In a recent letter, Martin Lobel describes as "intellectually bankrupt" our arguments against S. 940 and S. 2204, two recent bills that would have imposed unfavorable tax rules on five large oil companies that would not have applied to other taxpayers. Unfortunately, Lobel mischaracterizes our analysis of why the bills violate the rule of law.

Eliminating tax subsidies for major energy companies is a bad idea. Singling out big American energy firms for this kind of treatment is abusive and a "glaring violation of the rule of law."

Three significant members of the United States Climate Action Partnership are no longer supporting cap-and-trade.

The new rules that prohibit lawful gun-owners from having guns on company property look more likely to actually wind up costing more lives, rather than saving them.

Politicians have frequently directed harsh rhetoric toward particular corporate taxpayers that earn high profits. At times, this rhetoric has been accompanied by policy proposals that single out a narrow set of profitable taxpayers for disparate treatment. Perhaps the most notable example is the war against Big Oil.

Last week's announcement by four major oil companies that they are setting up a billion dollar joint venture to create a rapid-response system to contain deep offshore oil spills shows that private firms can act faster in a crisis than government regulators.

The authorsreview the U.S. and European experiences with regulatory oversight and the use of formal tools to analyze regulation.

Is BP's new branding strategy solely clever propaganda?