Free Markets, Free People

campaign finance reform


There’s a reason Nancy Pelosi is the least popular member of Congress

She’s dangerously thick but in a position of power.  This is the woman who attempted to redefine what it means to be Catholic (because actual Catholicism didn’t support her views on abortion).  She passed a piece of legislation called ObamaCare without even knowing what was in it.

Now she wants to redefine free speech.  Said Ms. Pelosi, while discussing Citizens United v. FEC (via The Rightscoop):

We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the roll of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns.

I think one of the presenters [at a Democratic forum on amending the Constitution] yesterday said that the Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration. Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.

Obviously she’s about as much a Constitutional Scholar as our President. 

The First Amendment pertains to freedom of political speech and requires Congress to “make no law …” that would suppress it.

Ed Morrissey said it best:

The best campaign finance reform is still transparency. If burning a flag in the street is free speech, then so are political contributions, especially when made in the open. If the reformers in Congress want to clean up elections, then force immediate reporting on the Internet of all contributions to all presidential, Senate, and Congressional races, and full weekly financial reports on expenditures. That will do more than all of the speech-restricting, unconstitutional efforts made since Watergate, and make the entire system a lot more honest.

That’s where she and the left should be headed with this (after this campaign season of course – they want all that slime to flow into their coffers for at least the rest of this year).

Bottom line, Ms. Pelosi – “Congress shall make no law …”.

What part of that don’t you understand?

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO


Dems start Super PAC. So much for the uproar over campaign finance reform and Citizen’s United

Remember all the hand wringing by Democrats about the overturning of campaign finance reform by the Supreme Court in the Citizen’s United case?   Remember the rebuke President Obama delivered during his State of the Union address which was met by a standing ovation from Congressional Democrats and a wince by Supreme Court justice Sam Alito?

Remember the harsh words thrown around like "fascism" and the attack on corporations which claimed they’d buy elections in the wake of that decision.  And, to complete our trip down memory lane, remember the DISCLOSE act Democrats came up with which they claimed would ensure corporations acted in a way Democrats approved and weren’t able to pump unlimited anonymous money into campaigns?

Well forget all that – Democrats didn’t really mean it and besides, they now have … Majority PAC.  POLITICO reports:

Top Democratic operatives are quietly building an aggressive campaign machine to battle huge Republican third-party spending and sway critical Senate races in 2012.

The strategists, including pros like longtime advisers to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are putting the finishing touches on a group called the Majority PAC, a “super PAC” that can raise unlimited money to attack or support candidates. It is modeled on the third-party operation, Patriot Majority PAC, which ran bruising TV ads against tea party candidates like Reid’s opponent, Sharron Angle, last year and mocked one of his prospective challengers, Sue Lowden, for suggesting she would be open to bartering chickens for health care.

The Majority PAC’s emergence comes at a pivotal time for Senate Democrats. Not only do they need to defend 23 seats to Republicans’ 10 this cycle, they also must woo Democratic donors alongside President Barack Obama, who is preparing for his own reelection bid in 2012.

The all-star team, already mapping out prospective targets, could emerge as the key attacker of Republicans in Democrats’ battle to hang onto the Senate in 2012.

While the Majority PAC will be required to disclose its donors, it will be affiliated with an organization that isn’t. So at least some of the money could hail from anonymous donors, a tactic Democrats bitterly decried last year.

Principles are lovely things except when they get in the way of politics.  Corporations are evil things, unless you want their money to win in politics.  And anonymous donors and unlimited money – well let’s just say that maybe opposition to Citizen’s United was a little over wrought -  now that Dems have had time to rethink this.

Hypocrisy?  Perish the thought, and revisit the point about principles.

~McQ


Campaign finance reform: be careful what you wish for Democrats

You’ve heard all the whining by Democrats about “outside spending” on election campaigns and the lecture of the members of the Supreme Court by President Obama during the last State of the Union address because they overturned the unconstitutional campaign finance law?  Their concerns, as they stated them, were about “outside spending” on campaigns.  That’s a Dem code phrase for “corporate spending”.  But as this election cycle is demonstrating, most of the “outside spending” for the mid-terms isn’t coming from corporations per se – it’s coming from public employee unions.

Of the top five “outside sources” of spending, three are pubic employee unions.  The top spender is The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees at 87.5 million dollars.  The next two are the Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads (Karl Rove).  Numbers four and five are the SEIU and NEA.  Of those five the two supporting Republicans has spent 140 million.  The public sector unions, committed to Democrats, have spent 171.5 million.

Asked about this here’s the White House response:

When asked about AFSCME’s ramped up campaign efforts following the court’s decision, the White House focused on largely anonymous campaign spending by what it termed "special interests."

"The president has been crystal clear that third-party groups which spend tens of millions of dollars from anonymous sources are a threat to our democracy—regardless of which candidates they support," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. He said these groups are disproportionately backing Republican candidates.

Yeah, not so much Josh.  And you have to wonder why “anonymous” sources are somehow more of a “threat to our democracy” than known sources like the AFSCME, SEIU and NEA?  And since when haven’t they been as much “special interests” for Democrats as they claim Big Business is for the GOP?

By the way, you’ll love this:

Previously, most labor-sponsored campaign ads had to be funded by volunteer donations. Now, however, AFSCME can pay for ads using annual dues from members, which amount to about $390 per person. AFSCME said it will tap membership dues to pay for $17 million of ads backing Democrats this election.

Nice.  Any guess as to whether union dues will rise next year since much of them are now being spent on political lobbying/campaigning/advertising?  And how does it feel to have your tax dollars indirectly supporting political advertising with which you don’t agree (and for those in the unions who don’t agree, their dues are directly supporting such efforts).

Back to the point of the title though – given these numbers, one wonders how much continued caterwauling we’ll hear from Obama and the Democrats with 2012 looming?

Yeah, not much.

~McQ


House Dems: No time for budget but plenty of time for campaign finance reform

The House of Representatives has a constitutional obligation to pass a yearly budget, through which it then appropriates money (taxes) for the business of government. Supposedly no budget, no spending.

But Congress has, over the years, hit upon a legislative convenience called a “continuing resolution” where it simply picks a figure from the sky, passes it and continues funding government sans budget. The only possible hope for stopping such a practice is a president who insists on a budget and promises to veto continuing resolutions.

That, of course, isn’t going to happen with this White House. No budget is going to be passed by Congress either – at least not until after November. And there’s a reason they’re engaging in this classic bit of nonfeasance. If they pass the budget they must before the November election, they’ll have to explain the trillion dollar deficit that is anticipated in the plan to their constituents. Can’t have that, can we?

On the other hand, they have plenty of time to try to pass campaign finance reform again. In fact, the House plans on taking it up on Thursday. When it comes to curtailing freedom the Democrats have an uncanny ability to rush things through – and especially if the legislation is likely to help them come November.

Congress – again ignoring the people’s business for the party’s business.

Last but not least, Democrats, knowing they have to either find a new revenue source in lieu of cutting spending have decided they’re not bound by President Obama’s tax vow.

I know, I know – you’re shocked, right?

~McQ

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet