obey

  4. Bob  •  Apr 20, 2010 @7:54 am

    "..and the types of programming allowed on the morning news. "

    Wow.

  5. Mark Thompson  •  Apr 20, 2010 @12:02 pm

    Ken: I initially was as freaked out by this as you, but when I was called out on it, I found that the original source for the "best explains why federal regulation is good" quote is a CNSNews article that simply asserts that without any kind of support. If viewed merely as a contest to explain why people should participate more in the regulatory process, the contest takes on a very different, and much more politically neutral, demeanor. In fact, the opening point about price controls and regulation of news content makes quite a bit of sense if the contest is viewed in this light, since presumably people have very strong opinions on those matters that are rarely heard in the context of the regulatory process, which is typically dominated by the handful of insiders with the most narrow interest in the regulatory subject.

  6. Bob  •  Apr 20, 2010 @1:06 pm

    Oh.. so they aren't bragging about it, they are warning us about it.

  7. Ken  •  Apr 20, 2010 @1:11 pm

    Mark, I agree that the summary of the contest states explicitly what I'm reading implicitly. But I think it's the most reasonable reading. Despite the facially neutral language of the criteria — a film wins if it "promotes greater awareness about federal rulemaking and encourages viewers to participate in the process" — the surrounding circumstances suggest that the bias is strongly pro-regulation. Check out the sample videos they promote as good examples of prior winners for particular departments.

    I don't think an anti-regulatory video is going to win, even if it does promote awareness of the regulatory process and encourage people to participate.

  8. Patrick  •  Apr 20, 2010 @1:16 pm

    In other words, consider the judges Mark. Is the EPA going to select a top quality video produced by the people who create Reason TV, or one that argues, as Bjorn Lomborg does, that the economic and opportunity costs of environmental regulation outweigh its benefits?

    You be the judge.

  9. Mark Thompson  •  Apr 20, 2010 @2:19 pm

    Ken and Patrick – No doubt that the judges are going to have a pro-regulation bias in practice. And also no doubt that an anti-regulation video would have no real chance. And also no doubt that even an apolitical video that hypothetically won would have the effect of encouraging regulation.

    However, the official aim of the contest (ie, educating people about the regulatory process to encourage their participation) is an entirely legitimate one, at least if you accept the notion that it is a legitimate function of government to promote democratic participation more generally (I don't, but it's way down the list of illegitimate government marketing campaigns that bother me). Accepting that notion, I don't really see much other way to run such a contest than under the rules that they've set up.

    Frankly, while there may be a strong inherent pro-regulation bias in the judging of this, the fact is that an anti-regulation video – at least if it made anti-regulation its primary point – would be inherently non-germane to even the officially stated goals of the contest, and would thus deserve not to win. Similarly, a video that goes out of its way to sell the beauty of regulation would also be inherently non-germane to the officially stated goals of the contest, especially given the brief 90-second limitation on the entries. (By contrast, a video that did this only subtly would probably qualify as well).

    Now, if the winner of the contest winds up being an entry that does little explaining of the process and lots of celebration of the awesomeness that is regulation, then I'll have to retract my retraction. But if it just winds up being an entry that just explains, say, notice and comment, and what that process does, and that citizens should try to get engaged in the process….I don't see much that is uniquely problematic about that.

    Now, whether government should be in a position where it is subjectively and explicitly judging the content of speech for whatever reason in the first place is another story altogether. But that ship's sailed, unfortunately and I'm about 1000 times more comfortable with a contest like this than I am with the Office of Drug Control Policy soliciting pro-War on Drugs commercials from its "partners" in the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.

  10. The Californian  •  Apr 21, 2010 @12:00 pm

    Dave (nd): the Bush administration did do that–it was just sneakier about it.

2 Trackbacks