Whitehouse’s Focus as RI’s Senator

justin-katz-avatar-smiling

Back when Rhode Island’s Junior Democrat U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse led the charge to mandate the audio of television commercials, I suggested that “government regulation of television volume is not likely to signal the end of the republic, but the oppression of ‘there ought to be a law’ is a patchwork, encouraging voters to acclimate to the big government mentality and investing them in its exercise of power.”

Having gone some years without another such coup, Whitehouse is apparently at it again, as Shaun Towne reports:

“There’s a big, it appears, emerging scam of selling people cheap, lousy products that have been misdescribed for purposes of getting their business,” said Whitehouse.

Rhode Island’s junior senator is pushing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to crack down on fraudulent clothing websites. In a letter to the agency, Whitehouse said the websites “…use stolen photographs and deep discounts to lure consumers into buying products that are indeed “too good to be true.”

One suspects laws against stolen photographs and false advertising are already in place, so it isn’t clear what a “crack down” would entail, but is this really the sort of stuff-of-life priority that a U.S. senator should have?

It’s not coincidental that Whitehouse is also arguably the nation’s leading advocate for using innovative legal maneuvers to intimidate and “crack down” on organizations that disagree with his conclusions about climate change.  Building on what I wrote in 2011, a public that gets used to having government go after every little inconvenience or example of advantage-taking will produce a weakened backlash when that same government begins taking advantage of the new practice in order to punish political enemies and help political allies (while enriching politicians).



  • It’s a religion to some
    • Russ

      Yeah, Will sets up a progressive strawman and knocks it down. There’s some substance there if you can filter out the progressive bashing. The heart of that seems to be this statement:

      “it is difficult to establish what constitutes culpable ‘misleading’ about climate science…”

      I don’t disagree, but is that now the standard for whether we investigate whether a crime was committed? That’s why we have courts. For instance, we can agree that it’s “difficult” to determine whether Clinton knowingly mislead the public about Bengazi. So let’s therefore not even investigate? What have we had, like seven investigations now?

Quantcast