Last month in his major speech on threats to the First Amendment at AEI, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned, “[I]f disclosure is forced upon some but not all, it’s not an act of good government, it’s a political weapon. And that’s precisely what those who are pushing [legislation like the DISCLOSE Act] have in mind. This is nothing less than an effort by the government itself to exposes its critics to harassment and intimidation, either by government authorities or through third-party allies. . . . Those pushing the DISCLOSE Act have a simple view: if the Supreme Court is no longer willing to limit the speech of those who oppose their agenda, they’ll find other ways to do it.”
And it’s become clear that those other ways go beyond bad legislation like the DISCLOSE Act. The New York Times reports today that Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against conservative groups aimed at shutting down their political speech or forcing them to disclose private donors. The NYT writes, “The complaint by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee against Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, Americans for Prosperity and the 60 Plus Association begins a new phase in the Democrats’ struggle to keep pace with Republicans since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling. That decision cleared the way for unlimited campaign donations to a new breed of ‘super PACs’ from corporations, unions and wealthy contributors. The complaint targets Republican-leaning ‘social welfare’ organizations that have received or are requesting tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, which allows funding sources to be kept private. . . . Contending that the tax-exempt groups’ ‘major purpose is federal campaign activity,’ the complaint says that the F.E.C. should regulate them as political committees and that their donors must be disclosed.”
Leader McConnell explained the problem here in an op-ed for USA Today last week:“[W]hat’s proposed here is entirely different. [Democrats are calling for] for government-compelled disclosure of contributions to all grassroots groups, which is far more dangerous than its proponents will admit. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in 1958 in NAACP v. Alabama, ruling that forced disclosure of the NAACP’s member lists by Alabama would discourage people from freely associating with a cause or group. I support the First Amendment rights of those on the political left and right. My concern is that selective disclosure would be used to harass people — think President Nixon and his ‘enemies list’ — who have participated in the political process or scare others from doing so. I cannot support limiting the right of Americans to speak up.
The St. Louis American is not buying the “I love black people” progressivism of 79th district candidate Martin Casas:
Martin Casas, who is running against Michael Butler in the Democratic primary for the open state House seat being vacated by Tishaura O. Jones, seems to believe the stain of Rex Sinquefield support won’t hurt him at the polls on August 7.
Casas – who has down pat the “young progressive urban professional” patter that makes civic leaders at least temporary believers in him – has started to pile up the connections to Rex.
Nancy Rice – an employee of Pelopidas, Sinquefield’s primary political shop – was the host of a Casas fundraiser at her house on March 21. Brian Wahby, Casas’ mentor in St. Louis politics (and hubby of Mayor Francis G. Slay’s school choice minion, Robbyn Wahby), tweeted from the fundraiser about what a good time they were all having. Read more…
The Supreme Court’s ruling today upholding President Obama’s unpopular health care law only underscores the case for repealing and replacing it. Indeed, there are plenty of reminders today why Obamacare was such a bad law in the first place, the question of its constitutionality aside. When the law was first making its way through Congress, the Congressional Budget Office reported that at least 75% of individual mandate penalties fall on those making less than $250,000. Since the Supreme Court has declared the mandate a tax, this amounts to a tax hike on middle class families.
Further, Bloomberg News writes, “The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the bulk of the 2010 health-care law means wealthy investors may sell assets before the end of the year as taxes in the overhaul remain in place and will take effect next year.The health-care law includes levies and fees that are projected to raise an estimated $813 billion in revenue over 10 years to help pay for the expansion of insurance coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That figure includes the penalties under either the employer mandate or the individual mandate, which the court ruled was constitutional under Congress’ taxing power.”
Meanwhile, ABC News reported yesterday, “Just 36 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll express a favorable opinion of the health care law . . . . While the law’s popularity is weak, barely more than half, 52 percent, see it unfavorably, including 38 percent who have a ‘strongly’ unfavorable opinion.”
Two excellent editorials today rightly praise the Supreme Court for its important decision yesterday reaffirming the Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling protecting political speech. Unfortunately, the decision seems to only have emboldened liberal efforts to go after First Amendment protections of political speech.
The Wall Street Journal editors write, “Believe it or not, the Supreme Court means what it says about the First Amendment. That was the short but sweet message from the Justices on Monday as they affirmed that their 2010 campaign-finance decision in Citizens United is the law of the land—and that goes for states too. In a two paragraph per curiam (speaking without a single author but for the Court) decision in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the High Court summarily reversed a Montana Supreme Court ruling that upheld a state law limiting corporate expenditures to candidates or political action committees that support candidates. The rebuke was necessary because the Montana court had willfully ignored the legal precedent and had seemed to be baiting the High Court to formally accept the case and reconsider Citizens United.”
And the editors of the Chicago Tribune, President Obama’s hometown paper, ask, “What part of ‘free speech’ does the Montana Supreme Court not understand? That was the question that arose after it upheld a state ban on corporate campaign spending — in defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that corporations are entitled to participate in debate about elections. On Monday, the court informed the Montana justices: We meant what we said.”
The Tribune editors write, “Not that such realities cut much ice with those who regard the Citizens United ruling as a threat to democracy and a boon to special interests. The special interests that supposedly gained such entree from the ruling, contrary to myth, have shown little interest in exploiting their new freedom. As an amicus brief filed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out, of the $96 million contributed to Super PACs supporting one GOP presidential candidate or another in the primaries, less than 14 percent came from corporations. Less than 1 percent came from publicly traded corporations, which were assumed to be the chief beneficiaries.”
Of course, the Tribune editorial notes, “There were howls of outrage and anguish during the primaries when these committees blanketed radio and TV outlets with ads touting one candidate or trashing another. This free-for-all confirmed the belief of many liberal groups that corporations were brazenly trying to buy elections.” And the WSJ editors add, “This won’t be the end of the matter, because the political left has begun to treat Citizens United as the moral equivalent of Dred Scott, as preposterous as that is. They’ll keep hoping that one of the majority Justices retires if President Obama wins a second term.”
But Roll Call reports that the Left is pursuing another avenue: trying to amend the First Amendment. “The Supreme Court’s Monday ruling to strike Montana’s ban on corporate campaign spending opens a new chapter in the political money wars, fueling an improbable but increasingly vocal movement to amend the Constitution. . . . More than a dozen Members of Congress have proposed various constitutional amendments in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling to deregulate corporate and union political spending. Some declare that corporations are not people; others empower Congress and the states to restrict campaign spending and contributions. Until now, such proposals have garnered little notice, given the slim likelihood that any could clear the high bar set for amending the Constitution . . . . But the court’s 5-4 ruling in the Montana case, known as American Tradition Partnership Inc. v. Bullock, makes crystal clear that an amendment is needed, watchdogs say.”
According to this website, Republican senate candidate and business owner John Brunner donated money to St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley in 2005, 2006 and 2009. Mr. Dooley narrowly defeated Republican upstart attorney Bill Corrigan in 2010, 51% to 47%. This is the same Mr. Dooley who campaigned on merging St. Louis County and St. Louis City:
And in 2009, described Obamacare detractors as “haters”:
This morning, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its ruling in its 2010 Citizens United decision by striking down a Montana law that banned corporate spending on political campaigns. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the law in defiance of the Citizens United precedent and the Court today reversed the Montana court, reiterating that the First Amendment applies to the states.
George Will explained the Montana case well in a column last month: “Montana uses an interesting argument to justify defiance of a Supreme Court decision: Because the state is particularly prone to political corruption, it should be trusted to constrict First Amendment protections of political speech. . . . Three Montana corporations sued to bring the state into conformity with Citizens United by overturning a 100-year-old state law, passed when copper and other corporations supposedly held sway, that bans all corporate political spending.”
In its opinion today, the Court writes, “In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, this Court struck down a similar federal law, holding that ‘political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.’ . . . The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does.”
Reacting to the decision, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said, “In another important victory for freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has reversed the Montana Supreme Court, upholding First Amendment free speech rights that were set out in Citizens United. As I pointed out in an amicus brief that I filed in the Montana case, a review of Federal Election Commission records of independent spending supporting the eight Republican presidential candidates earlier this year showed only minimal corporate involvement in the 2012 election cycle. Not one Fortune 100 company contributed a cent to any of the eight Republican Super PACs, as of the end of March, according to FEC records. The records also showed that of the $96 million contributed to the eight Super PACs through March 31, an overwhelming 86.32 percent of that money came from individuals while only 13.68 percent came from corporations and 0.81 percent from public companies. Clearly, the much predicted corporate tsunami that critics of Citizens United warned about simply did not occur.”
Liberals who favor restricting political speech had hoped to use the Montana case to revisit Citizens United and possibly get a different result. National Journal notes, “The Supreme Court’s rejection of a long-shot legal challenge to let states bar corporate and union political contributions in their own elections underscores the legal quandary in which many left-of-center campaign finance reformers find themselves. . . . Efforts to curb the [campaign spending by independent groups] through the judiciary have thus far proven fruitless; Paul Ryan, senior counsel to the Campaign Legal Center, a left-of-center interest group, called the ruling ‘disappointing but predictable.’ . . . ‘This closes the door on the argument that unique facts in a certain state can be employed to overturn [Citizens United],’ said Jim Bopp, an Indiana campaign finance attorney who has spearheaded an array of challenges to campaign finance laws across the country.”
As Will wrote, “The collapse of liberals’ confidence in their ability to persuade is apparent in their concentration on rigging the rules of political persuasion. Their problem is that the First Amendment is the rule.”
Yesterday, Claire McCaskill voted in favor of severe, job-killing regulations on the coal industry.(“McConnell, R-Ky., motion to proceed to the joint resolution that would nullify the EPA rule regarding the establishment of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for utilities.” S. J. Res. 37, CQ Vote #139: Motion Rejected 46-53: R 41-5; D 5-46; I 0-2, 6/20/12, McCaskill Voted Nay)
For more about what McCaskill’s vote means for Missouri, read the St. Louis Post-Dispatch story here.
CHASER…
Today, a major coal company headquartered in Missouri announces it will lay off 750 workers in three states (KY, VA, and WV) citing a “challenging regulatory environment.”(“Arch Coal Responds to Thermal Coal Market Weakness by Idling Several Operations and Reducing Production in Appalachia,”Arch Coal, Inc. Press Release, 6/21/2012)
Former Post Dispatch political “reporter” Jake Wagman is starting his own opposition research firm according to the website jimromensko.com:
Jake Wagman, who leaves the Post-Dispatch after nine years, says his new firm, Shield Political Research, “will offer a fresh and innovative approach to opposition research for candidates and campaigns” by “using public documents and the tools of investigative reporting to produce original research.”
He writes:
I’ll always be bullish on newspapers in general, and the Post-Dispatch in particular, but over the last several years — while shining a light on lawmaker perks, reporting on government waste and peering into the backgrounds of countless individuals running for office— I realized my passion was holding candidates and public officials accountable.
I also realized that the state of the media industry means many newsrooms no longer have the resources they need to thoroughly scrutinize those seeking public office.
One thing missing in his statement. Wagman should have said his passion was holding REPUBLICAN candidates and public officials accountable. Like MSNBC and the lamestream media, he didn’t even try to hide his bias anymore. Good luck Jake. Now you don’t have to work under the guise of being objective!
