RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

In January, Twitter and Facebook removed President Trump and many of his followers' accounts while Google, Apple, and Amazon cut business ties with Twitter competitor Parler over alleged contract violations, crippling its business. Many on the right are incensed. Others see these actions as an example of polycentric checks-and-balances in the classical liberal tradition. Yet even among those who welcome the silence, many are troubled by Silicon Valley's aggressive actions. But if there is a problem, what is to be done? Between the First Amendment, the bitter partisan divide in Washington, and the need for some content moderation in widely-used social media, what are the realistic regulatory options for curbing Silicon Valley's influence on the national discourse? What are the potential downsides of some of these options?Featuring:- Neil Chilson, Senior Research Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Charles Koch Institute- Billy Easley, Senior Policy Analyst for Technology and Innovation, Americans for Prosperity- [Moderator] Stewart Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Professor James W. Coleman joins the podcast to break down the regulatory dynamics of the rolling blackouts Texans have experienced this week.What role did regulators play in this incident, and what lessons should policymakers pull from it? What is the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, also known as 'ERCOT'? And what are the implications of Texas Governor Greg Abbott's order to halt natural gas exports?Featuring:- James W. Coleman, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of LawVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Recently, Big Tech companies have come under fire from all sides for their content moderation decisions. Some argue Big Tech companies are not doing enough to stem the spread of harmful content and misinformation. Others contend Big Tech companies' selective approaches to moderation belies partisan preferences — silencing only certain voices and threatening to undermine democratic values. The recent actions by Big Tech companies regarding President Trump have brought these concerns to a head.Many different solutions have been proposed during the uproar surrounding the debate. Among these options, some have posited that historical regulation of common carriers can provide a road map for appropriate and effective big tech regulation. Do the market positions of modern giants like Twitter and Facebook generate common-carrier obligations? Should they? Experts discuss these issues, exploring the relevant legal contours and the desirability of the proposed common carrier solution to curb Big Tech power, as well as other issues surrounding the debate.Featuring:- Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of Law- Joshua Wright, Executive Director, Global Antitrust Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University- [Moderator] Elyse Dorsey, Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Asheesh Agarwal and Ashley Baker join the podcast to discuss Senator Amy Klobuchar's recently-announced bill to amend antitrust law.How would the bill adjust the definition of "exclusionary conduct"? What would it mean for the government's ability to seek civil fines for antitrust violations? And how does the bill fit into the larger conversation about antitrust law in Washington?Featuring:- Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel, TechFreedom- Ashley Baker, Director of Public Policy, Committee for JusticeVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

After living in relative obscurity since its passage in 1996, the Congressional Review Act caught the nation's attention in 2017 when a Republican-led Congress and newly-elected President Trump used it to overturn 14 "midnight" regulations issued at the end of the Obama administration. Some prominent Democratic lawmakers opposed the CRA's framework as well as its individual uses in 2017. Will roles be reversed in 2021 regarding Trump administration "midnight" regulations? Can they be completely reversed?In this live podcast, experts review the overriding purposes of the CRA and do a deep dive into its technical elements, such as the law's expedited congressional procedures, the types of actions it covers, the number of votes needed to overturn an action, and the consequences of disapproval.Featuring:- Todd F. Gaziano, Chief of Legal Policy and Strategic Research & Director, Center for the Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation- [Moderator] Susan Dudley, Director, GW Regulatory Studies Center & Distinguished Professor of Practice, Trachtenberg School of Public Policy & Public Administration, George Washington UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently finalized two new transparency-related rules. The stated purpose of the rule "Increasing Consistency in Considering Benefits and Costs in the Clean Air Act Rulemaking Process" is "to codify procedural best practices for the preparation, development, presentation, and consideration of BCA in regulatory decision-making under the CAA." The rule "Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information" is intended to help shed light on the science used and disseminated by the agency. Both rules have garnered both praise and criticism, and there is significant confusion over what they would actually do. In this live podcast, subject-area experts discuss the rules and examine their likely real-world impact.Featuring: - Rachel Jones, Vice President, Energy and Resources Policy, National Association of Manufacturers- Clint Woods, Policy Fellow for Regulations, Americans for Prosperity- [Moderator] Daren Bakst, Senior Research Fellow, Heritage FoundationVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In several recent high-profile cases, banks have conditioned or denied financial services to disfavored industries after campaigns against those industries by advocacy groups. In late-November 2020, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency responded with a rulemaking that, if adopted, would bar national banks from denying financial services to counterparties on the basis of the "personal beliefs" of management and would prohibit "broad categorical exclusions" of certain industries.Some have hailed the rulemaking as an overdue counteroffensive against so-called "woke capitalism." Others worry that it would create a "Fairness Doctrine" for banks and question the potential unintended consequences of the rule for freedom of conscience and orderly bank supervision. This live podcast explores the issues surrounding the politicization of financial services, including the OCC rulemaking and other recent initiatives. This is a subject on which reasonable minds across the political spectrum—from progressives and libertarians to conservatives—can and do disagree.Featuring: - John Berlau, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute- Brian Knight, Director of Innovation and Governance and Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- [Moderator] C. Wallace DeWitt, Senior Counsel, Allen & Overy LLPVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On January 13, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in AMG Capital Management v. FTC, a case that could define the scope of the FTC's remedial authority and explore the limits of textualism. The FTC Act authorizes the Commission to seek a "permanent injunction" in federal court to stop "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." For many years, the FTC and most courts have interpreted "permanent injunction" to give the FTC the power to require defendants to return money to victims. The Seventh Circuit recently disagreed and held that the term "permanent injunction" does not encompass equitable monetary relief for past misconduct.To cover the oral arguments, Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel at TechFreedom and an alumnus of the FTC, moderated a distinguished panel featuring Alden Abbott, the FTC's General Counsel, and Corbin Barthold, TechFreedom's Director of Appellate Litigation.Featuring: - Alden Abbott, General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission- Corbin Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation, TechFreedom- [Moderator] Asheesh Agarwal, Deputy General Counsel, TechFreedomVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant changes in urban land use. Where possible, companies have shifted to partial or full remote work, leaving some office buildings to sit empty. Firms in the service industry have sought to move dining, working out, and other activities outdoors where possible. It remains to be seen whether some of all of these changes in behavior will be permanent. What role do policymakers have to play in facilitating efficient land use during this uncertain time?Featuring:- Yonah Freemark, Senior Research Associate, Urban Institute- Emily Hamilton, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- [Moderator] Luke Wake, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Medical innovation has made modern life miraculous by historical standards, as demonstrated by the unprecedented medical response to the COVID-19 pandemic. What made this possible? What's the best way to ensure future innovation in the treatment of viruses like COVID-19, and of other diseases like hepatitis, diabetes, and cancer?This live podcast explores the legal rules and institutions best-suited to promote the development and commercialization of new drugs and vaccines. One key question is whether to use a prize or patent system to incentivize drug development. Another is whether consumers pay twice for patented drugs developed using funding from the National Institutes of Health. Experts debate these questions and discuss the the legal, economic, and policy considerations at play for efforts to promote new medical innovation.Featuring:- David Hyman, Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Health Law & Policy, Georgetown University- Brian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP and Past President, Licensing Executives Society, USA & Canada- [Moderator] Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.