Despite widespread conservative outrage over Rep. Spencer Bachus’ (R-AL) attack on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement, and despite Bachus’ long history of support for bigger government, GOP Congressional leaders — in their FIRST action since the election — appear ready to betray the Tea Party movement by handing Bachus chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee.

As was reported in this space just a couple of days ago, Bachus — who is in a battle for the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee with Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) — told the South Shelby (Ala.) Chamber of Commerce that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement cost the Republican Party control of the U.S. Senate. “The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Gov. Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,” Bachus said. “Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.” He went on to say that Tea Party candidates did well in U.S. House races, but in the U.S. Senate races, “they didn’t do well at all.”

While Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) spoke out against Bachus’ statements, most business-as-usual GOP Congressional leaders remained silent on the issue.  That left Sarah Palin to defend herself from Bachus’ attacks.  She strongly refuted Bachus’ claims and then cited Bachus’ lengthy record of support for big government — which consists largely of support for government programs like TARP and “Cash for Clunkers,” various schemes to block Americans from accessing online poker websites, and any other big government plans that come down the pike — aptly calling it the “Bachus bigger government agenda.”

Sadly, the me-too establishment Republican Congressional leaders appear ready to embrace the Bachus bigger government agenda over Ed Royce’s principled stands for less government.  Royce, who cast votes in opposition to TARP and “Cash for Clunkers,” would appear to be the natural choice of the two to head a committee so important to the aims of those who voted for Republican candidates this year. Too bad GOP leadership seems to think this election win meant there would be more business as usual, because it does not.  One would have at least expected them to let the ink dry on the election returns before betraying the movement.

(more…)

In the wake of the Election Day conservative tsunami, rather than expressing gratitude that limited government conservatives and the Tea Party movement restored the GOP to majority status in the House of Representatives, establishment Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus lashed out at the movement and at Gov. Sarah Palin.

He even went so far as to blame Palin and the Tea Party for the Republican Party not winning the Senate — the same Senate that had all of forty Republicans back when the party ran on the big spending, me-too policies espoused by Spencer Bachus.  Perhaps not surprisingly, the GOP establishment is preparing to reward Bachus with the chairmanship of the House Financial Services Committee, this despite his well-known failings in performing as the Ranking Member of that very committee over the past four years.

Rep. Bachus lashed out against Palin and the Tea Party on November 4^th while speaking to the South Shelby (Ala.) Chamber of Commerce.  “The Senate would be Republican today except for states (in which Gov. Palin endorsed candidates) like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware,” Bachus said. “Sarah Palin cost us control of the Senate.”  He went on to say that Tea Party candidates did well in U.S. House races, but in the U.S. Senate races, “they didn’t do well at all.”  Bachus is mistaken in his attempts to place blame.  In fact, it is the very policies he champions that cost the GOP its chance to win control of the Senate.

(more…)

On September 20^th, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced legislation — S. 3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act — that seeks to give the Department of Justice the power to shut down websites anywhere in the world that are found to infringe on intellectual property rights.  This would be accomplished by ordering U.S. domain registrars and registries to stop resolving infringing sites’ domain names.  While this bill has the noble-sounding goal of preventing online piracy, handing the federal government authority over the Internet would set a troubling precedent that would imperil Internet freedom in America and across the world.

One disquieting issue is the lack of any requirement that these sites be found to violate the laws of the countries from where they operate.  In fact, under this bill sites operating perfectly legally under the laws of their own nations could be shut down by the U.S. Justice Department.

The concept that domain names of Internet sites operating legally in their home nations could be shut down by other nations for violation of their laws is one that should concern everyone.  For example, a few years ago a French court ordered Yahoo.com to block French citizens from accessing portions of the site deemed to contain content unlawful under French law. Yahoo.com resisted this demand, citing free speech issues. What if French courts had the capability to shut down the domain www.yahoo.com to force compliance with that decision?  What if every nation had the right to shut down Internet domains to force the entire Internet to comply with their local laws?  If the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act passes, a very dangerous precedent will be set.

Additionally, there is a threat that this power will be expanded well beyond piracy.  In fact, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) is already in court seeking seizure of the domain names of 141 Internet poker and gaming websites — none based in the Commonwealth of Kentucky — with claims that these sites compete with the state lottery and with the horse racing industry.

(more…)

Expressing disapproval with some Obama administration actions, many on the right — and some on the left — are complaining that the executive branch wields far too much power.  Similarly, when President George W. Bush was in power, many on the left — and some on the right — complained that the executive branch wielded far too much power.  Seeing this bipartisan concern for unbridled expansion of presidential power and wishing to start restoring the office to its Constitutional limits, Congressman Geoff Davis (R-KY) has introduced the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act.

The REINS Act would require Congressional authorization for any new Major Rule proposed by the executive branch. It now has now has 57 cosponsors, including noted Constitutionalist Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).  It also enjoys the support of the Chamber of Commerce.  Under REINS, the numerous proposed regulations pertaining to health care, climate change, energy, financial regulation, and our economy would have to be submitted to Congress for approval.   REINS would continue to allow the executive agencies charged with writing rules to propose draft rules, but would end the delegation of Congressional authority that has enabled these agencies to enact them unilaterally.

Our Founding Fathers recognized the pitfalls of an all-powerful chief executive.  Fearing tyranny, our nation did not even have a president until 1789, preferring instead strong states, a weak Congress operating under the auspices of the Articles of Confederation, and no executive branch at all.  As this proved to be too weak for national cohesiveness, our founders drafted the Constitution to provide the nation with three co-equal branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial.  All three were to operate within the limits defined by the Constitution.

(more…)

April 15^th – Tax Day – inspired protests across the nation.  Demonstrators rallied for smaller government, lower taxes, and liberty.  They want government off their backs.  They demanded it, in fact, and they are demanding that the Republican Party delivers it.  The majority of the conservative movement is uniting around these central tenets of conservatism, which would typically bode well for the upcoming primaries and general elections.  A handful of social conservative leaders, however, are reacting to this development with fear, and they are pushing back in ways that could cost conservatives dearly on Election Day.

While most social conservatives wisely believe the best way to protect our nation’s values is to keep the corrupting influence of government as far from our values as possible, a few social conservative leaders want to use big government to promote and enforce social values policies.  These leaders advocate for expansion of government to achieve their aims, and they are not happy with the ascendancy of limited government conservatism.  “There’s a libertarian streak in the tea party movement that concerns me as a cultural conservative,” Bryan Fischer, director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association, recently told Politico.  Family Research Council President Tony Perkins expressed similar concerns to Politico as well.

In this political atmosphere, groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family (Focus declined a request for comment) now find themselves more likely to be laying off staff than significantly influencing the direction of the Republican Party.  In their weakened state, these groups are now threatening to take their ball and go home.  As was reported in this space a couple of weeks ago, Tony Perkins has lashed out against conservatives.  Perkins called former House Majority Leader and current FreedomWorks director Dick Armey and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist “liars” for implying that conservatives want less big government in the social arena.  Perkins has further stated that he is advising Family Research Council members to stop donating to the Republican National Committee.

The latest salvo was reported in the Washington Post – on Tax Day, no less.  Per the article, “conservative groups” [(i.e., Focus on the Family (link)] are demanding that the GOP fight in Congress to ban online poker.  They are even demanding that this effort be undertaken as an official party position.  This effort includes even scorched-earth policies, such as distributing a memo within Congress reminding everyone of the Jack Abramoff scandal…the very scandal that started the GOP’s fall from power!

(more…)

In the wake of last week’s vote for national health care, it is becoming clear that the Republicans have a great shot at success on Election Day this November.  The Republican establishment is wisely listening to conservatives who believe in limited government, but will Republican politicians keep their promises once back in power?

Today’s political landscape is reminiscent of 1994.  Conservatives were incensed at big government.  Threats of national health care legislation, gun bans, and tax increases woke up the movement.  Conservatives demanded limited government.  They made themselves heard and they put Republicans back in charge of Congress.  America had a conservative Congress for a few years, thanks to principled conservatives like Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich.

Unfortunately, some within the movement wanted to use the levers of power to achieve societal change.  As I detailed in an earlier column, a handful of aging social conservative leaders who still cling to the statism of the progressive movement of their youth wished to use the power of big government to change American society.  Rather than seeking to prevent big government from harming traditional values, they instead thought big government could promote values by limiting freedom.  Needless to say, this was the wrong direction for a party elected on the promise of limited government, and it would not be long before they were put out of power.

In the final years of GOP control, all we saw was big spending and even bigger government.

(more…)

The Poker Players Alliance — a million-member strong grassroots organization that defends poker rights — cosponsored the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for the second consecutive year.  Poker players, still reeling over past efforts to ban online and other forms of poker, have been actively reaching out to conservatives for support for their right to play, and cosponsorship of CPAC is part of this outreach effort.  They were pleased at their reception at this year’s event and feel support for their position within the broader conservative movement will continue to increase.

Displaying the confidence that a year of solid wins on Capitol Hill has earned them, the PPA went to CPAC ready to take on the dwindling minority who would ban poker as well as those who believe poker rights ought not be a conservative concern.  They came armed with handouts on why principled conservatives ought to oppose a big government prohibition on online poker, copies of pro-poker articles by George Will, Walter Williams, and Jacob Sullum, free t-shirts, and 2004 World Poker Champion Greg Raymer, who was on hand to sign autographs.

2004 World Poker Champion Greg Raymer at CPAC

They also showed off the alliances they have with many within the conservative movement, including FreedomWorks, CPAC straw poll winner Rep. Ron Paul (video of Rep. Paul backing PPA’s position), and Americans for Tax Reform.

(more…)

On the heels of the huge GOP victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) decided to stand up to the Obama administration with one of the strongest weapons at his disposal — he halted Senate votes on Treasury Department nominees.

As there are a number of areas where the conservative movement takes issues with administration objectives, this is a target-rich environment.  A strong stand here could show America what the Republican Party stands for and what the party will fight for.  So, is Kyl standing up for improvements in the health care bill, reduced federal spending, or limits on federal power?  No, he is not.  Sadly, Sen. Kyl is wasting this powerful, one-shot weapon to register his dissatisfaction with the administration’s granting of a delay in implementing Internet poker and gaming-related financial regulations — a delay that was requested by his fellow Republicans.

The law for which Kyl pushed with so much vigor for so many years is fatally flawed.  Despite a decade of trying, beginning with his attempt to add a national online poker and gaming prohibition to the Crime Prevention Act of 1995, Kyl found himself unable to pass an online gaming prohibition through Congress.  In 2006, he settled for a law prohibiting money from going from U.S. financial transactions to sites offering “unlawful Internet gambling.” To move this through the Senate, Kyl had this bill tacked on to the must-pass SAFE Port Act in the middle of the night just as the 2006 Congressional term was coming to a close.  Thus, the Senate never even voted on this as a free-standing bill.

(more…)

Following a positive reception at the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the Poker Players Alliance, a million-member strong poker advocacy group, has announced plans to return to CPAC this year.  This announcement mirrors and complements the ongoing ascendancy of limited government conservatism within the conservative movement, and it bodes well for the future of conservatism.

From the late 1990s until 2006, the conservative movement was increasingly influenced by some who wished to expand the power of the then-GOP-controlled federal government.  These big government “conservatives” wanted to use the power of the federal government to address various social issues, including even stopping Americans from playing online poker.  Fortunately, rank-and-file conservatives have been working overtime since the 2006 and 2008 election losses to restore conservatism’s true soul — liberty, free markets, and less regulation — and this is leading to a resurgence in the movement.

(more…)

Prohibition, touted as “The Noble Experiment” in its time, criminalized the manufacturing, transportation, and sale of alcohol.  While the law did many things, there was one thing it could not accomplish.  It could not stop Americans from drinking.  As our country approaches the 76^th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition, it’s time to look back and see how it impacts policymaking today.

Some wish for America to try a new prohibition – with Internet poker the target of misguided efforts.  Laws like the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) have made Americans less free in their own homes, but have not stopped Americans from playing poker.  Like Prohibition, however, the policies of this prohibition are fundamentally flawed and pose a threat to safety.

Prohibition advocates of the early twentieth century sought to eliminate what they believed to be a negative attribute of society.  However, regardless of one’s view on alcohol consumption or Internet poker, it is undeniable that Americans will seek out ways to continue proscribed activities. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise.  As a nation founded on liberty, it’s in our DNA.

(more…)

Many conservative politicians, radio hosts, and pundits have repeatedly stated their shared belief that the Republican Party “lost its way” prior to the 2008 election.  In their minds, the entire conservative movement believed in limited government and low spending and was simply corrupted by absolute power.  They may be surprised to learn that this is not the case at all.  The fact that party leadership turned its back on limited government and low spending was entirely predictable.  In fact, it should have been expected.

The conservative movement is not homogeneous.  Rather, the movement consists of fiscal conservatives, limited government conservatives, libertarians, pro-business conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, and others.  When Democrats control government, these disparate conservative groups share many common goals. They all wish to reduce the power of government and they all wish to reduce taxes and spending.  As a result, they usually form a very effective alliance while out of power.

We saw this in 1993 and 1994.  Conservatives rallied around core beliefs like limited government, term limits, Second Amendment rights, and low taxes.  Party leadership rolled out the Contract with America to universal conservative acclaim.  Conservatives all rallied around statements like, “guns don’t kill people…people kill people,” while GOP candidates gladly signed term limit pledges and Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge.  United, the GOP won control of the House and the Senate in 1994, and later won the presidency in 2000.

(more…)

The GOP has historically been the party of limited government and personal responsibility.  President Ronald Reagan said it best in his frequent citations of Thomas Paine’s famous axiom – “the government governs best that governs least.” Unfortunately, the party moved away from the limited government conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan during the George W.  Bush Administration.  In fact, the 2008 Republican Party Platform regrettably went so far as to advocate a federal prohibition of online poker.

Poker is not a crime, nor should it be.  Millions of Americans – including the president and many in Congress – play the game at their kitchen tables, on the Internet, and at their local card rooms.  It is a great American pastime.  During that failed era of big government “conservatism”, however, some big government social conservative groups like Focus on the Family wished to use the power of the federal government to stop Americans from playing online poker in their own homes.

(more…)