It’s official.  Former Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who resigned in disgrace over a bizarre sexting scandal this past June, was NOT hacked.

Today, eight months after the congressman first claimed he was the victim of a hacking or a prank, the NY Daily News has broken the story that Anthony Weiner spent more than $13,000 in campaign funds to hire private investigators to track down a hacker that never existed.

Weiner paid T&M, a Manhattan-based firm, $13,290 for “legal services” in the fourth quarter of 2011, financial statements filed Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission reveal.

Sources told the Daily News, however, that Weiner hired T&M — a firm loaded with former NYPD sleuths — when he was in full spin mode over the controversy that eventually led to his resignation from the House.

[...]

Two sources familiar with Weiner’s downfall said the Queens pol told investigators the same story. T&M investigated — and learned Weiner had sent them on a fool’s errand.

“They did their job, and then it was time to sit down with lawyers,” another source said. “Self-denial, it dies a slow death.”

Surprised? No, neither were we.

(more…)

This past weekend marked the two-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United.  Protesters, dubbed Occupy the Courts, gathered at the Court to voice their disapproval of the decision:

As Institute for Justice campaign finance expert Paul Sherman explains in the video above:

The irony of those protests is that you had groups of people getting together to speak out against a Supreme Court decision that protected the right of people to get together and speak out.

Indeed, people should not lose their right to free speech simply by exercising their right to freely associate.   And when people group together—be it on the steps of a courthouse, in the form of a trade union or as a corporation—they don’t lose their freedom to speak out.

Occupy the Courts protesters also mistakenly believed that the Citizens United ruling held that “money is speech.”  In fact, the Court never said that.  Rather, it ruled correctly that money facilitates speech.  And if the government has the power to control how much money you can spend speaking, then it effectively can control your speech.

Importantly, the law in question in the Citizens United case empowered the government to fine and even imprison ordinary people for engaging in certain types of speech.   The government argued in court that it had the power to ban videos and books.  I don’t believe that many Americans, including the Occupy the Courts protesters, think the government should be in the business of banning books.

(more…)

From the Washington Post:

Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.

Obama’s key advantage is his ability to collect bigger checks from fewer donors, because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort. As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all the other GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data.

This fundraising edge might seem counterintuitive in light of Obama’s thorny relations with business groups and Wall Street executives, who strongly opposed his financial reform law and have bristled at proposals to close corporate tax loopholes and raise income taxes on millionaires. In fact, he has raised just $3.9 million from the finance sector for his campaign committee itself, aside from the DNC, compared with Romney’s $7.5 million. (more…)

Down with banks, student-loan debt, and expensive elections! Up with barter…capitalism…and…Mitt Romney?!?!

On October 4, 2011, Reason.tv visited the Occupy Wall Street protests at Liberty Square in Lower Manhattan, on Day 18 of the ongoing demonstration.

The crowd was relatively small at about 300, and included educated but unemployed workers, college students and recent graduates, homeless drifters, performance artists, 9/11 truthers, and a not-insignificant number of journalists.

The “leaderless” movement is made up of more than a dozen smaller groups, such as the “Information” group with Macbooks hooked up to generators who maintain the “OccupyWallStreet” Twitter feeds and liveblogs, a “People’s Library” consisting mostly of donated leftist literature, and a well-stocked kitchen where organic vegetables are sliced for communal salads.

Student loan debt, campaign finance reform, and general anger with the sluggish economy were the more frequent grievances aired, but the demonstrators are hardly monolithic in their passions or opinions. Among the boilerplate anti-capitalist rhetoric included a lifelong Democrat professing his support for Mitt Romney, an unemployed aviation mechanic declaring his continued support of capitalism and disgust at corporate welfare, and a homeless man expressing skepticism that any of the protestors would remain in the park if just ”one bad wind” rolled through the area.

Also in the crowd was Republican New York City Councilman Daniel J. Halloran, who took all questions from the assembled crowd, and even won them over after forcefully denouncing taxpayer bailouts of corporations and eminent-domain abuse.

(more…)

Another day, another desperate email from Team Lightbringer:

Stephen –

I’m the national finance director here at OFA.

I know we’ve been sending you a lot of email lately. That’s because we’re staring down a critical fundraising deadline tomorrow at midnight.

You know what that means for your inbox, but let me give you a sense of what that looks like around here.

The staff and I are working around the clock, powered by too much coffee. It’s been way too long since we called our moms. And we’ve all had more pizza and bad takeout in the past few weeks than anyone should have in a year.

No one’s complaining; that’s what we signed up for. And we’re not doing this just because it’s our job to make sure the campaign has the resources it needs. We’re doing this because it’s part of what defines this movement.

From the beginning, we’ve refused to take money from D.C. lobbyists and corporate special interests. Our operation is fueled by people inspiring each other to take ownership of this campaign.

That’s why we’ve been emailing this week, and that’s why I’m obligated to remind you once more that the deadline is coming up in a matter of hours.

If you’re able to, will you chip in just $3 today?

https://donate.barackobama.com/Friday-Deadline

For all of us here at HQ, and all of the staff and volunteers across the country counting on these resources, I really appreciate your help.

Rufus

Rufus Gifford
National Finance Director
Obama for America

The key line there is this:

From the beginning, we’ve refused to take money from D.C. lobbyists and corporate special interests.

They’re either using a very Bill Clinton-esque dictionary to define “from the beginning” and “corporate special interests” or they’re lying. Because, back in “the beginning”, this is what the top Obama donors list looked like.

Here on the reality side of things, Microsoft, Google, Time Warner and at least half of that list seem so very, very corporate.

This has always been part of the Obama administration’s political genius. It pretends to be all about the little guy while being so in bed with corporate money that it gets turndown service every night. For several weeks now, the president has been walking a tightrope between all-out class warfare speeches that take place immediately prior to fundraising dinners with the very rich people he was just so vehemently excoriating.

(more…)

The California solar company, Solyndra, heralded by the Obama administration as a prime example of how the Recovery Act created new jobs while promoting his vision of renewable energy, is closing their doors. Just over a year ago, Obama himself spoke at the facility, praising it as “a testament to American ingenuity and dynamism.” Once a beacon of solar light in the progressive green jobs agenda, Solyndra had received a $535 million federal loan with the help of newly minted energy secretary, Steven Chu, only to find themselves staring down bankruptcy and the release of more than 1,100 workers.

Lying within that massive federal loan was a number of sub-awards to other vendors, 40 payments of which were greater than $25,000 each. The largest sub-award went to another administration favorite, CH2M Hill, to the tune of $9.6 million for their construction engineering services. The company is a $6.3 billion consulting, engineering, and construction firm, and shares some similarities to the failed Solyndra. In fact, CH2M used the nearly $10 million sub-award to design Solyndra’s solar manufacturing plant in Fremont, California. Besides that amount, CH2M is also a major beneficiary of the stimulus, having been awarded four of the top ten contracts from stimulus funding last summer – to the tune of $1.2 billion. As of this April, the company boasts of $1.6 billion in contracts from the Recovery Act.

Perhaps even more apparent is another similarity to the Solyndra company – CH2M Hill’s decline in employment. Reports of layoffs at CH2M began in January when KEPR-TV announced that 1,350 layoffs were coming in September due to the end of stimulus funding. The company recently organized a job fair for those affected by these layoffs, and an additional 1,000 layoffs at the contractor’s Hanford reservation. The job fair comes exactly one year after it was revealed that the company was inflating jobs reports by using a metric known as ‘lives touched’.

How did companies such as Solyndra and CH2M Hill become such lucky recipients of taxpayer money through the stimulus?

(more…)

That 20%, or approximately $400,000 of KY Gov Steve Beshear’s current primary dollars comes from state employees and appointees doesn’t help as whistle-blowers have come forward to allege strong-arm tactics were used to solicit campaign dollars on his behalf.

FRANKFORT—The Republican Party of Kentucky and an employee of the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet are alleging Gov. Steve Beshear’s administration strong-armed some state employees for contributions to Beshear’s re-election campaign.

Dr. Rodney Young, a 27-year state employee who works for the Department of Juvenile Justice, delivered a signed letter Monday to RPK Chairman Steve Robertson claiming the Cabinet’s Deputy Secretary, Charles Geveden, pressured him and other state employees for contributions to Beshear’s re-election campaign. The letter was also delivered to Attorney General Jack Conway’s office and Robertson filed complaints with the Executive Branch Ethics Commission and the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance.

The complaints cite a December 2010 CNHI News Service story about similar complaints by non-merit — or politically appointed — state employees that they felt pressured to attend a Frankfort fundraiser for Beshear shortly before Christmas. A spokesman for Beshear’s campaign told CNHI News at that time no state employees should feel any pressure to contribute to Beshear’s campaign which “strictly follows all campaign laws.”

There have been similar previous reports involving Beshear, one going back as far as December 2010.  This time, however, there is a whistle-blower involved, one who has named other individuals who reportedly suffered the same strong-arm tactics in a quest for campaign cash.

(more…)

During the 2008 election campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama knocked fellow candidate John Edwards for benefiting from the same outside spending groups he criticized:

“So you can’t say yesterday you don’t believe in them, and today you have three quarters of a million dollars being spent on you. You can’t just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time.”

Priorities USA, a super PAC headed by Bill Burton – former Deputy Press Secretary at the Obama White House – launched a television ad campaign attacking Republicans today. A super PAC is a federal PAC that only makes independent expenditures in support or opposition of candidates. These super PACs were made possible because of the Citizens United and Speech Now cases.

President Obama made it a daily habit to bash the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision last year. From his weekly radio addresses to speeches on the stump, President Obama seemed obsessed with casting sinister aspersions on the decision. In one instance he ominously said, “But this summer, they’re also seeing a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names,” like Priorities USA perhaps!

(more…)

From The Associated Press:

A federal grand jury indicted two-time presidential candidate John Edwards on Friday over $925,000 spent to keep his mistress and their baby in hiding during the peak of his 2008 campaign for the White House.

The case of USA v. Johnny Reid Edwards contains six counts, including conspiracy, four counts of illegal campaign contributions and one count of false statements.

The indictment said the payments were a scheme to protect Edwards’ White House ambitions. “A centerpiece of Edwards’ candidacy was his public image as a devoted family man,” the indictment said.

(more…)

If Donald Trump runs for President, he should forgo public finance and federal matching funds not just because, as a mega-wealthy billionaire, he can, but because doing so would allow him to spend in the early primary and caucus state’s without federal limitation. A candidate who accepts matching funds also agrees to observe strict spending limits in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, and all the primary and caucus states. A candidate who self-funds and doesn’t accept Federal matching funds is under no such limitations.

Bypassing public finance, Trump can leverage his wealth to outspend his opponents in the early states, gaining a significant strategic advantage. Sadly, Trump advisor Michael Cohen, a vice president of the Trump organization, doesn’t seem to understand this. City Hall newspaper recently reported “Cohen said that Trump would raise money from average citizens, rather than just funnel his own money into a campaign.”He wants citizens in the country to have skin in the game,” he said.

While there is little doubt that Trump could raise maximum $2,600 contributions from many of his wealthy friends and supporters, it is truly questionable how many low-dollar donors he could muster. Who gives money to a billionaire?

To the extent that Trump’s wealthy friends wish to support him, they would be best off putting their money into a 527 organization, where they can give without limitation, rather than donating the lousy $2,600 they are limited to if they donate to an official Trump For President organization.

(more…)

Marc Theissen recently asked some very important questions about where the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is getting the mountains of cash that it spends on Democrat political campaigns. He finds that it is coming from foreign sources, but the SEIU is refusing to yield to requests for transparency.

If the SEIU is getting the millions of dollars it is spending on Democrats from foreign sources, this should put a major dent in the alarmist claims that Obama has been making about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supposedly getting its money from outside the country — a charge that was resoundingly refuted. After all, if one of Obama’s biggest left-wing campaign supporters is suffused with foreign cash, why should it be such a big deal if anyone else is?

Sadly, the Old Media will never play up this aspect of Obama’s hypocrisy, but that is another subject.

In any case, Theissen asked the SEIU where its political cash was coming from because federal financial reporting records seemed to prove that it could not have been coming solely from the dues of American union members. Since the SEIU has thousands of members in foreign nations, Theissen wondered how that factored in.

(more…)

Karen Sampson and her Colorado neighbors just won a serious victory for liberty.

In a unanimous decision on Tuesday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Colorado’s disclosure laws for grassroots political groups.  This is a big deal.  As the Associated Press put it, “The issue is ripe for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The federal appellate court held that Karen and her neighbors in the tiny subdivision of Parker North, Colo., should not have been forced to register with the government and comply with burdensome campaign finance laws simply for opposing a ballot issue involving the annexation of their neighborhood.

I wrote previously at Big Government that Karen and her neighbors opposed an effort to annex their town into a neighboring city because it would raise their taxes without providing them benefits.  So they printed up fliers and yard signs.  And then they got sued.

Under what basis?  Colorado’s campaign finance laws, which state that any group of individuals that spends over $200 magically becomes an “issue committee” that is forced to register with the state.  Further, they had to track and report all their “contributions” and “expenditures” and disclose the identities of anyone who gave them money.

(more…)

Hey mom and dads, it’s election week!  Does your child like to argue?  Does he like to boss his younger siblings around?  Does he love the sound of his own voice?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, your child is a natural born politician.  Now to ensure his success in the political world, send him to Camp Politics for a three-week intensive training program:

Once he gets elected to office, the most important thing for him to learn is how to stay there.  If he does a bad job, people will want to get him out of office.  So your child will need to learn how to silence those that want to speak out against him.

Of course, this violates basic free speech rights.  But Camp Politics has figured out a sure-fire way around the First Amendment that means politics will remain a game for special interests and political insiders.

It’s called campaign finance laws.

We all know that speaking takes money.  And the only way ordinary Americans can speak out effectively about politics is to pool their resources with their friends and neighbors.  But campaign finance laws limit the amount of money people can spend on political ads and organizing and they wrap people in red tape to the point that they can’t even speak!

(more…)

Has the White House been influenced by a convicted domestic terrorist for its attack on the Chamber of Commerce?

The latest assault on the Chamber has been spear-headed by none other than the President himself and picked up by David Axelrod, MoveOn.org and all the usual Astro-Turfers who receive marching orders from the DNC.  It’s become part of the standard talking points for cable-news pundits and their well-programmed guests and has been the new rallying cry for the left as they try their best to explain the imminent electoral disaster that looms on November 2^nd.

But one group was well ahead of the curve on this movement to stop the Chamber of Commerce.  In fact, they even own the URL “StopTheChamber.com”.  That group is the infamous Velvet Revolution headed by convicted violent criminal and bomber, Brett Kimberlin.  In her extensive and detailed article on Kimberlin and his past violent crimes, Liberty Chick noted that left-wing blogs and main stream media organs routinely site Kimberlin and his partner, Brad Friedman as legitimate sources and as normative “watch-dogs” over-seeing right-wing election shenanigans.  The problem is, Kimberlin is a convicted domestic terrorist who has been described as a habitual liar by those who have looked into his past.

And yet, the mainstream Democrats clinging to any strategy to stop the bleeding over the next two weeks are latching on to the Stop the Chamber narrative that was first hatched at Kimberlin’s Velvet Revolution site last year.

(more…)

“Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.”

I’m actually pleased that Obama has gone after the Chamber of Commerce for allegedly funding Republican ads with foreign donations. Set aside that there’s no evidence whatever for it, as even the New York Times and CBS’s Bob Schieffer acknowledge. There’s much more potent ammunition here.

In the Chamber of Commerce, one couldn’t find a more homespun, middle-of-the-road group of Republicans to attack. Going after them shows just how desperate Obama and his henchmen have become in the face of worsening election prospects.

Trying to make Boehner the face of the enemy failed. The “Party of No” meme fell flat, as has every gambit intended to make Republicans look like the reason things are not getting better. Those efforts had to, given the GOP’s minority status (not to mention their leaders’ string-like spines). Republicans in Congress have clearly been able to block nothing the past 20 months.

So, being left with attacking private citizens — and not your typical “Wall Street fat cats” at that — amounts to digging that trench ever deeper. Not only will Obama not crawl out of it by November 2, it could keep him clambering for a foothold long afterward.

Better still, the harder he presses this the more he’ll alienate the middle. That’s a surefire losing tactic. There’s no better way to make the Republican majority even larger than it’s going to be than to press arbitrary charges against millions of small businessmen.

(more…)

During a debate with his Republican opponent, Marty Lamb, in Massachusetts Jim McGovern said the thinks the Constitution is wrong in regards to campaign financing.

We have a lousy Supreme Court decision that has opened the floodgates, and so we have to deal within the realm of constitutionality. And a lot of the campaign finance bills that we have passed have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think the Constitution is wrong. I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings.

In the question and answer section of the debate an audience member apparently asked McGovern about his remark. He promptly denied ever making the comment in the first place.

(more…)

I appeared on David Asman’s show on Fox Tuesday evening to discuss the hypocrisy of the Obama gang’s new fallacious attack on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, projecting Democrat crimes on unsuspecting decent organizations. The whole episode showed up the incredible hypocrisy of Obama and the Democrats, and their callous indifference to the will of the people.

Obama and the Democrats claim that the Chamber of Commerce has been funding Republican candidates using foreign money. But as I show in great detail in my book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America (Simon & Schuster), in 2008 Obama’s FEC records were full of donations from people with obviously fake names, and other questionable material. (In contrast, McCain’s were squeaky clean.)

The Obama campaign website even featured a drop-down box enabling donors to specify from what country they were donating. All the donor had to do was check a box certifying that he was legally eligible to make a donation. There was no safeguard in place to make sure that foreign nationals did not donate from these countries, in flagrant defiance of the federal law forbidding candidates from receiving foreign donations.

Obama’s campaign received donations from the world over: the Virgin Islands, Vienna, The Hague, Madrid, London, Geneva, Tokyo, Bangkok, Turin, Paris, Munich, Madrid, Roma, Zurich, Moscow, Milan, Singapore, Beijing, Switzerland, Toronto, Vancouver, Dublin, Panama, Berlin, Geneva, Buenos Aires, Prague, Nagoya, Budapest, Barcelona, Sweden, Taipei, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Zurich, Ragusa, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Uganda, Mumbai, Tunis, Zacatecas, St. Croix, Mississauga, Lima, Copenhagen, Dubai, Jeddah, Kabul, Cairo, and many others.

Worst of all, Obama’s campaign received contributions from Hamas-controlled Gaza (documentation here) and lied about refunding those jihad donations.

(more…)

According to the New York Times, no less:

Ever since he raised the issue in his State of the Union speech nearly nine months ago — prompting head-shaking by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. of the Supreme Court — President Obama has been warning about the danger of foreign money creeping into elections as a result of the court’s landmark campaign finance ruling.

In two campaign stops Thursday, Mr. Obama invoked what he portrayed as a specific new example, citing a blog posting from a liberal advocacy group as he teed off on a longtime adversary, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, over its political spending.

“Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations,” Mr. Obama said. “So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.”

But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

(more…)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scheduled a second vote on the DISCLOSE Act for Thursday. Rather than address the 14.4 percent unemployment in his home state of Nevada, he wants to regulate political speech through hastily cobbled together campaign finance legislation. This legislation would impose a burdensome new disclaimer and disclosure regime on speakers who seek to exercise their First Amendment right to political speech.

The DISCLOSE Act is a desperate attempt to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In Citizens United the Court embraced the First Amendment protection of political speech. Now groups of Americans may stand together and speak, regardless of whether they have sought the protection of a corporate form, labor union, or non-profit organization.

Fearful of how these groups of Americans may exercise this right, Senator Schumer, Representative Chris Van Hollen, and leaders of the Democratic Party sought to create a burdensome new disclosure and disclaimer regime to make it difficult for Americans to exercise these rights. Senator Schumer is hopeful that the legislation will result in fewer political ads being run.

The DISCLOSE Act was crafted behind closed doors with the input of Democratic lobbyists. Labor unions and large special interests groups including the National Rifle Association were afforded special exemptions from various provisions of the bill. This partisan legislation is an assault on the First Amendment, and principled conservative groups like Citizens United were right to oppose it.

(more…)

The exercise of free speech is acceptable to the left when they agree with what you are saying. But when the left and media types find the views disagreeable or inconvenient and painfully true, the exercise of free speech becomes portrayed as sinister.

For example, the Committee for Truth in Politics has run a series of hard-hitting ads targeting House and Senate liberals and as a bonus they are driving the media insane in their quest to identify their donors.  No luck.

CBS newsman Armen Keteyian traveled to small town Indiana to interview Jim Bopp, the counsel for the Committee and a champion for free speech and privacy.  Just watch this two-minute interview and see the look on the reporters face.  How dare someone not tell him who their donors are!  Bravo!

Stymied by lawyers like Bopp and groups like the Committee for Truth in Politics, Americans for Prosperity and others, the President and the Democrat Congress — with the support of the media — are attempting to change the law to force disclosure of campaign donors. Translated: more state control of free speech.  Of course, American history has a long and noble tradition of anonymous political activity.  Publius and his compatriots wrote the Federalist Papers.  Common Sense was published anonymously and the NAACP went to court to prevent disclosure of their donors against racists in the Alabama government who attempted to use the information to threaten their supporters.  Each and every instance such activity was protected by the First Amendment.

(more…)