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…)

From Rasmussen Reports:

Americans have closely followed news stories about the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of six others in Arizona on Saturday, and most don’t feel politics was the cause of it.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of Adults say the shooting in Arizona was the result of political anger in the country. Fifty-eight percent (58%) say instead that it was a random act of violence by an unstable person. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

(more…)

From The Hill:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that the Arizona shooter who killed six and injured 14, including Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D), was motivated by political views.

In an interview with CNN Wednesday Clinton, who had recently referred to the shooter as an “extremist,” doubled down on her comments saying that the shooter was an extremist who acted on his “bizarre” political views.

(more…)

Wednesday Sarah Palin responded to the vicious blood libel leveled against her and millions of right-thinking Americans by the army of destroyers. The ferocious, relentless attacks on Sarah Palin are a testament to her greatness, proof of how deathly afraid of her they are, like Dracula to the silver cross.

It’s envy. Ayn Rand said it: “Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves….That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good.”

Here’s the thing. The mission, by objective, of the haters, the party of destruction, is to ruin the best, the brightest, the good. The left has, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, trafficked only in ruin and destruction, focusing on the most effective leaders on the right.

Name one, one, Republican president the voluntary-state-run media has liked. Forget liked, has given a fair shake? Name one Republican they supported. The only Republican the media can cotton to is a RINO (Republican In Name Only) or one who is sure to lose (i.e. old, middle of the road RINO McCain).

I refuse to accept that Palin is unelectable. Says who? Those who wish to destroy her. We, on the right, must learn from our enemies. Not their evil, but in their strategy. They stand by their people no matter how egregious their crime — the Barney Franks, Barney Franks, Bill Clintons blah blah blah.

We, on the other hand, cut and run when the lie about whomever has gone around the world, before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. I cringe when I hear conservatives and Republicans say that Palin is not electable. Why? Because evildoers said so? Who cares? That’s what they want you to think. How wonderful it would be to have a clear thinking, rational, proud patriot for president. Who else could possibly restore America back to her standing and respect in the world? I think Palin would be spectacular, one of the greats.

(more…)

From CBS News:

Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country’s heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.

In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn’t connecting the shooting to politics.

(more…)

The other night I watched a show called Dateline with “never seen before” footage of an interview between Jeffrey Dahmer and the reporter Stone Philips. For those of you too young to remember, Jeffrey Dahmer gained notoriety in the early 1990’s for being a particularly gruesome and repulsive homosexual serial killer. So, yes, curiosity got the better of me – I watched it. Although I admit, I couldn’t sit through the whole thing.

Stone Philips asked the obvious questions probing Dahmer’s father and mother as to why Jeffrey committed these horrific acts. He asked if there were any signs, indications, events in Jeffrey’s life that would give us a clue as to how this monster was created. Was Jeffrey molested as a child? Did the screaming in the doomed marriage cause this behavior? The parents came up empty. They didn’t see any signs; they didn’t know of any catastrophic events. Jeffrey wasn’t abnormal or deviant by anything they saw. And if they had seen something, they would have hoped they would have reacted appropriately.

Then Stone asked Jeffrey the same question. Why? What caused you to do these things? Candidly, Jeffrey simply answers that he was Godless.

Shocking isn’t it? Jeffrey explains that up until he was caught and put into prison he had been told that he was primordial ooze, a product of evolution. After being convicted, his father sent him some information explaining that God created the world and the people in it. At some point, Jeffrey realized that he had to answer to a higher being. He logically understood that primordial ooze doesn’t have to answer to anyone or anything; a created human being MUST answer to his Creator.

Good for Dahmer. Kudos for seeing the most basic answer to societies woes that are most “brilliant” scientists and educators refuse to see. Whether he really believed his words or not, he spoke truth.

(more…)

George Will in today’s Washington Post:

Now we have explainers. They came into vogue with the murder of President Kennedy. They explained why the “real” culprit was not a self-described Marxist who had moved to Moscow, then returned to support Castro. No, the culprit was a “climate of hate” in conservative Dallas, the “paranoid style” of American (conservative) politics, or some other national sickness resulting from insufficient liberalism.

Last year, New York Times columnist Charles Blow explained that “the optics must be irritating” to conservatives: Barack Obama is black, Nancy Pelosi is female, Rep. Barney Frank is gay, Rep. Anthony Weiner (an unimportant Democrat, listed to serve Blow’s purposes) is Jewish. “It’s enough,” Blow said, “to make a good old boy go crazy.” The Times, which after the Tucson shooting said that “many on the right” are guilty of “demonizing” people and of exploiting “arguments of division,” apparently was comfortable with Blow’s insinuation that conservatives are misogynistic, homophobic, racist anti-Semites.

On Sunday, the Times explained Tucson: “It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But . . .” The “directly” is priceless.

(more…)

I don’t have much to say about the recent Arizona shootings by madman Jared Loughner, except this:

Many commentators almost as mad as Loughner have attempted to connect this lunatic’s actions to “inflammatory right-wing rhetoric.” I won’t go into here the long list of inflammatory left-wing rhetoric (and actions) that spill over into open violence. (Michelle Malkin has a good summary — with detailed proof — if you’re interested.)

Instead, I’ll make a suggestion.

If the Left wants to eliminate at a stroke the vast majority of heated, hated right-wing rhetoric there’s a very simple way to do that: give up.

Get out of the way. Stop advocating the violation of individual rights every day in every way. Stop trying to get legislation passed that steals private property for the purpose of funding your favorite social engineering goals. Stop extolling the alleged virtue of interpreting the U.S. Constitution in ways that further Progressive goals. End your advocacy of coercion through government.

Your cause is not noble, your methods are not virtuous, your philosophy is not just. Your ideas are more than mistaken; they’re immoral, impractical, and unconstitutional. Change your philosophy and change your behavior and ‘the Right’ will have no longer have an incentive to fight back against your support for squishy tyranny.

(more…)

My family and I were shocked and saddened when we learned of the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, her staff and constituents. Gabrielle is a hard worker, a talented legislator and a genuinely dear person. She is universally liked in the House and every member who served with her feels deeply for her, her family and all those involved. We are praying for her recovery, the recovery of all those injured and comfort for the families of the fallen.

This attack was an unspeakable act of violence and those responsible must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of state and federal law.

Yesterday, House officials informed Members that there was no evidence of a wider threat to Members or the public and ordered a full security review for members and staff going forward.

Planned legislative activity will be postponed in lieu of more appropriate resolutions on the floor.

Having made a longstanding practice of holding town hall meetings, we are determined to continue our public schedule without interruption and will follow the recommendation of US Capitol police and local law enforcement to ensure the safety of the public and our staff at future events.

A word or two of admonition.

(more…)

Jack Shafer in Slate:

Sheriff Dupnik’s political sermon came before any conclusive or even circumstantial proof had been offered that the shooter had been incited by anything except the gas music from Jupiter playing inside his head.

For as long as I’ve been alive, crosshairs and bull’s-eyes have been an accepted part of the graphical lexicon when it comes to political debates. Such “inflammatory” words as targeting, attacking, destroying, blasting, crushing, burying, knee-capping, and others have similarly guided political thought and action. Not once have the use of these images or words tempted me or anybody else I know to kill. I’ve listened to, read—and even written!—vicious attacks on government without reaching for my gun. I’ve even gotten angry, for goodness’ sake, without coming close to assassinating a politician or a judge.

From what I can tell, I’m not an outlier. Only the tiniest handful of people—most of whom are already behind bars, in psychiatric institutions, or on psycho-meds—can be driven to kill by political whispers or shouts. Asking us to forever hold our tongues lest we awake their deeper demons infantilizes and neuters us and makes politicians no safer.

(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…)

When Senator Chuck Schumer staged an elaborate press conference on the steps of the Supreme Court to unveil his Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (“DISCLOSE Act”) he noted that:

“Anyone who wants to hide, will not do an ad after this legislation passes. And I think there are a lot of people who like to hide … so I think there’ll be many fewer of them.”

His words revealed the true motivation of this legislation – it is not transparency but rather silencing speech in this critical election year.  The Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC restored the First Amendment protection to political speech.  Small businesses, corporations, unions, and membership based organizations may now have a voice in the public discourse.  The Democratic leadership that is tasked with re-electing incumbent politicians and trying to minimize Democratic losses this November were understandably fearful of what the public may say now that their voices have been restored.  One issue the Democrats would rather not let the American people be reminded of is the national 9.5% unemployment rate.

Their solution was the DISCLOSE Act, a piece of legislation that creates a burdensome new regulatory scheme as well as requires that political ads feature disclaimers which may be as long as 14 seconds in length.  This will increase the costs to small businesses and membership based organizations that seek to have a voice – many won’t be able to afford the additional compliance costs and will have their voices silenced.

In the four months since Senator Schumer introduced the DISCLOSE Act, we’ve seen it is just one part of a systemic campaign to chill 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…)

Today the Senate returns to session having not yet addressed Senator Chuck Schumer’s troubling legislation, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act (“DISCLOSE Act”).  Senator Schumer sought and failed to pass the DISCLOSE Act – a bill that would restrict the First Amendment rights of Americans – by the Fourth of July, the day on which we celebrate our nation’s independence.

The DISCLOSE Act is a desperate attempt to influence the November elections, and minimize Democrat losses.  Senator Schumer and the legislation’s other sponsors aim to have a law on the books that will take effect prior to November regardless of whether a regulatory system is in place to enforce the burdensome new reporting requirements.  The Act, its reporting burdens, and penalties are set to take effect 30 days after it has been signed by President Obama.

• The DISCLOSE Act will require small businesses, corporations, and non-profit organizations to electronically file burdensome financial disclosure reports within 24 hours of making an independent expenditure.  Without action by the FEC, these groups will have to electronically file a form that does not yet exist, and face a $10,000 penalty should their filing be found inadequate.

• Radically expand the length of disclaimers on televised political advertisements.  The Act will compel the head of an organization to appear on screen in a “stand by your ad” disclaimer.  The top donor to an organization will also have to appear on camera to stand by the ad.  The names of additional top donors to the organization must be listed on screen for a period of six seconds.  These disclaimers will be the end of the 30 second advertisement, because over half of the time will be devoted to disclaimers.

(more…)

“We had to put the Second Amendment over the First Amendment.” (7:21)

Yes, it’s common sense to credit the NRA for its involvement with the McDonald vs Chicago case and its fight for the Second Amendment, which, I think, would have been infringed upon even greater longer ago without the NRA.

However.

I don’t like what I’m seeing with the NRA on this – and their wish to protect the Second Amendment by way of seeking exemption under DISCLOSE is nullified if they traded exemption for silence on the hearing of an anti-gun Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as part of of the deal.

You can’t be non-partisan because the Second Amendment, in current society, is not a bipartisan issue.

By silencing yourself, ironically, on an issue for exemption so that you don’t have to be silenced later on is playing with the First Amendment whether you realize it or not.

(more…)

If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects the right of all Americans to speak to one another about politics without first having to register with the government.  Unfortunately, ever-increasing layers of red tape and regulation are strangling the political speech and participation of more Americans while offering little or no benefit to the public.

One of the most pernicious attacks on the basic First Amendment rights to speak, associate and petition the government are so-called grassroots lobbying laws.  (For an overview of these laws and what makes them so bad, watch this brief video:  http://ij.org/ 3368.)  But what bureaucrats and campaign finance reformers call “grassroots lobbying” is nothing more than one of the most basic acts of self-governance:  citizens discussing issues of public importance among themselves.

As many as 36 states impose heavy burdens on grassroots political activism—burdens that discourage citizens from even bothering to participate in the political process.

For example, in Washington state, if you get together with a couple of friends and create an informal group to encourage others to contact their legislators and oppose more taxes, the government forces you to register and report the name, address, business and occupation of each of the group’s organizers, as well as the names and addresses of anyone with whom the group is working to spread its message.  The state also demands to know the names and addresses of each person who contributes as little as $25 to your efforts.  After the government collects this information, it makes your personal information and political activities available to anyone with a computer and access to the Internet.

Spending $500 in one month or $1,000 in three months—a couple of trips to Kinko’s to print flyers or hosting one community barbeque—will trigger the registration and reporting requirements of the law.

(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…)

To the people of Orlando: your long Florida nightmare may soon be over.  Congressman Alan Grayson is up for re-election this year.

But in the mean time, he’s continuing his gasbaggery.  He’s taking up President Obama’s mantle of intimidating the Supreme Court and has introduced several bills so political free speech can once again be squelched.

Grayson has introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at restricting political speech, according to the George Soros-funded Secretary of State Project.  But first, a bit about that group.

SOS was formed to elect Secretaries of State around the country that will be tolerant of ACORN-style voter registration and Election Day shenanigans.  The Minnesota recount debacle – and seating of Al Franken – came courtesy of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, an SOS Project recruit.

So now the Soros-funded SOS Project is pushing Grayson’s package of bills. The interpretations of them come courtesy of SOS, not me:

(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…)