12.15.25 Legal Docket on campaign-finance rules and limiting future speech, Moneybeat on the Fed policy, and History Book on a “Millionaire Missionary”

Summary

---

The World and Everything In It – Episode Summary

Date: December 15, 2025
Episode Title: Legal Docket on Campaign-Finance Rules, Moneybeat on Fed Policy, and the “Millionaire Missionary”

---

Overview

This episode of The World and Everything In It delivers in-depth coverage on three central topics:

1. Supreme Court Cases on Speech: A Legal Docket segment focuses on two Supreme Court disputes – the constitutionality of federal campaign finance caps for political parties, and the rights of a street preacher convicted under a city speech ordinance.
2. Federal Reserve Policy and Economic Debate: The Moneybeat segment analyzes the Federal Reserve's recent interest rate stance, internal divisions, and the signaling for future monetary policy and leadership.
3. William Borden, the “Millionaire Missionary”: The History Book revisits the life and legacy of William Borden, a wealthy heir who gave up everything to serve as a missionary, inspiring generations through his faith-driven life and untimely death.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Legal Docket: Campaign Finance Caps and Free Speech

a. National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

• Main Issue: Are congressional caps on how much political parties can spend on candidate campaigns constitutional, or do they unreasonably limit free speech?

• Context: Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts, but parties face strict limits.

• Arguments:

  • For Removing Caps:

    • Noel Francisco (Senate Republicans’ lawyer) critiques caps as arbitrary and unrelated to preventing bribery or corruption:

      “The last people who should be saying what should be spent in elections are the people who are holding power today.” (09:12)

    • Argues that broad limits penalize speech and are “verboten under the First Amendment.”
    • Points out lack of evidence where campaign spending caps have prevented actual bribery.

  • For Maintaining Caps:

    • Mark Elias (Democratic committees’ lawyer) emphasizes longstanding judicial precedent:

      “It has never wavered on one foundational pillar. Congress may limit contributions to candidates.” (12:58)

    • Justice Sotomayor cites the historical example of the Dairy industry “channeling millions of dollars to President Nixon through the Republican Party… there certainly was an appearance of quid pro quo.” (11:59)
    • Position: Without caps, parties would be an unchecked backchannel for large donors.

• Court Dynamics:

  • Justices question whether current campaign finance law is still tenable after recent rulings allowing unlimited Super PAC spending.
  • Justice Kavanaugh voices concern about “the overall architecture” of jurisprudence having weakened parties versus outside groups (13:19).
  • Justice Barrett probes possible party self-interest behind the case (14:02).

b. Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi

• Main Issue: Can a street preacher, previously convicted under a city ordinance restricting speech, seek preventative relief to avoid future prosecution for similar actions?

• Facts:

  • Gabriel Olivier was required by police to preach from a distant “protest zone” at public events; proximity made outreach ineffective.
  • Seeks only future relief, not overturning past conviction.

• Arguments:

  • City claims previous conviction bars Olivier’s claim for protection unless his conviction is expunged, referencing Heck v. Humphrey.
  • Justice Sotomayor rebukes this as denying a pathway to protect First Amendment rights even decades later:

    “You're telling me there is no remedy for him or her in order to secure their rights even 20 years from now… they have no protection.” (17:37)

  • Justice Alito echoes:

    “Doesn't it seem a stretch… to say, no, you can't ever do that, you're forever barred from engaging in what you think is protected First Amendment activity… because you were previously convicted under this statute…” (18:15)

  • Justice Thomas identifies logical flaws in the city’s reasoning: the relief would have the same effect whether sought by Olivier or a new complainant (19:05).

• Stakes: The decision will clarify if a prior conviction blocks all future effort to prevent further rights infringement.

---

2. Moneybeat: Federal Reserve Policy and Economic Models

Guest: David Bonson, financial analyst

a. Fed’s Divided Stance on Interest Rates

• Summary:
  • Fed’s December meeting revealed deep division: some members focused on persistent inflation, others more worried about labor market softness (21:14).
  • Chair Jay Powell described the situation as “as close as you'll come to a coin flip.”

    “You can't do two things at once… Policy is still in a place where it’s not accommodative. We feel like we have made progress this year in non-tariff related inflation.” (22:16)

  • Interpretation:
    • David Bonson points out the tension of the Fed’s dual mandate (inflation vs. employment) and sees current tone as “the most Trump-friendly Powell press conference that he’s had, I think, all year.” (23:20)
    • Market expects more cuts ahead, possibly after Powell’s term ends in May.

b. Uncertainty Over Next Fed Chair

• President Trump apparently vacillating between Kevin Hassett and Kevin Warsh as the next appointee.
• Bonson: “It is entirely possible that the White House is doing a diversion here… I would very much love to see Kevin Warsh.” (26:47)

c. Flawed Climate Economics Study

• Discusses retraction of a widely cited catastrophic GDP impact study after major data errors revealed.
• Bonson reflects on policy’s vulnerability to bias:

  “Reports like this get adopted… for no other reason that the people doing so want it to be true… They have an ax to grind.” (29:02)

  • Even Bill Gates now urges “prudence and a measured approach.”

---

3. History Book: William Borden, the “Millionaire Missionary”

Narrated by Caleb Weldy, with Kevin Belmonte (Borden biographer)

a. Early Life and Call to Missions

• William Borden, Yale grad, heir to a great fortune, energized the campus through prayer groups, outreach, and personal charity.
• Inspired by encounters with missionaries, especially those serving in China (34:08).
• Used personal wealth to fund housing for the homeless, led many to Christ:

  “He who made the universe and holds you in the hollow of his hand will help you if you'll only ask.” – William Borden, recounted by Jack Clark (35:08)

b. Training and Departure

• Fully committed: “If you're going to do it, you have to prepare well.” (35:49)
• Sailed to Cairo in December 1912 to study Arabic as preparation for service in China (32:27).

c. Death and Legacy

• Contracted fatal meningitis just three months into service; died before family arrived.
• News spread globally; his legacy sparked a wave of missions enthusiasm:

  “When Borden passed away and his story went all over the world, it was covered in all the major newspapers.” (37:11)

• His mother’s question, “Is it, after all, worthwhile?” is answered in her heart by recalling John 3:16.
• Despite Borden’s short life, the “ripple effects” of sacrifice and witness continue.
• Closing vignette:

  “If 10 men are carrying a log, nine of them on the little end and one at the heavy end, and you want to help, which end will you lift on?” – William Borden (38:32)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 09:12 | Noel Francisco | “The last people who should be saying what should be spent in elections are the people who are holding power today.” | | 11:59 | Justice Sotomayor | “The dairy industry channeled millions of dollars to President Nixon... there certainly was an appearance of quid pro quo.” | | 12:58 | Mark Elias | “But it has never wavered on one foundational pillar. Congress may limit contributions to candidates.” | | 13:19 | Justice Kavanaugh | “Should we be concerned about the overall architecture of our jurisprudence having weakened or disadvantaged political parties as compared to outside groups?” | | 17:37 | Justice Sotomayor | “You're telling me there is no remedy for him or her in order to secure their rights even 20 years from now… they have no protection.” | | 18:15 | Justice Alito | “Doesn't it seem a stretch… to say, no, you can't ever do that, you're forever barred from engaging in what you think is protected First Amendment activity…” | | 23:20 | David Bonson | “This was certainly the most Trump friendly Powell press conference that he's had, I think all year.” | | 29:02 | David Bonson | “Reports like this get adopted… for no other reason that the people doing so want it to be true… They have an ax to grind.” | | 35:08 | Jack Clark (via Borden) | “He who made the universe and holds you in the hollow of his hand will help you if you'll only ask.” |

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• [07:52] – Legal Docket: Intro to speech cases
• [09:12] – Arguments on coordinated campaign spending limits
• [11:59] – Justice Sotomayor’s historical argument for campaign finance law
• [13:19] – Justice Kavanaugh critiques campaign finance case architecture
• [15:07] – Olivier v. City of Brandon: Street preaching and future speech rights
• [17:37] – Justices debate future protection for those previously convicted
• [21:14] – Moneybeat: Fed policy discussion with David Bonson
• [23:20] – Bonson’s analysis of Powell’s tone and Fed direction
• [29:02] – Retraction of climate economics study
• [32:27] – History Book: William Borden sets sail for Cairo
• [33:26] – Daily disciplines and motivations of Borden
• [34:08] – Borden meets missionaries, feels call for China
• [37:11] – Global impact of Borden’s death and legacy
• [38:32] – “Heavy end of the log” parable

---

Conclusion

This episode deftly weaves together discussions of current legal battles over free speech and campaign funding, sharp economic analysis of Federal Reserve policy, and an inspiring historical account of sacrificial faith. Listeners gain a nuanced perspective on Supreme Court dynamics, the tension within financial policymaking, and the far-reaching effects of living for a higher calling.

Transcript

[Nick Eicher]

Today we kick off the December giving drive and the great news is that today we do not start at zero. Thanks to some longtime donor friends, we begin with a $20,000 challenge gift already on the table.

[Mary Reichardt]

Haha. There's no penalty for jumping the gun in this race. So we got a strong running start and a tangible reminder that supporting World is a team effort. We run together. Nobody gives a loan.

[Nick Eicher]

We do run together and we are off and running. So if you're ready, make your gift early to world's December giving Dr. Just go to wng.org donate.

[Mary Reichardt]

Good morning. Political super PACs spend without limits. Political parties do not. Congress caps what they can spend on their candidates and that difference is now before the Supreme Court.

[Legal Analyst]

The last people who should be saying what should be spent in elections are the people who are holding power today.

[Nick Eicher]

That's ahead on Legal Docket. Also today, the Monday Money beat economists David Bonson is standing by. And later, the World History Book today, the story of the millionaire missionary.

[Legal Analyst]

You know, he would say in his diary, are you willing to be made willing? Are you willing to be used to the Lord?

[Mary Reichardt]

It's Monday, December 15th. This is the world and everything in it from listener supported World Radio. I'm Mary Reichert.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. Good morning.

[Mary Reichardt]

Up next, Kent Covington with today's news.

[Kent Covington]

Police in Rhode island say they have a person of interest in custody after a deadly shooting at Brown University that killed at least two students. The person in custody is reportedly a 24 year old man from Wisconsin. Police tracked him to a hotel in Coventry Sunday and found two firearms in his room, but as of last night, he had not yet been charged. Providence, Rhode Island Mayor Brett Smiley said nine others were wounded in that attack.

[Nick Eicher]

There remain seven individuals in stable condition, one in critical but stable condition, and.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

One has been discharged.

[Kent Covington]

The attack set off hours of chaos across the Ivy League campus as hundreds of officers searched for the shooter and urged students and staff to shelter in place. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

This has been a horrible, terrible moment, but in moments like this, we see.

[Nick Eicher]

The best of Rhode island.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

The firefighters, the policemen, the civic leaders, neighbors who come together.

[Kent Covington]

Community members held a vigil last night to honor the victims. As the investigation continues, Brown University canceled remaining finals and is offering support services to students and staff. Meantime in Australia, authorities say a father and son opened fire Sunday during a Hanukkah celebration at Sydney's Bondi beach, killing at least 15 people and wounding dozens more. The shooting happened as families gathered for a public holiday event near the shore. President Trump reacted to that attack and.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

That was an anti Semitic attack obviously and it I just want to pay my respects to everybody.

[Kent Covington]

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese thanked Trump and other world leaders who voiced support and condemned the attack.

[Nick Eicher]

This was an attack deliberately targeted at.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

The Jewish community on the first day.

[Nick Eicher]

Of Hanukkah, which of course should be.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

A joyous celebration and the Jewish community are hurting today.

[Kent Covington]

Police say officers shot and killed the older gunman, a 50 year old man at the scene and Authorities wounded his 24 year old son and took him into custody. Victims ranged in age from children to elderly adults. The attack is still under investigation. President Trump also commented Sunday on an attack in Syria that killed two American troops and a civilian interpreter. He said the U.S. will retaliate, but not against the Syrian government.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

An attack in Syria and we had three great patriots terminated by bad people and not the Syrian government. It was isis. Syrian government fought by our side. The new President fought by our side.

[Kent Covington]

That attack happened near the city of Palmyra and also wounded three other U.S. service members. The attacker was killed during the assault. American forces remain in Syria to counter ISIS and support local partners. Both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have launched probes into a follow up military strike in waters near Venezuela that killed two survivors of the initial strike. The operation targeted a boat identified as a cartel drug running vessel. GOP Congressman Mike Turner serves on the House Committee and he told ABC's this.

[Nick Eicher]

Week this oversight investigation is going to proceed and as such we're going to certainly get to the bottom of both what occurred, what acts did occur, and as that investigation goes forward, Congress will.

[Legal Analyst]

Have more information to be able to.

[Nick Eicher]

Understand what occurred and how do we.

[Kent Covington]

Proceed Next, the Trump administration identified the people aboard the boat as members of the Venezuelan Trende Aragua drug cartel, which the President has designated as a foreign terrorist group. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have largely had very different reactions to those strikes. Some Democrats were accusing the Trump administration of committing a possible war crime, but House Speaker Mike Johnson said the strikes were entirely appropriate. Washington state is still dealing with historic flooding even as some rivers slowly begin to recede. Days of heavy rain forced thousands of people to evacuate flooded homes and farmland and triggered dozens of water rescues. Governor Bob Ferguson said over the weekend.

[Nick Eicher]

This is something that the people of the state of Washington have not faced before, this level of flooding and so we encourage of course force individuals to.

[Kent Covington]

Follow the orders from their local officials. In some places, including along the Snoqualmie river, neighborhoods turned into lakes almost overnight and emergency Officials warned that the danger is not over. More rain and strong winds were expected, raising concerns about mudslides, falling trees and possible levee failures as the ground remains saturated. I'm Kent Covington, and straight ahead, a Supreme Court case that challenges federal limits on the amount of money political parties can spend. Plus, the Monday money beat with David Bonson and the world history book. This is the world and everything in it.

[Mary Reichardt]

It's the world and everything in it for this 15th day of December 2025. We're so glad you've joined us today. Good morning. I'm Mary Reichardt.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. Well, before we get going today, I would like to have just a quick word about the December giving drive and the work of journalism. You know, every interview that we do, every trip we take, every draft that we write and rewrite and rewrite again. You know how that goes. The point is this. All that work assumes an audience, listeners, viewers, readers of all of World's products. But without, without an audience, there really is no story to write. There's no point in making the effort. But we do have one, and that story is for you. You depend on us, and we depend on you.

[Mary Reichardt]

And when you give to world, your support is what powers the story. By giving, you're stepping into the story and keeping the work moving forward.

[Nick Eicher]

So it is our December giving drive, and I hope today you'll pay a visit to wng.org donate all right, it's.

[Mary Reichardt]

Time now for legal docket. And today, two cases, both about speech, one about political influence and money, and the other about a street preacher. We start with the case with the big name National Republican Senatorial Committee versus Federal Election Commission. Now, if you're frustrated or exasperated by the state of our politics today, well, you're in pretty good company. Even some of our Supreme Court justices can get incredulous.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

You're serious?

[Nick Eicher]

For anyway, my time is.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

I'm serious, your honor.

[Nick Eicher]

I'm serious that the same rules have to apply to all plaintiffs. And that wasn't even about the merits of the case. The real issue is this, whether it's constitutional for Congress to cap the amount of money that political parties can spend on their candidates. The aim there was to fight corruption by preventing coordinated party spending from becoming a backdoor for unlimited financial support. There are lots of interested parties in this one. The committees that the House and Senate Republicans built to get reelected, A former member of Congress, Even Vice President J.D. vance, who, when he got involved in this case was in the US Senate, they say that what Congress did is unconstitutional, that the spending caps restrict speech, they are outdated, and they don't even work to prevent corruption.

[Mary Reichardt]

The lawyer for Senate Republicans is Noel Francisco.

[Legal Analyst]

The base limits here show almost to a metaphysical certitude that the coordinated spending limits have nothing to do with quid pro quo bribery. The base limits are the same everywhere for every race. $3,500 for individuals, $500 for the party committees. That shows that Congress thinks the risk of bribery is the same everywhere. Yet the coordinated spending limits range from $60,000 to $4 million, depending on the race and location. That makes no sense if what you're concerned about is bribery. Even a Senate candidate in California could be bribed for $4 million. But it makes perfect sense if what you're trying to do is limit the overall amount of money in politics. That, however, is what this court has repeatedly said is verboten under the First Amendment. The last people who should be saying what should be spent in elections are the people who are holding power today.

[Mary Reichardt]

More than half the states do permit unlimited coordination between party and candidate, and supporters of the campaign spending caps didn't even show a single example of a donor laundering a bribe through a political party.

[Nick Eicher]

But the Democrats in support of the caps argue that if a political party pays for something in coordination with a candidate, then that counts as though the party directly cut the candidate a check. That's just a disguised contribution. And Congress can restrict restrict it because court precedent says so.

[Mary Reichardt]

The issue of standing came up with lawyer Roman Martinez arguing that J.D. vance has no standing to sue because he's not declared himself a candidate for 2028. So he's got no injury, which is an element of standing. In fact, no plaintiff has standing here, he argues, so the court ought to just dismiss the case right now. That was what got Justice Samuel Alito's dander up.

[Nick Eicher]

Isn't that what potential candidates always say until the day when they make that's what they always say. That's what candidates say when they're running. That's also what candidates say when they're not running the most. It's worth noting here that President Biden at first defended these caps and then decided not to, concluding the spending caps were no longer defensible under Supreme Court precedent. So the court had to appoint Martinez to defend the caps in this case. The Trump administration also saw the caps as indefensible and took the side of the Republicans, urging the high court to toss out a case called Colorado 2. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor contradicted the Republicans and said she found historical examples of why the rule was necessary in the first place.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

You keep saying there's no evidence of this kind of coordination resulting in a quid pro quo or the appearance thereof. But the whole campaign finance law is based on just such an evidence. In the early 1970s, that's what led to all of this congressional action. The dairy industry channeled millions of dollars to President Nixon through the Republican Party and its committees. The industry landed $100 million subsidy from President Nixon in return. Was there a quid pro quo? There certainly was an appearance of quid pro quo. That's what started the entire campaign finance reform legislation.

[Nick Eicher]

The threat hasn't diminished.

[Mary Reichardt]

Mark Elias argued for the Democratic campaign committees in favor of the spending caps.

[Legal Analyst]

Over the past 50 years, this court has had opportunity to review many campaign finance laws, and it has appropriately treated.

[Nick Eicher]

Many of them skeptically. But it has never wavered on one foundational pillar. Congress may limit contributions to candidates.

[Mary Reichardt]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the Supreme Court's involvement with campaign finance at all. For example, letting super PACs spend unlimited sums, yet strictly limiting how much parties can coordinate with candidates.

[Nick Eicher]

Should we be concerned about the overall architecture of our jurisprudence having weakened or disadvantaged political parties as compared to outside groups? Justice Department lawyer Sarah Harris said, we should be very concerned. Court precedent simply cannot be squared with the First Amendment. The Democratic side took the opposite view, arguing that lifting the caps will ruin the only remaining rationale the Court still has to control political spending. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked just one question, and this one cut right through the political incentives.

[Mary Reichardt]

Mr. Francisco said that the RNC and.

[Nick Eicher]

The DNC have long been aligned on this question, and normally regulated parties are happy to get rid of regulation.

[Mary Reichardt]

And obviously this ties the DNC's hands just as much as it ties the RNC's hands.

[Nick Eicher]

So I guess my questions are two. One is, if the parties had long been aligned on this, why change the position?

[Mary Reichardt]

And two, if there isn't an imbalance in who this benefits, why would the DNC be here? Like, why would your client be here if it didn't perceive this to be something that would benefit the RNC more than the dnc? The Democratic side tried to reframe the motive from partisan advantage to protecting the parties. But the government position appealed to constitutional first principles, not political winners and losers.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

And the answer is to allow the.

[Mary Reichardt]

First Amendment to do its work so.

[Nick Eicher]

That parties can engage in this coordination with candidates in heartland issues for campaigns.

[Mary Reichardt]

And let the chips fall where they may. I heard no clear majority one way or the other in all this. But the stakes are very high. If the caps fall, billionaire donors would get huge leverage over party strategy. If the caps stay, then super pacs remain the dominant vehicles for big money. All right, our second case today.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

I love to go out and tell folks about Jesus.

[Mary Reichardt]

The case of a street preacher. The audio is from cbn.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

They hand out gospel tracts to people.

[Nick Eicher]

And tell them about the message of.

[Kent Covington]

Christ as they're walking to the concert.

[Mary Reichardt]

It's Olivier versus city of Brandon, Mississippi, and the voice you heard is Gabriel Olivier. The question seems so simple. If you've been convicted under a law that you think is unconstitutional, can you still sue in federal court to prevent that law from being used against you in the future?

[Nick Eicher]

The case arises from Olivier's arrest in Brandon, Mississippi, four years ago. Police ordered Olivier to move to a designated protest zone 265ft away from the city's amphitheater. His wife Christina told First Liberty Institute, Next thing I know, I'm looking over there and Gabe was in handcuffs. And the police chief said, you know, unless y' all want to be arrested.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

You need to leave immediately as well.

[Nick Eicher]

A city ordinance bars demonstrators from getting too close to the concert venue or speaking from the public sidewalk next to it. The city says earlier demonstrations were disruptive. Words like nasty and Jezebel were shouted at people going to the concert, forcing attendees onto the street. Officers said the noise made it difficult to hear their radio orders. That's why the city passed the ordinance. Demonstrators have to stay in that designated area 265ft away.

[Mary Reichardt]

But Olivier says he just wants to preach the gospel and nobody can hear him from that far away. He argues the city is targeting religious speech by isolating him to a speech zone. He's not trying to undo his old conviction, but he does want to prevent it from happening again. Here's the legal wrinkle. A 1994 case called Heck v. Humphrey says you cannot sue under the relevant law because that suggests the earlier conviction wasn't valid.

[Nick Eicher]

Justice Elena Kagan pressed Olivier's lawyer, Alison Ho, on that point.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

So if we take Heck for all it's worth, I think you can't win. I think that you have to be saying you just can't take that language to mean what it means. Respectfully, Justice Kagan, I don't believe that's true.

[Nick Eicher]

Because again, going on to distinguish that case from this one. The Heck decision bars claims that undermined the past. But her client is asking for protection going forward. That's not the same thing. The city argued Olivier had plenty of other state laws he could have sued under. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor was not impressed.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

What you're telling me is there is no remedy for him or her in order to secure their rights even 20 years from now. What you're basically saying is simply because they've been previously convicted, they cannot seek prospective relief 20 years from now unless they get an expungement. But if they're barred by some procedural, for some procedural reason, they have no protection.

[Nick Eicher]

And then a rare moment of agreement with her from Justice Samuel Alito. Doesn't it seem as stretch of the.

[Legal Analyst]

Underlying reasoning, the rationale of HEC to say, no, you can't ever do that, you're forever barred from engaging in what.

[Nick Eicher]

You think is protected First Amendment activity.

[Legal Analyst]

Because you were previously convicted under this statute and received more or less a.

[Nick Eicher]

Slap on the wrist?

[Mary Reichardt]

The slap on the wrist Justice Alito refers to is that Olivier paid a fine and received a suspended 10 day jail sentence. The City of Brandon argues its regulation is personal, meaning another preacher without a conviction could bring a challenge under that provision of civil rights law known as section 1983. That is the law people use to sue officials for civil rights violations. That led Justice Clarence Thomas pointing out the logical flaw in the City's theory. The exchange is with Olivier's lawyer, Ms. Ho.

[Nick Eicher]

Would a victory by a third person who was never convicted under this ordinance in a 1983 action, would it impugn the reasoning underlying the conviction of petitioner?

[Mary Reichardt]

Yes, absolutely, you, Honor.

[Nick Eicher]

Would it impugn it any differently than if petitioner brought the 1983 action?

[Mary Reichardt]

No, you, Honor.

[Nick Eicher]

Would it undo the conviction or the confinement of petitioner?

[Mary Reichardt]

No.

[Nick Eicher]

A devastating takedown for the city because Heck is about stopping people from using section in 1983 to overturn their past convictions. Olivier is not doing that. So the City's reading of the Heck decision cannot be right.

[Mary Reichardt]

But it's that all important limiting principle the Justices are looking for. So whether a person with a prior conviction can be protected in future speech, the Justices will decide. And that's this week's legal docket.

[Kent Covington]

Additional support comes from Commuter Bible, the.

[Nick Eicher]

Workweek Audio Bible in four annual plans.

[Legal Analyst]

On podcast apps and commuterbible.org from Dort.

[Kent Covington]

University, where students students are invited into God's story of restoration to live, learn and work together with joyful purpose in.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

All of life until all is made new.

[Nick Eicher]

And from Eyewitness, the Longshore, a cinematic.

[Legal Analyst]

Audio drama that blends faith and history.

[Kent Covington]

Eyewitnesspod.com that's the letter I witnesspod.com.

[Mary Reichardt]

Next up on the world and everything in it, the Monday Money beat.

[Nick Eicher]

Time now to talk business markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bonson. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bonson Group, and he is here now. Good morning to you, David. Good morning, Nick.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

Good to be with you.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, let's talk about the Fed. Its last interest rate meeting of the year was last week. The Fed was very much divided on making that cut and of course, Chairman Jay Powell was asked about it in his press availability at the conclusion of the meeting in which he seemed very candid, very revealing, explaining that for him the division had to do with the dual nature of the Fed's mandate and which economic risk was the bigger one. Some of those officials on the Fed were more concerned about the labor market, others thinking that inflation is still the greater danger. And Powell said it was as close as you'll come to a coin flip. Have a listen. I can make a case for either, for either side. I mean, I could make that case. It's a close call.

[Kent Covington]

You'll see that a very large number.

[Nick Eicher]

Of participants agree that risks are to the upside for unemployment and to the upside for inflation. So what do you do? You've got one tool. You can't do two things at once. But he also talked about where policy is currently set and he made the point that the interest rate was a touch closer to neutral, meaning that it's still in the zone of restrictive. But you'll also basically hear him saying, if I'm reading him right, that the Fed has done its part to tame inflation and what inflation there is is related to the tariffs. Here's just one more clip. I'd call it in a broad range of, of plausible estimates of neutral. At the same time, policy is still in a place where it's not accommodative. And we feel like, we feel like we have made progress this year in non tariff related inflation. But as I said, we're well placed to wait and see how that turns out. All right, David, so dive on in. How do you see it?

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

Well, this was certainly the most Trump friendly Powell press conference that he's had, I think all year. And based on the way the last month's press conference had gone, October 29, where there was some surprise to markets in the hawkish tone, the dovish tone of this one I think was even more of a surprise because it moved so much the other way. You know, you could talk about this divide between the inflation concern Price stability concern and the labor market health or economic growth health as one person versus another person. But it also is true of those things being an internal tension just for one individual. And so it not only pits person A on the FOMC who voted no against a rate cut, against person B on the FOMC who voted for it. But in theory, it should be pitting people themselves in terms of an internal tension. That's their point of a dual mandate, is that they are right now, more than most points, wrestling with two competing economic issues. That creates a tension. So if it creates a tension internally for a voter, it obviously is going to create tensions across the totality of the voters. In this case, it ended up being 9 to 3. I don't find that hyper divisive. But there were two no votes on a cut and then the other no vote, Stephen Myron, was because he wanted to cut more, he wanted to cut 50 basis points. So I thought that Jay Powell's comments that we are near the neutral rate was actually dovish because I would argue, or at least some could argue, that you're at the neutral rate by saying we're near it. It implies we might even have further to go. So, you know, Nick, they give away the store a little bit. Their dot plots say we predict one rate cut next year. And Futures Market says there's going to be at least two rate cuts next year with a pretty decent chance over 30% of three rate cuts next year. That's where I think things stand, is that it looks like you might get another cut before Powell leaves. And most people believe you're certainly going to get another cut or two after he leaves, when the President has his own person in. As we know, Jay Powell's leaving in May.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, let me stay with the Fed for just a moment because there's also been a notable shift here since the last time we talked. A week ago, we reported that the White House had canceled additional interviews for the Fed chair job. And the sense at the time was that Kevin Hassett was essentially a lock for the position. But now that's changed. President Trump telling the Wall Street Journal that he's leaning toward either Kevin Hassett or, or Kevin Warsh, which puts us right back to where we were months ago with two very different Kevins in the frame. So Kevin Warsh, of course, a former Fed governor, he served during the financial crisis. He was interviewed for the job last time around. And at the same time, the President has been very clear about wanting much lower interest rates. So what do you make of the back and forth here, Dave.

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

Well, I have two thoughts. I wish I knew the answer, Nick, because I don't know that anything has changed. It is entirely possible that the White House is doing a diversion here, a kind of pump fake to not make it appear that everything is already set as Kevin Hassett and by now opening the door to the a trial balloon that Kevin Warsh is back in the running. They may be faking it. I hope that isn't the case. I would very much love to see Kevin Warsh sel. And it's possible that they have kind of flipped a little bit, but no one really knows the internal machinations. You're exactly right that a week ago the White House was just flat out telegraphing that we've selected Hassett and now a week later they're flat out saying we have not and Warsh is back in the lead position, or at least near the lead. Look, the only person who I suspect actually knows is President Trump, with the possible exception of Secretary Besant. And I will stand by my prior that I think is going to be one of the Kevins. And there's one of the Kevins I'd rather see than the other.

[Nick Eicher]

And to be clear, it's Kevin Warsh. Yeah, yeah. So, David, I want to shift gears a bit. There was a striking development this week involving a major climate economics study, one that projected catastrophic long term damage to global gdp and that had been widely cited by central banks and regulators and policymakers all around the globe. And the paper's now been withdrawn after serious data errors were discovered. And once these errors were corrected, well, then the projected economic damage almost disappeared. I mean, it dropped dramatically. So this was not some kind of small tweak at the margins. It was a foundational error. And yet the study had already been absorbed into policy conversation. So when you look at something like that, David, what does it tell you about how economic models, particularly in areas like the environment, can be shaped not just by uncertainty, but by bias and incentives and then presented with far more confidence than they deserve?

[Supreme Court Justice or Legal Commentator]

Well, first of all, we should be clear that this kind of thing happens all the time and it's only not more scandalous more frequently because a lot of them don't see the light of day. First of all, there's a human element where certain studies can indeed have mistakes. But there's also a sense in which oftentimes reports like this get adopted and circulated and destroyed, distributed and utilized for no other reason that the people doing so want it to be true. And there's an inadequate amount of vetting. And the folks doing that are not neutral actors. They have an agenda, they have an ax to grind. And so if they get the semblance of an academic study that comes along to validate their priors, then they have a real incentive to go run with it. And oftentimes these things are subpar. A lot of times they're subpar, but it never really gets discovered or never really gets outed. There's a subjectivity to some of what I might be calling subpar. And this has been the case, by the way, with a lot of climate studies that many have been kind of accepted without, I think, adequate scrutiny. And it doesn't mean that they're always wrong. It just means that there's more opinion than fact. And they have a way of getting presented as objective when they're much more subjective. This one had some pretty embarrassing errors in it and they had to end up walking it back. And that's in line, Nick, with a lot of other issues that have been going on in some of the climate studies to a point where you have a pretty left wing, climate oriented, very high profile person like Bill Gates that has recently come out and said, look, a lot of the assumptions we've had about where various concerns in climate are going were wrong. And kind of making the case. I don't want to call it a mea culpa, but an admission that more prudence and a measured approach is needed because there are trade offs here. There's a timeline that is not going to allow people to make the improvements they want in carbon emission without doing such significant economic damage that it becomes counterproductive. A lot of us have been arguing for something similar to that for a long time. There are various actors in this debate in the last 10 and 20 years that have been much more reasonable. But it's interesting to see some of the gatekeepers coming along to saying the same thing.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, David Bonson, founder, managing partner and chief investment officer of the Bonson Group. He [e-mail] and at World Opinions. David, I hope you have a terrific week. Thanks so much. Nick SA. Good morning. This is the World and everything in it from Listener supported World Radio. I'm Nick Iger.

[Mary Reichardt]

And I'm Mary Reichard. Up next, the world history book today, the story of William Borden, a millionaire who gave it up and chose missionary.

[Nick Eicher]

Service over a life of wealth after years of training. It's during this week in 1912 that Borden says goodbye to his family boards an ocean liner and heads east, never to return. Here is world correspondent Caleb Weldy.

[Caleb Weldy]

The night before William Borden is to set sail, his mother is uneasy. She goes to bed in her words, worn, weary and sad. She's asking herself over and over again, is it after all, worthwhile? Her son is 25 and a celebrity inside Christendom and outside it. American newspapers are filled with the news about the millionaires trip. When the morning comes on December 17, 1912, William Borden begins his day like he always does.

[Legal Analyst]

He called his morning times with God his morning watch. It's a wonderful phrase and it was the first thing he did.

[Caleb Weldy]

Kevin Belmonte is author of the Borden biography Beacon Light.

[Legal Analyst]

As soon as he was out of bed and dressed, he was having a time of personal prayer, a time to go deep in the word. He would never miss it.

[Caleb Weldy]

He prays and reads God's words for at least an hour.

[Legal Analyst]

And why is that significant? Well, if you're at Princeton, for example, trading in seminary, well, I'm studying scripture all the time. You could say to yourself I could, you know, miss a day or two. He never did.

[Caleb Weldy]

Borden grew up second generation rich. His father made his fortune in Colorado mining and in real estate. Borden desired closeness with God early on and was mentored in DL Moody Chicago Church. One of his mentors helped lead Hudson Taylor's China Inland Mission. And Borden meets many missionaries.

[Legal Analyst]

And Borden began to be deeply impressed with their sense of calling, their sense of mission and purpose, the way that they wanted to commend the faith not only to the peoples of Asia but other places in the world. And I personally think that that was what planted the seed initially for him to want to go to China.

[Caleb Weldy]

Eventually he entered Yale on fire for Christ. He organized prayer groups and Bible studies. He preached on street corners and talked with homeless people moved by their needs. He bought a four story building with his own fortune to house the local homeless, to feed them and equip them.

[Legal Analyst]

He had a very winsome personality. It was hard not to like him. Him, he was also a very good listener. That was something that came through in all the correspondence that I read.

[Caleb Weldy]

One of the men Borden helped was alcoholic Jack Clark.

[Legal Analyst]

And Borden came alongside him and said that God loved him.

[Caleb Weldy]

Borden modeled God's generosity, pointing people to his benefactor.

[Legal Analyst]

And Jack Clark said that's the way he used to talk. He who made the universe and holds you in the hollow of his hand will help you if you'll only ask. William Borden was present at Jack Clark's renewal of his marriage vows to the wife who was estranged from him and the children. And when he had a home and it had a whole new life, and he said, I wouldn't be here if it weren't for William Borden. So that's one vignette, one story that sort of is representative of all that William Borden became.

[Caleb Weldy]

When he graduated from Yale, Borden felt the pull to the mission field stronger than ever.

[Legal Analyst]

And so he wanted to make sure that he was thoroughly trained.

[Caleb Weldy]

He enrolled at Princeton Theological Seminary.

[Legal Analyst]

He thought, if you're going to do it, you have to prepare well. And so that's what he was really doing.

[Caleb Weldy]

After three years at Princeton, Borden finally feels ready for the next step. December 1912. He leaves for Cairo. The plan is to learn Arabic there for a year, then on to London to study medicine, all the while learning Chinese on the side. When he arrives in Egypt, he immediately links up with veteran missionaries Samuel and Amy Zuymer. He moves in with a Syrian family, thinking, what better way to learn the language? He also begins working with a local seminary. Within weeks, he's put together a plan to pass out gospel tracts to every Muslim in Cairo.

[Legal Analyst]

He loved to go out and mingle among the native peoples when they would gather for festivals, and that seems to be how it happened.

[Caleb Weldy]

Just three months after arriving in Cairo, Borden contracts spinal meningitis. The virus kills most people within days. As soon as his family gets word, Borden's mother and sister set sail for Egypt. Borden dies four hours before they get to him.

[Legal Analyst]

We don't know because we can't see all things. Our perspective is limited. We're finite and God is infinite. You know, we can't know all ends. What I do know is that when Borden passed away and his story went all over the world, it was covered in all the major newspapers.

[Caleb Weldy]

Memorial services are held around the world, from Yale to Princeton to South Africa, India, Japan and Korea. But for Borden's mother, her thoughts return to that night in December when she struggled to fall asleep in New York. Is it, after all, worthwhile? She later writes this. In the morning, as I awoke to consciousness, a still, small voice was speaking in my heart, answering the question with these. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.

[Legal Analyst]

We won't know this side of eternity, all the whys and the wherefores. But as I say, out of that tragedy, so many ripple effects unfolded, so many streams of good.

[Caleb Weldy]

The Hui Muslims remain largely unreached. Mission groups estimate of the 15 million hui currently living in China, less than 2,000 know Christ. There are currently about 100 workers in the region.

[Legal Analyst]

He was willing to go and do and be for the Lord for however long or short that time might have been. So all these years later, you know, 112 years after his passing, there are parts of his legacy that still live on. And I find that very moving.

[Caleb Weldy]

William Borden once wrote, if 10 men are carrying a log, nine of them on the little end and one at the heavy end, and you want to help, which end will you lift on? For world I'm Caleb Weldy.

[Mary Reichardt]

Tomorrow, the escalating tensions between the US and Venezuela, also so called bridge payments for American farmers and Christmas tourism returns to Bethlehem. What's it like for local Christians? That and more tomorrow. I'm Mary Reichardt.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eichard. The world and everything in it comes to you from World Radio. World's mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates and inspires. The Bible says, come now, you who say, today or tomorrow, we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit. Yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, if the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that. Verses 13 through 15 of James chapter 4. Go now in grace and peace.