Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress needs to support the marketplace of ideas

Opinion

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

Rebuilding Democracy in the Age of Brain Rot
person using laptop computer
Photo by Christin Hume on Unsplash

Rebuilding Democracy in the Age of Brain Rot

We live in a time when anyone with a cellphone carries a computer more powerful than those that sent humans to the moon and back. Yet few of us can sustain a thought beyond a few seconds. One study suggested that the average human attention span dropped from about 12 seconds in 2000 to roughly 8 seconds by 2015—although the accuracy of this figure has been disputed (Microsoft Canada, 2015 Attention Spans Report). Whatever the number, the trend is clear: our ability to focus is not what it used to be.

This contradiction—constant access to unlimited information paired with a decline in critical thinking—perfectly illustrates what Oxford named its 2024 Word of the Year: “brain rot.” More than a funny meme, it represents a genuine threat to democracy. The ability to deeply engage with issues, weigh rival arguments, and participate in collective decision-making is key to a healthy democratic society. When our capacity for focus erodes due to overstimulation, distraction, or manufactured outrage, it weakens our ability to exercise our role as citizens.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people looking at computer screens with data.

A call to rethink AI governance argues that the real danger isn’t what AI might do—but what we’ll fail to do with it. Meet TFWM: The Future We’ll Miss.

Getty Images, Cravetiger

The Future We’ll Miss: Political Inaction Holds Back AI's Benefits

We’re all familiar with the motivating cry of “YOLO” right before you do something on the edge of stupidity and exhilaration.

We’ve all seen the “TL;DR” section that shares the key takeaways from a long article.

Keep ReadingShow less