In the year that has passed since the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC, the liberal elites have waged a war against the First Amendment.  Liberal politicians including President Barack Obama and Senator Harry Reid, liberal media corporations like the New York Times, and labor unions have joined together to support restrictions on speech and liberty.

Their proposals for “reform” have fallen flat, in large part because they have been exposed as efforts to chill the Freedom of Speech.  These attacks on the First Amendment have used populist rhetoric in an attempt to silence corporate speech.  These efforts to silence corporations are difficult to reconcile when one sees that the New York Times, a media corporation, published a new proposal for “reform” authored by the founder of a non-profit corporation, aimed at silencing speakers that do not support their liberal world view.

In the April 4, 2011 edition of the New York Times, David Callahan launched an ideological attack on the boogeymen de jour, Charles and David Koch.  Callahan sets the tone of his article by attacking the Koch brothers for “conceal[ing] the recipients of their largess.”  In order to prevent this from occurring, Callahan would “require all nonprofit organizations that engage in political advocacy to reveal their donors.”

While Mr. Callahan alleges the current system can be utilized by the left and the right, he seems particularly offended by David Koch’s support of “ideologically driven organizations like the Cato Institute.”  Callahan argues that such groups should be treated differently from other not-for-profit organizations.

(more…)

Each year the Christmas season seems to come earlier and earlier.  This is no doubt the product of retailers eager to encourage Americans to spend their hard earned dollars, or more likely borrowed funds they do not have, on consumer goods they have little or no need for.

The reckless spending is encouraged with holiday decorations, radio stations playing Christmas music long before Thanksgiving, advertisements meant to cajole you into spending, and the false urgency created by the now ubiquitous Black Friday and Cyber Monday sales.  Despite my best efforts I often succumb to the urge to join everyone else in this nouveau holiday tradition… this year the only question is whether to buy the Nook Color or the Kindle.

I just worry that this buy now, pay later, mentality is going to catch up with us all.

This reckless spending isn’t only seen in the actions of the America public, it’s seen in the attitude of our elected leaders, both in Congress and the White House.

The clearest example of Congress acting like a teenager set free with their parent’s credit card is our national debt.  As President Obama took office in January of 2009 our national debt stood at $10.6 trillion.  Today, less than two years later, the debt has expanded to $13.7 trillion.  The national debt has exploded — over $3 trillion in less than two years!

(more…)

Since Bush v. Gore was decided in 2000, recounts have received far more attention; it’s almost like they’ve become a routine part of a campaign.  Each year, candidates, state parties, and election lawyers across the country prepare for these post-election challenges that may never come.

In 2008, we saw the impact that a recount can have.  In Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman won on election night.  On election night Coleman led comedian Al Franken by over 700 votes.  A canvass ensued, and Franken chipped away at Coleman’s lead, leaving Coleman ahead only 215 votes.  With a margin that narrow a recount ensured.  Over the course of the recount Franken managed to find enough votes to come out ahead by 225.  (Some news stories even reveal that the election may have been decided by the votes of convicted felons who were not eligible to participate in the election.)

This delivered Al Franken to the United States Senate, and delivered President Obama and Harry Reid a critical vote for their liberal agenda.

The Democrats learned a lot from this.  So much so, that this election cycle they want to be even better prepared.

(more…)

Media reports have been decrying the corporate influence in the 2010 election cycle.  If you were to read the Washington Post, New York Times, or most online media sources you would think Citizens United v. FEC is the biggest problem facing America.

That’s a narrative that President Obama has embraced.  Since the Supreme Court decided Citizens United in January, President Obama has led a vocal campaign against the decision and the First Amendment rights that it protected.  He has devoted at least three weekly radio addresses to the topic, one Rose Garden speech, and even made an unprecedented attack against the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address.

Recently, in addressing liberal donors, President Obama proclaimed:

“That’s the biggest problem that we have all across the country right now. We’ve got great candidates who are taking their case directly to the American people, but they are being drowned out by groups like Americans for Prosperity.  Nobody knows who they are.  Well, we know who they are — but nobody knows where the money is coming from, and they certainly don’t appear on those ads.

So I believe that if we are able to get our message out, if we have the same energy and focus and determination that we had in 2008 and 2006, then we will do fine.  But that requires us to understand the stakes involved in this election.  And I want everybody to understand, especially those who supported me, we are just in the first quarter here.  We’ve gotten a lot of stuff done, but we’ve got a lot more work to do.”

The real problem is that he’s only telling half the story.  Yes, corporations are financing issue advertisements, as they were allowed to before Citizens United.  But they are not the only ones exercising their rights to political speech.

(more…)

Representative Michael Capuano (D-MA) has succeeded in ushering his Shareholder Protection Act of 2010 through the House Financial Services Committee.  In reality the bill does little to protect shareholders, but does protect Washington lobbyists.

The legislation is a response to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  Citizens United restored the First Amendment protection of political speech for speakers of all kinds, including small businesses, corporations, labor unions, and non-profit organizations.  Many self-interested legislators fear what the citizens may say now that their voice has been restored.  As a result we’ve seen efforts to chill political speech advanced in Congress.

First came the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (“DISCLOSE Act”).  The DISCLOSE Act would have imposed onerous disclosure and disclaimer provisions on speakers that choose to exercise their First Amendment rights.  The bill passed the House of Representatives but has not been passed by the Senate.

The embattled legislators have now turned to another piece of legislation designed to curb political speech – the Shareholder Protection Act of 2010.

Rather than protect shareholders, the legislation strips them of their ability to effectively speak.  Mr. Capuano’s bill will require that corporations set a political agenda at the beginning of the fiscal year laying out their proposed expenditures.  This must be approved by the shareholders.

(more…)

“When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.” Elena Kagan, 1995.

Elena Kagan was correct, judicial nominees, their record, and their judicial philosophy should be thoroughly scrutinized before the Senate awards them a lifetime appointment to the bench.  Despite her public statements that nominees should be rigorously vetted, she has been uniquely circumspect about her own views and judicial philosophy.  What little we know of Ms. Kagan’s positions raises serious questions regarding her fitness for service on the Supreme Court.

Ms. Kagan, an accomplished academic, has revealed little of her own judicial philosophy.  Given the important and complex issues that routinely come before the Court this may not be overlooked.  She has served as Dean of the Harvard Law School and has served both Presidents Clinton and Obama.  While a distinguished academic, her experience is not necessarily relevant to the serious position for which she has been nominated.

Whether in her academic or political career Ms. Kagan has closely guarded her personal ideology.  What little she has revealed should not sit well with the American public.

Ms. Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall.  In her academic writings she has embraced the statements of Justice Marshall who argued “the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective.’”

While Dean of Harvard Law School Kagan banned military recruiters from using the law school’s career services office.  She objected to the military’s prohibition on openly gay and lesbian individuals serving in the military.  Kagan revealed how strongly she held this belief – she stated that the military recruitment policy caused her “deep distress” and that she believed it to be “a profound wrong — a moral injustice of the first order. And it is a wrong that tears at the fabric of our own community.”

(more…)

Citizens United v. FEC made clear that political speech cannot be limited simply because the speakers have organized themselves under a corporate form.  It was just one short year ago that the case was argued for the first time before the Supreme Court, and the federal government shockingly asserted that it could ban books.

One year later we have seen the First Amendment vindicated not once, but twice – first in Citizens United and now in SpeechNow.org v. FEC.  Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit protected the rights of individuals to donate to groups wishing to exercise their right to political speech.

In SpeechNow.org  v. FEC a political organization sought to “promote the First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom to assemble by expressly advocating for federal candidates whom it views as supporting those rights and against those whom it sees as insufficiently committed to those rights.”

The organization planned to solicit funds from individuals and use those funds to run independent expenditures “expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.”

(more…)

**Link Fixed**

Today the United States Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission.  This long overdue decision is a victory not only for Citizens United but also for the First Amendment.  The majority opinion clearly and decisively explained that “[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

The case decided this morning revolves around the 2007 film Hillary the Movie.  The film, which took an in-depth and critical look at the career of Hillary Clinton, was set to appear on cable television via video on demand during the Democratic presidential primary season in 2008.  The broadcast was prohibited by the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, because Citizens United was organized as a corporation and had accepted a small amount of contributions from corporations to finance the film.

The government walks down a very treacherous path when it attempts to regulate speech, whether on film, print, or television.  Previous case law including Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell vs. FEC had created a regulatory scheme so complex one dare not speak without consulting a lawyer.  Even then, one should only consult an election lawyer with years of experience because the rules are so complex and precise.  As a lawyer you’d think I’d welcome the business, but not at the expense of the First Amendment. (more…)

The Harshbarger investigation is getting a lot of attention this week; and rightly so.  ACORN hired former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger to conduct an “independent” review of the organization in an effort to provide ACORN some cover to show that they were serious about reform.  The Harshbarger report concludes that ACORN was not at fault, rather the blame should rest with its founder Wade Rathke, the intrepid aspiring journalists Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe who revealed ACORN’s most recent corruption, and the low level ACORN employees and members who were featured in the videos.

This attempt to whitewash ACORN and its employees’ wrongdoing has been appropriately decried by Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican National Lawyers Association, and contributors to Biggovernment.com.

ACORN’s pending litigation against the federal government has received less attention.  Last week, unbeknownst to all but avid court or ACORN watchers a pivotal moment occurred in the lawsuit.  Peter D. Leary, an attorney at the Department of Justice filed a brief defending the Congressional efforts to defund ACORN.  His brief defended the defunding, while severely narrowing its scope and application.

(more…)

So you’ve found the right candidate for the job.  He’s got a long history of exemplary service, familiarity with the subject matter that the position is responsible for, and would be an excellent addition to your office.  There’s only one problem, he’s a Republican.

Sadly this isn’t a hypothetical, it actually occurred in a federal agency that was created to provide advice on fair and proper election procedures.  The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was created by Congress in 2002.  The EAC’s purpose was to distribute grants and provide states advice on election practices.  It took six years for partisanship to rear its ugly head and result in unfair discrimination against a job applicant.

In 2008 the EAC found itself in need of a General Counsel.  An eminently qualified attorney applied for the position and was in fact selected for the office.  Two EAC Commissioners then started looking into the candidate’s politics, and found that he was a Republican.  These Commissioners then refused to approve his appointment.  It’s pretty clear that Gracia Hillman was one of the Commissioners at fault.  Gracia Hillman continues to serve on the EAC.

With certain narrow exceptions, the federal government has a merit hiring system which requires applicants be judged solely on their qualifications not their political preferences.  The Commissioners who chose to disregard this practice did so to engage in overtly partisan politics.

(more…)

As we rapidly approach December 18^th, the day when ACORN is again eligible to receive federal funds, we still have yet to see a meaningful investigation of ACORN.

Last week,  the Inspector General of the Department of Justice released a “Review of Department of Justice Grants to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, Inc. (ACORN) and its Affiliated Organizations.”  Unsurprisingly this report “did not find any DOJ direct grants to ACORN.”  The report did however reveal approximately $200,000 in sub-grants to ACORN affiliates.  This number pales in comparison to the amount of federal money ACORN and its affiliates have received from other agencies.

ACORN and its affiliates have received over $54 million in federal grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).  These are the grants that the government should be investigating.  How did ACORN spend these federal tax dollars?  Were they used for their designated purposes?  Does ACORN owe the federal government a refund?

(more…)

Today the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the federal government on behalf of ACORN.  They are alleging that Congressional efforts to defund ACORN constitute an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.  This tired argument has been thoroughly rebutted, but the Center for Constitutional Rights is going to make it anyway.  Republican National Lawyers Association Chairman David Norcross has noted that: “The actions of Congress to defund ACORN clearly do not meet the definition of a Bill of Attainder.”

Real Estate Developer Bruce Ratner and Bertha Lewis

The Center for Constitutional Rights is going to stand up for this corrupt organization, and I think I know the reason why.  It’s all about family.

The President of the Center for Constitutional Rights is Michael Ratner.  Michael Ratner is a well known liberal lawyer who has fought against the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay.  He also teaches at Columbia Law School.

If you haven’t heard of Michael, that’s all right, I’m sure you’ve heard of his brother Bruce.  He’s a prominent developer and owner of the New Jersey Nets.  His company is Forest City Enterprises.

(more…)

In a city as mercurial as Washington DC words are often ascribed additional weight and meaning.  It is the rare politician that can cut a man down to size with a word or a turn of phrase.  Recently we’ve seen two men who have perfected this, Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney.

Clinton described Barack Obama and his presidential bid as “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”  With one phrase, Clinton managed to diminish Obama and his accomplishments.  Rather than conjure to mind images of Kennedy and Camelot, Clinton’s phrase brought forth vivid images of Alice in Wonderland.  Bill Clinton is a calculating man and he understood the weight of his words.  He even had to defend them as the mainstream media finally caught wind of the insult.

Dick Cheney managed to similarly impact Obama’s image with one word, dithering.  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines dither as:”to act nervously or indecisively.”  When used by Cheney to describe Barack Obama’s stance on Afghanistan it carried more weight.  With the use of one word Cheney managed to portray Obama as weak, indecisive, and unfit to lead.  Dithering certainly doesn’t conjure to mind images of Barack Obama as a mythical figure who can do no wrong.

It’s a rare skill to be able to so dramatically impact one’s image with the use of merely a word or a pithy phrase.

(more…)

On Thursday, the United States House of Representatives passed a continuing resolution funding the Federal Government through December 18^th.  The continuing resolution was passed as part of the behemoth Interior-Environment Appropriations conference report.

A continuing resolution is a stop-gap provision which allows the government to continue its operations until Congress can determine the next year’s appropriations.  The actions taken today merely extended the expiration date of the resolution which went into effect on October 1^st.

By extending the existing continuing resolution Congress has continued to deprive ACORN and its affiliates of federal funds until December 18^th.

(more…)

There used to be a certain level of decorum incumbent upon the office of the President of the United States.  After all, the office is more than the man that occupies it.  It’s also more than his politics or platform.  In many ways the Presidency is the embodiment of America.  It’s the face we put forward to the world.  With the election of President Obama the presidency has also awakened dreams in many children who never believed the White House was attainable.

The mandates of the office dictate how those entrusted with its power should act.  The Obama White House has failed to maintain the high standards of this office.  Rather than operating in a dignified manner the staff has desecrated the office by resorting to old-school Chicago-style politics.  That is to say they’ve used the Presidency to reward their friends and single out and attack their enemies.

(more…)

“I’m Recognized to be a Fairly Dangerous Fellow Out There in the Community” – Wade Rathke

Let’s be honest, if Wade Rathke saw me walk into his book signing last Tuesday, he wouldn’t have been at his most candid.  I wanted insight into the man who created this racket that is the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or is it the American Institute for Social Justice, or Citizens Consulting Inc?  I’m still not too sure.  I know it operates under 361 different affiliates in at least 43 states and the District of Columbia.

In his newly released book Citizen Wealth, he paints himself as a modern day Robin Hood, stealing from the evil faceless corporations to give to the poor.  But as he recounts these campaigns it becomes clear the corporations have faces, their CEOs, who he doesn’t hesitate to harass at home to demand financial concessions.  Wade’s stilted story almost makes him sound noble as he provides innocuous reasons why he would like to collect and store copies of people’s personal financial records and birth certificates or as he tries to rationalize why people would be well served by becoming dues paying ACORN members.

These past few months I believed Wade’s the blissfully ignorant captain whose been stripped of his command but still seems intent to go down with the ship.  He hasn’t “run” the organization since the very public revelation that his brother embezzled close to $1 million from ACORN and Wade went about covering it up.  He was negotiated out of the coveted “chief organizer” role that he had held for decades.  The ACORN Board allowed him to retain control of ACORN International, but when public pressure started building, he even went ahead and changed its name to COI – Community Organizations International.

Even in exile he denies that ACORN is a criminal enterprise and claims that allegations that federal and tax-exempt funds have been used for political purposes are a “complete fabrication.”

I had to hear him speak.  I had to see for myself if he really bought what he was selling.  But let’s be real.  I’m a twenty-eight year old Republican lawyer… and I look like one.  I wear Brooks Brothers suits, bold ties, and nine times out of ten there’s a pair of elephant cufflinks on my wrists.  If he saw me coming I doubted he would be as open in his proselytizing for community organizing.

(more…)