Four university professors have decided that the best way to defend their proposed billionaire tax is not to debate it on the merits — but to threaten a political candidate who had the audacity to criticize it publicly. Richard Lucas, a California independent candidate for state assembly in District 51, dared to oppose a billionaire tax proposition heading to the November ballot. For that crime, four academics sicced their attorney on him.
Because nothing screams "we're confident in our policy" like hiring a lawyer to shut up the guy who disagrees.
The professors in question are Brian Galle of UC Berkeley's law school, David Gamage of the University of Missouri, Emmanuel Saez of UC Berkeley, and Darien Shanske of UC Davis. Lucas had been running a website called cawealthexodus.com — his "California Wealth Exodus" campaign — to make the case that taxing billionaires into oblivion might, just maybe, encourage them to leave California. Shocking concept, I know.
Rather than publish a rebuttal, write an op-ed, or do literally anything you'd expect from people who claim to worship free inquiry, these four professors had their attorney Catha Worthman send Lucas legal threats. Galle reportedly called Lucas "a clown and a malicious liar." That's a UC Berkeley law professor, ladies and gentlemen. A man who presumably teaches students about the First Amendment while trying to bully a candidate out of exercising it.
Let's be clear about what happened here. A private citizen running for public office criticized a tax proposal. Four tenured professors — people who enjoy more job protection than a Supreme Court justice — responded with legal intimidation. These are the same folks who lecture us endlessly about the importance of "democracy" and "civic engagement." Apparently that only applies when you're engaging civically in the direction they approve of.
The Alliance Defending Freedom jumped in on Lucas's behalf, and their spokeswoman Jacqueline Ribeiro laid it out perfectly: "It's perfectly acceptable for proponents of high taxes to advocate publicly for the Billionaire Tax Act, it's equally lawful for individuals to voice concerns and encourage others to do the same, as Mr. Lucas has done." In other words, this is America, and speech goes both ways.
Ryan Riedmueller, a legal fellow at Vanderbilt Law School's First Amendment clinic, backed that up: "Mr. Lucas's speech clearly is on a matter of public concern and sits within the First Amendment's protections for political speech." You'd think four law and economics professors would already know that. Then again, they teach at schools where "free speech" now comes with an asterisk and a trigger warning.
The legal mechanism they're leaning on makes the whole thing even more ironic. California has strong Anti-SLAPP protections — that's Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation — designed to stop exactly this kind of legal bullying against people exercising their speech rights. The very state these professors operate in built a legal shield for people like Lucas against people like them.
This is a textbook case of what happens when the ivory tower meets political reality. These professors want a massive new tax on the ballot in November, and they can't tolerate a single candidate pointing out the flaws. Not one. The "marketplace of ideas" is apparently a monopoly now.
Four tenured professors with institutional backing, legal resources, and media connections ganging up on one independent assembly candidate. That's not intellectual confidence — that's desperation wearing a tweed jacket.
