HE CALLS HIMSELF CONSERVATIVE
Jim Gibbons' 1993 stint to outlaw ticket scalping was an early indication that he wasn't on my side
BY DOUG FRENCH
 |
|
Doug French, associate editor of Liberty Watch: The Magazine is an executive vice president of a Nevada bank. He is the 2005 recipient of the Murray N. Rothbard Award from the Center for Libertarian Studies.
Other stories by Doug French
|
I dunno, I'll see where the money is," a steaming Jim Gibbons said, responding to a question as to whether he was going to run for governor or Congress. A number of politicians worked out at Reno's Sports West in 1993 besides Gibbons; Randolph Townsend and Pete Ernaut used to regularly work up a sweat in the early morning hours.
But, my clearest memory is from that foggy steam room one morning when Assemblyman Gibbons unwittingly gave me a lesson in what politics is really all about. In those days, fresh from earning my Masters in Economics from Murray Rothbard at UNLV, I thought that elected officials had ideologies that inspired them to seek office in order to make changes and make the world a better place; or at least make Nevada a better place.
Forget ideology, it's all about the money: at least for Jim Gibbons, anyway.
Gibbons calls himself a conservative. He is known as a conservative. His constituents trust that he is a conservative. That's why they elect him.
However, he is not. Jim Gibbons is a politician who believes what his moneymen tell him to think. Once in office, his muddled thinking has the potential to create disastrous results.
Take for example AB 141, a bill Gibbons sponsored in the 1993 Legislature. The bill would have prohibited the resale of tickets to athletic or entertainment events at a price in excess of the original cost of the ticket: in common parlance an anti-scalping bill.
There was no public outcry concerning ticket scalping back in 1993. Thousands were not clamoring for this tiny spec of free-market capitalism to be stymied by the ham hand of government. Besides, even if there were, a Republican Assemblyman is expected to champion the cause of the free market, not work to abolish it.
However, Assemblyman Gibbons felt strongly, "that it was wrong for corporate ticket scalpers to be able to corner the 'market' for tickets and to gouge everyone who wanted a [sic] to take part in those events," Gibbons wrote in a letter to yours truly the following April. I had written to Gibbons, questioning him as to whether he believed in private property rights, since AB 141 was an anti-property rights bill.
Of course people have a choice as to whether they want to pay the prices charged by scalpers, just as they have a choice as to whether they wish to stand in line for hours to obtain the best seats as they come on sale for a popular concert or sporting event. The idea that people freely exchanging money for tickets is somehow evil or that they are being somehow gouged is nonsense, and a Republican should not only know that, but also preach that.
Gibbons continued in his letter: "We have laws today protecting people from unfair monopolies and market cornering. They govern every field of business and commodity exchange except the sale of tickets."
Oh really? Is there a set limit on the amount of money a person can make when selling their house or stocks, used Hummer or anything else for that matter? Of course not. Where did Gibbons come up with this flapdoodle?
These laws, according to Gibbons, "ensure the competition, improvement, and accessibility to wealth that are keys to any capitalist economy." To the contrary, any capitalist economy that stifles free trade stunts wealth accumulation.
Entrepreneurs who wait in line for hours to buy good tickets or have an arrangement with entertainment venues to commit to buying large blocks of tickets - speculating that they can earn a profit by selling the tickets later - provide a service to those people who do not have the time to wait in line for hours to buy tickets or do not wish to commit their cash months in advance of a show.
Gibbons sought to make these entrepreneurs criminals with AB 141. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed in the 1993 Assembly and the bill was shot down decisively. But, if he is elected governor, Gibbons could wreak havoc on the marketplace in Nevada. After all, we already know he is for collective bargaining for state employees and for the government dictating a higher minimum wage that an employer must pay an employee.
As it turned out, the moneymen raised a million bucks in 1994 for Gibbons to run for governor, but he hit the Bob Miller buzz saw and lost in a landslide. The moneymen again want Gibbons to be governor. Nevada voters should say no to Gibbons' moneymen again. LW
