Russ Feingold is already criticizing Barack Obama for his reversal on the use of Super PACs. Obama has consistently been on record condemning the process whereby individuals and corporations can donate to a PAC anonymously to support a related campaign.

So much for priorities. Obama’s Super PAC is Priorities USA.

Liberal ex-Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) is ripping President Obama’s decision to embrace super-PACs. Feingold, who co-authored landmark campaign finance legislation with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to regulate campaigns, said Obama is “dancing with the devil” by deciding to fully support Priorities USA, a Democratic political action committee.

Says Team Obama, we won’t bring a knife to a gunfight. But will they attempt to punch back twice as hard? I’d make book on it, if I were you.

With so much at stake, we can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.

Check out the above video of Obama denouncing said Super-PACs.

(more…)

Barack Obama coasted to electoral victory in 2008 on the phrases “Hope and Change” and “Yes We Can!”, but it appears that in 2012, his winning campaign slogans could instead be “I like the ability to fire people” and “I’m not concerned about the very poor.”

Of course, these aren’t his words. They’re the words of his potential opponent in the general election, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Romney’s seeming callousness toward poor and unemployed Americans has gone viral among left-wing pundits and social media users, and this is a major problem. As much as conservatives may quibble about context and Romney’s actual intentions, we must keep in mind that Romney will be facing the same electorate that voted Obama into office in 2008–the same electorate that believed Sarah Palin, not Tina Fey, said, “I can see Russia from my house.”

The voters of 2012 will, by and large, not choose a candidate based on proposed policies and governing records; they will choose based on a simple narrative, a log line that makes the case for one’s candidacy in as few words as possible. In 2008, Obama’s was “First Black President.” McCain’s was “Veteran Endured Torture, Served His Country With Honor,” and Palin’s was “Ordinary Mother Rose to Governorship.” By the same token, candidates craft counter-narratives about their opponents. The anti-Obama narrative, “Too Radical, Too Inexperienced,” did not stick, and the anti-Palin narrative, “Stupid,” did, thanks almost wholly to the shameless left-wing advocacy of the mainstream media.

It is an unfortunate fact that having the truth on our side is not enough. Not every voter is as informed as those of us who follow politics religiously; we are the exception to the rule. Nationwide elections such as this are decided not based on truth but the perception of truth, and while I do not say this to justify deception by the Republican Party’s eventual nominee, that individual must be able to withstand the deception and false impressions presented by Obama and his media proxies. (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…)

Tonight, President Barack Obama will deliver his third State of the Union Address–and his sixth address to a joint session of Congress. That’s more than either President Bush or President Clinton had addressed in any single term.

Despite his purported skill as an orator, none of Obama’s addresses to Congress has been particularly successful. They are typically remembered more for the rancor they caused than for any positive effects.

Obama is expected to make inequality the focus of his address. That’s an important campaign theme, as well as a refrain of the Occupy Wall Street movement that Obama supported in the fall of 2011.

Yet it is not a significant departure from the tone of previous addresses, in which Obama bullied opponents and Supreme Court justices; fabricated health insurance horror stories; and called upon “millionaires and billionaires” to pay.

For reference purposes as you watch tonight’s State of the Union, here is a concise summary of Obama’s five previous speeches to Congress, and how they were received:

Obama's first address: February 24, 2009

***

Address to Joint Session of Congress, February 24, 2009

In his first speech as the 44th President, Obama wanted to put his stamp on the presidency and introduce his ambitious policy agenda–one “that begins with jobs,” he said. The highlight of his address was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act–i.e. the stimulus–which he promised would receive “tough, unprecedented oversight” under Vice President Joe Biden.

Obama also announced a government lending program to ease credit, a new housing plan to prevent foreclosures, and assistance to struggling banks. He asked for “long-term investments” in green energy; for a commitment to health care reform; and for new funding for schools, along with education reforms. And he promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, partly by letting “tax breaks” for the wealthy expire.

In addition, Obama touched on national security, reiterating his promise to close the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay, hinting that he would press for civilian trials for terrorists, and promising to “defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism.” On foreign policy, Obama declared “a new era of engagement” through negotiations with hostile powers, and announced the appointment of a new envoy to help end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The reaction to Obama’s speech was somewhat negative: he apparently intended to govern from the left, not from the center (as some had hoped). Stock prices fell sharply the next morning, recovering by the afternoon but ending firmly in the red. In retrospect, though Obama kept his promises on assisting banks and fighting al Qaeda, he broke many other pledges, and saw many of his policies–especially the stimulus–fail badly. (more…)

David Axelrod, chief political strategist for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign and former White House political adviser, defended Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday evening in a speech in Thousand Oaks, CA.

Axelrod described the initial news reports in 2008 on Obama’s long-time family pastor and mentor as “ninety seconds of vitriol plucked from thirty years of sermons by some enterprising opposition researcher.”

The claim that Wright’s sermons were selectively edited by Obama’s political opponents contradicts what is known about Wright’s preaching and the radical, racialist creed of the Trinity United Church of Christ, to which Obama belonged for two decades and to which he contributed a large amount of money.

Axelrod’s claim is also contradicted by Obama himself, who has cited Wright’s enthusiasm for radical politics as the main reason he was attracted to the church.

Axelrod brought up the Wright controversy during a lecture recounting his role as the “architect” of Obama’s rise from the Illinois state senate to the presidency. Axelrod praised Obama’s infamous “race speech,” contrasting his media skills to those of GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

Photo source: Distinguished Speaker Series

The lecture was part of the Distinguished Speaker Series of Southern California, and was delivered before a largely friendly audience.

(more…)

Last night was a stunning success for the heroic middle class and for organized labor! Progressives seized control of two Republican state senate seats in Wisconsin–one of the few times in American history that a recall election has been successful, and on so grand a scale!

And that’s just the beginning. We are going to recall that pathetic Koch addict, so-called “governor” Scott Walker, as well! We are on the march to total victory!

True, we lost four of the other six recall elections yesterday. True, we failed to win the third seat necessary to take control of the state senate and begin rolling back Walker’s devastating attack on workers’ rights. True, we spent $30 million, much of it taken from the hard-earned dues of our members. True, we must now rally our exhausted and rather demoralized ground troops to defend two shaky Democrat-held seats next week.

Comrades–these failures point to the far greater victory that we achieved last night! We defended the “middle class” against evil corporations and Tea Party terrorists! We stood up to a tsunami of Citizens United-enabled outside money, and unleashed our own flood of Citizens United-enabled outside money! We rallied a huge crowd of red-shirted thugs at Ed Schultz’s live election coverage on MSNBC, smashing any pretense at objectivity!

Don’t you see what that means? We have sent a clear message to the nation: we are so fanatically devoted to the progressive cause that even losing elections will not deter us! The radical left and the public-sector unions have taken control of the Democratic party, and we are willing to destroy it in order to save it! We, the revolutionary vanguard of the middle class proletariat, have declared war on America–and we will not be defeated!

(more…)

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…)

President Obama’s FY-2012 budget shows a failure of leadership by a man who claimed that he would change the way Washington works. Red ink continues to be spilled at record rates with no end in sight and yet President Obama continues to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room – our climbing $14 trillion national debt.

America is sinking deeper and deeper into debt, but the President’s own budget projects that the federal debt will top $15 trillion this year – equal to the size of our entire economy – and will reach $21 trillion within five years time! President Obama’s budget will spend $3.8 trillion this year; that correlates to 25.3 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, the highest since World War II. The Democrat chairman of President Obama’s very own debt commission, Erskine Bowles, said the budget released today is “nowhere near where they have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare.” America must get its fiscal house in order, or our economy will sink into a financial abyss.

President Obama states, “We need to act now to secure and strengthen Social Security for future generations,” but he fails to lay out a clear and precise plan on how he would reform Social Security and Medicare. These entitlement programs are draining America’s resources at an alarming rate. Nobody is saying that this is an easy fix, but not even addressing it in a budget plan is a serious oversight by the Obama Administration. President Obama has chosen his short term election prospects over doing what is right for future generations. He just continues to kick the debt crisis can down the road, but at some point that can will fall off the cliff. When that happens, the American people will remember this failure of leadership.

(more…)

I recently took a two-day trip down to Palm Springs to attend an event called “Uncloaking the Kochs” hosted by Common Cause. Accompanied by my dear friend, former assembly candidate Alvaro Day, I traveled as an independent investigative journalist, and not in any official capacity on behalf of Big Government or Breitbart.com (though I was pleasantly surprised to run into a familiar friend of mine on rollerblades jovially inviting everyone to Applebee’s).

Among Common Cause’s, well, common causes, are campaign finance reform, net neutrality, outlawing the filibuster, promoting cap and trade, and in this particular case, herding a mass of protesters outside a nearby hotel to yell at Charles and David Koch for being conservative and rich.

Unfortunately several “haves” have missed the memo that you’re not to be both rich and conservative at the same time, and that bankrolling your pet causes is an extra no-no if you’re conservative—thus exempting left-wing billionaire philanthropists George Soros (from whom Common Cause has received $2 million over the past eight years) Peter Lewis, John Doerr, Julian Robertson, Nicolas Berggruen, and many others from being yelled at too. (more…)

Soon-to-be White House Press Secretary Jay Carney’s former employer Time Magazine has given President Obama a big thank you gift this week. Not only is President Obama on the cover of Time Magazine for the 24th time in little more than four years, but the editors are trying to portray Obama as the next Ronald Reagan. President Obama and President Reagan are polar opposites in both politics and style. For a struggling magazine, I guess putting Reagan on the cover is the only way to sell some copies. Time Magazine and the left will stop at nothing to prop up President Obama’s sagging presidency. Just over two years ago, Time portrayed President Obama as the next FDR on the cover of the magazine, but after the failure of Obama’s big government agenda, Time is jumping to have Obama reflect the country’s more conservative mood. These ploys are pathetic and desperate.

President Reagan served his country with a grace and style that cannot be matched, especially by the current occupant of the White House. He stood up to the Soviet Union by calling them the “evil empire” and courageously implored General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.” President Obama used his most recent State of the Union address to tell us how great communist China is and how Americans are lagging behind the Chinese in innovation. President Obama does not believe in American Exceptionalism. If he did, he would not have said “…America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” President Reagan believed America was a “shining city on the hill” and that it was always morning in America.

Citizens United has produced a short video showing that there is no comparison between Presidents Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. Both men may share the same title, but they view America and the world quite differently. The difference is pretty stark when you hear Reagan and Obama speaking about America. Can you imagine a circumstance in which President Reagan would criticize America in a speech overseas?

(more…)

America is in a financial crisis. For years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have ignored the 800 pound gorilla in the room – our climbing $14 trillion national debt. That trend seems like it will continue with reports coming out over the weekend that President Obama will request more government spending in the State of the Union. I had hoped that a detailed plan on how to curb our government’s overspending would be the focus of the President’s speech. However, it looks like what he really wants is, in essence, another stimulus. We all know that the stimulus package passed during the beginning days of this Administration failed miserably and contributed to the $14 trillion debt. If we do not address the ever-increasing debt, America may sink into a dangerous financial abyss.

From 1789 to 1997, America’s national debt climbed to $5.4 trillion. In January of 2007, when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid assumed power in the House and Senate and Obama was sworn in as a Senator, our national debt was $8.6 trillion. In just 48 months the Pelosi/Reid Congress did what it took all previous Administrations and Congresses combined to do in 208 years – increase the national debt by $5.4 trillion to the record level of $14 trillion. Democrats currently in charge continually look the other way when it comes to the national debt.

We must get our fiscal house in order. With President Obama set to call for even more government spending, it appears that the era of Washington’s fiscal irresponsibility will continue. The liberal policy on spending mimics that of drunken sailors – not to insult drunken sailors. Fortunately, the American people have weighed in by restoring control of the House of Representatives to Republicans. It now rests upon the shoulders of Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, and many others to be so bold as to say “ENOUGH” to Obama’s overspending.

At Citizens United, we have released a short video, highlighting the issue of the national debt.

(more…)

One year ago today, on January 21, the Supreme Court released its landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The decision corrected an anomaly in campaign finance law, and in doing so was a tremendous victory for the First Amendment and Americans who wish to participate in our political process.

The case found its origins in 2007 when my group, Citizens United, a membership organization, sought to promote, distribute, and broadcast via video-on-demand a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. If Citizens United would have done so, we were told by the FEC that it would have been a willful violation of the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (better known as “McCain-Feingold”) which prohibited corporations from making independent expenditures and electioneering communications. This violation was not merely subject to a civil fine, but rather a criminal penalty – I personally would have been sent to jail for promoting the film. Citizens United filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission to defend our right to promote and broadcast the film. It took more than two years, but the First Amendment protection of political speech was restored by the Supreme Court in this landmark ruling.

In the year since Citizens United was decided, it has been the subject of countless unwarranted attacks and harsh rhetoric. Senator Al Franken (D-MN) claimed, “Citizens United was an incredible act of judicial activism. It turned back a century of federal law, and it nullified Minnesota’s twenty-year-old ban on corporate spending in elections.” Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), in his farewell addressed, alleged that Citizens United “effectively undermin[ed] the basic democratic principle of the power of one person/one vote.” Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) argued that “if we don’t act quickly to confront this ruling, we will have let the Supreme Court predetermine the outcome of next November’s elections. It won’t be Republicans or Democrats; it will be Corporate America and other special interests.” All twisted the decision beyond recognition in an attempt to demonize the ruling and further their own political agenda.

(more…)

While President Obama’s eyes are set on a Christmas vacation in Hawaii, the American people’s minds are fixed on the largest tax increases in American history that are looming on the horizon.  Every American taxpayer will be hit hard by the Obama tax hikes.  At a time of economic strife, and today’s reports of unemployment rising to 9.8 percent, President Obama’s thoughts should be on creating jobs for the American people but raising taxes will only hurt small businesses and job creation.

On the first of the new year, personal income taxes will be hiked, and the marriage penalty tax will rear its ugly head again.  In fact, even the child tax credit will be cut by $500 for every child.  With the economy still struggling, American families will have to make even tougher decisions in 2011 if Congress does not halt these tax increases.

President Obama knew almost two years ago when he was sworn into office that these tax hikes would go into effect on January 1, 2011.  It is a failure of leadership that he has waited until the 11^th hour to act.  I hope as President Obama dreams of his Hawaiian Christmas vacation, he reflects on those American families that will soon suffer under his historic tax increases.

(more…)

By sticking with Nancy Pelosi as their leader once again, one has to wonder if House Democrats are denying reality. Whether it’s 9.6 percent unemployment, record debt, the government takeover of health care, or cap and tax, the Pelosi agenda was sent packing in 2010 to the tune of over 60 House seats.

The decision to reanoint Nancy Pelosi is the equivalent of giving the American people a fruitcake for the holidays. And let’s face it – nobody really wants a fruitcake! Sadly, the similarities between the embarrassingly unpopular duo don’t stop there.

According to recent polling data, “Leader” Pelosi’s approval rating just before the Republican electoral tsunami was at 29 percent. That is painfully low and represents a total rejection of the failed policies she championed over the course of her infamous Speakership. But, to look on the bright side of things, Pelosi is still more popular than fruitcake, which received the approval of 28 percent of the people. Maybe over the course of the next two years the fruitcake will rebuild its image and overtake the embattled soon-to-be former Speaker in the polls.

At Citizens United, we are rolling out a little early holiday fun. This week we launched www.pelosifruitcake.com and a parody web ad campaign that highlights the obvious: nobody wants a fruitcake. Please share with your family, friends, and co-workers. Season’s Greetings!

(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…)

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…)

With less than a month to go before Democrats across the country face their fate, one would hope that they are reflective enough to ask themselves where they went wrong and how their out-of-touch liberal policies have failed the American people. According to a recent poll by Gallup, Congress has an 18 percent approval rating, and CNN/Time has President Obama’s disapproval rating at 54 percent. It seems the tide has changed since the 2008 election. At the end of September, Congress left Washington without passing a budget and failed to even address the largest tax increases ever to hit the American people that will come in January.

Citizens United Production’s latest documentary, “Battle for America” with Dick Morris, examines why Americans have such disdain for President Obama and his imperial Congress. The American people are angry. With an unemployment rate hovering around 9.6 percent and our national debt exceeding $13 trillion, Americans want real change… not the kind of change they were duped into believing two years ago. In 2008, the American people voted for what was sold as moderate and pragmatic leadership. Americans were in desperate need of a government that would focus on jobs and our troubled economy. Unfortunately, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine decided to pass the rest of Lyndon Johnson’s social welfare program instead.

During the 2006 election, Nancy Pelosi proclaimed that the Democrats would “drain the swamp” that is Washington, D.C. However, it looks as if her “swamp” is as polluted and infected as ever as evidenced by the backroom deals made during the health care debate and the ethics troubles facing former Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and other House Democrats. The truth is that Nancy Pelosi’s swamp can’t be drained because it is the bloated and (nearly) bankrupt government created by her and her colleagues that keeps it filled. Our country is drowning and suffocating in an out-of-control bureaucracy.

(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…)

We are in the midst of a national debate over the size and scope of government and I am hopeful.  Conservative Republican Joe Miller’s remarkable victory in the Alaska Republican Senate Primary should have Americans feeling optimistic about the prospects of real change coming to Washington in 2011. Miller’s victory over incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski is just the latest jolt to an establishment that has paved the way for an unsustainable $13.3 trillion national debt and record budget deficits.

My PAC, Citizens United Political Victory Fund (www.cupvf.org) has a goal for the 2009-2010 election cycle to recapture the majorities in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives by helping to elect candidates who will fight for conservative principles and challenge the agenda of the Obama Administration.  To date, CUPVF has made more than $300,000 in direct contributions to 53 federal candidates who are campaigning to put an end to this fiscal insanity.

If Miller is elected to the Senate in November, along with fellow fiscal conservatives Pat Toomey (PA), Marco Rubio (FL), Sharron Angle (NV), Ken Buck (CO), and Rand Paul (KY), business as usual in Washington will be over.  And good riddance!  After all, one U.S. Senator has the power to bring the legislative and appropriations process to a halt.  Imagine what this group of potential newcomers, with a clear mandate to stop the spending, could do to get America’s fiscal house in order!   Establishment incumbents from both parties should beware that the taxpayer funded party is about to end.   Voters are giving the order:  enough is enough.

(more…)