Site Meter


stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 22 (First Amendment News) — New Documentary on Mr. First Amendment — Nat Hentoff

imagesPerhaps no person alive better embodies the spirit of the First Amend — robust, rebellious, free-flyin’ and straight-talking — than Nat Hentoff. Fuse the life spirit of Lenny Bruce together with that of the early Bob Dylan and add a dollop of Miles Davis’ jazz and Allen Ginsberg’s poetry and you’ll get a sense of Hentoff’s persona. There is also a Tom Paine quality about him — feisty in his defense of freedom, no matter how unpopular it makes him. Some liberals love him, some conservatives admire him, and some libertarians applaud him — but very few come along for the full Hentoff monty. And that’s the way he likes it! If you have an open mind and a tolerant side, you gotta love the guy . . . if only at a First Amendment distance.

If any of this strikes a chord in your free-speech consciousness, then check out the new documentary on Nat — The Pleasures of Being out of Step, directed by David L. Lewis. Here is a description of the documentary:

Pleasures profiles legendary jazz writer and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, whose career tracks the greatest cultural and political movements of the last 65 years. The film is about an idea as well as a man – the idea of free expression as the defining characteristic of the individual. . . . Pleasures wraps the themes of liberty and identity around a historical narrative that stretches from the Great Depression to the Patriot Act. Brought to life by actor Andre Braugher, the narration doesn’t tell the story – it is the story, consisting entirely of writings by Hentoff and some of his subjects. With a potent mix of interviews, archival footage, photographs and music, the film employs a complex non-linear structure to engage the audience in a life of independent ideas and the creation of an enduring voice.

At the core of the film are three extraordinarily intimate interviews with Hentoff, shot by award-winning cinematographer Tom Hurwitz. The film also includes interviews with Floyd Abrams, Amiri Baraka, Stanley Crouch, Dan Morgenstern, Aryeh Neier, Karen Durbin, Margot Hentoff and John Gennari, among others. It features music by Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Bob Dylan and Charles Mingus, and never-before seen photographs of these artists and other cultural figures at the height of their powers.

 Here is the trailer.

→ Here is the bookThe Pleasures of Being Out of Step: Nat Hentoff’s Life in Journalism, Jazz and the First Amendment.

 Screenings have been in New York and are now happening on the West Coast.

Nat Hentoff on Bill Buckley's Firing Line

Nat Hentoff on Bill Buckley’s Firing Line

Hentoff Books

Some of Nat Hentoff’s books on free speech and related topics include the following:

→ As if that were not enough (and I left out all the jazz books), I gather that the 89-year-old Hentoff is working on a new book.

Video clips

See and hear the man himself on this Brian Lamb, C-SPAN (YouTube) interview with Nat (go here).

→ And go here, too, for Richard Heffner’s Open Mind interview with Nat.  (See also here for a Cato Interview)

→ One more — this is precious: The young Nat debating the young Bill Buckley on Firing Line.

Shaun McCutcheon Launches Litigation Group

The petitioner in the landmark McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) case has decided he wants to do more to further the cause of the First Amendment as he understands it. To that end, Shaun McCutcheon has launched a foundation – the Coolidge-Reagan Foundation.

→ Its purpose? “The Foundation is dedicated to defending, protecting, and advancing political speech.” Read More

0

Whatever Happened to Harriet Miers?

Miers_Harriet_newpgWith Justice Alito writing the last two opinions of the Term, I was overwhelmed by a sense of curiosity about what happened to Harriet Miers–President Bush’s first pick for Justice Alito’s seat.  Turns out that after she left the Administration she went back to her old law firm–here is her firm bio.  It’s interesting that the profile does not list “Nominated to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court” as one of her accomplishments (after all, how many other people can say that?)

In my draft article (almost done!), I note that Justice Fortas’s ethical problems made it much harder for presidents to appoint a close advisor to the Court without getting hit with the charge of cronyism.  The Miers nomination reinforced that understanding, though she had other issues.

Failed Fiduciaries: Pension Funds’ Alliances with Private Equity Firms

As Yves Smith has reported, “the SEC has now announced that more than 50 percent of private equity firms it has audited have engaged in serious infractions of securities laws.” Smith, along with attorney Timothy Y. Fong, has been trying to shed light on PE arrangements for months, but has often been blocked by the very entities taken advantage of by the PE firms. As Smith concludes:

[I]nvestors have done a poor job of negotiating agreements so that they protect their interests and have done little if any monitoring once they’ve committed to a particular fund. As we’ll chronicle over the next few days, anyone who reads these agreements against the disclosures that investors are now required to make to the SEC and the public in their annual Form ADV can readily find numerous abuses. . . . But rather than live up to their fiduciary duties, pension funds that have invested in private equity funds haven’t merely sat pat as they were fleeced; even worse, they’ve been staunch defenders of the private equity industry’s special pleadings.

The SEC Chair has also harshly criticized the arrangements. States are making token efforts to reform matters after being exposed, but don’t expect much substantive to be done. The key problem is the distinction between those running pension funds, and what Jennifer Taub calls the “ultimate investors“–those whose accounts are being managed. Until their interests are better aligned, expect to see more sweetheart deals via “alternative investments.”

0

Truth, Candor, and Crisis at Yeshiva University

Among universities in trouble, the darkest cloud hangs over Yeshiva University, a venerable Jewish institution founded in New York in 1886. The University acknowledges huge economic losses and failed investment policies and is taking extraordinary steps to balance its books, including ceding control over its one-time crown jewel, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, which has close friends of its law school, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, very concerned.  Critics, moreover, see a death spiral and question the leadership’s candor.

Amid calls for the resignation or dismissal of Yeshiva’s president, Mr. Richard M. Joel, he says the University will no longer engage with the media on fiscal questions. The Wall Street Journal reports that the University has hired the crisis-management communications firm, Kekst & Co., but any benefits from that hiring are not yet obvious.sunlight

In a familiar pattern facing other organizations in crisis, what both sides miss in this dangerous heightening of tensions is the importance of trust to any institution’s health. To resolve this crisis, as always, the institution’s leadership must regain trust by explaining how its current fiscal stewardship advances the institution’s mission. Critics must not rush to judgment and hear the leadership out on what it has learned from recent problems and plans for the future.

Like other investors, part of Yeshiva’s problems are due to the financial collapse of 2008, but its roots are a bit deeper and offer broader lessons. Since at least 1993, the board of trustees oversaw Yeshiva’s endowment and made investment decisions. University policy permitted trustees to invest endowment in funds the trustees managed, despite conflicts of interest, so long as they made full disclosure.

During the early 2000s, the trustees increasingly allocated endowment to their own hedge funds, which were heavily weighted in risky securities. By 2008, the endowment, valued at more than $1 billion, held riskier investments than those of peer institutions. The financial upheaval of 2008 thus hit Yeshiva even harder than most peers, shrinking its endowment by more than $300 million, including $100 million due to the Ponzi scheme of Bernie Madoff, whose top victims also included a Yeshiva trustee.

While it appears that the trustees and the administration acted in good faith, even if no laws were broken, poor judgment abounded. The loose conflict-of-interest policy certainly was a mistake, as a trustee’s personal involvement skews his judgment. Reputable and durable institutions scrupulously avoid the remotest appearance of impropriety. For stalwarts like Yeshiva, this principle of integrity, coupled with an ethic of prudence, should govern investment decisions.

The University learned its lesson from this calamity and has adopted new policies that may serve as a model for other endowments. It created a professional investment office to set strategy, updated oversight protocols, and established a rigorous conflicts policy. While thus implicitly recognizing earlier weaknesses, the University has not offered a mea culpa nor has it identified particular past faults—whether sins of omission or commission, of process or substance, or whether the product of mere haplessness or of actual chicanery. That reticence allows unimpressed critics to overlook the significance of these reforms.

It is hard to measure objectively the exact economic costs of Yeshiva’s policies or market onslaughts from which it has suffered. One result of this difficulty is wildly different numbers being reported by the University and critics—ranging from $300 million to a staggering $1.3 billion. However, it is less important to achieve consensus on financial figures than to find common ground on productive next steps.

At stake is advancing the institution’s core mission, which is not to maximize endowment or earn a profit but to promote knowledge and teach students. The fiscal drama becomes a superficial distraction from fundamental academic judgments about the relation among current and future pedagogical, scholarly, scientific, cultural and religious needs and resources.

Constituents would rightly like to know more about Yeshiva’s finances as well as the academic thinking behind decisions concerning building or closing facilities and forming or ending joint ventures and programs. For example, when Yeshiva recently ceded managerial control over Einstein College of Medicine to another institution to cut costs, it did not publicly detail the educational rationale. Critics jumped on the move, assuming and asserting that it was a sign of distress rather than a shrewd maneuver that promotes the University’s goals.

When institutions are imperiled in this way, the best course of action is to make certain that the operative facts are publicly known, to identify lessons learned, and to act on them. In that spirit, the University might do well to form an independent task force with unlimited access to University information charged to report a public assessment of where things stand and where they are going. Lifting the cloud over this 128-year old bastion of Judaism, such a look would enable Yeshiva University to move forward with its important business of education.

Lawrence A. Cunningham, a graduate and former faculty member of Yeshiva University’s law school (Cardozo), is a professor at George Washington University and the author of the forthcoming book, Berkshire Beyond Buffett: The Enduring Value of Values.

Beyond Too Big to Fail

After documenting extraordinary rent-seeking (and gaining) by financial institutions, John Quiggin comes to the following conclusion:

[A]ny serious attempt to stabilize the macroeconomy and return to sustainable improvements in living standards must involve a drastic reduction in the size and economic weight of the financial sector. Attempts at regulating derivatives markets have proved utterly futile in the face of massive incentives to take profitable risks, backed up by the guarantee of a government bailout.

The only remaining option is to separate these markets entirely from the socially useful parts of the financial system, then let them fail. Publicly guaranteed banks should be banned from engaging in all but the most basic financial transactions, such as issuing loans and bonds and accepting deposits. In particular, banks should be prohibited from doing any business with institutions engaged in speculative finance such as trade in derivatives. Such institutions should be required to raise all their funds directly from investors, on a “buyer beware” basis, and should never be bailed out, directly or indirectly, when they get into trouble.

The theme of separating out the utility-like, payment systems management functions of banks, from speculative finance, is something I’ve been hearing in a good deal of British thought on financial regulation.  I expect American policy makers to catch up soon.

 

 

 

 

0

The Babe Ruth of Good Business Today

baberuthOne hundred years ago this week, on July 11, 1914, George Herman (“Babe”) Ruth made his major league debut, for the Boston Red Sox at two-year old Fenway Park. Over the course of his baseball career, The Great Bambino set many records, including leading the league in home runs for twelve seasons; most total bases in a season (457); and highest slugging percentage for a season (.847). In all, he hit 714 home runs, a record that stood until 1974, when Hank Aaron of the Atlanta Braves claimed the title. But that is not why the Babe is immortal.

Other home run kings have achieved nothing like Ruth’s iconic status. Many decade-leading hitters—such as Harry Davis, Gavy Cravath, or Jimmie Foxx—are barely known. Even falling short of Ruth’s stature are the two players who passed him in home runs, Aaron and Barry Bonds (Pittsburgh Pirates and San Francisco Giants), who took the top spot in 2007. Nor is Ruth’s immortality due entirely to the fact that he also excelled as a pitcher: for forty-three years he held the record for consecutive scoreless innings pitched in World Series play and his overall win-loss ratio (.671) remains the seventh best of all time.

Ruth’s immorality, rather, is due to how, through such extraordinary feats, he changed the game of baseball. He brought power to the sport at a time when typical strategy was to move players around the bases one small hit at a time. While baseball was thriving as an American pastime before he played, the Babe’s bold style, vast generosity, and utter unpretentiousness won the public’s adulation. His deep sense of ethics helped to rescue baseball from the damage done by the miscreant players who threw the 1919 World Series.  His strength and optimism gave hope to millions during the Great Depression. Ruth made baseball a richer sport with a wider and enduring following, which is why we all recognize his name a century after his rookie year. And people venerate the Babe despite his many bad personal habits, such as gluttony, promiscuity, and pugnaciousness.

In American business, we have likewise enshrined transformative figures like Ruth despite faults. Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and Cornelius Vanderbilt built the nation’s infrastructure while J. P. Morgan and Henry Ford forged its business structures and methods. We condemn the cheaters to memory’s hell—from Charles Ponzi to Bernie Madoff—or at least purgatory, as with Michael Milken. We remain ambivalent about the likes of Jay Gould and others still derided as robber barons. Read More

2

Need an alternative to the third party doctrine? Look backwards, not forward. (Part I)

500px-Folder_home.svg

In light of the renewed discussion on the future of the third party doctrine on this blog and elsewhere (much of it attributable to Riley), I’d like to focus my next couple of posts on the oft-criticized rule, with the aim of exploring a few questions that will hopefully be interesting* to readers. For the purpose of these posts, I’m assuming readers are familiar with the third party doctrine and the arguments for and against it.

I’ll start with the following question: Let’s assume the Supreme Court decides to scale back the third party doctrine.  Where in the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence should the Justices look for an alternative approach?  I think this is an interesting and important question in light of the serious debate, both in academia and on the Supreme Court, about the third party doctrine’s effect on privacy in the information age.

One answer, which may represent the conventional wisdom, is that there simply is nothing in the Supreme Court’s existing precedent that supports a departure from the Court’s all or nothing approach to Fourth Amendment rights in Smith and Miller.  According to this answer, the Court’s only choice if it wishes to “reconsider” the third party doctrine is to create new, technology specific rules that address the problems of the day.  (I’ve argued elsewhere that existing Fourth Amendment doctrine doesn’t bind the Court to rigid applications of its existing rules in the face of new technologies.)

A closer look at the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence suggests another option, however. The Supreme Court has not applied the underlying rationale from its third party doctrine cases to all forms of government intrusion.  Indeed, for almost a century the Supreme Court has been willing to depart from the all or nothing approach in another Fourth Amendment context: government searches of dwellings and homes.  As I’ll discuss below, the Supreme Court has used various tools—including the implied license rule in last year’s Jardines, the standard of “common understandings,” and the scope of consent rules in co-habitant cases—to allow homeowners, cohabitants, tenants, hotel-guests, overnight guests, and the like maintain Fourth Amendment rights against the government even though they have given third parties access to the same space.

In other words, it is both common sense and black letter law that a person can provide third parties access to his home for a particular purpose without losing all Fourth Amendment rights against government intrusion. Letting the landlord or the maid into your home for a limited purpose doesn’t necessarily give the police a license to enter without a warrant—even if the police persuade the landlord or the maid to let them in. Yet the Court has abandoned that type of nuance in the context of informational privacy, holding that sharing information with a third party means forgoing all Fourth Amendment rights against government access to that information (a principle that has eloquently been described as the “secrecy paradigm”). As many have noted, this rule has had a corrosive effect on Fourth Amendment rights in a world where sensitive information is regularly shared with third parties as a matter of course.

Why has the Court applied such a nuanced approach to Fourth Amendment rights when it comes to real property and the home, but not when it comes to informational privacy?  And have changes in technology undermined some of the rationale justifying this divergence? These are questions I’ll explore further in Part II of this post; in the meantime I’d love to hear what readers think about them. I’ll spend the rest of this post providing some additional background on the Court’s approach to privacy in the context of real property searches.

More after the jump.

Read More

Finance’s Failures: Lack of Accountability

This week I’ll be highlighting some excellent, recent articles on problems in the US financial sector.  First up is Jennifer Taub’s Reforming the Banks for Good.  On the way to introducing six valuable reforms, Taub notes the following:

 In 2013 JPMorgan Chase (the bank that bought WaMu) agreed to pay $13 billion to the U.S. government related in part to the sale of bad mortgages to government-sponsored housing enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The settlement was heralded by the government as the largest ever with a single institution in U.S. history. But the board of directors at JPMorgan Chase awarded CEO Jamie Dimon a 74 percent pay increase (to $20 million) that same year. Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, called this move “as shocking as it is indefensible,” noting, “It’s a real slap in the face to the [Department of Justice] and financial regulators who think that the actions that they’ve taken in the last year have been appropriate to punish and deter JPMorgan Chase.” It is hard not to conclude that those who helped create a global financial calamity have not and will not suffer personal consequences.

I’m looking forward to reading Brandon Garrett’s Too Big to Jail this fall to explore some systemic responses to the problem. If it’s not solved, fines simply become a cost of doing business. And for too big to fail banks, no mere fine can deter bad conduct. If any particular penalty really endangered a bank, it would just be funneled back to the bank in the form of a bailout.

0

Abe Fortas and the Chief Justiceship

120px-Abe_fortas_hand_in_airI’ve posted previously about how the attempted retirement of Chief Justice Warren in 1968 and the failed nomination of Justice Fortas as his replacement caused a significant change in how people think about what the appropriate relationship is between the Justices and politics.  After Fortas went to the Court in 1965, he helped draft the President’s 1966 State of the Union Address, sat in on White House meetings about Vietnam, and gave his input on a host of other topics that we would now consider completely improper.

My favorite anecdote is that when Warren announced his retirement, LBJ called Clark Clifford and Fortas to the White House to discuss who his successor should be.  In other words, Fortas was in the meeting to decide that Fortas should be nominated!  (Needless to say, Fortas was for picking Fortas.)