Virginia Seitz, assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, said her office concluded that Congress may only stop these appointments “by remaining continuously in session and available to receive and act on nominations,” not through pro forma sessions.

But, the DOJ memo not only addressed legal issues. It also blamed Republicans for the recent use of pro forma sessions, observing that 20 Senate Republicans and 80 House Republicans asked House Speaker John Boehner to refuse to pass any resolution allowing the Senate to recess or adjourn for more than three days. The hypocrisy in the memo is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who previously held pro forma sessions in order to block appointments by President George W. Bush, said that he supported President Obama’s decision to ignore the pro forma sessions in order to push through his appointments.

The DOJ’s memo has already quelled some potential legal challenges to the appointments, perhaps most notably from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, whose president, Thomas Donohue, went from a condemnation of the appointment of Richard Cordray, to the statement: “I’m sure the Department of Justice gave it a very fair look.”

Not wasting any time, congressional staffers received invitations to attend Thursday’s “Meet and Greet” for the new NLRB appointees. As Heritage.org points out, they wouldn’t have needed a “Meet and Greet” if Senators had become familiar with the candidates during their normal duties and vetting procedures.

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Francis Cianfrocca to discuss the Barack Obama’s ATM comments this week, and his administration’s failed outreach to business.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Erick Erickson: Barack Obama Thinks an ATM Ate Your Job
White House’s Daley seeks balance in outreach meeting with manufacturers
GLOBAL MARKETS: European Stocks Slip; Banks Suffer On Greece Worries
Merkel, Sarkozy Agree Greek Aid Must Involve Investors
Why the Sign Must Say: No UBS in the USA

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

To hear the Obama administration tell it, there are few things worse than anonymous political activity. Just recently, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told the Christian Science Monitor:

The untold story of 2010 is not the “tea party” or not the health-care bill, or a number of these issues. It is the amount of money that is flowing in districts around the country and particularly the amount of anonymous money….

I haven’t been any place where there aren’t dozens of ads now being run and nobody knows who is behind them…I am used to a political system where people engage in battles and you know who brought them to the dance.

But is anonymous political speech really that new – or that bad?

Indeed, anonymous political speech isn’t just a great American tradition. It helped create the United States of America. The Federalist Papers, the series of essays that influenced the adoption of the Constitution, were published under the pseudonym “Publius” (in reality James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay). The anti-Constitution position was in turn articulated by “the Federal Farmer,” whose identity remains a mystery.

Former Federal Election Commission chair Bradley Smith lays out other arguments in favor of anonymous political speech in a contemporary context:

[Election] disclosure regulations are some of the most burdensome. Disclosure limits free speech because it allows the government to retaliate against people. The Supreme Court has consistently held that people do have a right to anonymous speech. The cases speak for themselves.

The most prominent one is probably NAACP v. Alabama (1964), when Alabama wanted to know who was funding the NAACP’s activities. We can see how that would be intimidating. Then there’s McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995). McIntyre was doing anonymous brochures against a school tax, which all the school officials supported. She had children in the schools who needed grades and access to such things as athletic teams and bands. She didn’t necessarily want her name known, even though it was important for her to fight this issue. Another major case was Brown v. Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Committee (1982). The socialists rightly said, “If we have to reveal our donors, they won’t give us money. They will get harassed. Their businesses will get blackballed and that sort of thing.” Disclosure can be more inhibiting than people think.

Which is something to think about when people already in power push legislation such as The DISCLOSE Act, which would force groups to list donors and reveal their names in advertisements. The DISCLOSE Act is in part a response to this year’s controversial Citizen’s United v. Federal Election Commission ruling by the Supreme Court. Hyperbolically likened by critics to the infamous Dred Scott decision, Citizen’s United dealt with a documentary film censored by the government and broadened the speech rights of corporations, unions, and nonprofits. Far from opening American politics up to undue influence by unspecificed foreigners (as President Obama has charged), the ruling makes it easier for smaller groups and individuals to spread their messages.

As with many political firestorms, the current one about “dangerous” anonymous speech generates more heat than insight. Anonymous speech is fully in the American grain but it also comes at a price. When the source of political speech is not known or disclosed, voters tend to discount it, or at least look for corroboration elsewhere. Which is exactly how it should be. And if you don’t in the end trust voters to make informed decisions, then all the mandatory disclosure in the world can’t help them.

“Who is Publius?” is written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie. Approximately 45 seconds.

For downloadable versions of this Reason.tv videos, go to Reason.tv. To receive automatic notification when new material goes live, subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel.

That’s right, we have learned for example, that when David Axelrod leaves the White House every night, he finds time to stop at the Washington DC Zoo, and well, lets just say he accepts foreign donations.

I have been asked about these charges, specifically the New York Times looked into Axelrod’s love life specifically and said that Axelrod is not putting any part of himself into foreign objects. He has been spending lots of time at the petting zoo, said the times but the only thing being stroked is his ego. There is no evidence says the Times, that David Axelrod has a “sheep” problem. Bob Schieffer of CBS News says that Axelrod’s animal problem is just peanuts.

Hogwash I say, Hogwash!.  True there is no evidence that White House adviser is sleeping with sheep, but does anybody have evidence that he is not?  And as far as Mr. Schieffer’s comment, sheep do not eat peanuts, Elephants do. The fact is that while Axelrod has asserted these rumors are not true, but the fact that he won’t release any home videos of his sex life is at the core of the problem here.

What we’ve seen in part is because of a loophole in the press coverage, we  have seen thousands of hours of press reports filed this year and not one investigation, not one of David Axelrod’s sex life. The media is keeping from the public, for example,  that the Presidential Adviser’s favorite nursary rhymes are Mary Had a Little Lamb and Baa Baa Black Sheep.

By the way, there has also been rumors about Robert Gibbs and horses, but those rumors are incorrect, the Gibbs rumor started because someone misheard. The Press Secretary was simply being compared to a specific part of the horses anatomy.

Some of you have asked me, “Come on Jeff, even if you hate his politics, how could you make baseless charges against a public servant? How could you smear Axelrod’s name like that?”

Folks, this isn’t smearing anybody, this is learning from our great Commander-in-Chief. I have learned from our President that it is perfectly OK for a blogger to create baseless charges. Our President believes in equality for all and social justice (Axelrod does also). So if Think Progress can invent charges against the Chamber of Commerce and get extra traffic, so can I.  The President will just think of it as “Redistribution of Web Traffic.”

Think about it as you watch this video from David Axelrod’s Favorite Movie.

The campaign pits freshman “Blue Dog” Democratic congressman Frank Kratovil in a rematch against Republican Dr. Andy Harris. Given the political tilt of the district, coupled with the Tea Party tsunami gathering force this year, one would think that this race should be a slam dunk for Harris.

A tall, affable family man, Harris is an anesthesiologist, Navy veteran, hardcore free-marketer, and constitutional conservative. By contrast, Kratovil, a former attorney, tries to portray himself as an “independent” who distances himself from Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic majority. However, the Washington Post reports that “Frank Kratovil has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 84.6% of the time during the current Congress.” Among his least popular votes since taking office: support for the “cash for clunkers” program, for the near-trillion-dollar “stimulus” spending orgy, and for the hugely expensive “cap-and-trade” energy bill. Plus, of course, his vote to elevate the widely reviled Pelosi to the Speaker’s position.

Yet, despite all that, a recent poll finds Harris holding only a statistically insignificant three-point lead over Kratovil. This, while other GOP candidates are faring much better even in usually “safe” Democratic districts.

What’s going on here?

One of the most infuriating spectacles this election season is supposedly “Republican,” “conservative,” and “pro-business” individuals and groups supporting entrenched liberal incumbents against free-market, limited-government challengers. For many special-interest “insiders,” even on the right, philosophical convictions are far less important than sharing a “seat at the table” with the politically powerful.

With a hat tip to Angelo Codevilla, let me label these fair-weather friends of freedom “the Ruling Class Right.”

Frank Kratovil is one of the undeserving beneficiaries of their favoritism, just as Andy Harris is one of their undeserving victims.

There is history here: We’re witinessing a virtual replay of the Kratovil-Harris race of 2008. Though the Republican-leaning district went handily for John McCain, Kratovil managed to squeak out a plurality of votes to win by less than one percent. Harris’s surprising defeat occurred only because he was betrayed by those who should have been his allies.

Harris had won the GOP nomination by challenging and defeating incumbent Republican congressman Wayne Gilchrest in the primary. Gilchrest — one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress — retaliated against the primary voters’ verdict by endorsing Kratovil over Harris.

Moreover, despite Harris’s long record as an anti-tax, pro-free-market state legislator, a Libertarian Party candidate entered the race, in one of that party’s futile vanity campaigns. But the Libertarian managed to siphon off 8,873 votes, many of which otherwise would have gone to Harris. As a result, Harris lost by only 2,852 votes.

In 2008, establishment Republicans and self-styled “advocates of liberty” turned their backs on a proven legislative champion of freedom. Now, this year — while a Tea Party tidal wave is sweeping even liberal Democratic districts — Andy Harris is being betrayed by “the Ruling Class Right.”

This entrenched elite first threw their endorsements and money behind liberals Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, and Lisa Murkowski, and against the insurgencies by free-marketers, constitutional conservatives, and Tea Partiers fed up with the Beltway’s corrupt old-boy network. Since then, supposedly “conservative” pundits within the Ruling Class Right have joined party apparatchiks to do everything possible to mock and undercut the campaigns of primary victors such as Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, and Carl Paladino. Having first pronounced them “unelectable,” they now are working to make their assessment a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But the Ruling Class Right is not only centered within the GOP.

For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce proclaims on its website: “As the voice of business, the Chamber’s core purpose is to fight for free enterprise before Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, the courts, the court of public opinion, and governments around the world.” Yet, in the face of the most far-reaching assault on our free-enterprise system since the New Deal by the current Democratic Congress, the Chamber has issued endorsements of at least ten Democrats.

And these endorsements include Frank Kratovil. Yes, the same Frank Kratovil who voted for Pelosi, for the “cash for clunkers” clunker, for the pork-packed “stimulus” flop, and for the “cap-and-tax” energy catastrophe. Nonetheless, he received the election endorsement of “the voice of business,” whose “core purpose is to fight for free enterprise before Congress.” And not only did the Chamber bestow its influential blessing upon Kratovil; it also granted him $168,841 to buy advertising to defeat consistent free-marketer Andy Harris. (“The new advertising,” reports the Baltimore Sun, “is part of a national buy of some $2 million by the Chamber on behalf of Blue Dog Democrats like Kratovil.”)

You might think the Chamber is rare in its unprincipled expediency. Guess again:

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which generally aligns with the GOP, has given its signature “Guardian of Small Business” award to 29 House Democrats in 2010, more than twice as many as it did in 2008. The recipients include some of the party’s most vulnerable incumbents, boosting their standing with a politically popular constituency. . . .

Democrats are touting the awards as evidence that counters Republican attacks that the vulnerable incumbents are lapdogs for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Obama administration. The party has similarly trumpeted endorsements for centrist and conservative members from groups like the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that traditionally back Republicans.

One of those “Guardians of Small Business” is — you guessed it — Frank Kratovil. Like the Chamber, the NFIB spurned Andy Harris to back a Democrat incumbent who supported Pelosi’s agenda 85 percent of the time.

It gets still worse.

The National Rifle Association, viewed by millions as a stalwart defender of constitutional principles, has endorsed a whopping 58 Democrat incumbents. Once again: “In Maryland, the NRA has endorsed freshman Rep. Frank M. Kratovil Jr., who will be one of the most vulnerable Democrats in November.” This, even though the group also gave Andy Harris an “A” rating on gun-control issues. However, to keep its “seat at the table” with Washington’s power elites, you see, the NRA prefers to support incumbents over challengers, in cases where they have similar voting records.

But in doing this, they fail to appreciate that the Second Amendment is part of a larger project known as the Bill of Rights, and an even larger one known as the U.S. Constitution. Torn from the context of the broader protections that this venerable document affords us against unlimited government power, the Second Amendment becomes far more endangered. Selling out the rest of the Constitution by supporting its political enemies, is not the path to protecting gun rights: You can’t defend the individual’s right to bear arms if you demolish the entire legal edifice that protects individual rights generally.

But to “pragmatic” lobbyists, this talk of principles is all “abstract theory.” They live down in the “practical” weeds of day-to-day political machinations.

Just as the NRA wears blinders concerning the “single issue” of the Second Amendment, business lobbies suffer from appalling myopia on “single issues” centering around production and trade. Indeed, too many business groups have become completely detached from the free enterprise system. Instead, they are run by and for “crony capitalists”: corporatist schemers who line up at public troughs for taxpayer subsidies and political favors, and who back or buy any politician willing to grant them.

That’s why these congressional mid-terms are such pivotal elections for our nation. This may be the last opportunity we’ll have to roll back “the statist quo.” But to do that, we’ll have to roll over, not just progressive adversaries, but alleged “allies” from the Ruling Class Right. We’ll have to defeat their efforts to keep vulnerable Democrats in power, by supporting truly principled candidates like Dr. Andy Harris.

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

The White House bully pulpit should be used to advocate for policies to benefit the American public.  Instead we’ve seen it used to inure benefits to political supporters and to wage campaigns against critics.

The National Endowment for the Arts call on August 10, 2009 is a prime example of how the Obama Administration has sought to reward its friends.  They invited “artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, tastemakers, leaders or just plain cool people” to advocate on behalf of the Obama Administration.  Buffy Wicks from the White House Office of Public Engagement used the call to express her “deep appreciation for all the work that you all put into the campaign for the two plus years that we all worked together.”  Ben Shapiro has revealed how this improper political call violated a slew of federal laws in a shallow attempt to reward Obama’s political supporters and enlist their aid in producing government sponsored propaganda.

While rewarding supporters the White House has also aggressively used the bully pulpit to attack and intimidate those who dare to offer a dissenting viewpoint.  These bullying tactics include singling out talk show hosts and engaging in a vicious campaigns against them.  Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has targeted Rush Limbaugh, Jim Cramer, and Rick Santelli.

The Obama Administration has also attacked Fox News calling it “a wing of the Republican Party.”  White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has been using her position extract revenge on Fox News for a grudge she still holds against the network resulting from its coverage of the Obama campaign.

Recently the Obama Administration has set its sights on the voice of business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The Administration has honed in on the organization for opposing the White House healthcare and climate change proposals.  The President has called their advertisements “completely false.”  He has made public statements criticizing the organization for its policy proposals and impact.  When viewed in light of the NEA call the lesson becomes clear, Obama welcomes your input as long as you agree with him.

The Obama White House isn’t winning on the issues.  Their fight for universal healthcare has not met with the approval of the American public.  They’ve had to enlist the help of the Obama Campaign machine which is now housed at the Democratic National Committee under the auspices of the Organizing for America banner to fight for the President’s policy proposals. 

While Organizing for America has advocated for the President’s policy proposals, Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emanuel have turned the White House into a powerful weapon used to quell political dissent.  Even the Left has to admit that President Bush had too much respect for the office to use it in such a distasteful manner.