Several years ago Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig engaged former US Senator George Mitchell and charged him with drafting a report on alleged use of MLB banned performance enhancing drugs. That report, dubbed the Mitchell Report, determined a number of players had used such substances, in violation of MLB policies.
The Mitchell Report seems like a perfectly sensible action by a business. Hire an esteemed, outside expert (in addition to being a former senator and attorney, Mitchell had been involved with the baseball industry for several years) to review operations and suggest needed improvements. This sort of review and improvement process goes on in every sector of the free market and is perfectly healthy.
Why then did the Mitchell Report engender not only a government response- but a full-on Congressional hearing lasting weeks with televised proceedings and subsequent investigations?
Ostensibly it is because the Government Reform Committee of the House, the body which carried out this highly essential investigation, has the authority to investigate violations of the nation's myriad federal drug laws.
Another theory is that the Committee derives authority from the fact that the federal government has granted MLB an exemption from certain monopoly laws.
Either way it is viewed, the Committee's showboating on this ridiculous issue outline the dangers of expanded federal powers and that practice's unintended consequences.
At this point it would be difficult for anyone to argue that the investigative energies of Congress were well spent on this unimportant issue. In retrospect, might it have been better for the Committee to have possibly investigated Congressman Ron Paul's now validated claims about a Federal Reserve induced housing bubble? Or what about allegations of contractor waste and abuse in Iraq? Maybe Congress should have been looking into the SEC, and connections between the Commission's leadership and bastion of false capitalism Bernard Madoff?
Furthermore, while Congress has the ability to investigate- should those efforts be used regularly? And if so, should they be used to clarify issues of legislative concern or to seek out high profile individuals for humiliation and political enrichment of the Committee members?
Oddly, such a political motivation would seem less disturbing than what the Committee claimed for the motivation of their investigation.
The Committee cited the need to protect children from steroid abuse.
Once again Congress is motivated to act in order to protect Americans from cradle to grave. There is nothing in the Constitution which gives our elected representatives authority to examine, opine, and act on the use of steroids. The idea that individual Americans, as parents and as free acting adults, are incapable of managing themselves and their family against the threat of steroids is deeply upsetting. If it takes a Congressional Comittee to protect us from something as obviously dangerous as abuse of drugs, should we also convene Committees to set for us bedtimes? Select what sort of dog breeds we should not have at home? To decide what is best to add or not add to our coffee?
The entire exercise was ludicrous, not to mention expensive. Subpoenas are not free and the time of government employees to collect information comes at a cost too (although, frankly, maybe Congressmen investigating things at a limited price is a lot better than them passing costly laws which drain resources in perpetuity).
One important note here, especially at a time when businesses across the nation are cutting deals with Pappa USG, is that ultimately MLB got what it deserved.
Years ago the major leagues of several sports were granted an exception from federal laws which preclude monopolies. Why is Congress in the business of regulating monopolies, anyway? (The market, through innovation and alternative options, will inevitably destroy all monopolies). Because of this deal with the devil, MLB has made itself available to the USG for investigation and influence beyond what a normal market actor would be required to endure. Something to keep in mind Citibank, GM, etc.
As usual the ultimate responsibility for this disaster is with the voters. ignorant, foolish voters who reacted to this Committee's investigation as if it was a sensible and proper use of government resources are the ones who inspired Congress to act in this arena which is clearly out of the body's jurisdiction. If Congress thought the voters would support it and it would gain its members credit, there would be hearing held on the logos of college basketball teams.
(In fact, feel free to surf over to Wikipedia and search for "Native American mascot controversy" to see what the USG is already doing in this critical area).
Sensible libertarian views on nearly everything- except foreign affairs.