Perspective - October 2014

PERSPECTIVE October 2014

OKLAHOMA COUNCIL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Innovation vs.

Regulation

Startup companies like Uber and Lyft are turning ordinary people into entrepreneurs, making consumers smarter and happier, and making society richer. Bureaucrats smell trouble.

WHY DOES OKLAHOMA NEEDLESSLY LICENSE AND REGULATE THESE OCCUPATIONS? Page 6

FIRST AMENDMENT MONEY YIELDS SCHOOL-CHOICE VICTORIES IN OKLAHOMA Page 12

In Case You Missed It The Left’s political network is exposed in one chart. dailysign.al/1o1HFfD

The Wall Street Journal’s Allysia Finley reports that in Oklahoma’s recent legislative primaries, all six pro-school-choice candidates endorsed by the American Federation for Children won. tinyurl.com/k6ex6j9

Last month the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gave Oklahoma’s school system an “F” for academic achievement.

Self-interested bureaucrats and trial lawyers will see to it that Oklahoma’s workers’ compensation reform doesn’t come easily.

An OCPA research fellow says Oklahoma policymakers can make college tuition-free for some Oklahomans and simultaneously reduce government spending.

tinyurl.com/mr2xcbg

The University of Oklahoma student newspaper says bras and Band-Aids are an example of white privilege.

ocpathink.org/articles/2797

OCPA’s Trent England says we should grow the economic pie rather than fight over the pieces. ocpathink.org/articles/2809

natl.re/1tyu1DR

A Democratic state lawmaker says sexual harassment of girls in Oklahoma’s public schools is widespread.

The “astonishing fecundity” of conservative Jews has one New York Times reporter asking the question: Are liberal Jewish voters a thing of the past?

tinyurl.com/mghzu9q

ocpathink.org/articles/2807

nyti.ms/1q1lLJ2

PERSPECTIVE OCPA Staff

OCPA Trustees

Brandon Dutcher .................................................. Editor

Blake Arnold • Oklahoma City

Tom H. McCasland III • Duncan

Daryl Woodard • Tulsa

Robert D. Avery • Pawhuska

David McLaughlin • Enid

Daniel J. Zaloudek • Tulsa

Lee J. Baxter • Lawton

Lew Meibergen • Enid

Steve W. Beebe • Duncan

Ronald L. Mercer • Bethany

OCPA Researchers

Brittoni Bobek ........................... Development Coordinator

G.T. Blankenship • Oklahoma City

Lloyd Noble II • Tulsa

Michael Carnuccio ...................................................... President

John A. Brock • Tulsa

Mike O’Neal • Edmond

David R. Brown, M.D. • Oklahoma City

Bill Price • Oklahoma City

Paul A. Cox • Oklahoma City

Patrick T. Rooney • Oklahoma City

Brandon Dutcher ................................ Senior Vice President

William Flanagan • Claremore

Melissa Sandefer • Norman

Trent England ...... Vice President for Strategic Initiatives

Josephine Freede • Oklahoma City

Thomas Schroedter • Tulsa

Ann Felton Gilliland • Oklahoma City

Richard L. Sias • Oklahoma City

John T. Hanes • Oklahoma City

Greg Slavonic • Oklahoma City

Rachel Hays ......................................... Development Director

Ralph Harvey • Oklahoma City

John F. Snodgrass • Ardmore

J. Scott Moody, M.A.

Jonathan Small .............................. Executive Vice President

John A. Henry III • Oklahoma City

Charles M. Sublett • Tulsa

Henry F. Kane • Bartlesville

Robert Sullivan • Tulsa

Andrew C. Spiropoulos, J.D.

Robert Kane • Tulsa

Lew Ward • Enid

Gene Love • Lawton

William E. Warnock, Jr. • Tulsa

Lauren Aragon...................................................................... Intern

Clint Colbert ...................................................... Office Manager

Dacia Harris .................................. Communications Director

Teresa Yoder .................................................... Executive Liaison

Steven J. Anderson, MBA, CPA Research Fellow

Tina Dzurisin

Research Associate

Vance Fried, J.D. Research Fellow

Jayson Lusk

Samuel Roberts Noble Distinguished Fellow

Matt Mayer, J.D. Research Fellow Research Fellow

Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow

Wendy P. Warcholik, Ph.D. Research Fellow

Perspective is published monthly by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Inc., an independent public policy organization. OCPA formulates and promotes public policy research and analysis consistent with the principles of free enterprise and limited government. The views expressed in Perspective are those of the author, and should not be construed as representing any official position of OCPA or its trustees, researchers, or employees.

The MiddleGround is a weekly 30-minute discussion program that airs every Sunday morning at 8:30 a.m. on KOKH FOX 25 in the Oklahoma City media market. Hosted by OCPA president Michael Carnuccio, The MiddleGround features a panel that is quite different from those on the national Sunday morning shows, or even those broadcast locally. The MiddleGround explores a better way to design governement that intrudes less, taxes less, regulates less, and quite frankly louses things up less.

For more information on The MiddleGround and to learn how to become a sponsor, please contact Rachel Hays at rachel@ocpathink.org or 405-602-1667.

/TheMiddleGround

@MiddleGroundTV

By Trent England

It turns out not everyone is using the Internet to look at cute pictures of cats.

A wave of startup companies is creating Internet marketplaces that make new kinds of transactions possible and turn ordinary people into entrepreneurs. These new services let people rent spare rooms, cars, and bicycles; buy and sell labor and expertise; and lend Wi-Fi access and even money. One way to measure the potential of these innovations is in decibels, that is, in how loud is the outcry from the status quo.

New York hotels, unions, and politicians just launched a multi-million dollar campaign against Airbnb, a service that allows people to rent a guest room or even just a couch. Taxi companies and their unions have staged massive protests in London and Paris against Lyft, Uber, and other ride-sharing services. A German court ruling, recently overturned, banned Uber from operating in that country. Lyft and Uber both recently launched in Oklahoma City and Tulsa; officials in both cities are weighing demands from taxi and limo companies to regulate the upstarts.

The innovators are a challenge, and potentially an embarrassment, to the regulators. After all, regulations are supposed to serve the interests of consumers. When unregulated Lyft and

4

PERSPECTIVE • October 2014

Uber provide better service than highly regulated taxis and limos, the public is left to wonder who really is being protected.

In fact, what is unique about all these new services is the way they make information available to all parties in a transaction.

Companies like Lyft and Uber make consumers smarter, empowering them to make their own choices and eroding the rationale for government intervention.

Creative Destruction Economist Joseph Schumpeter advocated free markets and predicted their downfall. The trouble, he said, is that the constant pressure to create new and better goods and services— the best feature of the competitive system—is also a constant threat to the status quo. Schumpeter described the process as “the perennial gale of creative destruction.”

The rise of the Internet in the first decade of the 21st century was disruptive, but not particularly destructive. Print media suffered, some bookstores failed, and other publishers and retailers felt an uncomfortable pressure to their bottom lines. The current decade is shaping up to be different, with far greater innovations made possible by the proliferation of high-speed Internet connections and high-powered smartphones.

Airbnb, founded in 2008, has connected more than 17 million people with places to stay around the world. Some of these travelers probably left their dogs in private homes found using another new service, DogVacay. At their destination, they can arrange for rides on Lyft, Uber, or Sidecar. If they want a car to themselves, Getaround and RelayRides will connect them with people willing to rent out their cars. In fact, instead of paying for airport parking, a traveler can now make money using these services to rent out their cars while out of town.

All these new services are tiny compared to their established competition, whether hotels or rental car companies or taxis. Yet the status quo is right to see a threat. Smartphone prices are dropping even as the phones and networks get

The downside of regulation is the burden placed on small and startup businesses, which reduces competition and creates cartels. Taxi companies must have a certain number of cars, all painted a certain way, and drivers with special licenses. Many cities impose pages of additional regulations. Big businesses easily comply, smaller businesses are disproportionately burdened, and starting a new business can become impossible.

Regulations often bring big businesses and government together in a kind of partnership. Businesses encourage government to assert more power in the name of “public safety.” Government imposes regulations that happen to stifle competition. Eventually, however, businesses that forget their customers put themselves at risk. The bad reputation of

community’s standards gets excluded.

The point, of course, is not to kick people out, but to create incentives for good behavior.

Regulation is about creating a floor, but the side effect of regulation is a low ceiling. Competition, where people have good information to make their own choices, produces excellence.

In addition to providing information, the new services share something else in common. They let people take advantage of resources that would otherwise go to waste. People with time on their hands, cars sitting in garages or parking lots, an empty guest room—economists call these idle resources “slack.” The new sharing services allow people to transform slack into useful, profitable work.

This is one of the easiest ways to make a

When unregulated companies provide better service than highly regulated ones, the public is left to wonder who really is being protected. faster. Consumers are transacting more and more business online. While some people will never join the so-called “sharing economy,” the lure of cleaner cars, friendlier drivers, and a cheaper place to stay is hard to resist.

Rationalizing Regulation A typical taxi transaction has significant risks. The driver and passenger know nothing about each other until they are both in the car together. Even if a driver is routinely rude or keeps a dirty cab, there is little incentive for passengers to complain or for companies to take corrective action. Drivers have no recourse against obnoxious passengers. In the absence of information, government steps in with regulations that try to provide basic assurances to both parties. The goal is to make the transactions possible by making them more reliable and safer.

many taxi services is, at least in part, a result of government protecting taxis from competition.

Something Different Companies like Lyft and Uber offer consumers more than just a ride from one place to another. They collect and share information. Passengers provide feedback about drivers. Drivers provide feedback about passengers. This information is provided to people before they decide to get in a car together. And anyone who consistently fails to uphold the

England after recent testimony at an Oklahoma City Council meeting.

society richer, since it simply puts existing resources to use.

As the American economy continues its slow recovery, the new sharing services are putting money in people’s pockets and cheaper services at their fingertips.

OCPA recently offered testimony before the Oklahoma City Council to point out that accomplishing this in the absence of government intervention is not a crisis, but a triumph.

New entrepreneurs and happy customers is not a crisis, not even if it threatens to upset the status quo.

Trent England (J.D., George Mason University) is vice president for strategic initiatives at OCPA, where he also serves as the David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow for the Advancement of Liberty. A former legal policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, England has contributed to two books, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution and One Nation under Arrest: How Crazy Laws, Rogue Prosecutors, and Activist Judges Threaten Your Liberty. His writings have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Christian Science Monitor, and numerous other publications.

www.ocpathink.org

5

The ABCs of Big Government in Oklahoma

By Mike Brake

Shortly after the Oklahoma Legislature convened in February of this year, the Tulsa World warned in an editorial column that any proposed tax cuts would leave state government “starved” for operating revenue, dooming us to status as a “backward state.”

“By all accounts,” the column claimed, “Oklahoma government is small.”

Well now. Not by all accounts. For example, the authoritative account of the size and scope of state government is published by that self-same government.

It’s called the ABC Book (which stands for Agencies, Boards and Commissions) and it lists in some detail the myriad bodies that are funded, in full or in part, by Oklahoma taxpayers.

The meat of the book runs from page 59 through page 140 in the 2013 edition.

That’s the alphabetical list of every agency, task force, committee, commission and other entity—81 densely packed pages that clearly indicate that if state government is truly “starved” for dollars, one primary reason is that we spend so many of those dollars on duplicated, lessthan-necessary, and sometimes downright silly ventures in government.

The ABC Book starts with an immediate reminder that a government that tries to do everything rarely does much of anything well at all. The first entry is the Abstractors Board, which employs three people (an executive director, inspector, and administrative assistant) and recently moved to new offices in north downtown Oklahoma City. So we can assume that taxpayers are paying at least $100,000 in salaries and benefits for those three employees, plus thousands more in rent.

6

PERSPECTIVE • October 2014

There are also 10 members of the Abstractors Board who meet monthly (filing mileage claims along the way) as they oversee the activities of this state agency.

Those activities are, well, to license and regulate and generally meddle in the activities of people who handle property abstracting. Which is something any reasonably competent clerical worker could do with a minimum of training.

So right off the bat the ABC Book is spending our dollars to license and regulate an occupation that really needs no licensing or regulating at all.

Of course defenders of all this government will claim that many of these licensing agencies are self-supporting by the fees they charge, which is only partially true. The people who work there will someday retire and draw a state-funded pension for decades, vastly expanding the cost. Plus, those fees are siphoned out of the economy like a tax; every $10 annual license cost comes out of the pocket of a taxpayer.

Moving through the “A” listings we find agencies doing the same with accoun-

Oklahoma rulers are protecting their subjects from rogue interior designers.

tants and architects. That second agency also monitors “registered interior designers.” Presumably there are penalties if the drapes clash with the fabric pattern on the sofa.

The functions of many state agencies are obvious; the Boll Weevil Eradication Organization aims to get rid of those pesky cotton parasites. But what does the Centennial Botanical Garden Authority do? Apparently it oversees a garden in Tulsa.

By the Cs we’re back to licensing and regulating more occupations, which the ABC Book is very big on. It is apparent that very few people in Oklahoma can manage to do their jobs without state supervision. The Construction Industries Board licenses electricians and plumbers, among others, but it takes three full boards to deal with people who unclog drains, including the Plumbing Hearing Board and the Plumbing Installation Code Variance and Appeal Board.

The Commission on County Government Personnel Education and Training is ready to step in to remediate county workers who lack the same. The County Energy District Authority “allows county governments to establish PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) programs to incentivize permanently fixed … energy efficient improvements to promote progress through PACE loans.” No translation is provided.

The Emergency Drought Commission has yet to produce rain.

By the middle of the alphabet we’re back to licensing engineers and land surveyors, as well as foresters and funeral directors. If a tree falls on you in the forest, do you get a discount casket?

Does Oklahoma Need So Many Occupational Licenses?

Not all occupation licensing laws actually protect Oklahoma consumers from harm and shoddy workmanship. It’s pretty clear that many of these laws misuse state sanctions to protect existing businesses from unwanted competition. A study by the Institute for Justice—available at http://ij.org/licensetowork—can help Oklahoma lawmakers decide which of these laws serve the public, and should stay, and which should go. “When reviewing current or proposed licensing laws, policymakers should demand proof that there is a clear, likely and well-established danger to the public from unlicensed practice,” the report says. “Forcing would-be workers to take unnecessary classes, engage in lengthy apprenticeships, pass irrelevant exams, or clear needless hurdles does nothing to ensure public safety.”

—Ronald Fraser

The State Office of Geographic Information “supports the Geographic Information Council,” which has 19 members who meet each month “to share information about developing technology and applications in the geographic information field.” There is also an Oklahoma Board of Geographic Names, in case those 19 people forget to call a butte by its proper title.

The Health Department overflows with boards and commissions, including the Advancement of Wellness Advisory Council, the Fire Extinguisher Industry Committee, and of course the Catastrophic Health Emergency Planning Task Force. (This may have had something to do with Obamacare!)

Here’s a favorite: when was the last time you heard of anyone dying from a bad haircut? Well, just in case they go berserk with shears, we have the Cosmetology and Barbering State Board which also regulates and licenses manicurists and those who give facials. Hair braiders even get a special mention.

The Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board is different from the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Research, Marketing and Safety Commission, which proudly boasts that it has handed out “400,000 safety pamphlets” to warn folks not to hammer nails into their propane tanks.

Licensing runs amok in the medical field. Most folks agree that brain surgeons ought to meet some basic training and performance standards, but we’re also inspecting, testing, and licens-

ing physical therapists, electrologists, optometrists, psychologists, podiatrists, perfusionists, social workers, drug and alcohol counselors, speech pathologists, and more.

The Special Committee on Soldier Relief is tasked to “conduct a comprehensive multi-year review of the amount of state tax revenue generated by members of the armed forces and their families who are Oklahoma residents.” Why? Who knows? But abolishing this useless committee would probably send the Tulsa World into a tizzy over how we are starving state government.

Of course everyone loves children, but state government smothers them under so many agencies, boards, commissions, and task forces that they hardly have room to wiggle. There are Commissions on Children and Youth, an Office of Juvenile System Oversight, and offices for planning, coordinating, overseeing, and otherwise meddling with just about every kid in the state.

We have a State Advisory Group in Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to deal with Johnny before he goes bad, an Office of Juvenile Affairs to lock

him up when he does, and a Santa Claus Commission to buy him a present.

How much good do all these prehensile, multi-tentacled, omnipresent arms of state government do? It might be noted that the Oklahoma Commission on the Status of Women was created in 1994 … after Oklahoma elected the first women ever to occupy the offices of Lieutenant Governor, Labor Commissioner, and State Superintendent. It takes 30 members to operate that commission, which does, well, nothing discernable at all.

Mind you this is just state government.

We have 77 county governments, each with a half-dozen elected officials who might serve as few as a thousand people in some rural counties; more than 500 local school boards and superintendents, some collecting their salaries in tiny districts a mile or two apart; and legions of college and career tech administrators on campuses that dot the landscape like convenience stores.

Gluttony always has its defenders, but even a casual scan of the ABC Book would tell anyone with sense that there’s plenty of room to cut without endangering essential state services.

Mike Brake is a journalist and writer who has recently authored a centennial history of Putnam City Schools. He served as chief writer for Gov. Frank Keating and for then-Lt. Gov. and Congresswoman Mary Fallin, and has also served as an adjunct instructor at OSU-OKC.

www.ocpathink.org

7

WHO AM I, AND WHY AM I HERE?

By Trent England

Just exactly who do you think you are?

Your answer—your idea of what it means to be human—is part of the foundation of your world-view.

How a person answers that question also tends to define his or her ideas about government. “But what is government itself,” wrote James Madison in Federalist No. 51, “but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”

Thomas Sowell, writing more recently, divides views of human nature into two camps: constrained and unconstrained.

The first recognizes inherent and consistent limits present within mankind. The unconstrained view sees human nature as changeable, and thus, improvable.

Bonsai trees, those tiny old and dramatic-looking plants, fascinate me. A successful bonsai grower must have vision and patience as, with decades of planning and precise root and branch pruning, he manipulates the tree into a living work of art.

Those who hold to the unconstrained concept of human nature believe people are like bonsai trees. They see groups of people that way, too. With enough vision and a sharp enough pruning knife, those with the unconstrained view are sure that human nature can be changed and improved.

Of course, that improvement cannot come from within. A bonsai tree does not shape itself or become a masterpiece on its own. The unconstrained view looks to government for the planning and expertise—and force—necessary to produce better human beings, and thus, better societies and a better world.

This is an attractive, even seductive, vision. It appears to elevate all mankind. It does indeed elevate a class of planners and experts who are tasked with designing and implementing our brave new world.

Up against such a dramatic, “progressive” vision, the alternative sometimes seems pessimistic. The constrained view dismisses the idea of systematically improving human nature.

Instead, it finds human nature possessed of certain indelible elements, both for better and worse.

According to the constrained view, the lessons of history may be our best guide because the desires and temptations played

8

PERSPECTIVE • October 2014

out in the tales of our ancestors will be the same as those that play on our descendants in ages yet unknown. This is what America’s founders believed and what sent men like Madison searching across all of human history for examples of good and, more often, bad government.

The belief in hardwired human limits also guided America’s founders to look for trade-offs and balances in creating a government, rather than tilting after perfect solutions. Following the observations quoted above, Madison wrote: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to government men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

That was the task of the Framers of our Constitution. In the Federalist, Madison, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, argues that the delegates achieved that objective and produces, not the perfect government, but a system well suited for the good government of a free people.

Here are two great visions, man as the bonsai tree, in need of skilled experts to force him to greatness, or man simply as man—yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The first vision, call it unconstrained or progressive or liberal, appears to elevate man, but it elevates a few men much higher. It lifts most of mankind up only into chains. The latter vision, constrained or conservative or individualist, looks relatively pessimistic at first glance.

Yet this is the idea of man that results in the protection of individual rights and of human dignity.

The American founders’ idea of human nature is one of the “big ideas” that are the subjects of OCPA’s new program, The Rule of Law and Liberty [see facing page]. Understanding these ideas, their origins, and their opponents will help you become an even more effective advocate for our Constitution.

(This essay first appeared in Living Liberty.)

The Rule of Law and Liberty is your journey through the big ideas of the Constitution. We can only support the Constitution, after all, if we understand it. In four interactive and inspiring sessions, you’ll learn how to answer the Constitution’s critics, explain how and why the Constitution works, and show why preserving the Constitution is essential to our security, prosperity, and liberty.

The Rule of Law and Liberty: Why the Constitution Works • Find out why we judge our newest laws against a law made over 200 years ago.

• Answer critics who claim our Constitution is just “a relic of the quill pen era.”

• Discover how the American Constitution changed the world.

The Rule of Law and Liberty: Why States Matter • Learn the difference between the Founder’s Federalism and “states’ rights.”

• Answer critics who say that states are historical artifacts or vestiges of slavery and racism.

• Find out why the 10th Amendment is like an exclamation point and how we can revive it.

The Rule of Law and Liberty: “Checks and Balances” • See how the Founders used human nature to limit government power.

• Answer critics who want to make our Constitution more “efficient” and “progressive.”

• Learn how government still managed to get out of control and what we can do about it.

The Rule of Law and Liberty: Know Your Rights • Find out why the Founders disagreed about adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.

• Discover the four different kinds of rights, something most judges no longer understand.

• Learn how to expose fake claims to “rights” and defend real rights.

Each program is infused with exciting stories of real people who struggled over these ideas. College and high-school students are encouraged to attend. Join us as we explore the Constitution and learn how to defend it.

The Rule of Law and Liberty programs will be presented in communities across Oklahoma. There is a requested donation of $10 per person or $20 per family. For more information about attending or sponsoring The Rule of Law and Liberty or to register, visit www.OCPAthink.org/first-principles or call 405-602-1667.

School Choice Heals Religious Divisions

By Greg Forster

Oklahoma special-needs children recently lost a battle in their four-year war for education freedom. But it isn’t just their opportunity for a better education that’s at stake. Oklahoma’s commitment to religious freedom, pluralism, and social harmony between people of different beliefs is also implicated. If Oklahoma wants to be a state where people of many beliefs share the public square in peace, there are both principled and practical reasons to expand school choice as far as possible.

In late August, Oklahoma County District Court Judge Bernard Jones ruled that some uses of Oklahoma’s school choice program for special-needs students violate the state constitution. The program allows families to choose a private school, so they are no longer at the mercy of the often-dysfunctional specialeducation bureaucracy in the government monopoly system. The program doesn’t harm public schools—studies find programs like this one have beneficial effects on public schools—and it doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime.

It does, however, treat church-affiliated private schools in exactly the same way as all other private schools. The program does not allow the state to discriminate against these schools by excluding them from the program on grounds of their faith. Such disgusting bigotry is not part of the program’s design.

That, according to the judge, is the problem. Like those of many states, Oklahoma’s constitution is marred by a “Blaine Amendment” that forbids the state to spend money “for the use, benefit, or support” of religious institutions.

10 PERSPECTIVE • October 2014

Such provisions are named in dishonor of the bigoted James G. Blaine, who built his political career on vicious hatred of Catholics.

States like Oklahoma can put this ugly past behind them by interpreting such provisions to require only that religious institutions receive no favoritism in the use of public funds. Justice and common decency demand it. And if those are insufficient to move us to such a policy, the equal protection clause of the federal constitution might provide an additional impetus.

One would think this was only common sense: If the church is burning down, don’t call the fire department! That’s using government funds to benefit a church. If someone scrawls swastikas on the synagogue, don’t call the police! And heaven forbid we allow the mosque to use our municipal water and sewer lines.

Alas, Judge Jones doesn’t see things that way, and the case will continue its fouryear journey through the courts.

Parents can still use the program at some schools, but even this raises urgent questions about Oklahoma’s commitment to religious freedom. Thanks to a quirk in the phrasing of the constitution and the judiciary’s interpretations of it, not all religious institutions are covered by the ban, only those that are formally part of a church. In addition to non-religious schools, schools that are “religiously affiliated” but not “church affiliated” are still eligible for the choice program.

This may seem like good news, and I do appreciate that it represents a wellintentioned effort to restrain the destructive logic of Blaine Amendments.

However, it puts the state in a position of choosing which schools are church-affiliated and which are not. That may seem simple, but it isn’t. Are non-diocesan Catholic schools church affiliated? How about a school that shares a building and board members with a church? How about a school that subscribes to a faith statement historically associated with a denomination?

Such complexities are actually the least serious of the problems created by this approach. A more serious problem is the opportunity to use such judgment calls as a cover for arbitrary favoritism.

Politically well-connected schools will be more likely to get the coveted “religious but not church-affiliated” designation.

The worst problem is that government shouldn’t be interpreting the meaning of religious questions in the first place.

“What is a church?” is a deeply theological issue. Sometimes government can’t help but face such questions, such as when courts have to settle civil disputes between church bodies or gauge the limits of free exercise of religion. But we want to keep law and politics as far away from theology as we possibly can.

The irony here is that school choice is actually one of the best ways ever discovered to promote religious freedom, pluralism, and peace. It’s folly to be afraid of letting religious institutions participate in public programs on the same terms as everyone else. That kind of oppressive Kemalism has only exacerbated religious hatred when it’s been tried in places like Turkey or France. Americans have historically been more enlightened.

Believe it or not, school choice often

Rob used a Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarship to attend the Good Shepherd Catholic School at Mercy, a private school in Oklahoma City for children with special needs.

helps children learn to respect the rights of those who don’t share their faith, and has never been found to have the opposite effect. A large body of empirical research (reviewed by Patrick Wolf in an article titled “Civics Exam” in the journal Education Next) finds that private school students are more likely to support civil rights for those whose beliefs they find highly unfavorable. Five of these studies have specifically looked at school choice programs; of those, three found the choice students were more tolerant of the rights of others while two found no difference. No empirical study has ever found that school choice makes students less tolerant of the rights of others.

There are a number of reasons why private schools might be more effective at teaching toleration. One is that private schools are more effective at teaching in general. If they teach math and reading

better, why not respect for the rights of others?

More important, though, is the freedom of private schools to explain why we should respect others. Because they are a compulsory public monopoly, public schools cannot ground moral imperatives in a view of the universe that justifies them. Public schools usually do try to teach students virtues like honesty, diligence, self-control, and respect for others. But they cannot explain why we ought to have these virtues, because any substantial answer to that question

would offend some parents. So they rely on a mixture of sentimental gas and stern finger-wagging, neither of which is highly effective. Private schools can not only tell you that you should respect others, they can tell you why.

School choice not only respects everyone’s equal rights today, it helps raise up generations who will do the same tomorrow. Everyone from evangelicals to atheists benefits from that. At last, something that can bring us all together! Oklahoma can’t get rid of its Blaine Amendment fast enough.

Greg Forster (Ph.D., Yale University) is a senior fellow with the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. He is the author of five books, and has written numerous articles in peer-reviewed academic journals as well as in popular publications such as the Washington Post and the Chronicle of Higher Education. His latest book is Joy for the World: How Christianity Lost Its Cultural Influence and Can Begin Rebuilding It (Crossway Books, 2014).

www.ocpathink.org

11

When ‘Dark’ Brings Light: First Amendment Money Yields School Choice Victories in Oklahoma

By Patrick B. McGuigan

When it comes to independent expenditures in American campaigns, policy preferences may drive how one refers to political spending intended to sway voters one way or another on substantive matters.

Those in the national news media and a range of left-leaning advocacy groups who hate comparatively unregulated expenditures have—since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision unleashed a torrent of independent spending—dubbed them “dark money.”

Even I have found myself referencing the impact of “dark money” in some local elections where the rhetoric and advertising intensity became highly negative and in which, candidly, I disagreed with the results.

On the other hand, those who share the philosophy of Citizens United—as warm an embrace of free speech under the First Amendment as has been rendered in modern American history—are calling permitted independent expenditures “First Amendment money.”

Arguments over money in politics are, like the poor, always with us. To be sure, Citizens United and its progeny seem to have intensified those arguments.

Regardless of your views on the issue, don’t assume that independent expenditures alone determine the outcome of any given race.

In Oklahoma, this year’s best example of a “dark money” fail is easy to peg. In the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Tom Coburn, more than $1 million was spent to trash U.S. Rep. James Lankford and/or tout former state House Speaker T.W. Shannon.

12 PERSPECTIVE • October 2014

Themes in that independent spending never caught on, largely because voters found laughable the proposition that Lankford, one of the most ardent fiscal conservatives in the U.S. House, could be characterized as a liberal on the basis of two or three votes during his four years in Congress.

On the other hand, when independent expenditures are rooted in reality, in the actual records of real human beings on issues that matter, they can be a powerful force in modern politics.

Submitted for your consideration: Important gains for supporters of school choice during the 2014 election cycle in the Sooner State.

Scott Jensen, senior advisor at the American Federation for Children (AFC), told me that his organization’s state arm, the Oklahoman Federation for Children (OFC), spent a total of $150,000 in our state this year.

Of that total, $125,000 went for voter education, while around $25,000 went to conduct and promote a detailed survey of likely Republican primary and runoff voters (see my article “Oklahoma GOP Voters Prefer School Choice Over Same Old, Same Old” in the August issue of Perspective).

In an interview, Jensen said a high percentage of his group’s statewide expenditure was in the House District 69 race in northeast Oklahoma, where engineer Chuck Strohm, an ardent supporter of school choice and a multi-issue conservative, came from behind to win the Republican nomination (and the election, which drew no Democrats) by 119 votes.

Strohm defeated Melissa Abdo, a lo-

cal school board member and pillar of the status quo who ran first in the June primary and seemed to have necessary momentum to win in the August runoff.

But after the primary, Jensen said, “We began to educate voters in two areas: her opposition to the Lindsey Nicole Henry special-needs program and then her overall fiscal philosophy.

“Of course, we knew from our poll of GOP voters that those most likely to vote in the nomination cycle overwhelmingly support the Henry Scholarships and oppose using taxpayer resources to sue parents of children seeking to access the special needs program.”

Abdo supported a lawsuit targeting parents of special-needs children which was dismissed by the state Supreme Court. Further, she is a plaintiff in a new lawsuit—now pending in the legal system after an adverse ruling by a district judge—seeking to crush the Henry Scholarships on state constitutional grounds (see page 10).

Abdo’s opposition to the Henry Scholarships program, Jensen said, “was really potent but probably insufficient to defeat her.” Complicating the picture and giving OFC an opening, however, Abdo was appealing to primary voters as she positioned herself as a fiscal conservative, despite the fact she had, in Jensen’s summary, “endorsed spending hikes and tax increases, and the rally at the State Capitol in conjunction with the teachers’ union.”

In the runoff cycle, Jensen’s group drew attention to Abdo’s ardent antischool-choice views and to certain of her fiscal positions. They also pushed

In this year’s elections, some Oklahomans chose to exercise their First Amendment rights — for the children. information that her “green energy” business had trumpeted President Barack Obama’s views.

“After we educated voters,” Jensen said, in combination with other efforts it was “sufficient to drag her down to 47 percent.”

As for the techniques used to oppose Abdo, Jensen said his group did four mailings in both the primary and runoff.

And, “we did radio advertisements in the runoff, after doing telephones in the primary.”

In five other runoff races—three for Republicans and two for Democrats— the Oklahoma Federation for Children sent mailings informing likely voters of the preferred candidates’ views on school choice and conservative issues. In one of those runoffs, the group also paid for informative radio spots.

In the primary cycle back in June, OFC succeeded in two races—in support of state Rep. Anastasia Pittman as she sought the Democratic nomination for a state Senate seat, and in advocacy for incumbent Republican Sen. AJ Griffin.

To review the results, OFC got its way in these districts: • House District 69, where Strohm will replace departing incumbent state Rep. Fred Jordan (a Republican who opposed school choice).

• House District 3, where John Paul Jordan got the GOP nod to replace departing pro-school-choice incumbent Colby Schwartz.

• House District 38, where John Pfeiffer will replace termed-out incumbent Dale DeWitt (a nice fellow who opposed school choice).

• House District 61, where Casey Murdock is on track to replace proschool-choice incumbent Gus Blackwell.

• House District 99, where Rev. George Young is the Democratic nominee as he seeks to replace a pro-schoolchoice incumbent.

• House District 89 in south Oklahoma City, where Shane Stone won a close runoff for the Democratic nomination. He will replace termed-out incumbent Rebecca Hamilton.

In the primary cycle back in June, the group was successful two out of four contests.

To sum up, the Oklahoma Federation for Children was six for six in the runoff, and two for four in the primaries.

Not a bad performance for the group’s introductory election cycle in the Sooner State.

And, not terribly surprising in light of the detailed opinion survey of Republican voters on which I reported in the August issue of Perspective. The poll found all existing forms of school choice in Oklahoma have strong popular support.

Further, voting citizens are willing to engage in bold experiments to empower parents of children in failing schools to seek better alternatives.

State Rep. Jason Nelson, R-Oklahoma City, told me in September, “The polling

on school choice is real.”

It matches what he hears as he campaigns door-to-door in his own reelection effort in west Oklahoma City. Support for parental choice is increasing because it is an idea whose time has come. It appeals to aspirations for justice, equity, and excellence in educational opportunity.

I am blessed to have a wide range of acquaintances and friendships diverse in nature, tested in challenging circumstances and maintained for decades.

I can only say the following words from Rep. Nelson are affirmed in my own experience: “People who were formerly lukewarm about school choice are now enthusiastic.”

Each of us, even foes of school choice, are entitled to their opinions. When it comes to school choice, mine are informed by four decades of reporting and analysis. Mounting evidence leads me to reassert what I said in these pages in August: “Republican politicians who defy the remarkable strength for school choice among their most likely voters will sow folly, and reap the political whirlwind.

They will lose, and deserve to do so.”

Robust expansion of school choice in education is becoming a policy imperative. Aspiring politicians: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

McGuigan (M.A. in history, Oklahoma State University) is founder and editor of CapitolBeatOK.com, an online news service, and publisher of The City Sentinel newspaper. He is a certified teacher and the author of hundreds of commentaries and news stories on American education. In 2013, The Washington Post blog “The Fix” designated him one of the three best political reporters in Oklahoma.

www.ocpathink.org

13

1

3

2

4

@OCPAthink 1. Oklahoma City University law professor Andrew Spiropoulos (left) talks education policy with OCPA president Michael Carnuccio on “The MiddleGround,” a new program airing Sunday mornings at 8:30 on KOKH FOX 25 in Oklahoma City.

Spiropoulos serves as the Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at OCPA. 2. Dr. Keith Smith discusses health care policy with Michael Carnuccio. Dr. Smith is the medical director and CEO of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, a free-market-oriented, multi-specialty facility which posts its prices online.

3. With liberals in Washington, D.C. now in the process of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” OCPA is in the process of fundamentally transforming the northwest corner of 13th and Lincoln. Work is under way on the new Advance Center for Entrepreneurship, located to the west of OCPA’s main office. The Center will host lawmakers, executive-branch officials, and policy staffers for training sessions on how to apply core principles to difficult publicpolicy issues. The Center will also be a valuable resource for students, as OCPA partners with schools and nonprofit organizations to host programs teaching students the principles of liberty and the importance of our free-enterprise system.

4. Participants in the Oklahoma School Choice Coalition, donning the signature yellow scarves of National School Choice Week (NSCW), are already planning events for NSCW 2015, which begins on January 25.

14 PERSPECTIVE • October 2014

OKLAHOMA FREEDOM NETWORK

Oklahoma’s Strong and Steady Oklahoma’sEconomy: Economy: Strong and Steady State economic performance varies over differenttime timeperiods—for periods—for example, growing wellwell in the State economic performance oftenoften varies over different example, growing in the short-term but less so in the long-term.

Oklahoma, however, has consistently performed well and is one short-term but less so in the long-term. Oklahoma, however, has consistently performed well and isof one of five states to rank in the top 10 over three separate time periods. fivethe states to rank in the top 10 over three separate time periods.

% CHANGE IN PRIVATE-SECTOR GDP U.S. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Past 16 Years (1997–2013) North Dakota Wyoming Utah Texas South Dakota Alaska District of Columbia Montana OKLAHOMA Oregon Nevada Nebraska Colorado Louisiana Idaho Virginia Arizona Maryland Washington Arkansas California Minnesota North Carolina Iowa Florida Hawaii Georgia West Virginia New York Kansas Alabama Tennessee Massachusetts Rhode Island Indiana Vermont Pennsylvania South Carolina Wisconsin Maine New Hampshire Delaware Mississippi Connecticut New Mexico New Jersey Kentucky Illinois Missouri Ohio Michigan

277 222 160 155 149 138 138 134 132 123 121 121 118 118 113 111 110 109 109 104 103 102 99 98 97 93 90 90 89 89 88 88 87 86 84 83 82 81 80 78 78 77 76 75 73 73 71 71 68 67 39

Past 4 Years (2009–2013) North Dakota Texas South Dakota Nebraska OKLAHOMA Montana Utah Oregon Iowa Louisiana Indiana Minnesota Wyoming Kansas Michigan Alaska Ohio West Virginia Colorado Kentucky Arkansas Tennessee Washington Vermont Idaho California Massachusetts North Carolina Alabama Mississippi Hawaii Wisconsin South Carolina Arizona New Mexico New York Pennsylvania Illinois Georgia New Hampshire District of Columbia Rhode Island Delaware New Jersey Maryland Florida Virginia Missouri Nevada Maine Connecticut

85 35 29 28 27 27 26 24 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 21 21 20 20 20 19 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 16 16 15 15 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 11 10 9

Past 2 Years (2011–2013) North Dakota Texas Utah Nebraska Iowa Washington Colorado OKLAHOMA South Dakota Oregon Mississippi North Carolina Montana Idaho Florida Ohio Minnesota Tennessee California Indiana Georgia Hawaii Arizona Michigan New Jersey Arkansas Massachusetts Wisconsin Nevada Alabama Vermont Rhode Island Kentucky South Carolina Kansas Delaware New York West Virginia Missouri Illinois Maine New Mexico Connecticut New Hampshire Pennsylvania Virginia Wyoming Maryland Louisiana District of Columbia Alaska

44 14 14 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 1

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, http://www.bea.gov/itable/index.cfm.

www.ocpathink.org

15

NONPROFIT ORG. U.S. POSTAGE PAID OKLA. CITY, OK PERMIT NO. 2573

Change Service Requested

1401 N. Lincoln Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Tel: 405.602.1667 Fax: 855.819.0085 ocpathink.org

QUOTE UNQUOTE “Our most urgent task is to end the divisions in our country, to stop the political bickering, and to unite our talents and efforts.

Americans of all persuasions are pleading with our political leaders to bring us together. I believe Senator Obama is sincerely committed to that effort. He has made a non-partisan approach to all issues a top priority.”

University of Oklahoma president David Boren, endorsing Barack Obama for president in 2008

“This is a personal faith issue, that’s all it is. They get good religious teachings that falls in line with our family belief.”

Henry C. Mabry, executive secretary of the Alabama Education Association, explaining why his own children attend a private school

“Even if someone has this [Obamacare] insurance card in their pocket, they are soon going to find out that it’s worthless. Coverage doesn’t mean care.”

Dr. Keith Smith, medical director and CEO of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma. Dr. Smith says one of his fastest-growing patient groups is Obamacare enrollees, who come to his free-market facility from all over the country because the cost of care and travel is less than their Obamacare deductible.

“We have some really bad administrators and some really bad teachers who shouldn’t be able to get a job. Yep, call me names if you want, but you know I’m right. We can all think of a teacher or administrator who shouldn’t be a teacher or administrator. Hell, the only reason the really bad educators are able to keep getting hired is because there is no one else out there keeping the bad ones from getting a job. This is embarrassing.”

Jason James, superintendent of the Alex (Okla.) Public Schools