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.”
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.”
““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.”
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
Obama amnesty plan, Republican senators letter, Administration Plan B
From Fox News June 23, 2010
“GOP Lawmakers Warn of Administration Plan to Grant Amnesty to Illegal Immigrants”
“Eight Republican senators and an independent group that supports tighter limits on immigration are warning that the Obama administration is drafting a plan to “unilaterally” issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants as it struggles to win support in Congress for an overhaul of immigration laws.
The senators who wrote the White House on Monday say they are concerned that the administration is readying a “Plan B” in case a comprehensive reform bill cannot win enough support to clear Congress.
“It seems more real than just bullying (Republicans) into a bill — that it’s a plan that they can actually put forward … circumventing Congress,” an aide told FoxNews.com on Wednesday.
In their letter, the senators — Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; David Vitter, R-La.; Jim Bunning, R-Ky.; Saxby Chambliss, Ga.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; James Inhofe, R-Okla.; and Thad Cochran, R-Miss. — urge the president to “abandon” what they say is a move to “unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States.”
“Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books,” they wrote.
Deferred action and parole, which give illegal immigrants the ability to seek a work permit and temporary legal status, are normally granted on a case-by-case basis. But the aide said the lawmakers have learned from “sources” that the administration is considering flexing its authority to grant the status on a mass basis.
Numbers USA, an organization that presses for lower immigration levels along with humanitarian treatment of illegal immigrants, has started a petition to the president expressing “outrage” at the alleged plan.
Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations with Numbers USA, said she’s been hearing for weeks from “sources close to the Democratic leadership” in both chambers that administration officials are discussing whether the Department of Homeland Security could direct staff to grant “amnesty” for all illegal immigrants in the country.
“They’re trying to figure out ways around a vote,” she said.”
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.
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.”
Obama exposed, US military, Blagojevich trial, Economy, Socialist agenda
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”…Abraham Lincoln
Little by little it has been happening. American citizens are waking up to the reality of Barack Obama. Generals are speaking out, the economy is shaky, Obama’s socialist agenda is obvious and the Rod Blagojevich trial continues. I am following up on something I discovered from the trial evidence. It could be a small smoking gun.
General Stanley McChrystal, Obama, Major General Paul E. Vallely, Oath of office, Patriot or career soldier
“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”…Thomas Paine
I read the Rolling Stone article about General Stanley McChrystal. This is the strongest statement that I read from General McChrystal.
“Even though he had voted for Obama, McChrystal and his new commander in chief failed from the outset to connect. The general first encountered Obama a week after he took office, when the president met with a dozen senior military officials in a room at the Pentagon known as the Tank. According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked “uncomfortable and intimidated” by the roomful of military brass. Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn’t go much better. “It was a 10-minute photo op,” says an adviser to McChrystal. “Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. Here’s the guy who’s going to run his fucking war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.””
McChrystal, is that the best you can do? From a real General, a real patriot.
From a speech given at the Lincoln Reagan Dinner on June 5, 2010 in Virginia City, Montana by Major General Paul E. Vallely, retired.
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
“We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetoro (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) — based on Incompetence, Deceit, Fraud, Corruption, Dishonesty and Violation of the US Constitution.
And a call for a National Petition for new elections to select the next President of the United States of America must be initiated. We can wait no longer for a change of Power and new Government.” http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=3917 Major General Paul E. Vallely, retired
“Paul E. Vallely retired in 1991 from the US Army as Deputy Commanding General, US Army, Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. General Vallely graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961 serving a distinguishing career of 32 years in the Army. He served in many overseas theaters to include Europe and the Pacific Rim Countries as well as two combat tours in Vietnam. He has served on US security assistance missions on
civilian-military relations to Europe, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Central America with in-country experience in Indonesia, Columbia, El Salvador, Panama, Honduras and Guatemala.
General Vallely is a graduate of the Infantry School, Ranger and Airborne Schools, Jumpmaster School, the Command and General Staff School, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces and the Army War College. His combat service in Vietnam included positions as infantry company commander, intelligence officer, operations officer, military advisor and aide-de-camp. He has over fifteen (15) years experience in Special Operations, Psychological and Civil-Military Operations.
He was one of the first nominees for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations under President Reagan. From 1982-1986, he commanded the 351st Civil Affairs Command that included all Special Forces, Psychological Warfare and Civil Military units in the Western United States and Hawaii. He was the first President of the National Psychological Operations Association. His units participated in worldwide missions in Europe, Africa, Central America, Japan, Solomon Islands, Guam, Belgium, Korea and Thailand. He has served as a consultant to the Commanding General of the Special Operations Command as well as the DOD Anti-Drug and Counter -Terrorist Task Forces. He also designed and developed the Host-Nation Support Program in the Pacific for DOD and the State Department. Most recently, he has in-country security assistance – experience in El Salvador, Columbia and Indonesia in the development of civil-military relations interfacing with senior level military and civilian leadership.
General Vallely is a military analyst for FOX News Channel and is a guest on many nationally syndicated radio talk shows. He is also a guest lecturer on the War on Terror. He has co-authored “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror” & “War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World.”
Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin facing court martial
“You serve as my commander-in-chief. Given the fact that the certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you,”
CDR Charles Kerchner, lead plaintiff in Kerchner v Obama and Congress
From a recent Post & Email interview.
“MRS. RONDEAU: That brings up another question. Why do you think more active military members are not doing what Lt. Col. Lakin is doing?
CDR. KERCHNER: Because they risk their career. As you can see already, Lt. Col. Lakin is not being given a fair shake; you see what’s happening with him.
They changed his evaluation. He had an outstanding evaluation just a couple of months ago, and they just did one at the end of May which trashed him. He had been up for promotion to full Colonel, and he’s no longer going to be promoted.
The military is supposed to be devoid of politics, in a sense. It’s very, very difficult for an active-duty military person to stand up alone and buck the powers that be in Washington when they are corrupt. It’s very dangerous and very difficult for a person in the military to do that, because you have a set of rules governing you, the UCMJ, which don’t govern the rest of the citizenry. You’ve given up some of your freedom, so to speak. The thing is, though, the military does take an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I never thought about that word domestic in the oath much until Obama came along.
I believe in God, I believe in my country, I believe in my family, and I will fight to the death for all three of those. I took my oath, and I believe those words, and I meant those words, “so help me God.” I feared for the loss of my liberty and my inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution for which our forefathers fought during the American Revolution. These were codified into the fundamental law of the nation when they wrote that contract for the protection of the sovereign and free people in the several states, the U.S. Constitution. This contract limited the power of the new federal government and protected our rights and liberty, my rights and liberties. I feared loss of liberty if this usurper were allowed to take office and continue to remain in office for any length of time. I did not trust Obama to protect me. If he and his progressive sycophants in Congress can ignore and usurp one part of the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, then he will ignore and usurp other parts, such as the Bill of Rights. That’s why when I saw the other suits failing, I felt as if I was almost being called and told, “You have to stand up, Commander Kerchner. You must live up to your oath to support and defend the Constitution. You have to stand up and fight this battle. You must do this.”
I took an oath to the Constitution of this country. We’re a nation of immigrants, and believe me, Obama’s father wasn’t one. But we’re a nation of immigrants, and the glue and sinew that holds this country together is that Constitution. Without it, we never would have made it this far, and we won’t make it much further if it falls apart. That’s the natural and universal law that unites us all. Our inalienable rights granted by God, nature’s law created by God – that’s what holds us together, and if we lose it, the country is doomed.
I had a lot of anxiety before I filed the case, but as soon as I filed it, a certain peace came to me, and I haven’t lost a moment’s sleep since then. It’s as if I answered the call and now I’m being protected. I will continue to fight this battle until the truth and Constitution are upheld and the usurper in the Oval Office is removed, so help me God.”
Read more:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/21/a-one-on-one-personal-interview-with-commander-kerchner-regarding-his-eligibility-challenge-and-lawsuit-against-obama-and-congress/
General McChrystal, with all due respect to your prior military service, are you going to stand up to Obama and fulfill your military officer oath? You did not pledge allegiance to Obama or the president. You pledged allegiance to the US Constitution.
General McChrystal, you voted for Obama. This reveals that you are uninformed or that you do not care.
To all active and retired military. If you do not know or understand the facts, get off your ass and get answers. I expect more from the US military. And yes, military officers, you pledged an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” We expect you to follow that oath. And yes, General McChrystal, and any other US Military officer, I will face you in person and repeat these words.
US Constitution, Ratified June 21, 1788, New Hampshire ratified
“Live Free or Die” …official motto of New Hampshire
We the Peopleof the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America….US Constitution
New Hampshire ratified the US Constitution on June 21, 1788, thus making the Constitution official.
“Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New Hampshire, June 21, 1788. New Hampshire was the ninth state to do so, and with its ratification, the Constitution was officially in effect. New Hampshire’s ratification message included several suggested changes to the Constitution, including one which would said “Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.” The following text is taken from the Library of Congress’s copy of Elliot’s Debates.” http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nh.html
From the National Archives.
“Ratification
By January 9, 1788, five states of the nine necessary for ratification had approved the Constitution–Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut. But the eventual outcome remained uncertain in pivotal states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. On February 6, withFederalists agreeing to recommend a list of amendments amounting to a bill of rights, Massachusetts ratified by a vote of 187 to 168. The revolutionary leader, John Hancock, elected to preside over the Massachusetts ratifying convention but unable to make up his mind on the Constitution, took to his bed with a convenient case of gout. Later seduced by the Federalists with visions of the vice presidency and possibly the presidency, Hancock, whom Madison noted as “an idolater of popularity,” suddenly experienced a miraculous cure and delivered a critical block of votes. Although Massachusetts was now safely in the Federalist column, the recommendation of a bill of rights was a significant victory for the anti-Federalists. Six of the remaining states later appended similar recommendations.
When the New Hampshire convention was adjourned by Federalists who sensed imminent defeat and when Rhode Island on March 24 turned down the Constitution in a popular referendum by an overwhelming vote of 10 to 1, Federalist leaders were apprehensive. Looking ahead to the Maryland convention, Madison wrote to Washington, “The difference between even a postponement and adoption in Maryland may . . . possibly give a fatal advantage to that which opposes the constitution.” Madison had little reason to worry. The final vote on April 28 63 for, 11 against. In Baltimore, a huge parade celebrating the Federalist victory rolled. through the downtown streets, highlighted by a 15-foot float called “Ship Federalist.” The symbolically seaworthy craft was later launched in the waters off Baltimore and sailed down the Potomac to Mount Vernon.
On July 2, 1788, the Confederation Congress, meeting in New York, received word that a reconvened New Hampshire ratifying convention had approved the Constitution. With South Carolina’s acceptance of the Constitution in May, New Hampshire thus became the ninth state to ratify. The Congress appointed a committee “for putting the said Constitution into operation.”
In the next 2 months, thanks largely to the efforts of Madison and Hamilton in their own states, Virginia and New York both ratified while adding their own amendments. The margin for the Federalists in both states, however, was extremely close. Hamilton figured that the majority of the people in New York actually opposed the Constitution, and it is probable that a majority of people in the entire country opposed it. Only the promise of amendments had ensured a Federalist victory.”
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.
Well, they certainly have the diversions and chaos that they desired.
A snippet from the Blagojevich trial yesterday.
“In 2008, Ata’s testimony helped prosecutors secure the conviction of Blagojevich insider Antoin “Tony” Rezko. On Thursday, Ata covered much of the same ground.
He again told of a plot to get U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald fired, and of how Blagojevich discussed a state post with him while an envelope containing a $25,000 check Ata had written sat before the governor.
But his testimony was overshadowed by clashes between Adam and Zagel.
At one point, Adam was almost shouting at Ata over the connection he had drawn between his donations to Blagojevich and his position with the Illinois Finance Authority.
“It was not a job for money,” Adam exclaimed.
Zagel cut Adam off. “It’s a nice argument and feel free to make it in closing arguments,” Zagel said. “But it’s not a question.”
Lawyers often try to send messages to jurors with questions they know the witness will never be allowed to answer, and Adam plowed forward. He argued with Ata over details of a different state post that he thought he had landed, but did not. Ata insisted he had technically been given the job in exchange for campaign checks, and that the governor knew it.
“Did you have an office?” Adam asked after multiple objections. When the judge sustained yet another government objection, Adam had a look of astonishment.
“I know you look shocked, but the truth is I don’t think you are shocked,” Zagel said, making clear to everyone in the courtroom that he was aware of the gamesmanship unfolding in front of him.
One line of questioning by Adam led Zagel to send the jury out of the room. Ata, an emigrant from Jordan who worked at a chemical firm for 25 years, said he believed he was forced into early retirement after the FBI visited him at his workplace while investigating one of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers, Mohamed Atta.
Adam said he wasn’t trying to get too close to a sensitive topic. “Yes, you are; don’t do it,” Zagel said sternly before clearing the jury box and delivering another lecture.”
Speaking of Arizona, I side with the state of AZ and would be willing to travel there and stand side by side with them in whatever means is necessary to repel the intrusion of the Federal Government.
Once again the government is protecting criminals and going after decent citizens. Enough is enough.
Citizen WElls 