Category Archives: Civil rights

Bartle Bull interview, Obama a hustler, Megyn Kelly, Fox News, I didn’t like Obama from the beginning

Bartle Bull interview, Obama a hustler, Megyn Kelly, Fox News

Bartle Bull, a lifelong Democrat and civil rights activist, was interviewwed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News today, July 1, 2010. Mr. Bull reacted to J Christian Adams resignation and statements about the US Justice Dept. dropping the lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party. Bartle Bull was also a witness to the voter intimidation by the Black Panthers in 2008. Mr. Bull had this to say about Obama.

“I didn’t like Obama from the beginning,
I thought he was a hustler
and I think he still is.”

Bartle James interview

J Christian Adams resignation, US Justice Dept. corrupt?, Biased?, Fox News coverage, Citizen Wells open thread, July 1, 2010

J Christian Adams resignation, US Justice Dept. corrupt?, Biased?, Fox News coverage

J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.

“The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”

From Citizen Wells yesterday

Fox News coverage yesterday

Fox News has more coverage of this story today.

Obama and US Justice Dept corruption, Obama agenda, Racial bias, New Black Panther Party case dismissed, USDOJ attorney J Christian Adams retires, Eric Holder

Obama and US Justice Dept corruption, Obama agenda, Racial bias, New Black Panther Party case dismissed

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”…2001 Barack Obama interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ

 

J. Christian Adams resigned recently as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department.

“On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter -intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”
“Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.
“The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ’s skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the “facts and law” did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let’s all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.

Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal – Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum – did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/25/inside-the-black-panther-case-anger-ignorance-and
What are the priorities of the US Justice Dept.?
Eric Holder recently addressed the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)

““The communities that we serve must see that the federal government is really committed to the impartial and aggressive enforcement of our nation’s laws, and these communities must know that we will do all that we can to enforce the law that protect our civil rights with the same vigor that we enforce the laws that protect our public safety.”

“Despite those comments, Holder dismissed default judgments that the Bush Justice Department had filed against Malik Shabazz and Jerry Jackson in January 2009.
 
The suit alleged that Shabazz, a member of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPP), “managed, directed and endorsed” the incident, in which Jackson and a third defendant, Samir Shabazz, wore NBPP uniforms that included “black berets combat boots, bloused battle dress pants, rank insignia, (NBPP) insignia, and black jackets.”
 
Samir Shabazz also was accused by the Bush DOJ of having “brandished a deadly weapon,” described as a nightstick, and “pointed it at individuals” while the polls were open for voting in the presidential election.
 
Jackson accompanied Samir Shabazz throughout that activity, and both “made statements containing racial threats and racial insults” and made “menacing and intimidating gestures statements and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters.”
 
When the defendants did not respond to the complaint from the federal government, the Bush DOJ won default judgments against Jackson and Malik Shabazz, but Holder’s DOJ chose to dismiss them in May 2009.”
“Holder also assured ADC members attending the convention that hate crimes cases would be a priority of the Obama administration, and that it was working hard on a crime against Muslims in Florida.”
““Already, we have several investigations open under the new law, and I want you all to know that we are currently working with local law enforcement to investigate the recent pipe bomb attack on a Florida mosque.”
 
A pipe bomb exploded during evening prayers at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida on May 10. No one was injured inside the Jacksonville mosque, but police and the FBI are investigating it as a possible hate crime.
 
“This case is a top concern for the FBI,” Holder said.”

Read more:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/67171 
 

 

Fox News coverage

November 2010 elections, Not the end, End of beginning, Winston Churchill, Change Congress, Clean up Justice Dept, Courts, State government

November 2010 elections, Not the end, End of beginning, Winston Churchill

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”…Winston Churchill

I greatly admire Winston Churchill. His words, his actions preceding and during World War II were the glue that saved England and the world. His words still ring true.

We must change congress this November 2010. That, as Churchill stated, is not the end, but perhaps the end of beginning. Once we change congress we must forever remain vigilant and clean up the US Justice Dept., courts and state and local government. This is an ongoing duty.

Here is an example from my home state of NC. I received the following in an email this morning.

“The following is a condensed timeline created by NCGOP staff from Exhibit 1 of the SBOE report on gubernatorial candidates released June 25. This version focuses on the Perdue Campaign Committee. It is not intended to be a verbatim recreation of the SBOE timeline. It includes excerpts from the BOE timeline, but also includes content that is wholly the work of the NCGOP, not the SBOE. However, it is accurate in its description of events included in the SBOE timeline.”

“Bev Perdue and the Perdue Campaign lied about reasons for non-disclosure of flights. On October 15, the NCGOP conducted a press conference outlining our suspicions that, like Mr. Easley, Gov. Perdue and her campaign had utilized private and corporate aircraft in violation of NC law by not disclosing properly or reimbursing properly the flights.
Subsequently, on two different dates, the Perdue campaign acknowledged a total of 41 flights it had failed to disclose. According to the Governor and her campaign staff, this long pattern of non compliance and non disclosure was the result of “computer software glitch.”
We now know this was a lie.
On page 6 of the Board of Elections report on campaign flights, there begins a lengthy discussion of $28,000 in corporate flights paid for by New Bern lawyer and good friend of the Governor, Buzzy Stubbs. This discussion consumes many paragraphs and several pages of the report.
John Wallace, the Perdue committee’s lawyer, who performed a similar function for Mike Easley, and therefore should have plenty of experience in these matters, initially explained “that flights were not disclosed and/or properly paid because the campaign was unaware that Mr. Stubbs was paying for flights.”
But according to what Mr. Stubbs told Kim Strach and Chairman Leake, he had on many occasions told the campaign that he was paying for the flights and inquired about how his payments for the flights had been handled, because he was aware that he had already given the maximum amount allowed by law to the Perdue campaign. Mr. Stubbs specifically identified Peter Reichard and John Wallace as individuals with whom he had discussed his concern about proper accounting for his payments. Mr. Stubbs stated that he had been told of a variety of ways the travel payments could be handled and he often was not comfortable with the information he was being provided.
Finally, on October 23, 2008, Mr. Stubbs sent a letter to the Perdue committee with copies to Wallace and Reichard.
In the letter, Mr. Stubbs states that he has personally reimbursed his law firm in the amount of $28,498.04 for “payment in kind in the form of airplane transportation for Bev Perdue.” He included a copy of his personal check to the law firm in that amount.
Despite this very tangible evidence from a donor of over $28,000 in flights, Gov. Perdue and her campaign failed to disclose the flights as required by law in their 48 hour reports. Nor did they disclose these flights in their 2008 year end report, filed over three months after they received Mr. Stubbs letter on October 23.
No, Gov. Perdue and her committee didn’t acknowledge the flights at all until their 2009 mid-year semi-annual report in July 2009. And only after the Easley investigation indicated to them they had better get busy.
It is pretty clear that, were it not for the ramifications of the Easley hearings, Gov. Perdue and her campaign would never have disclosed or paid for the flights. Keep in mind that the Stubbs flights represent only half of the flights that were ultimately disclosed.
In addition to the bogus excuse about the mysterious “computer software glitch” and Mr. Wallace laughably disingenuous claim that the campaign was unaware that Mr. Stubbs was paying for the flights, the Perdue committee has offered various other explanations as to why the flights were not disclosed.
My personal favorite, expressed by Mr. Reichard was that “the campaign had no process in place to track and disclose information regarding flights.” Not only does this fly in the face of Mr. Stubbs many conversations with Reichard and Wallace, it also does not align with documentation provided by the Perdue committee.
A quote from the report on page 5: “based on the documentation…completed.”
What we have here is the Gov. Perdue campaign first knowingly and willfully failing to disclose contributions as required by law, and then engaging in lies in an attempt to cover up.
Now might be an appropriate time to remind you of some public utterances from our Governor while all this was going on.
“In the 21st century we must conduct the business of government in ways that bring transparency and accountability to the people… I have set high expectations for myself and for everyone who works for North Carolina. We will be open, ethical, and put the public’s interest first.” March 9, 2009     State of the State Speech
“I’m the Governor who has thrown open the windows of the state government. I believe in hanging it out there to share. I don’t try to hide anything.” December 14, 2009
“I am really sick of all this, I’ve been very, very driven by the need for transparency and ethics in government…. I myself did an audit of my campaign. I paid people money to audit my campaign. I want to be sure every “i” is dotted and every “t” is crossed. I’ve been doing that relentlessly for a year.” February 18, 2010
“I’m the governor for 15 months who’s done anything possible to throw open the windows of state government, to have full transparency, to focus on ethics and how people set government straight,”    April 20, 2010
That brings me to the 2nd revelation and major conclusion.
That Gary Bartlett, Chairman Leake, and John Wallace colluded in an attempt to derail, distract, and obstruct the investigation by SBOE into the financial irregularities and illegalities of the Perdue for Gov. Campaign.
I now refer to the timeline that is an addendum to the SBOE report.
It documents that we first filed a complaint on October 15, 2009, asking the SBOE to investigate the Perdue Committee.
According to the timeline developed by SBOE staff, there is no mention of taking any action on the complaint until almost 3 months later, on January 12.
It is not until March 23, according to the timeline, before Bartlett authorizes Kim Strach to interview the first witness that same day, after waiting over 5 months to begin the investigation. Bartlett tells Strach that the board wants a resolution to the matter quickly so the interview needs to be wrapped up quickly.
By contrast, again according to the timeline, Mr. Bartlett received a letter from NC Democrat party Executive Director Andrew Whalen on February 15 requesting all correspondence between candidates Smith and Graham and SBOE office and any rules on advisory opinions on the subject.
The next day, Feb 16, Bartlett advises Strach to draft a letter for Whalen and compile all responsive documents. The letter is completed and the documents collected that same day.
The next day, two days after Whalen’s request, Bartlett directs Strach to hand-deliver letter and documents to Andrew Whalen at NCDP headquarters. It is delivered that day.
That same day, and only because I asked for a meeting with Bartlett, I received a one paragraph letter acknowledging an investigation of the Perdue campaign is underway, four months after we filed a complaint.
Later, on Feb 23, Whalen filed a complaint regarding Republican candidates. Bartlett and Strach meet the same day to discuss. It took three months before our complaint was even discussed at the SBOE.
As weeks go by, on repeated occasions, Chairman Leake and Mr. Bartlett direct Strach not to personally follow-up with campaign staff, but to restrict her contact to letter drafted by Mr. Bartlett.
Then, unbelievably, as detailed in several places in the timeline, Strach is told by both Bartlett and Leake that John Wallace and Zach Ambrose, Perdue COS as Lt. Governor, her campaign manager for Gov, and her COS as Governor, will determine who Strach will be allowed to interview.
It is unheard of for a law enforcement agency to allow attorneys with clients under investigation, or as in Mr. Ambrose’s case, targets of the investigation, to determine which witnesses will be allowed to testify. This is collusion and obstruction of justice.
Leake takes over the investigation on or about April 1, when Strach becomes aware of a notebook in John Wallace’s possession that has detailed information regarding flights that Perdue took.
Strach makes repeated attempts to obtain the notebook from Wallace. As before, with flight information at his disposal (see page 4 of the report, first two paragraphs) Wallace delays, and finally offers the assertion that the notebook is protected by “attorney-client privilege.”
Weeks go by and Strach has still not been granted access to the notebook and Bartlett is aware of this.
Then on April 27, Strach advises Bartlett that she will be in Wilmington the following day to deliver the Rusty Carter report to the New Hanover Assistant DA, Tom Old.
April 28 – Bartlett sends two SBOE staffers (McClean, Wright) who have had no involvement in the investigation henceforth to interview Wallace while Strach is out of town.
Strach finds out about this while she is in Wilmington and contacts Bartlett to make sure he tells McClean and Wright to copy the entire contents of the notebook. Bartlett tells Strach that Wallace will not allow that.
With the discovery of the notebook, Leake inserts himself into the investigation, apparently in collusion with John Wallace. Leake begins to schedule interviews, some of which Strach is excluded from. He and Bartlett prevent her from interview Wallace and Ambrose. Leake sits in on interviews with Strach and in some instances limited the length and breadth of the interviews.
This is highly inappropriate behavior and fraught with conflict. This is like a judge sitting in on witness depositions in a case he will be called on to judge impartially.
It is apparent that Bartlett, Leake and Wallace, acted, often consulting with each other on several occasions, to derail the investigation away from issues and witnesses they considered dangerous to Gov. Perdue and her committee.
And Mr. Bartletts’ conclusion in his memo the Board that there is no evidence that there is no intent of wrongdoing is an embarrassment to the people of North Carolina.
Accordingly, we call today for Executive Director Bartlett and Chairman Leake to resign their positions immediately. It would be the first honorable thing they’ve done in this matter. Failing that, Gov. Perdue should remove Chairman Leake, appoint a replacement, and ask the Board to immediately begin a search for a new Executive Director.
Because any of this is unlikely to happen, by letter today, we are asking Wake County District Attorney to launch an investigation into obstruction of justice at the NC BOE, particularly the actions of Mr. Bartlett and Chairman Leake.
Furthermore, we intend to press forward with our public records request. We want all documents, correspondence, email, records of phone conversations and drafts of reports leading up to the one released on Friday. We specifically want to see if Mr. Bartlett or Chairman Leake edited the request and the timeline submitted by the Kim Strach before releasing it on Friday.  We will press on until the people of North Carolina get the answers they deserve. “

US Justice Dept corrupt?, Obama camp controls Justice Dept, Patrick Fitzgerald, Citizen Wells open thread, June 29, 2010

US Justice Dept corrupt?, Obama camp controls Justice Dept, Patrick Fitzgerald

“Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.

Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it “payback time.” Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.

Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement. However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed.”…J. Christian Adams, former USDOJ attorney

We have our answer.

Disclose Act, June 24, 2010, Nancy Pelosi will schedule a vote, Pro gun organizations, Harry Reid, NRA exempt

Disclose Act, June 24, 2010, Nancy Pelosi will schedule a vote

I just received this from Dudley Brown of the National Association for Gun Rights.

“Reports are that Nancy Pelosi will schedule a vote tomorrow (Thursday, June 24) on the DISCLOSE Act, so you must act now to protect your gun rights.

Disclose would silence almost every pro-gun organization in America… Except the NRA.  In fact, the DISCLOSE Act was dead in the water until the NRA cut a deal to exempt itself (and a few big liberal groups like AARP and probably MoveOn.org) last week.

Please contact your Congressman right away and again Thursday at (202) 224-3121 or by email.

The goal of this draconian legislation is to make pro-freedom groups – like the National Association for Gun Rights – shut their mouths.   And without politicians who are held accountable, there’s almost no way to defend our gun rights.

As of early last week, this bill had a dicey future, but Pelosi, Reid and Schumer agreed to exempt the NRA (who is no longer opposing this bill because of their special deal).  That backroom deal made the bill much more likely to pass (which is, of course, why Dem leadership exempted the NRA).

In fact, Capitol insiders say Harry Reid may be the driving force for this exemption. Reid is in a very tough re-election race in Nevada, but the NRA has all but endorsed him (see the latest NRA magazine, with many flattering pictures of Reid).  If he’s held accountable for his bad votes on the gun issue, he will almost certainly lose – which is why he’d like to silence all of the pro-gun groups except the one that’s supporting him.   But that’s another story for another time.

You must act today to defeat this fiasco.

Your actions have stalled this bill, and made Democrat leadership delay the vote (in an attempt to avoid the maelstrom of conservative activists who have loudly voiced their opposition to this bill).

But now they’re emboldened by the calm in the storm.

We can’t let that happen.

You must call your Member of Congress today.

Yes, the NRA’s sell-out on this issue is epic.  But it seems they’re going to defend their deal until the bitter end.   It should not be forgotten, but we must put the heat on members of Congress.

Call your member of Congress today at (202) 224-3121 and/or send him/her an e-mail and tell him/her to oppose the DISCLOSE Act, regardless of the deal.

Also tell them that you will consider a vote for disclose as a vote against your gun rights (it is – what will we use to defend our gun rights with, if we don’t have the first amendment right to free speech?).

Call or e-mail their offices today, and send this to everyone you know.

Thank you for your activism,

Dudley Brown
Executive Director”

US Labor Department, Aids and abets illegal immigration, June 23, 2010, Obama administration, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly whether documented or not

US Labor Department, Aids and abets illegal immigration

From The Detroit News June 23, 2010.

“Labor Dept. aids and abets crime of illegal immigration”

“Illegal immigrants in America have long flouted the law. And why not, since it’s seldom enforced.

Expect that to get worse now that the Obama administration is offering its assistance.

That’s right, specifically the Department of Labor. The nation’s top work force agency no longer is simply turning its head as hordes of people break the law and enter the United States each day, it now is offering a helping hand.

“Every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly whether documented or not (emphasis added), ” Labor Secretary Hilda Solis says in a public service announcement posted on the agency’s website. “So call us. It is free and confidential.”
 There it is, folks. Your tax dollars at work.

Solis is not imploring legal workers who are beaten or denied access to water or suffer some other abuse at the hands of an unscrupulous employer to call.

She’s telling illegal immigrants in America — criminals who have crossed the border without regard to our laws, often repeatedly — that if they don’t think they are being paid properly, they can get help from the federal government.

I’m not making this up. Go to the Department of Labor’s website ( http://www.dol.gov/wecanhelp/psa.htm) and watch it for yourself.

Solis is joined in her call by actors Jimmy Smits, Esai Morales and Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers.

“You work hard and you have the right to be paid every cent of the money you earn,” Morales says in another video. “Our laws protect you whether you’re documented or not.””

“The Labor Department didn’t return calls to explain its position, and when I called the toll-free number that Solis said was “free and confidential” and told the nice woman who answered that I had questions about using tax dollars to produce these videos to help criminals get more money, she asked me a lot of questions about who I was and why I was calling.

Perhaps if I had said I was an illegal immigrant I would have gotten faster answers.”

Read more:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100623/OPINION03/6230315/1031#

Harry Brown, Gun control, England, Criminals and totalitarian leaders always have guns, Open Thread, June 19, 2010

Harry Brown, Gun control, England, Criminals and totalitarian leaders

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”… Thomas Paine

 

First of all, I would like to thank my English ancestors for leaving England in the early 1700’s.

I watched the new movie “Harry Brown” last night. It stars one of my favorite actors, Michael Caine. As most of you know, guns are forbidden in England, unless, of course, you are a criminal. If you have any friends or acquaintances who are anti gun or inclined to follow our current totalitarian government down the path to slaughter, encourage them to see this movie.

DISCLOSE ACT, HR 5175, Friday vote, June 18, 2010, First Amendment Rights, Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act

I received the following in an email a few minutes ago with a request to “PLEASE email, fax, call and otherwise reach out to your House member to vote NO on this legislation.”

 “DISCLOSE ACT (HR 5175) is set for vote FRIDAY AM!!!”

The DISCLOSE Act
June 16, 2010
 
On the Citizens United decision: “This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us; and for those who believed that speech had a dollar value and should be treated and regulated like currency, and not a freedom.  Today’s decision reaffirms that the Bill of Rights was written for every American and it will amplify the voice of average citizens who want their voices heard.”
 
– Wayne LaPierre, National Rifle Association, January 21, 2010
 
“The proposals in the ‘DISCLOSE Act’ (Democratic Incumbents Seeking to Contain Losses by Outlawing Speech in Elections) amount to nothing more than political posturing…This bill would create another bureaucratic layer of political speech regulation, which would punish small business owners and grassroots groups who lack the resources to comply with such onerous provisions.”
 
– Bradley Smith, Center for Competitive Politics Chairman and Former FEC Commissioner, 2000-2005
 
 
On April 29, 2010, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5175, the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act.  The bill is a direct response to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – a First Amendment victory in which the Supreme Court overturned the prohibition on corporations and unions using treasury funds for independent expenditures supporting or opposing political candidates at any time of the year.  Simply put, the DISCLOSE Act will limit the political speech that was protected and encouraged by Citizens United. 
 
The DISCLOSE Act was marked up on Thursday, May 20, 2010, and may come to the floor later this week after rumors that the Democrats have reached an agreement with certain key groups.  This is not meant to be an extensive analysis – which will be provided in the Legislative Bulletin once the bill comes to the floor – but rather to highlight some of the most egregious provisions of the bill.
 
Partisan ploy to get Democrats elected to Congress.  The bill, “coincidentally” sponsored by the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in charge of electing Democrats to Congress, re-writes campaign finance laws in favor of Democrats right before elections.  It was crafted behind closed doors with no input from Republican members of the House Administration Committee.  The bill was designed by Democrats to silence their political opponents.
 
Creates a special, narrow carve-out for specific organizations intended to sway votes toward passage of the bill.  The National Rifle Association (NRA), the Humane Society, and possibly a very small number of other groups, are reportedly covered in a last minute deal that creates an exemption from the financial disclosure requirements in the bill.  This carve out does nothing to protect the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans who want to engage in the political process but will instead be deterred by this bill. As stated in a Wall Street Journal editorial this morning, “Creating a special exception for the NRA, and thereby assuring the Democrats ‘good grades’ on Second Amendment rights, eases the way for the bill to be passed. A failing grade on First Amendment rights is somebody else’s problem.”  The exemption is intended to make it easier for a bad bill to get the votes it needs to pass.
 
Favors unions over corporations.  Current law already bans foreign nationals from contributing to elections. See the RSC Policy Paper on Citizens United for more details. DISCLOSE makes current law much more restrictive and bans independent expenditures on activity by American corporations with 20% or more foreign ownership.  However, similar restrictions are not included for unions with foreign members or non-citizen members.  As eight former Federal Election Commissioners stated in a recent Wall Street Journal article, “… Disclose does not ban foreign speech but speech by American citizen shareholders of U.S. companies that have some element of foreign ownership, even when those foreigners have no control over the decisions made by the Americans who run the company.”  Additionally, the new threshold for reporting ($600 in donations for independent expenditures) will have little effect on unions whose members’ annual dues average much lower than $600.  This would preclude unions from having to report.  The bill also prohibits independent expenditures or disbursing funds for electioneering communications by anyone with a government contract greater than $7 million.  (Originally, the threshold was $50,000, which was changed in mark-up.)  This does not apply to unions in collective bargaining agreements with the government.
 
Threatens organizations with lawsuits for non-compliance.  The bill becomes effective 30 days after enactment, giving the Federal Election Commission no time to craft regulations relating to the implementation of the bill, which will certainly be complicated, and not to mention expensive, to execute.  Organizations would have to operate without any guidance from the FEC and risk possible lawsuits.
 
Onerous disclosure and reporting requirements will deter citizen engagement.  The bill includes requirements that every incorporated entity engaged in independent campaign activity must list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).  The bill also requires CEOs of organizations to appear in the ads, and state their name and their organization two times.  Additionally, the top five funders of the organization must be listed in the ad (and top two for radio), and if there is a top “significant” funder, he or she must identify himself or herself, his or her title,  and state the name of the organization three times in the ad. These tedious and onerous requirements will have the effect of deterring organizations from getting involved in elections (and potentially take up most of the ad time). 
 
 
Citizens United was a triumph in defense of the First Amendment right to free speech and a reaffirmation of the rights of businesses, unions, and citizens’ associations to engage in political communications.  The DISCLOSE Act is the opposite, and the business community knows it.  This bill is an attack on the ability of non-party organizations to engage in the political realm during an election year. 
 
RSC Staff Contact: Natalie Farr, natalie.farr@mail.house.gov, (202) 226-0718

FTC increase funding of PBS, PBS left wing statements, How to Speak Tea Bag, Open thread, June 13, 2010

FTC increase funding of PBS, PBS left wing statements, How to Speak Tea Bag
“The function of the press is very high. It is almost Holy.
It ought to serve as a forum for the people, through which
the people may know freely what is going on. To misstate or
suppress the news is a breach of trust.”…. Louis D. Brandeis

From the FTC document
“POTENTIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT
THE REINVENTION OF JOURNALISM”
“The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 created and provided funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which oversees both the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).”
“According to CPB, “the fundamental purpose of public service media is to provide programs and services that inform, enlighten and enrich the public… CPB invests in programs and services that are educational, innovative, locally relevant and reflect America’s common values and cultural diversity.””
“Various commentators agree that CPB funding needs to be increased,90 and many believe that NPR and PBS stations need to build and maintain strong newsrooms at the state and local levels.91 NPR announced in October 2009 that it would launch a new journalism project to develop in-depth, local coverage on topics critical to communities and the nation. The project is being funded with $2 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1 million from the Knight Foundation. One speaker suggested that with additional federal funding, this initiative could be expanded.92 The president and CEO of NPR explained that this project will “beef up local online content at the station level” and will be done in “partnership with other public media players [and] new not-for-profits.””

http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf
From Citizen Wells January 5, 2010
“NPR Shows Everyone How to Speak ‘Tea Bag’… with OUR Money”
“But what happens when the so-called “humor” crosses the line? It’s one thing to make fun of someone, but trying to discredit an entire movement of frustrated Americans and doing it with taxpayer money is something entirely different. How much longer are we going to continue to fund left-wing propaganda with OUR money? Just look at the NPR web site for their latest “humor” directed at the hundreds of thousands of “Tea Party” activists across the country.
Prominently displayed on the National Public Radio (NPR) web site is a new cartoon titled, “Learn To Speak Tea Bag.” Of course, Tea Party activists don’t ever use the term “tea bag,” a phrase that refers to a sexual act and which has been used by the media to demean the entire tea party movement.”

Read more