Critics of the January 21 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, striking down McCain-Feingold’s ban on broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 60 days of an election, and upholding the rights of corporations and unions to make political expenditures, are trotting out their horror stories with increasing shrillness. Here’s the biggest horror story of them all:  the Citizens United  decision will allow foreign corporations - from China!  From North Korea! - to pour millions into our elections.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez said so this morning on ABC, and the President himself has made the claim,  “even foreign corporations may now get into the act.” 

Really?  No, not really. 

Senator Menedez said that Citizens United allows foreign corporations to spend in American elections because “a corporation is a corporation is a corporation.”  Nonsense. What the Supreme Court said is that you cannot prevent a corporation from speaking simply because it is a corporation.  Therefore, the justices struck down part of 2 United States Code Section 441b.  But a separate section of the law, 2 USC 441e, prohibits “foreign nationals” from contributing.  This section of the law wasn’t even at issue, let alone overruled.  Foreign nationals are prohibited from contributing because they are foreign nationals, not because they are corporations.  “A foreign national” is defined to include any “partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of, or having its principal place of business in, a foreign country.”

Now, this does leave open the possibility of a foreign owned company incorporating and locating in the United States, and then spending money here on politics.  But the definition of foreign national also includes non-resident aliens. And the FEC’s regulations (11 CFR 110.20(i)) provide that:

A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person’s Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.

In other words, no foreign national can play any role in decision about political spending and activities.   

So what is left?  Well, conceivably a group of foreigners could form a corporation in the U.S., headquarter it here, and then hire some permanent legal resident aliens (”green card” holders) to make decisions about spending its money.  That doesn’t seem to likely to be a successful strategy (and remember, wealthy aliens who live in the U.S. as lawful permanent residents are already able to make personal expenditures, and even direct contributions to candidates), but suppose it is - suppose a few corporations slip through the cracks?*

If this were really a worry, it could be addressed legislatively simply by broadening the definition of foreign national to include corporations with majority (or even some minority percentage of) foreign ownership.  Such a law might also be challenged on Equal Protection or Due Process grounds (aliens located in the United States do have certain rights) but if such a challenge were successful - a big if - it would be that case, not Citizens United, that opens the door to foreign money, and that case has yet to be filed, let alone decided.

So, does Citizens United open the door to foreign contributions?  No, not really.

When you hear the hysteria, take it with a grain of salt.  And remember, the government’s position was that under McCain-Feingold and the U.S. Constitution, the government could ban distribution of political books over Kindle, political movies distributed by video on demand, and the publication of books by Regnery and their sale by Barnes and Noble.  Really?  Really. 

Surely the Court got this one right.

*This is the unlikely, worst case scenario I was referring to in this little piece, which I found very disappointing for the author’s failure to catch my major point, that contributions by foreign corporations are already prohibited by other sections of the law.

Many other links to coverage of Citizens United v. FEC, can be found at the Center for Competitive Politics, www.campaignfreedom.org.

Bradley Smith served as Commissioner and Chairman of the Federal Election Commission from 2000 to 2005, and is now Chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and Blackmore/Nault Designated Professor of Law at Capital University Law School

C’mon, let’s be honest…  back in January and February, you all thought (I did too) that Obamacare would pass months ago.  You all thought (I did too) that Snowe and Collins and maybe more would vote for it. 

It’s easy for those who have never had their name on the door to chide and scold, to second guess and to quarterback from the easy chair.  But let’s face it - Republicans don’t have the votes, and they don’t have the ability to buy people off to get them.  Republicans lost this fight when Mark Begich (endorsed by Red State) defeated Ted Stevens; when Al Franken wrested away the Minnesota Senate seat; when the Washington Post pulled out all the stops to defeat George Allen in 2006; when Bob Smith lost a close one in Oregon in 2008; when Arlen Specter (cheered on by many on this site) crossed the aisle or, to go further back, when the GOP establishment helped him hold off Pat Toomey in 2004, since Toomey probably would have won the general election that year;  when John Sununu lost in New Hampshire; and when Kay Hagan defeated Liddy Dole (yeah, we got rid of a RINO!).  

McConnell (and John Boehner) have done much better this year than most any of us would have predicted at the start of the year, and more importantly, than just about anyone else might have done.  They simply don’t have the votes.  It is pointless to sit around second guessing when there are still opportunities to be fighting this bill.  There may be people who could have done better, but I doubt there are many, and I don’t think there are any in the GOP caucus.  I am sick and tired of GOP infighting, blaming, and recriminations. 

There are still chances to stop this bill.  Stay focused on the task at hand.

Time goes with Ben Bernanke as Person of the Year.  My choice, at Politico’s Arena, is the tea partiers. 

“Maligned by all the “right thinking” people, denounced by Democrats and liberals as ignorant and racist, abandoned by much of the conservative intelligentsia, these ordinary Americans persevered, devoting their personal time, standing in the cold and rain, to stand up against the massive government power grab now underway. In doing so, they gave the Republican Party courage enough to offer at least some reasonable resistence to the statist juggernaut, and they reminded America of its better part: the part that yearns for freedom; that despises the crony capitalism of the current administration; that seeks only to be left alone rather than to rule; that is law abiding and peaceful even when the Administration is full of tax cheats; that maintains its decency and manners even as the high-browed, ruling class falsely accuses it of fomenting violence and hatred.

“These people represent America at its best, dedicated, involved, and prepared to defend their freedoms from the arrogance of power in the face of unending ridicule and overwhelming odds. These are the descendents of the people who won American independence. Those who mock them would most assuredly have been Tories.”

The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has settled a case brought by a Republican who says he was denied the General Counsel’s job at the agency because of his political affiliation, according to a release yesterday by the government’s internal ethics arm, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC).  According to the OSC, the EAC paid “a substantial monetary settlement,” helping it to avoid “protracted litigation.” 

Under federal civil service rules, it is illegal to discriminate in hiring based on political affiliation.  In late 2008, the 4 EAC Commissioners (2 Republicans and 2 Democrats) agreed to hire the complainant as the Agency’s new General Counsel.  After that, according to OSC, two Commissioners (presumably the Democrats), discovered through their own research or from “contacts” that the Complainant was a Republican, and then nixed the appointment. 

One of those Democratic Commissioners, Gracia Hillman, is slated to become the EAC’s Chair in 2010.  The EAC, not to be confused with the Federal Election Commission, implements the Help America Vote Act, adopts voting system guidelines for local and state election officials, and certifies voting systems for use.

From 1953 through 1996, New York’s Fourth Congressional District, in suburban Nassau County on Long Island, was a Republican stronghold.  However, in 1992 Bill Clinton carried the district in the Presidential race in a Democratic breakthrough.  In 1994 Dan Frisa, a conservative Republican, defeated one-term moderate Republican David Levy in a primary challenge, but then held the seat with just 50.2% of the vote in the general election, despite the strong Republican tide that year.  Frisa was in turn defeated in 1996 by Democrat Carolyn McCarthy, a former Republicans and an ardent gun control activist who rose to public prominance after the death of her husband in the 1993 Long Island Railroad shooting.  McCarthy held off a tough challenge in 1998 and since then has won without great difficulty.  She won with 65 percent of the vote in 2006 and 62 percent in the strong Democratic year of 2008.  The district voted for Obama, 58-41 in 2008.

This might not look like fertile ground for a Republican takeover in 2010, but times may be a-changing.  Republican Ed Mangano appears to have narrowly defeated a two-term incumbent Democrat in the County Executive race this month, with the recount expected to conclude on Monday.  Had a spoiler Conservative Party candidate not claimed over 9000 votes, the race would not even be close.  Republicans also won a majority on the County Legislature for the first time in a decade, and unseated the Democrat County Controller.

Against this background, Frank Scaturro, a young, energetic, across-the-board conservative with the pragmmatic, problem solving style of Virginia Governor-elect Bob McDonnell, is challenging McCarthy in the 4th Congressional District race in 2010.  McCarthy’s last rating from the American Conservative Union was an 8.  Her lifetime rating is 20.  The NRA, not surprisingly, gives her an “F.”  Her last rating from the left wing Americans for Democratic Action was a 20.  McCarthy was first elected as a moderate former Republican, but has drifted steadily left in 13 years in Congress. In the current Congress she has voted the Democratic Party line more than 98 percent of the time, according to the Washington Post.  She voted “no” on the Stupak Amendment to the House version of the Obama-Pelosi healthcare bill, and then voted yes on the final bill.  This district is simply not that liberal, and McCarthy could be far more vulnerable than past election results suggest.

Scaturro was formerly Republican counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a position in which he helped shepherd through the supreme court nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito.  He is currently an Assistant Professor at Hofstra law school, teaching Constitutional law.  Human Events’ John Gizzi recently profiled the race.  You can donate or get involved here.

Scaturro can put this seat back in the red column, especially if, as now appears likely, 2010 is a strong Republican year.  This is the type of race Republicans need to get involved in early, stretching the Democrats defense to the breaking point.  Remember, early fundraising dollars matter most.

Ultimately, the biggest problem with nationalizing health care (let’s not kid ourselves, that’s what these bills do, and that’s the objective) is that it pits Americans against one another. In passage of the Stupak Amendment, the pro-choice lobby has just learned a bitter lesson (well, actually, they received a lesson, but I don’t think they learned it), which is that they may not get to control the benefit packages. This will be true everywhere, though. Under nationalized care, you want my grandmother to die (or at least we can say that you will benefit if my grandmother dies, and one’s desires tend to follow incentives), because your costs go up if she’s kept alive with expensive care. That other guy wants your baby to die (or be aborted - will Catholic Bishops learn the true lesson of their triumph this week when they have to decide on the final bill?) rather than live with birth abnormalities that require expensive health care. The reality of human nature, noted by Adam Smith more than 200 years ago, is that we take a prick on our own finger much more seriously than the deaths of thousands halfway across the world. Thus, the reality of government health care is that people will want theirs from the common pot, and they will vote to get it, whatever it does to their neighbors.

The more one digs into Tuesday’s election results, the worse they look for Democrats.  Let’s start by reviewing once again the three high profile races: New York’s 23^rd Congressional District special election, and the gubernatorial in New Jersey and Virginia.

The Democrats have to know that NY-23 was a fluke – they can’t count on gross Republican miscalculation in 2010.  Meanwhile, Democratic efforts to write off the New Jersey and Virginia losses by blaming them on bad candidates simply don’t ring true. 

In Virginia, Creigh Deeds was not a bad candidate.  In the primary, despite being vastly outspent, he hammered the powerful Terry McAuliffe.  He had the endorsement of the Washington Post, which argued that of three strong Democratic primary candidates, in the general election, “Deeds’ moderate platform would have the broadest appeal.”  On liberal blog sites, Deeds was the overwhelming favorite as the best candidate, the one most likely to win the general election.  

Jon Corzine was not a bad candidate, either – he could self-fund his race, an enormous advantage, and outspend any opponent 3 to 1, as he did to Chris Christie.  He had been elected statewide twice before.  What Corzine was, was a bad governor.  And why was he a bad governor?  Because he followed the same type of policies that the Democrats are now pursuing on a national level.  Maybe someone will notice that.

It has been noted lately that the Democrats plan to hold on next fall is to go negative, and to do so early – to “vaporize” opponents, as Harry Reid says.  But that is exactly what both Deeds and Corzine tried to do.  Corzine, who won by 11 points in 2005, lost by 4 this year.  Deeds, who lost to the same man in the attorney general race 4 years ago by fewer than 350 votes, this time lost by 18 percentage points.  Meanwhile, President Obama embraced and campaigned with both men.  Yet McDonnell won by the biggest margin for a Republican ever, and Christie by the largest margin for a Republican in 24 years.  Thus, the Democrats’ two key strategies to hold on in 2010 (other than pray for a better economy) failed miserably – Obama couldn’t save them, and relentlessly negative campaigning couldn’t save them.  These men were not bad candidates, as their past success and praise for them suggests – rather, they were running on bad issues in a time in which Democrats are increasingly blamed for the nation’s difficulties.

In the other Congressional special election, California’s 10^th District, Lt. Governor  John Garamendi won by 11 points after heavily outspending his opponent in a district won by his predecessor in 2008 by 34 points, in which Democrats have an 18 point edge in voter registration, and which Obama carried by 31 points.  Not much to crow about.

Down ballot, in races for lower offices, including state legislatures and mayors, it gets worse. 

Read More →

If you live out in California’s 10th Congressional District, east of the Bay, remember there is a special election today for Congress.  Democratic nominee John Garamendi has run an all out, down the line liberal campaign, including a hearty embrace of the most liberal health care reforms.  The district has been reliably Democratic for over a decade, and voted over 60% for Obama, but Republicans do win some down ballot races and the GOP candidate, David Harmer, has run a good, well-financed campaign.  Harmer is a solid conservative who once worked at the Heritage Foundation and has published with the Cato Institute.  A Harmer win would be a big upset, but it’s not at all inconceivable.  A win by Harmer - or even a strong showing - might do more than anything in the East Coast races to send moderate Democrats fleeing the Pelosi/Obama agenda.  If you’re out there, be sure to vote, make some calls, send some emails, and drag some friends to the polls to vote for Harmer.

I understand that for many conservatives, Chris Christie wasn’t the first choice for New Jersey Governor.  I understand that a lot of people have problems with the fact that Christie used to be pro-choice, and has only recently converted to a pro-life stance.  Doesn’t matter - if you live in New Jersey, do something - volunteer, donate, write a letter to the editor.  If you live elsewhere, send money. 

After Christie led all summer, this race has essentially become a deadheat, thanks to New Jersey’s Democratic electorate and Jon Corzine’s millions.  Corzine has outspent Christie about 10-1 over the summer, and is still outspending him about 3 to 1.  The polls are now showing this even.  Quinnipiac has Corzine up a point, his first lead in any poll this year.

A win for Christie is important, not only because he’d be a better governor than Corzine, but because a win will help in candidate recruitment, fundraising, and voter enthusiasm for the GOP.  The more signs there are that 2010 looks good, the more donors open their wallets, and potential candidates step up (meanwhile, the opposite happens to our friends on the Blue side of things).  So a Christie win is important for more conservative candidates in other races. 

Go here

Granville High Schools gave students a choice of watching the President’s speech or attending their regular classes.  We have a 17 year old, V, living with us this year:

Me:  Did you go to the speech?

V: No, I decided I did not want to hear Obama.

Me: How many kids went?

V: I would say most.

Me: What did the kids who went say about it after?

V:  Most of them just wanted to get out of class.

Marty Peretz of the New Republic is usually a thoughtful liberal.  I enjoy the New Republic.  That’s why I was rather stunned by this article.

Some parents don’t like the idea of the President beeming his image into every school in the country on Tuesday.  I think a lot of people have gotten carried away with criticizing the president on this, but I’ll admit that I dislike it, too.  I dislike it not because the President’s speech is too political, but because it is not political.  As I note here, the President really has  nothing to say about government policy.  Here’s the speech in a nutshell:  “Welcome back to school.  Stay in school, work hard.”  

My kids don’t need to hear that from the President.  This is a President who once again shows that he has no idea of the proper role of government.  If the President wants to talk about governmental affairs, great.  I’d love for him to stop by our school to do so.  That would be a great experience for the kids.  But I do not want the President trying to raise my children.  When people ask, “how can you object to the President urging kids to stay in school,” I ask them what they’d think if I stopped by their house one night, uninvited, to tell their kids how to behave.

But Marty Peretz takes the cake.  You know what Peretz thinks?  He writes, ”it is almost disloyal to refuse any children the right to hear him.  Disloyal and nutty.”  Well gee, Martin, thanks for the “almost,” at least on the first try.  

Where’s Hillary when you need her?

Thanks to the glories of YouTube, we can watch as the government mandates the destruction of perfectly good automobiles to “help the economy.”  Here is a very nice 1990s Dodge Dakota 4X4 being destroyed.  It is a much better vehicle than my pick up truck. 

This is a Corvette that looks to be in pretty good condition.  Black, pretty sharp car.  I’m sure there are a lot of young men crammed into 2001 Nissans who would have liked this car.

In this video, a ‘98 Cadillac DeVille with less than 80,000 miles meets its end.  Just 68,000 miles on this Chevy Caprice wagon.

A nice looking 2001 Mazda light truck with 75,000 miles bites the dust here.  Here’s a good looking Volvo prematurely destroyed.  This SUV would look at home in any tony U.S. suburb.

Really, you ought to look at at least a couple of these videos, and the hundreds more like them on YouTube.  Are these “clunkers?”  Can it really help the economy to destroy perfectly good assets?  Are the people running the government the most economically illiterate bunch since FDR ruled the roost?  Or are they dumber?

One element of the economy hit particularly hard by the recession has been the restaurant industry.  Superchef Gordon Ramsey’s restaurants are in a “free fall.”  The industry as a whole is facing especially lean times as people eat more at home.

Following up on the popular “cash for clunkers,” the government has created a plan to save the restaurant industry while attacking America’s growing obesity problem.  It’s called “Rebates for Recipes.”  Under the program, individuals can take a meal to a restaurant.  If they order a new meal at the restaurant that has at least 20 percent fewer calories, the government will provide a rebate of between $3.50 and $4.50 (depending on the savings in calories) for any entre priced at $45 or less.  The restaurant is required to destroy the trade in meal (which must be edible at the time you enter the restaurant) by putting it down the disposal.  Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “there is no end to cross subsidies with catchy slogans that we can create.  And destroying perfectly good assets seems to be a proven way to improve the economic health of the nation.”

Senate sources say they expect the projected cost of the program to treble within a week.

Earlier this year, at Supreme Court oral argument in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the government raised eyebrows by arguing that it believed that it can constitutionally ban the publication of books (if, as is always the case, the publisher is a corporation) that contain even one line arguing for the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.  The government based its belief on the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld a blanket ban on corporate political spending in order to prevent “distortion” of campaigns.  Faced with the full constitutional ramifications of Austin - for the government’s position flows naturally from Austin - the Supreme Court asked the parties to reargue the case on September 9, to consider whether Austin should be overruled.

Austin was based on the assumption that the government could limit some speech in order to enhance the voices of others, although the case tried not to frame it that way.  Rather, the Austin Court argued it was dealing with a “different type of corruption, the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth… .”  To most people, that sounds like an egalitarian argument, not one about “corruption.”  Which would be fine - it is perfectly acceptable to favor things on egalitarian grounds - except that the First Amendment to the Constitution appears to forbid the government from making such determinations.  As the Supreme Court stated in in the landmark case Buckley v. Valeo, “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment, which was designed ‘to secure “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources,”‘ and ‘”to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.”‘”

Thus, Austin has long been the odd man out in campaign finance jurisprudence, the case that doesn’t fit the mold.  And apparently the government now agrees, for rather than defend Austin, the government has apparently decided that the best defense is a good offense - in it’s brief, filed last week, it now argues that it not only can ban books published by corporations - it could ban books even if published by individuals.

As Richard Hasen notes, the government’s supplemental brief makes no mention of the “distortion” argument that underlay Austin. Instead, the government argues that it can regulate even independent speech because such speech might influence elections and might make officeholders feel some sense of gratitude to those who make such expenditures.  Such a rationale runs directly counter to Buckley and other Supreme Court precedents, including Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission and Federal Election Commission v. National Conservative Political Action Committee. The Buckley Court held that independent expenditures could not be regulated because, by nature being independent, there was less opportunity for an exchange of legislative favors, and because, simply put, allowing regulation of independent spending would carve a swath through the First Amendment too broad for even a Court writing in the immediate aftermath of Watergate to swallow.  Austin, clumsy and disingenuous as it is, nonetheless only alters that rule for corporations, and presumably unions.  Now the government seeks to alter the rule for all, allowing it to regulate all political speech that supports or opposes a candidate’s election.  Under the government’s proposed rule, not even actual gratitude is required before the government can limit speech - it is enough that the government thinks that in some cases legislators might feel gratitude.

If the Court was worried that Austin had no logical stopping place short of banning corporate published and distributed books and movies, we don’t think that the government’s new approach is going to be any comfort.  But hey, when you’re way behind and the clock is finally running out, why not throw the Hail Mary?

Cross Posted at Center for Competitive Politics, www.campaignfreedom.org.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that Campaign finance regulation (“reform”) limits the ability of citizens to speak on political matters, in apparent contravention of the First Amendment rights of speech, press, and assembly.  The only justification that the Supreme Court has recognized for upholding campaign finance regulation despite the limits it imposes on First Amendment rights is to prevent, “corruption or its appearance.”  Moreover, limitations must be “content neutral” — that is, not aimed at particular viewpoints.  “Reform” cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny if it is just an excuse to silence disfavored voices. 

I don’t think much of the anti-corruption rationale for upholding restrictions on political speech, on either theoretical or empirical grounds, but let’s let that pass today. In September, in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court will hear argument on whether to overrule Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that allows a complete ban on all corporate political expenditures.

Naturally, the “reform” community is up in arms. Why? Well, here is what Austin supporter Professor Rick Hasen, owner of the influential Election Law Blog, had to say in the immediate aftermath of the Court’s announcement on Austin:

If Republicans were wondering how their 2012 presidential candidate is going to compete against President Obama’s $600 million fundraising juggernaut, the Supreme Court seems poised to provide an answer: unlimited corporate spending supporting the Republican candidate, or attacking Obama.

Here is National Journal’s Eliza Newlin Carney, an ardent and long-time advocate of “reform:”

The bottom line: Already-influential corporations would win vast new powers — something that arguably couldn’t come at a worse time.

Campaign finance “reform” lobbyist Fred Wertheimer, President of the pro-regulation organization Democracy 21, expresses his concern that:

Overruling the Austin decision — and finding that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited sums of corporate funds to influence federal campaigns — would fundamentally undermine our democracy and change the character of federal elections. It would allow the immense wealth of corporations to drown out the voice of the American people.

Does this sound like these influential commentators are interested in “content neutral” legislation? Or does it sound like they want to silence a point of view that they associate with corporations, and, at least in Hasen’s case, with Republicans?

E.J. Dionne, The Washington Post’s syndicated Democratic columnist, adds similar thoughts:

[D]o conservatives on the court see an opportunity to fight the trends against their side by altering the very rules of the electoral game?

Is Dionne admitting that the law is intended to suppress pro-Republican voices?  Dionne goes on to quote Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): the ruling, says Schumer, “would dramatically change America at a time when people are feeling that the special interests have too much influence and the middle class doesn’t have enough. It would exacerbate both of these conditions.”

So it is about forcing disfavored (by Senator Schumer) influences to keep quiet?

Finally, to drive the point home, there is this timely diary titled “Can We Make Campaign Finance Reform a Priority Yet,” at the far left blog site, Daily Kos, posted July 12: When the voices of ordinary citizens compete with those of corporate lobbyists with big donations, we lose every time.

Again, a lot of assumptions there about what constitutes speech, the ability of voters to process information and make decisions, what voters “really” want, and who constitutes ”ordinary citizens” (certainly not the millions who own shares in corporations!), etc., but the bottom line seems to be pretty clear -what Professor Hasen, Carney, Dionne, Senator Schumer, and the Daily Kos’s anonymous diarist all agree on is that campaign finance restrictions are needed to silence the left’s enemies so the left can win political victories.  The fact that they call their opponents “special interests” and accuse them with unsubstantiated charges of “corruption” is merely an effort to camouflage that fact.

Judge Sotomayor has had many favorable things to say about campaign finance reform in the past.  Let’s hope she gets some questions on it this week.

The Connecticut Office of State Ethics (OSE) is poised to investigate and penalize the Diocese of Bridgeport for having the temerity to exercise at least four of the five sections of the First Amendment (religion, speech, assembly, petition).

The story begins earlier this year when Connecticut State Senator Andrew McDonald proposed legislation (S. 1098) that would have forced the Catholic Church, contrary to the church’s doctrine, to relinquish control of parish finances (for those from congregationalist traditions who may not be aware of the organization of Catholic Churches, the Catholic Church, by doctrine, is very hierarchical, with Bishops responsible for all the parishes within the bishopric, and those Bishops reporting on up the line, ultimately to the Vatican.  Unlike most protestant demoninations, local parishes exercise little governing control.  This is not merely an issue of secular control but one of theological doctrine deeply entwined in the Catholic Church’s views on the role of clergy, the papacy and the church in fulfilling God’s mission).  Naturally the church opposed this incursion into its governance and doctrine, with the Bishop urging Catholics to contact their legislators and the Church supporting a mass rally in the state capital.

So the state struck back.  From the American Spectator story by Lisa Fabrizio:

It seems that our Diocese of Bridgeport — which in March was forced to marshal the faithful to defend itself from unconstitutional government interference — was notified by the Connecticut Office of State Ethics that it is under investigation for possible violations of the state’s lobbying laws.

Bishop William Lori sent a letter to the OSE challenging the investigation. He describes the activity that led to the investigation:

Following the surprise introduction of Bill 1098, a proposal that singled out Catholic parishes and would have forced them to reorganize contrary to Church law and the First Amendment, our Diocese responded in the most natural, spontaneous, and frankly, American, of ways: we alerted our membership - in person and through our website; we encouraged them to exercise their free speech by contacting their elected representatives; and, we organized a rally at the State Capitol…

On April 23, 2009, the Diocese received a letter from Thomas K. Jones, Ethics Enforcement Officer for the OSE, stating that it was “the subject of an Office of State Ethics evaluation,” which was “being conducted to ascertain whether the Diocese had violated [Connecticut General Statutes Sections] 1-94, 1-95 and 1-96 by failing to register as a lobbyist in Connecticut, by failing to submit all other appropriate lobbyist filings, and by failing to follow all applicable registration procedures.”

The OSE claims the Diocese acted as a “lobbyist” by: participating in a March 11, 2009, State Capitol rally against Raised Bill 1098 (the unconstitutional attempt to reorganize Catholic parishes contrary to Catholic teaching and tradition); making statements on its website urging its members to contact their elected representatives to oppose Raised Bill 1098; and making statements on its website urging its members to contact their legislators to oppose another bill, Raised Bill 899 (regarding same-sex marriage).

The subtext to all this is that the underlying legislation itself appears to be retaliation for the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage (Sen. McDonald and lead Connecticut House sponsor Rep. Michael Lawler are both gay). 

It’s hard to imagine that in a country with the First Amendment protections we are supposed to enjoy, it should even be a matter of discussion whether it is legal, without government approval in advance, to hold a rally at the Statehouse and encourage fellow citizens to contact their elected officials. Such is the state of “reform” and “ethics” that we do in fact have to have these discussions.

(This post adopted w/ permission from a post by Sean Parnell at the Center for Competitive Politics.

I stopped briefly by the Columbus Tea Party, which began on the State House lawn at 6:00.  I’d estimate the crowd at about 1500 to 2000 and still growing, albeit slowly, at 6:45.  It was pretty easy to calculate that there were 400 to 500 on the State House steps, and from there estimate the numbers on the ground.  That struck me as a pretty good crowd for a weekday evening, with thoroughly rotten weather.  The temperature was in the low 40s, the sky completely overcast with a very light rain that kept a sort of steady mist in the air.  It was the kind of cold that chills you to the bone.  Has been like that all day in Columbus.

A couple other observations that stood out for me:

Read More →

Why has Tom Daschle been paid over $4.5 million in the four years since losing his Senate seat (not to mention his wife’s lucrative career as a lobbyist)? Because it is believed - correctly - that Tom Daschle can get you government contracts; or spare you from government regulation; or get the government to regulate your competitors.

This influence peddling is going to get worse - much worse - under the Obama regime. You can’t double the Federal government’s discretionary spending in one “stimulus” bill, and propose to nationalize health care (as Mr. Daschle wants to do), nationalize the auto industry (as has just about been done), nationalize the banks (already nationalized in all but name, with the President yesterday announcing plans to dictate their lending policies), and think people aren’t going to flock to Washington and pay big bucks to the Tom Daschles of the world to help them get their share of the loot.

These are not unintended consequences of the policies of big government. They are the essence of big government. The cash floating around Washington and being lavished on the Tom Daschles of the world is exactly what Democrats have longed for - money follows power.

Read More →

Richard Winger’s <a href=http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/12/09/republican-share-of-us-house-vote-is-lowest-for-either-major-party-since-1976/>Ballot Access News</a> has tallied up the total vote for the U.S. House.  The Democrats received 53.9%, the Republicans just 43.0%.  This is the lowest total for either party since 1976, when the Republicans won just 42.0% of the popular vote.  The last time the Democrats polled this low in the total vote for U.S. House was 1928.

Republican vote totals are also trending downward, from 50.6% in 2002 to 49.9% in 2004 to 44.8% in 2006, then this year’s 43.0%.  (In 1994, Republicans won 52.0% of the Congressional vote.)

In <a href=http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/12/11/us-senate-election-results/>Senate races,</a> Democrats won 52.1% of the vote, to the Republicans 44.6%.  Six years ago, when these same seats were up, the GOP candidates won 50.3%.

For 11 Governor’s races, the Democrats picked up 50.2% of the total vote to the Republicans’ 47.3%.

Obviously, the House statistics are most interesting, since they cover the country.  These numbers, of course, show real erosion and danger for Republicans.  But one can notice one upside: the last time the Democrats polled so low as this year’s GOP was 1928; four years later they elected Franklin Roosevelt in a landslide.  The last time the Republicans polled so low was 1976 - four years later they elected Ronald Reagan and won Senate control for the first time in 28 years.

Still, not a pretty picture.

Voters across the nation were asked to decide 153 state ballot measures on Tuesday. On balance, these results actually indicate an electorate that did not want a lot of “change.”

Lots of info on what passed and what did not below the fold.

Read More →