An ill wind blows from the Windy City. Early this year, without fanfare or fair warning, the city government made certain types of paper-based publication illegal.

What was made illegal? Free newspapers or broadsides or fliers that have no religious 0r political content, but are likely to have ads. Anything that might easily become litter.

Yes, in the name of litter prevention the city has outlawed a huge hunk of the Chicago publishing industry. What’s more, the city explicitly outlaws leaving “unsecured bundles” of papers on public or private property. Since this is how much of the alternative press is distributed, the alternative press is not amused by the law.

Though there was surprisingly little talk about the law before it received its 50 to 0 endorsement by City Council, it’s getting quite a bit of talk now. And one alderman has stepped up to the mic to claim credit for it. Setting up litter patrols, community awareness drives, and even ticketing of responsible litterers was apparently not enough. For that one alderman, anyway.

Or the other 49 on the council.

Funny thing is, such measures have been tried elsewhere, and overturned by courts. That’s why political and religious pamphleteering was exempted in the Chicago version. Explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution saved some freedom.

Just not enough.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Episode Number: 1947 • 11/27/2007

Politics is a contact sport. That’s not news to Tim Eyman or Mike and Jack Fagan, who run Voters Want More Choices, the Washington State group behind the Taxpayer Protection Initiative, known as I-960 on this November’s ballot.

Thirteen years ago, these gents helped pass Initiative-601, requiring a two-thirds vote of the legislature to pass any tax increase. Says Eyman, “Despite repeated Chicken Little, sky-is-falling predictions by opponents and many in the media, I-601 has worked well. But during the past 13 years, the Legislature has punched loophole after loophole into it.”

Legislators have gone so far as to declare tax bills to be emergencies and even placed tax increases off-budget to avoid the controls of I-601.

I-960 closes the loopholes. It allows tax increases only by two-thirds legislative vote or a vote of the people, mandates public notice of any pending tax legislation, and ensures at least an advisory public vote, even when the Legislature attempts to block a binding one by declaring a tax increase to be an “emergency.”

Now, the usual suspects (politicians and special interests) are kicking up a fuss. For instance, they claim in the state voters’ pamphlet that I-960 will leave state government “vulnerable” to “recession, pandemic flu, or even terrorist attacks.”

What I-960’s opponents truly fear, of course, is vulnerability to the voters.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

You may remember the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision of last year. It was a case about eminent domain abuse. Five out of nine justices concluded that governments may pretty much grab your property whenever they like, so long they concocts some thin rationale about enhancing the economy.

No need for “public use” of the confiscated property: a city can just take your land at will and turn it over to a condo developer. In the wake of Kelo, legislation has been proposed around the country either protecting or pretending to protect citizens from such abuse. And a recent executive order issued by the Bush Administration tells federal agencies not to do that sort of thing. The only exceptions would be — well, the order lists a lot of exceptions. I doubt Bush’s action will have much positive effect, but I’ll keep my fingers crossed.

If you’re living in California, there is something you can do. You can vote for an initiative called the Protect Our Homes Act, which has qualified for California’s fall ballot. The act would still let governments in the state seize so-called blighted property. But the seized land could not then be simply handed over to private companies. And a “blighted” property would have to really be “blighted” for the state to exercise eminent domain over it. It couldn’t just, you know, have a little too much dirt on the window sill.

Let’s hope this initiative is the start of a beautiful citizen-initiative trend.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The recent declaration by the Federal Election Commission that it shall not endeavor to regulate or control bloggers (for now) has been greeted as a stupendous victory, but our victory is pyrrhic.

Bloggers’ rights wouldn’t have faced the FEC knife had Congress not passed legislation allowing itself to regulate political speech.

Cleverly, Congress assigned the dirty work over to the FEC, enabling those same politicians to decry any unpopular restriction as a rotten regulatory application of their sweet-smelling law. But does law matter to them? They ignore the ultimate law regarding speech, the First Amendment. This most important chunk of our Constitution specifically denies to Congress any lawmaking role that would “abridge” freedom of speech.

Today, when most congressmen hear the word “abridge,” they of course think of “nowhere” and some of the all-time great pork-barreling feats. But the word actually means that Congress cannot — may not — in any way diminish or lessen our rights to speak freely.

So Congress’s creation of a complex regulatory system for political speech — with the McCain-Feingold statute, with all the other campaign finance laws going back to the aftermath of Watergate isn’t even a close call constitutionally. They can’t do what they’ve done.

“Cannot”? “May not”? What do these words mean to those who have placed themselves above law, above the Constitution?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

In Florida, the voters have begun whacking their representatives over the head. It’s about term limits. And it’s about time.

You know how it goes. Voters pass term limits, trying to curb the power and worst habits of career politicians. These politicians find they keep hating term limits. News reports appear about how career politicians are now “re-thinking” term limits, and maybe don’t like term limits after all. They try to weaken or kill the limits. The voters react. The attempts fail. A year or two later, same thing. And again. And again.

Well, Florida — where term limits passed, three to one — has been cursed with politicians who keep rinsing and repeating the same old strategy. Last session, these politicians passed an amendment to weaken term limits; it will go on the November 2006 ballot.

Meanwhile, Floridians have become quite upset. And some politicians are beginning to get the message. One such: State Senator Bill Posey, chairman of a subcommittee on, get this, Ethics and Elections. He was an original sponsor of a Senate bill to extend terms from the currently allowed eight years to twelve. Now he says he made a mistake.

“In my district,” he admitted, “many of my constituents have kind of taken this as an affront. They consider this a slap in the face.”

Gee! No kidding, Bill! Maybe you could share this insight with others in the legislature.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.