Cross-posted at: Center for Competitive Politics

Responding to Obama on DISCLOSE Act

This Saturday’s weekly Presidential radio address was devoted to resurrecting the DISCLOSE Act, the bill designed to stifle free speech rights recognized by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision.

Reviewing the transcript of his comments, I had a few thoughts:

1. Most noticeable for its absence was any mention of unions. President Obama refers to corporations no fewer than 9 times in his comments, plus the insurance and banking industries. But there’s not one mention of unions, even though Citizens United freed them to speak on behalf of their members, a freedom they have embraced with gusto (and it’s not like the White House is unfamiliar with this spending). Given the claims by DISCLOSE Act supporters that this bill treats unions and corporations identically, President Obama’s focus only on corporations is yet more evidence that the DISCLOSE Act is specifically designed to stifle corporate political speech while leaving unions free to speak.

2. The White House is still peddling xenophobia, referring to the alleged danger that “foreigners” might influence elections. This despite the fact that current federal law and FEC regulations make it explicitly illegal for foreign citizens or entities to be involved in U.S. elections.

3. President Obama refers only to the intrusive disclosure elements of the DISCLOSE Act, except for one brief statement that the bill would restrict “foreign-controlled corporations and entities… from spending money to influence American elections.” Absent was any mention of the total prohibitions on political speech by thousands of U.S. companies that have government contractors contained within DISCLOSE, a prohibition that would silence many of the largest businesses in the country while leaving unions free to spend.

On a final note, I am increasingly alarmed by statements along the lines of this uttered by the President: “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide,” which I’ve heard several times in connection with the DISCLOSE Act and disclosure in general.

Is it just me, or does this sound like something out of one of those dystopian tales of the future, like 1984, where “Big Brother” spies on the activities of its citizens? Or where the Speaker of the House can instigate an investigation of those Americans who disagree with her? (oh wait, that last one is real, or at least she wishes it were)

Among the many protections of the First Amendment are the right to affiliate, coordinate, consult, and speak freely with fellow citizens that share your perspectives, priorities, and interests WITHOUT having the government investigate you or peer over your shoulders while keeping tabs on your activities. The chilling effect were it otherwise would simply eradicate free political speech, because the cost of speaking freely would be too high.

Imagine a campaign, for example, being required to reveal their inner discussions of strategy, issues, messaging, and other political matters. No campaign could operate effectively if every e-mail, memo, conversation, and other communication amongst staff, candidate, and supporters had to be disclosed.

Sadly, these are exactly the sort of protections for free speech that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and others seem intent on stripping away with their demands for greater and more intrusive disclosure and transparency justified by the notion that “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics

http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp

cross-posted at the Center for Competitive Politics

Word began to trickle out late last night that Senator Chuck Schumer had introduced a new version of the DISCLOSE Act , S. 3628, and was angling to get it on the floor for a vote on Friday, skipping having the bill considered in committee.

This morning we received a copy of the bill, and have just begun to look at it. At 116 pages, it’s unlikely that the bill is much improved.

What is quite likely is that the bill contains all sort of new special deals cut behind closed doors with interest groups, similar to the Shotgun Sellout struck with the NRA by the bill’s House sponsors. What is certain is that by skipping the committee process and trying jam through the DISCLOSE Act in only a few days, it will be almost impossible to find all the secret deals and hidden exemptions for favored political speakers.

Which is of course typical of the process followed so far for a bill allegedly about transparency and disclosure – write the bill in secret, locking Republicans out of the process while inviting lobbyists for privileged causes to help write the bill, cut special deals behind closed doors with interest groups in exchange for their promise not to oppose the bill, and introduce massive language changes at the last minute in order to avoid careful scrutiny of the bill.

And then the self-styled campaign finance “reform” community wonders why so many Americans don’t trust them and don’t believe that “reform” has anything to do with better government or fighting corruption. As I’ve said often of late, it’s like “reformers” just don’t have any sense of irony.

Maine’s two Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, appear to be the key to whether or not the DISCLOSE Act will pass. Both have so far indicated that they do not support the speech-stifling legislation, but if you’re a resident of the Pine Tree State it might not be a bad idea to contact your Senators and let them know your thoughts on the matter.

Sean Parnell

President

Center for Competitive Politics

Cross-posted at: Center for Competitive Politics blog

Late today comes word, courtesy of Politico, that a significant barrier to the Congressional Democrats’ efforts to stifle unwelcome political speech in the upcoming elections with the DISCLOSE Act has been removed. From the story:

House Democrats have reached an agreement with the National Rifle Association on campaign-finance legislation that would roll back the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, removing a major obstacle on the bill, according to House sources.

The deal would exempt the NRA and some other large organizations from strict campaign finance disclosures in the bill…

The new agreement would exempt organizations that have over one million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states, and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations, from the disclosure requirements. The NRA, with four million members, would fall into the exempted category…

For decades, the so-called campaign finance reform community has touted itself as on the side of the ‘little guy,’ bravely standing up to powerful ‘special interests’ to ensure ‘average Americans’ don’t have their voices ‘drowned out’ by big-spending groups. Groups like, for example, the National Rifle Association.

Apparently, though, Congressional Democrats are more comfortable with the idea of large, well-established interest groups speaking out in politics than they are with smaller, new organizations of citizens who might want to add their voices to political discussions.

Anyone who believed that so-called campaign finance reform was about protecting the voice of the ‘average American’ from ‘special interests’ is going to be in for a rather rude awakening when they see the Shotgun Sellout that Congressional Democrats have just negotiated with the National Rifle Association.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics

cross-posted at: Center for Competitive Politics blog

The DISCLOSE Act (Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections) by Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman Chris Van Hollen just keeps getting worse and worse with each reading.

Among the many deficiencies uncovered so far (crafted behind closed doors, favors the speech of organized labor while silencing the business community, designed by Democratic Congressional political leadership to enhance their election advantages, and ignoring that current disclosure requirements are more than sufficient) , another has recently come to light – the bill would impose significant restrictions on the right of citizens to speak freely on the internet about candidates.

William McGinley, a prominent campaign finance lawyer who testified at yesterday’s hearing on the DISCLOSE Act, noted during his oral testimony that “the broad reach of the new definitions of independent expenditure… and covered coordinated communications… now appear to regulate internet communication, including the liberal and conservative blogosphere.”

McGinley went on to note that the DISCLOSE Act’s media exemption provisions does not include web sites or internet communications in the same manner as current law, which does protect political speech on the internet from government regulation and restriction. He concludes that “this legislation does not exclude bloggers or internet communications, and places them at risk. If this bill passes, the internet’s status as a free-speech zone is in danger.”

You can check out McGinley’s testimony at the Committee on House Administration’s web site. His comments on regulation of political speech on the internet begin at around 34:30.

Analyzing this so-called campaign finance “reform” bill, I keep feeling like that boy in the room with a shovel, looking for the pony…

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics

cross-posted at: The Center for Competitive Politics

So, lots of people are concerned about the current health care reform proposals being considered in Congress. Shouting down Members of Congress, fisticuffs between those opposed and those in favor of the current proposals, accusations that those opposing the proposals are somehow “un-American” – this, it seems, is the messy part of free speech. Messy, but vital (well, maybe not the brawling).

This messiness apparently provides an opportunity for the so-called campaign finance “reform” community to jump in with their latest effort to restrict citizens’ First Amendment rights, this time in the guise of disclosure for the funding of grassroots lobbying.

Apparently, it is possible that some of the American citizens showing up to voice their displeasure with the health care reform proposals are being urged to do so by business groups and Republican/conservative/libertarian-leaning organizations. And this is, apparently, troubling to some. The Hill reports in “Town halls underscore grassroots secrecy, critics say:”

Lobbyists have to register their activities and expenses with Congress, but well-funded grassroots firms don’t — a fact that aggravates watchdog groups.

Those groups that use increasingly sophisticated tools to gin up public outrage or support for an issue have to disclose little about their activities. That means hundreds of millions of dollars being spent to influence the political process goes unreported.

…the lack of transparency in grassroots advocacy has been underscored anew by the difficulty in determining if the outrage over healthcare reform expressed in recent town hall meetings is genuine constituent anger or manufactured angst with the help of businesses and interest groups whose bottom lines could be hurt by the reform push.

“This goes below the radar. We don’t know who is behind it or who pays for it. We don’t know how much of it is happening,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group that had lobbied for more disclosure in 2007…

Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), backers of the disclosure provision, said they were targeting “AstroTurf” campaigns in which big-money interests use phone banks, computerized fax systems, TV and radio advertisements and direct-mail campaigns to create the impression of public support…

Given the limited disclosure rules, it is impossible to estimate just how much is spent on grassroots advocacy, real or fake… It seems certain, though, that the grassroots advocacy business is booming… the success the Obama campaign had in turning citizens who hadn’t been particularly politically active into campaign donors has showcased the opportunity to build an army of support relatively quickly.

The answer to the problem of American citizens showing up to voice their concerns to their elected representatives is, apparently, to try to stifle those groups encouraging this sort of reckless and unwanted civic participation. So, regulation of grassroots lobbying (something CCP was instrumental in opposing, see Grassroots Lobbying Proposals Ignore Constitutional Protections for Anonymous Speech, Grassroots Lobbying Proposals Seem Not to Further Congress’ Interest in Correcting Lobbying Abuses, and Congressional Testimony: Grassroots Lobbying Disclosure) appears to be making a comeback.

All of this talk of the “secrecy” surrounding grassroots lobbying and a lack of “transparency” regarding groups trying to influence politics and speak to fellow citizens makes me think of COINTELPRO, the old J. Edgar Hoover program to spy on those Americans who were considered troublesome due to the causes they promoted with their First Amendment rights.

For those of you unfamiliar with these early efforts to keep tabs on the political activities of anti-war groups, civil rights protestors, socialists, and other malcontents, a quick search online finds some great resources. Here’s one book:

Assault on the Left: The FBI and the Sixties Antiwar Movement

A sad chronicle of the government’s spying on citizens exercising their First Amendment rights. In 1939… President Roosevelt pressed FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to investigate “sabotage, espionage, and subversive activities.” …Hoover concerned himself largely with the third sphere, compiling dossiers on millions of Americans who harbored socialist sympathies or protested the governing policies of the era. In 1956, President Eisenhower authorized increased surveillance of suspected radicals… With the rise of the antiwar movement in the 1960s, the anti-subversion elements of the FBI embarked on their elaborate, and infamous, COINTELPRO operation, which extended breaking and entering to new heights: infiltrating leftist organizations with paid informants and agents provocateurs who encouraged peaceful groups to engage in terrorism; writing anonymous letters to fellow travelers, parents, and prospective employers charging leftists with illegal activities; targeting prominent dissidents with smear campaigns…. The COINTELPRO operation ultimately failed…and it did nothing substantial to halt the antiwar movement, which managed to stage some of the “largest mass demonstrations ever seen in the western hemisphere” despite the FBI’s best efforts.

Nowadays, of course, “reformers” don’t urge anything so crass as government infiltration of those groups who dissent from whatever orthodoxy they approve of. Instead, “reformers” simply demand that citizens self-report their dissent and their political activities, and threaten them with financial ruin if they don’t properly confess their nefarious efforts to exert “influence” with elected officials and the public.

I do not believe that this is progress.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org

cross-posted at: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog

Our gaze doesn’t often leave the U.S. of A. in terms of commenting on speech restrictions in other countries. When we do, it’s often with a mixture of relief and concern.

Relief because we see that even as difficult as it is here in the U.S. to speak out in politics thanks to so-called campaign finance “reform,” there are places where it is far more difficult to voice certain opinions that are contrary to the government-approved orthodoxy. Concern because we see the road down which we may be headed (and that many urge we go down), and it is not one that embraces the notion that citizens have the right to express themselves on controversial issues.

Some time ago I blogged briefly about the kangaroo court show trial of Canadian newsmagazine Maclean’s, hauled before the Canadian Commission on Human Rights for the offense of running several articles and columns that were apparently, well, offensive to some parts of Canada’s Muslim community.

Ultimately the charges against Maclean’s were dismissed, in all three tribunals that heard the matter (provinces have their own Human Rights Commissions, and two of them also considered complaints against Maclean’s on the same issue). Others have not been so lucky – a pastor was fined and told he could never again speak out, write, or publish comments that might be seen as “disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.”, and other Canadian citizens are routinely harassed and forced to justify their speech to the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the provincial equivilants.

Needless to say, this sort of trampling of political speech has raised the ire of many of our northern neighbors with a fondness for free speech. They have, to put it kindly, called into question the legitimacy and rationale for the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s practices and even existence.
For example, Ezra Levant – himself no stranger to the speech-suppressing ways of the Dominion – roughly a year ago had this to say on his blog site:

I think I was unfair to Lori Andreachuk, the thug on the Alberta “human rights” commission who recently ordered a pastor to publicly renounce his religious faith. Yes, Andreachuk is a bully. Yes, she is a destroyer of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and an underminer of justice. Yes, she is positively un-Canadian in her values. Everything I said about her was true. But I think I left the implication that her fascist decision was hers alone. It wasn’t.

It was a direct result of her boss and political patron, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach…

Levant also helpfully provides Stelmach’s e-mail address for his readers to contact the Albertan Premier

Well, Canada’s empire of speech suppression has struck back, as George Lucas taught us empires are fond of doing. Apparently, all this criticism of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their ways have led to a – drumroll, please – “chilling” of free speech in Canada.

At this point it seems important to note that, just like Dave Barry, I am not making this up. I’ll let today’s National Post editorial explain the bizarre thinking here:

Monday in Montreal, Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), launched a counterattack against critics who, over the past couple of years, have suggested the commission is out of control and should have its power to investigate alleged hate speech taken away from it…

[Lynch] also claimed that those who accused the CHRC and its provincial counterparts of “chilling” free expression with the prosecutions of writers such as Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were themselves guilty of “reverse chill.” Harsh criticism of the commissions in the media had discouraged many of their supporters from coming forward to defend their missions, she said. Others who were brave enough to speak out had been subjected to withering personal criticism in opinion pieces and letters to the editor, so much so that “50% of interviewees for an upcoming book on human rights have stated that they feel ‘chilled’ about speaking up.”

The thinking of Lynch is almost beyond my ability to mock.

Regrettably, too many Americans in the wake of the murder of controversial abortion provider George Tiller and the attack on the Holocaust Museum are urging that America similarly enact laws and policies to quell “hate” speech, similar to what Canada does. DailyKos and the Huffington Post, popular political blogs with a left-leaning orientation, are both filled with calls to prosecute people they identify has having “incited” these attacks with “hate” speech, primarily conservative and populist radio or television hosts – Limbaugh, O’Rielly, Beck, and others. There are also demands that anyone making “hateful” comments be banned from broadcasting.

While there is little doubt that some truly disgusting things get said, both on the left and the right, it is important to recognize that stifling free speech is not an acceptable answer. Giving government the power to decide what speech constitutes “hate” speech can only lead to suppression of controversial political speech, an unconscionable infringement of the First Amendment. And that is something that should concern everyone.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org

cross-posted at: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/

The main headline was innocuous enough: “Clarksburg Councilman Arrested.”  Okay, we thought, it’s unfortunate, but elected officials all too often find themselves subject to the criminal justice system just like their constituents from every other walk of life.  Maybe they had a few too many before hitting the road, had a domestic dispute or whatever.

But what really caught our eye — what we couldn’t believe — was the sub-headline: “Councilman Martin Shaffer was arrested for his role in producing a newsletter.”  And, our disbelief only grew as we read further and further into the article.

You see, not only did the “Clarksburg Police Department, working in conjunction with the [West Virginia] Secretary of State’s Chief Investigator,” arrest a city councilman “for his part in the distribution of a newsletter titled “Clarksburg City Council News,” but also that arrest took place on the eve of an election — albeit an election in which Councilman Shaffer was not a candidate because his term does not expire for two more years.  To add to the drama, the councilman’s arrest was prompted by an investigation called for by his well-known political adversary, City Manager Martin Howe.

In other words, this sounded like the most egregious of official retaliations against disfavored political speech.  And, despite our disbelief, both the reported facts of the story and illegitimate rationale for the arrest appear to be exactly what happened late last week.

Specifically, Councilman Shaffer was charged with violating, as well as conspiring to violate, West Virginia Code Section 3-8-12(a), which states: “No person may publish, issue or circulate, or cause to be published, issued or circulated, any anonymous letter, circular, placard, radio or television advertisement or other publication supporting or aiding the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.”

In other words, Councilman Shaffer is being prosecuted for being part of anonymously speaking to his fellow citizens of Clarksburg about what is going on in their local government.

The anonymous publication at issue, Volume 1, Issue 1 of the “Clarksburg City Council News”, is a critical look at the City of Clarksburg’s government and all of its alleged management, financial and ethical failings.  There are articles with headlines like “Governor Manchin Shocked over $5,000,000 Cost to City Parking Lot”; “Clarksburg has some of highest paid employees in State; Clarksburg citizens pay the highest taxes in State”; “Councilman Lopez enjoys life at city expense”; “Councilman Hunt spends $4,695.75 on trip to Switzerland”; and even an “Editorial” that explains, “This newsletter is a collection of many instances of failed leadership by officials in Clarksburg that have had a direct effect on the citizens of the city.”

Thus, it’s not surprising that the apparent powers-that-be in Clarksburg didn’t take too kindly to such a publication being mailed to 4,000 homes where their constituents live.  But that doesn’t provide the powers-that-be the ability to prosecute anyone who might dare to publish and distribute the dirty case against their continued reign.

At least in the America we know and love, disliking a political message isn’t a reason to punish it, especially through a criminal prosecution.  Indeed, CCP is not alone on this as both the Supreme Court and a federal district court in West Virginia have issued rulings protecting anonymous political leaflets and newsletters under the First Amendment — even when they are published around election time.

Indeed, a federal district court in West Virginia permanently enjoined the specific statute — albeit an earlier version — under which the charges against Councilman Shaffer have been brought back in 1996, see West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 960 F. Supp. 1036, 1041-43 (S.D. W. Va. 1996), leaving us to wonder just how carefully the local police department, prosecutor’s office and even the state Secretary of State’s office were in allowing these charges to be brought in the first place.

This situation, once again, reminds us that far too many people — including those who have taken solemn oaths to uphold the law — still don’t understand the basic fundamentals of our free and democratic political system.  After all, as the Supreme Court explained in a decision concerning a woman fined for distributing anonymous pamphlets opposing a proposed school tax levy: “Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent.  Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.   It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society.”  McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995).

It’s a lesson we hope the powers-that-be in the City of Clarksburg and the State of West Virginia learn well and soon.

written and posted to the blog of the Center for Competitive Politics by Reid Cox, Legal Director.

Sean Parnell

President

Center for Competitive Politics

http://www.campaignfreedom.org

Cross-posted at http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog

 

The online version of The American Spectator reports today on the efforts of the Connecticut Office of State Ethics (OSE) 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 makes us very pleased that we led the fight against so-called “grassroots lobbying” regulations  that were stripped out of legislation that passed Congress in 2007, because it would have enabled exactly the type of harassment and abuse that appears to be going on here.

From the 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).

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.

Sean Parnell

President

Center for Competitive Politics

http://www.campaignfreedom.org

Concerns about Obama administration using campaign contribution disclosure reports to target Republican-owned auto dealers for closure are almost certainly not true.

cross-posted at: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/

Last week I wrote about Doug Quelland, a Republican state legislator in Arizona who is in danger of having the Arizona Clean Elections Commission nullify the voters’ decision and toss him out for allegedly failing to comply with the rules of Arizona’s so-called clean elections program. In that post I wrote about my concerns regarding this effort to deny the voters in Arizona’s 10^th District the person they elected to office.

Those concerns remain, but yesterday I saw a news article on the case that adds an interesting (amusing?) twist to the story – Doug Quelland, you see, is described in this article as a “champion” of the “clean elections” program. He is also described as someone in hot water over his apparently false testimony to the Clean Elections Commission:

Clean Elections champion under scrutiny over contract

New evidence presented to the state’s Clean Elections Commission appears to contradict a key defense of state Rep. Doug Quelland in a case that could cost him thousands of dollars in fines and possible loss of his seat.

Quelland, R-northwest Phoenix, has denied allegations that he failed to report a $15,000 contract he signed with campaign consultant Larry Davis – a violation of the state’s public-financing campaign laws.

Quelland said he hired Davis in March 2007, but only briefly, firing him within 48 hours. He said he disagreed with Davis’ proposed campaign tactics and never paid Davis a dime, even though their contract included a $2,000 termination clause.

But Davis late last week produced bank records that show he deposited a check for $2,000 from Quelland’s business, Q-Land Enterprises Inc., into his Compass Bank account on May 1, 2007. That is nearly two months after Quelland said he cancelled his contract with Davis…

Quelland repeated his assertion that he did not violate the state’s public-financing laws – which he has championed – when he testified before the Clean Elections Commission last week.

And allegations that “clean elections” champion Quelland may have engaged in some shenanigans in his pursuit of office are not confined to the dispute over the Davis contract. Margarite Dale was the Green Party candidate in Quelland’s district, funded by “clean elections” taxpayer dollars. A month ago, we noted a report by the Phoenix News on the games being played at taxpayer expense:

Arizona Progressives Slam “Clean Elections” Program

…Far more insidious is the very strange case of Margarite Dale, [a] housewife turned Green Party candidate.

When Dale filed papers to run, [Democratic candidate Jackie] Thrasher thought it was no big deal. “I saw a Green candidate had filed, and I thought, ‘Good for them,’” she says. “Having a number of options and a number of different candidates, that’s how it should be.”

Until, that is, Thrasher got a call from a real Green Party activist. Celeste Castarena told Thrasher that she and her fellow party members had never heard of Margarite Dale. When they did a little research, Castarena reported, they’d learned that Dale had changed her voter registration to Green just days after the Greens qualified for Clean Elections funding.

Prior to that, Margarite Dale had been a Republican.

… On the ballot, Dale was still listed as Green Party. And, because real Green Party volunteers had earned Clean Elections status for their party, Dale was awarded a massive infusion of funds. Simply by registering as a Green candidate and gathering 200 token contributions, Dale was granted $68,531 in public money for her “campaign.”

Evidence suggests that Dale’s candidacy was the ultimate dirty trick – a dastardly plot by the Republican candidates to siphon votes from Thrasher…

[Dale]… got 2,358 votes… enough to make a difference. Jackie Thrasher lost her House seat by a fraction of that – just 553 votes.

Thrasher, Dale, and Quelland were all candidates in the 10^th District. It’s not terribly implausible to believe that Dale’s apparently faux Green Party campaign, funded by the “clean elections” program, siphoned off some votes from Thrasher, perhaps even enough to tilt the election to Quelland.

Quelland is apparently such a fan of “clean elections” that he appeared on NOW with Bill Moyers touting the program. From the show description:

… Airing less than three weeks before Americans go to the polls, “Votes for Sale?” will spotlight the so-called clean elections movement, a radical public-funding experiment adopted in Maine and Arizona to revolutionize how campaigns are conducted…

Pushing special interest money out of the election process may do more than clean things up. It could also open the door for a variety of people who care about democracy to run for office with realistic hopes of winning. Case in point: Arizona State Representative Doug Quelland, a conservative Republican who supports clean elections by his own example. With a background in public school teaching and running a handful of neighborhood businesses, including a lawnmower repair shop, Quelland captured voter interest door-to-door armed only with his passion and point of view. He’s now running for his third term in the state legislature… “I don’t want to owe anybody anything. I don’t want to have to have the special interests. I just want to do it and not beholden to anybody,” Rep. Quelland told NOW.

Well, Quelland is and always has been beholden to the voters of the 10^th District, and he may now owe them an explanation and an apology. While it’s still extremely troubling that the Clean Elections Commission appears ready to remove an elected official from office, rather than letting voters decide who will represent them, it’s hard to feel much sympathy for “clean elections champion” Doug Quelland.

No, the people to feel sympathy for are the voters of the 10^th District, who thanks to “clean elections” have been deprived of an honest campaign and election, with the shenanigans paid for with public dollars.

Sean Parnell

President

Center for Competitive Politics

http://www.campaignfreedom.org

sparnell@campaignfreedom.org

Cross-posted at: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/

The AP reports this morning that Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Commission is considering tossing a state legislator out of office, thereby nullifying the will of a majority of voters in his district. If removed, this would be the second case in which the Citizens Clean Elections Commission has removed a legislator from office.

From the article:

Campaign finance case could oust Ariz. legislator

A state legislator is accused of illegally and secretly augmenting his public campaign funding with private cash to pay an election consultant. With the consultant saying it’s true and the legislator denying it, a state official says “someone is lying.”

The outcome of the case pending before the state Citizens Clean Elections Commission will decide whether Rep. Doug Quelland, R-Phoenix, is ousted from his state House seat and face hefty fines.

As is to be expected in such cases, many of the facts are hotly disputed and even the members of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission acknowledge that this is a difficult case:

…the case is “as clear as mud,” Commissioner Jeff Fairman said at the conclusion of a three-hour meeting Thursday during which the commission was scheduled to act on the allegations.

“I agree it’s a mess,” said Commissioner Louis Hoffman. “Clearly someone is lying here.”

…commissioners said they were troubled by the conflicting testimony they and their investigators heard…

“Everything is a mess,” said Commissioner Lori Daniels, a former legislator.

Ultimately, an appointed commission will have the authority to decide whether Doug Quelland is suited to sit in the Arizona legislature. I always thought that responsibility rested with voters, but I guess under so-called clean elections programs that’s not the case.

Something to ponder for those considering the Fair Elections Now Act, which would do institute a similar taxpayer bailout of politicians.

Sean Parnell

President

Center for Competitive Politics

http://www.campaignfreedom.org

sparnell@campaignfreedom.org

 

For more on taxpayer financed political campaigns, see also:

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/more-fantasy-than-fact-in-fair-elections-now-act

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/what-will-24-million-in-new-york-citys-taxapyer-financed-campaigns-get-you

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/northeast-clean-elections-advocates-plot-strategy-in-new-jersey

 

Last week US News & World Report offered competing op-eds by Bill Press and Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) on whether the so-called “fairness doctrine” should return to talk radio. Predictably, in his call for bringing the “fairness doctrine” back, Press had a number of – interesting, shall we say – statements. First up was his statement that “nobody” is calling for bringing back the “fairness doctrine.” I don’t know about you, but I think I’d feel vaguely insulted at being called a “nobody” if I were a United States Senator who had gone on the Bill Press Show within the past two months and called for a return of the “fairness doctrine (see Sen. Debbie Stabenow discussing the “fairness doctrine” here, and also Sen. Tom Harkin a few days later also supporting the “fairness doctrine,”).

The comments by Press that “nobody” is calling for a return of the “fairness doctrine” are also curious because Press himself wrote an op-ed calling for the return of the “fairness doctrine” in the Washington Post around the same time.

Read More →

I noted back in January that the Clean Elections Institute in Arizona may be forced to close because it was facing financial difficulties. The Clean Elections Institute, you may recall, was founded specifically to defend the Copper State’s almost indefensible “clean elections” program.

The other day came news that the Clean Elections Institute had failed to raise the money they needed to stay open, and will be closing. From the Arizona Capitol Times:

The Clean Elections Institute closed its office, shut down its Web site and stopped issuing paychecks to staff members after an emergency fundraising effort came up short.

The root of the problem, apparently, was the decision by a Clean Election Institute major donor to not renew a $50,000 gift.

I commented earlier on the irony of a group supposedly founded to “get money out of politics” discovering the importance of having enough money to promote a political agenda. Campaign finance limits of course had nothing to do with the Clean Election Institute’s fundraising troubles, by all accounts the tough economy was behind their difficulties (and I can sympathize).

But I wonder if any “clean elections” advocates, at least in Arizona, are now pondering the implications of what “angel contributors” for candidates mean? I often cite the example of “Clean” Gene McCarthy, who launched an utterly futile campaign against President Lyndon Baines Johnson for the Democratic nomination in 1968, a campaign that suddenly became very real when a handful of very wealthy liberals wrote sizeable checks to his campaign. Checks that would today be wildly illegal, under so-called campaign finance “reform.”

How many candidates would benefit from “angel contributors” who might spot promising citizens who don’t have the name ID and the party establishments behind them, but with a large gift could compete with entrenched incumbents and celebrity candidates? How many Gene McCarthy’s have never gotten started because raising money at $1,000 a person is just too impossible a task if you don’t already have a list of donors and the backing of the party?

Some may argue that under “clean elections” the government serves the role of an “angel contributor,” providing substantial funding to those who have trouble raising enough money to run a viable campaign under contribution limits.

But the reality is that a true “angel contributor” looking to contribute a substantial sum to a candidate would almost certainly, just like a venture capitalist, conduct considerable vetting and evaluation of the candidate before contributing a large amount that would help kick-start a campaign. After all, it’s their money, and a lot of it, so it is in their best interest to make sure they aren’t handing out money to cranks and crackpots.

Under “clean elections,” at least in Arizona, only 220 citizens need to be willing to give $5 to someone for them to qualify. This level of vetting, while better than nothing, doesn’t approach the level of scrutiny a candidate would face from a handful of potential major donors willing to bankroll a candidate in the start-up phase of a campaign, and possibly beyond.

In a previous post, Arizona Progressives Slam “Clean Elections” Program, I linked to an article by the Phoenix News, The Dirty Truth about “Clean” Elections (warning: language!), that reports on many of the shenanigans that have occurred under the incredibly low level of scrutiny given to candidates. As the article reports:

Anyone who delights in the lurid minutiae of Arizona politics can tell you the story of Yuri Downing, Trevor Clevenger, and Paul Donati, a trio of young Scottsdale residents who registered to run as “clean” libertarian candidates in 2002, only to blow $86,000 on stuff like sushi and drinks at Sanctuary.

The three claimed that they were running a campaign designed to target ASU students and other disenfranchised voters. They had to hang out at places like RA Sushi and O Lounge because that’s where the voters are, they claimed.

It’s hard to imagine a serious “angel contributor” falling for a scam like this, and at least if they did it would be their own money and not the taxpayers’ that was frittered away.

Well, the Clean Elections Institute lost their “angel contributor,” and now perhaps has a better understanding of the vital role that money plays in advancing a political message and agenda. A tough lesson, and one I suspect they will fail to grasp, sadly.

Sean Parnell

President

Center for Competitive Politics

http://www.campaignfreedom.org

sparnell@campaignfreedom.org

 

(cross-posted at the blog of the Center for Competitive Politics)

 

 

Looks like another progressive radio operation has folded, this time Nova M, founded by former Air America founders Sheldon and Anita Drobney. My prediction, this will be used as yet more “evidence” of the need for a return of the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” (I have a custom Magic 8-Ball that I use in these situations for guidance).

According to Brian Maloney of the Radio Equalizer web site, Nova AM is closing its doors:

Libtalk network Nova M Radio has been shut down, according to the attorney for Randi Rhodes, Robert V Gaulin of New York.

Moments ago, Gaulin sent this letter to your Radio Equalizer:

Randi Rhodes’ on-air home for less than a year will shut its doors. In an email message of February 17th from counsel for Nova M Radio, Inc. to Randi’s entertainment attorney, Robert V. Gaulin, the company is said to have been advised to file for bankruptcy protection next week. All payroll deposits were reversed on Tuesday, leaving Nova’s employees unpaid for the past two weeks.

First Amendment fans have seen more and more calls lately for the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” which would put political speech on talk radio under the thumb of government bureaucrats, overseen by political appointees.

One of the claims of “Fairness Doctrine” advocates is that progressive talk would succeed on the radio if only it wasn’t relegated to low-powered radio stations. A quick look at the stations carrying Nova M programs, however, would seem to refute this charge.

Nova M didn’t own or manage any stations, instead they syndicated progressive talkers to radio stations (Air America, on the other hand, owned or managed stations). They syndicated their two hosts, Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy, to 32 stations (according to Nova M’s list of affiliates). Among these stations:

KABQ (Albuquerque, MN), 5,000 watts, covering the Albuquerque area (reception outside the population center can be an issue, according to the Wikipedia entry – but not being able to reach sparsely populated areas shouldn’t be a problem, now should it?)

WPEK (Asheville, NC), 5000 watts, this is a Clear Channel station (you know, one of those big corporate media conglomerates that keeps progressive talk off the air)

KUDO (Anchorage, AK), 10,000 watts

WWKB (Buffalo, NY), 50,000 watts, which is the most allowed, making this a “clear channel” station (not to be confused with a Clear Channel station). Owned by Entercom, the 4^th largest broadcast station owner in the country.

WCHL (Chapel Hill, NC), 5,000 watts

KMNY (Dallas, TX), 50,000 watts (at night it reduces power to only 1,000, there are some stations in Mexico that interfere with the signal at night)

KKZN (Denver/Boulder, CO), 50,000 watts (also reduced power at night, same reason as Dallas I suspect)

KTLK (Los Angeles, CO), 50,000 watts, reduced to 44,000 watts at night

WINZ (Miami, FL), 50,000 watts, reduced to 10,000 at night

KNUV (Phoenix, AZ), 5,000 watts

KPOJ (Portland, OR), 25,000 watts, reduced to 10,000 at night. Probably the most successful of all progressive talk stations, also a Clear Channel station

KKGN (San Francisco, CA), 5,000 watts. Another Clear Channel station

KPTK (Seattle, WA), 50,000 watts, owned by CBS radio, the 4^th largest owner and operator of radio stations in the country.

KPTQ (Spokane, WA), 5,000 watts, another Clear Channel station

By my count (and layman’s understanding of broadcast signal strength and range), nearly half of the stations carrying Nova AM programming have signals that are strong enough to reach the immediate metropolitan area and population center they broadcast from, and several of them are 50,000 watt stations, the most powerful signal you can transmit on in the U.S. And many of the smaller stations, with wattage of 1000 or less, are in smaller markets where stronger signals would be overkill, to say the least (Astoria, OR; Bellingham, WA; Brattleboro, VT; Eureka, CA, among others). So any claim that these talkers would have succeeded if only those wicked radio conglomerates would put them on stations with decent signals doesn’t hold up to closer scrutiny.

Sadly, my Magic 8-Ball is now telling me “unlikely to matter to Fairness Doctrine zealots.”

Sean Parnell

President

Center for Competitive Politics 

www.campaignfreedom.org

sparnell@campaignfreedom.org

Cross-posted at: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/id.816/blog_detail.asp

We’ve been told repeatedly that there is no serious effort to bring back the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” (what would better be called the Censorship Doctrine) in talk radio, which would put politicians and their appointees in charge of political speech on the air. I recently wrote about efforts to mock and deride those of us concerned about the return of the “Fairness Doctrine,” and to claim that it is simply paranoid delusion to worry about this. Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post, for example, wrote a piece titled “Fairness Doctrine Fears: A Fake Right Wing Firestorm,” and others have written equally dismissive columns and articles.

Needless to say, the “nobody’s talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine” meme took a hit last week when Senator Debbie Stabenow voiced her support for the “Fairness Doctrine” on the Bill Press Show, saying “it’s absolutely time to pass a standard… whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.”

Responding to the inevitable backlash that politicians get when they suggest their support for squelching political speech, Stabenow has since backed off her original support for gutting the First Amendment, according to Politico: “Stabenow press secretary Brad Carroll has since backed off, telling Politico, “Sen. Stabenow is not calling for hearings.”

Just as Senator Stabenow joined the long list of politicians pushing the return of the “Fairness Doctrine” only to back off almost immediately upon discovering that the American public is generally not in favor of stifling political speech (at least, not in so transparent and obvious a way), however, yet another politician steps up to bravely contradict the Officer Barbrady Chorus of “OK, people, move along.  There’s nothing to see here” coming from those arguing there is no real consideration or effort to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine.”

Tom Harkin today, on (surprise, surprise) the Bill Press Show:

… I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said ‘there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again… we need the Fairness Doctrine back.”

Just a question for the Officer Barbrady Chorus, at what point should First Amendment advocates become concerned about the return of censorship on the airwaves? When 10 U.S. Senators call for its return? 20? 60? I’d like to know when I can safely mention my concerns to my family without fear they’ll immediately begin thumbing through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV.