Newspaper column: Courts should put a stop to governor’s corporate welfare program

The attorney for the legal arm of a libertarian-leaning Nevada think tank this past week asked the state district court in Carson City to issue a summary judgment that would essentially put the Governor’s Office of Economic Development (GOED) out of business.

The GOED was created as a way to dispense public tax money from a $10 million Catalyst Fund to companies in hopes of creating new jobs and jumpstarting the recession-retarded economy.

The request for summary judgment grows out of a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the Nevada Policy Research Institute’s Center for Justice and Constitutional Litigation (CJCL) on behalf of Michael Little, a Nevada alternative-energy entrepreneur and a taxpayer, because the GOED planned to give $1.2 million to one of his competitors, SolarCity, a company owned by a billionaire that installs solar panels.

Little owns Landfill Alternative, a company that converts recycled landscape trimmings into biomass.

Michael Little at his biomass business.

The suit claims the gift to SolarCity violates the Gift Clause of the state Constitution, which prohibits the state donating or loaning money to any company.

In a deposition given in the court case, GOED’s Executive Director Steven Hill admitted that the state giving money directly to a company would violate the Constitution, so instead the money is funneled through the various county governments.

Sounds like the very definition of a money laundering scheme — a third-party is used to obscure the transfer of illicit funds from the source to its destination.

In the recent court filing, Joseph Becker, chief legal officer and director of the CJCL, points out the state has three times asked the voters of Nevada to amend the Constitution to allow handing out public funds to private companies and each time the amendments soundly defeated.

“This scheme … runs afoul of the plain language of the Nevada State Constitution, the will of the people of Nevada as evidenced by three consecutive four-year elections,” writes Becker, “and, if not held unconstitutional, sets a very dangerous precedent whereby the State, when constitutionally prohibited from acting in certain ways, firsts creates a political subdivision and then subcontracts with that political subdivision to act as an intermediary to do the very thing the Nevada Constitution explicitly prohibits. What next?! Hiring private security companies to conduct warrantless searches in instances where the state would otherwise be constitutionally prohibited?!”

Becker asserts that the case presents no genuine issue of material fact and his client is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the state “is not entitled to build a case on the gossamer threads of whimsy, speculation, and conjecture” — a reference to case law.

The CJCL motion also quotes at length from an opinion by the Nebraska Supreme Court discussing the constitutional and practical ramifications of that state’s almost identical Gift Clause. The opinion concedes that just about any new factory or retail store might be deemed to benefit a community’s progress and prosperity, but under state law public money cannot be appropriated for private purposes and doing so is self-destructive as well.

“It does not matter what such undertakings may be called or how worthwhile they may appear to be at the passing moment,” the court opines. “The financing of private enterprise by means of public funds is entirely foreign to a proper concept of our constitutional system. Experience has shown that such encroachments will lead inevitably to the ultimate destruction of the private enterprise system.”

In fact, Gift Clauses were enacted in many state constitutions precisely because of the experiences of a number of states during the mid-19th century that loaned public money to private firms for the construction of railroads, canals and other infrastructure only to see the companies go broke and leave the taxpayers holding the debt with no assets to show for it.

“It is an illusion — one that seems to have the persistence of original sin — that prosperity can be attained by taking money from taxpayers and handing it to favored businesses. …” the motion for summary judgment concludes. “The idea of government intervention to influence the composition of a country’s output has long been derided by economists for breeding inefficiency, reducing competition, encouraging lobbying and saddling countries with factories producing products nobody wants.”

As Adam Smith wrote in 1776: “It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers to pretend to watch over the economy of private people … They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society.”

The state should not take from some taxpayers and give to others no matter its motives or methods.

This column ran this week in The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News and the Elko Daily Free Press.

Advertisements

10 comments on “Newspaper column: Courts should put a stop to governor’s corporate welfare program

  1. Obama routinely shredding the U.S. constitution so Governors are also getting away with violating the Law of the Land

  2. ronknecht says:

    God bless ye, me son. Great column. RK

    Ron Knecht Economist & NSHE Regent 775-882-2935 (Still) One Plain-speaking Nerd, But Now Nevada Controller-elect http://www.RonKnecht.com

  3. Rincon says:

    “In a deposition given in the court case, GOED’s Executive Director Steven Hill admitted that the state giving money directly to a company would violate the Constitution, so instead the money is funneled through the various county governments.” Utterly despicable. Thanks for shining a light on it.

  4. Winston Smith says:

    Not the first time a government entity has tried to ignore the letter and spirit of a Constitution to get what it wants. It’s always a matter if enough citizens will recognize the bullshit and do something about it. There are no chains to bind down the usurpers if the citizens don’t keep them in good repair.

  5. […] rooftop solar panels is SolarCity, which opened operations in Nevada after the state handed it a $1.2 million taxpayer subsidy. Will it close shop when the cap is […]

  6. […] Even though the Nevada Constitution prohibits the state donating or loaning money to any company, Cortez Masto opined otherwise when the governor and lawmakers wanted to dole out money to various companies through a so-called Catalyst Fund. […]

  7. […] past fall taxpayers shelled out $1.2 million to entice billionaire Elon Musk to open an office for his SolarCity company in Nevada. SolarCity is […]

  8. […] years ago taxpayers shelled out $1.2 million to entice billionaire Elon Musk to open an office for his SolarCity company in Nevada. SolarCity is […]

  9. […] plaintiff in the case is Michael Little, owner of a company that converts recycled landscape trimmings into […]

  10. […] Litigation in its case against the Governor’s Office of Economic Development for handing out state gifts to companies such as […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s