Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress needs to support the marketplace of ideas

Man maintaining telegraph wire

in 1847, the government decided to sell off the telegraph line between Washington and D.C. That decision limited the government's role in advancing the marketplace of ideas.

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

March 4, 1847, should be covered in every American history textbook. On that day, Congress assessed the profitability of the telegraph line it helped Samuel Morse build between Washington, D.C., and Baltimore. The ledger was bleak: Looking back at a recent year of messages, Congress had spent $3,925.14 to maintain the line and received just $413.44 in revenue from message fees.

So on that fateful day in 1847, the postmaster general, "confronted by a depressing condition of the postal finances and despairing of legislative support in prosecuting the [telegraph] enterprise as a part of the Postal Service, effected the sale of the Government line," as summarized by a postal commission in 1913.

A few decades later, the short-sightedness of that decision was as obvious as an elephant in a kindergarten classroom. By 1866, Western Union had managed to squeeze out all competition in the telegraph industry, form what would soon be a nationwide monopoly and limit the use of the telegraph to the elite. More importantly, Congress had failed in its mandate to “establish Post Office and Post Roads,” as set forth by Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution.


That oft-neglected power – the Postal Power – mandates that Congress provide Americans with a marketplace of ideas via the primary channel of information exchange. Let’s break that down. As of 1790, upon ratification of the Constitution, the postal network was the only means of distributing information. It carried the newspaper, magazines, pamphlets, letters, information on Congress, and on and on.

Under British rule, the government exploited the people’s reliance on the postal system by operating it in a way as to make revenue from their search for knowledge. In a major break with the past, the Founders pledged to run the network to encourage the spread of reliable news and to foster democratic discourse. With the passage of the Post Office Act of 1792, the Founders codified their radical vision of a democracy of informed citizens.

That act subsidized the distribution of newspapers and allowed publishers to exchange copies of their papers at no cost so that they could reprint the latest and most informative stories. Importantly, newspapers in that age had a reputation for being nonpartisan. Historian John Nerone suggests that though many of the Founding era papers had a partisan bent, many more avoided such skewed coverage.

In addition to increasing the supply of democratic information, the act also expanded the market itself. In 1788, the United States had just 69 post offices. Thanks to the decision by the Second Congress to directly build a larger market for ideas, that number rapidly expanded – 903 offices had been built by 1800; 4,500 by 1820, and more than 13,000 by 1840.

On the whole, the Post Office Act demonstrated Congress’ recognition of maintaining, expanding and improving the marketplace of ideas. Yet, in 1847, Congress forgot the importance of fulfilling that duty regardless of technological shifts.

In the years since, the marketplace of ideas has moved further and further away from government control. Many folks celebrate that independence as a good thing; yet, those same folks often fail to realize that we’ve simply shifted government control to corporate control. The latter, in my opinion, is far scarier for two main reasons. First, corporations will always be governed by a profit mandate. And, second, corporations are unaccountable to Average Joes and Janes via the ballot box.

As we enter a new technological paradigm in the Age of AI, we need to ask who should operate the marketplace of ideas. If this marketplace fails, then our democracy will be imperiled. That’s an outcome we cannot tolerate. Maintaining a marketplace of ideas isn't cheap (we learned that in 1847), but a deliberative democracy is worth every penny (a daily lesson).

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why Journalists Must Stand Firm in the Face of Threats to Democracy
a cup of coffee and a pair of glasses on a newspaper
Photo by Ashni on Unsplash

Why Journalists Must Stand Firm in the Face of Threats to Democracy

The United States is living through a moment of profound democratic vulnerability. I believe the Trump administration has worked in ways that weaken trust in our institutions, including one of democracy’s most essential pillars: a free and independent press. In my view, these are not abstract risks but deliberate attempts to discredit truth-telling. That is why, now more than ever, I think journalists must recommit themselves to their core duty of telling the truth, holding power to account, and giving voice to the people.

As journalists, I believe we do not exist to serve those in office. Our loyalty should be to the public, to the people who trust us with their stories, not to officials who often seek to mold the press to favor their agenda. To me, abandoning that principle would be to betray not just our profession but democracy itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Fighting the Liar’s Dividend: A Toolkit for Truth in the Digital Age

In 2023, the RAND Corporation released a study on a phenomenon known as "Truth Decay," where facts become blurred with opinion and spin. But now, people are beginning to doubt everything, including authentic material.

Getty Images, VioletaStoimenova

Fighting the Liar’s Dividend: A Toolkit for Truth in the Digital Age

The Stakes: When Nothing Can Be Trusted

Two weeks before the 2024 election, a fake robocall mimicking President Biden's voice urged voters to skip the New Hampshire primary. According to AP News, it was an instance of AI-enabled election interference. Within hours, thousands had shared it. Each fake like this erodes confidence in the very possibility of knowing what is real.

The RAND Corporation refers to this phenomenon as "Truth Decay," where facts become blurred with opinion and spin. Its 2023 research warns that Truth Decay threatens U.S. national security by weakening military readiness and eroding credibility with allies. But the deeper crisis isn't that people believe every fake—it's that they doubt everything, including authentic material.

Keep ReadingShow less
From TikTok to Telehealth: 3 Ways Medicine Must Evolve to Reach Gen Z
person wearing lavatory gown with green stethoscope on neck using phone while standing

From TikTok to Telehealth: 3 Ways Medicine Must Evolve to Reach Gen Z

Ask people how much they expect to change over the next 10 years, and most will say “not much.” Ask them how much they’ve changed in the past decade, and the answer flips. Regardless of age, the past always feels more transformative than the future.

This blind spot has a name: the end-of-history illusion. The result is a persistent illusion that life, and the values and behaviors that shape it, will remain unchanged.

Keep ReadingShow less