I haven’t been updating this blog much recently. But in the tradition of year-end roundups, I’ve decided to collect a few personal favorites from the things I’ve written over the last year.
- At Policyshop, I wrote a number of posts, but one of the most-read ones was this reply to Glenn Greenwald on Citizens United and the limits of a libertarian First Amendment.
- A theme of a lot of my work at Demos/Policyshop has been to counteract the illusion that corporations are a natural part of the economic landscape. Corporations and their internal processes are a product of public decisions and government action, and the public should be able to hold them to higher standards. This post on the need to save antitrust from Bork and the Chicago School influence drew on a lot of those ideas as well.
- This piece for Guernica, After Me, The Flood, described the destructive feed-back loops that extractive institutions can produce. I asked whether contemporary elites were any more enlightened than the elites of the Ancien Regime who sped their society to collapse in the lead-up to the French Revolution.
- The American Prospect ran a few of my corporate reform pieces.
- A paper I wrote in law school, Cornography: Perverse Incentives and the United States Corn Subsidy, was published in the Journal of Food Law & Policy.
- From the Harvard Law & Policy Review blog, I want to share this piece on why we need the courts to take an active role in election administration. Another election law piece was on the challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and argued that a little-known clause in the Fourteenth Amendment makes it exceedingly clear that Congress had the power to reauthorize the VRA in 2006.
- Lastly, I spent of lot of 2012 re-familiarizing myself with some important legal realist thinkers. (Barbara Fried’s book on Robert Hale is phenomenal). This piece, also for HLPR, was my attempt to argue that First Amendment law needs rethinking in light of the realists’ critique of the public-private distinction. Current First Amendment law ignores the positive state interventions that enable corporate and private “speech” and essentially says that “The State May Giveth, But The State May Not Taketh Away.” This purely negative liberty understanding of the Amendment has to be wrong.
This last piece was a personal favorite, and I hope to build on these ideas in the coming year. I hope to get a few long form things written this next year too and to finish another law review piece, this time on federalism.
Thanks to everyone who read and responded.