As the Tea Party looks to codify and push its 2012 legislative and electoral agendas, a recent editorial by the Washington Examiner argues that the Tea Party would do well to make combating congressional insider trading its marquee legislative issue.

In a piece titled, “Tea Party ‘Outsiders’ Should Raise Hell About Insider Trading by Lawmakers,” the Washington Examiner’s editorial board argues that regardless of what happens with bills like the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act or the recently introduced RESTRICT (Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading) Act, Tea Party members of Congress can still take action by bringing complaints to the Ethics Committee.

From the Washington Examiner:

[Members of Congress] and members of their staffs are free to make millions on information they get by virtue of being in Congress, whether ordinary citizens like it or not.

That doesn’t mean, however, that complaints cannot be brought against them with the House and Senate ethics authorities for abusing the public trust or creating the appearance of conflicts of interest. And that raises an interesting question, particularly for Tea Party members of Congress: Why haven’t they filed such complaints, if for no other reason than to further highlight the hypocrisy of congressional ethics enforcement? Dozens of those Republicans who were elected in 2010, supposedly as “outsiders,” have been strangely quiet on this issue. What other issue more effectively illustrates the need to, as Schweizer pungently puts it, throw them all out and rid Congress of the stench of corruption?

Tea Party Republicans in Congress have also expressed frustration at their inability to reform federal spending, debt and entitlements. Their impatience is understandable, but the Constitution wisely forces reform movements like the Tea Party to win successive elections. Doing that requires continuously reminding voters of what must be done to fix things. Filing ethics complaints and publicizing them at every opportunity would serve that purpose admirably.

What’s more, writes the Examiner, the delays–some would say foot-dragging–over the complexities and intricacies of banning congressional insider trading are just that: dilatory tactics designed to muddle the issue and whisk it under the national carpet.

(more…)

As the Federal Election Commission (FEC) scans the political landscape scrutinizing tea party activist and most every other citizen who participates in this year’s federal elections, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) got a “a get out of jail free card” to ignore and flout campaign finance regulations.  At the FEC, the foxes are apparently already in the henhouse even before President Obama’s politically charged SEIU lawyer John Sullivan (Obama FEC nominee who was involved in Clinton-Teamsters-DNC campaign scandal) arrives to serve as one of six FEC commissioners.

It seems no matter where you these days it is easy to find another rule of law or procedure bent by this government to the benefit of SEIU.

FEC law specifically prohibits threats of financial reprisals in an effort to obtain PAC (Political Action Committee) contributions. Not only does SEIU threaten every local member that their PAC contributions must meet SEIU national Headquarters’ goal; SEIU brazenly made it a part of the union’s constitution.

Under this scheme, SEIU political planners notify each local of its PAC contribution goal.  If that PAC goal is not achieved, then the local receives a reduction in its allocation of forced dues money equal to the PAC shortage plus 50%. Looks like threats with financial reprisals.

(more…)

By now, readers of BigGovernment.com know that that the Democrats “Wall Street Bank” bill, which may get a final vote as early as this week, will reach far beyond Wall Street and ensnare businesses not typically thought of as “banks.” Stories here by this author and others have laid bare provisions of the Obama-Dodd-Frank-Everything’s-A-Bank bill that broadly define a “financial company” as any business “substantially engaged” or “significantly engaged”  in financial activities. And if your business happens to fall in such a category, it could be subject to a bailout “assessment” tax to bail out a high rolling financial firm, intrusive regulation by a banking agency or the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, or even outright nationalization if the troika of the Federal Reserve, Treasury Secretary, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation decide your firm is a threat to “financial stability.”

Trouble is, though its audience is growing by leaps and bounds every day, this site is still at the point in which not every American relies on it for essential political info. And because Republicans have done a mediocre job of explaining how far this bill would reach, and the establishment media largely has no interest in explaining these facts, supporters of Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s “Restoring American Financial Stability Act” have been able to get away with saying, “If you’re against this bill, you’re against reform of Wall Street.”

Or at least, that was the case until a couple days ago. That’s when Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) introduced an amendment with a straightforward message: A bill that claims to be about fostering transparency on Wall Street should itself be transparent in its objective and not sneak regulation on Main Street manufacturers and retailers.  Call it (and I just did) the Not-Everything’s-A-Bank Amendment.

Vitter has distinguished himself with his dedicated efforts in fighting for real financial reform.  He co-sponsored with self-proclaimed (but not necessarily sole) Senate socialist Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)a bipartisan amendment similar to the measure in the House bill to have the Government Accountability Office audit the Federal Reserve. When Sanders and others went for the Obama administration”compromise” of a one-time audit of a limited part of the Fed’s operation, Vitter carried the flag of Fed transparency.

(more…)

Martha Coakley’s campaign team began leveling charges against DC Democrats as it became increasingly apparent the wheels had fallen off her campaign wagon well before Election Day.  DC operatives, including those in the White House, of course, couldn’t withhold return fire.  Politico reports:

And in private conversations, Hill sources say White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has blamed Coakley, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake for failing to see Brown’s surge in time to stop it.

Coakley advisors, meanwhile, say DC operatives stepped in too late, so the blame lies with them.  A memo, obtained by Politico, said in part:

National Dems Failed to Aid Coakley Until Too Late

— Coakley campaign provided national Democrats with all poll results since early December

— Coakley campaign noted concerns about “apathy” and failure of national Democrats to contribute early in December. Coakley campaign noted fundraising concerns throughout December and requested national Democratic help.

— DNC and other Dem organizations did not engage until the week before the election, much too late to aid Coakley operation

(more…)

Across America community organizations operate in impoverished, disadvantaged, low-income or minority communities. No matter the phrase used to describe the special interest, a group exists to represent it. Often these organizations initially have good intentions and seek to give back and serve the community in which they operate. When government money, power and influence become part of the equation however, lofty principles tend to fall by the wayside. Other organizations are created to cause chaos and disrupt the system.

The Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was perceived by many as a well-intended organization, but it appears that the association that Wade Rathke founded was increasingly driven to cause chaos and disrupt the system whenever it could.

BEFORE the Dale Rathke embezzlement finally became last year, John Fund, in “Grapes of Rathke: ACORN, a liberal activist group, comes under scrutiny. About time,” reported: (more…)