Fighting Incumbent Protectionism: Campaign Finance Reform is an Assault on Free Speech

See my radioactive pointing finger? This is how I win arguments.

See my radioactive pointing finger? This is how I win arguments.

Ted Cruz stands up for citizens’ right to spend money on politics.

For National Review OnlineDustin Siggins writes: What is the right amount of speech to give to citizens in politics? Both major parties are debating this question as the 2014 midterm elections approach.

“…I would ask you, why does a corporation like The New York Times or CBS, or any other media corporation, in Congress’ view, enjoy greater First Amendment rights than individual citizens.”

According to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who told a Senate panel Wednesday that campaign money is not the same as speech, the answer seems to be “a limited amount.” Stevens, who has been critical of his former colleagues on the Court for overturning a number of campaign finance reform measures, was joined by Democrats who went after the Koch brothers for their involvement in the political system.

51VFhbgZcDL._SY300_Enter Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas), who in about five-and-a-half minutes shattered the entire argument for what Washington considers “campaign finance reform.” His comments turned campaign-finance pieties on their head and made clear why free speech needs to be paramount in the United States.

[Amazon.com has pre-order info on Dustin Siggins‘ upcoming book: America’s Bankrupt Legacy: The Future of the Debt-Paying Generation]

Cruz pointed out how campaign finance reform protects incumbents. Instead of allowing as much speech as possible for the American people, elected officials have engaged in self-preservation at the cost of the First Amendment. To quote the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro from a 2012 appearance in front of a Senate subcommittee, “Let the voters weigh what a donation from this or that plutocrat means to them, rather than — and I say this with all due respect — allowing incumbent politicians to write the rules to benefit themselves.”

“…there are 300 million Americans who have the right to criticize you all day long and twice on Sundays.”

Similarly, Cruz noted that incumbents have “lobbyists and entrenched interests” doing fundraising for them. This is in stark contrast to challengers, who Cruz says “[have] to raise the money.” Read the rest of this entry »


Stevens: Fix Second Amendment to Remove “Any Limits” on Government Power

“…I think that’s what should be the rule, that it should be legislatures rather than judges who draw the line on what is permissible.”

For National Review OnlineTim Cavanaugh writes: Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens supports gutting the Second Amendment in order to remove any limit on government infringements on the right of self-defense.

In his new book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Stevens — who generally favored maximum government power during his 35-year tenure on the high court — proposes, among other things, changing the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so that the amendment would read, “ . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms [when serving in the militia] shall not be infringed.”

[Order Justice John Paul Stevens’s book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution from Amazon]

Read the rest of this entry »


Voter Fraud in the Heartland

obama-iowa

Iowa Refers 80 Cases of Voter Fraud to Prosecutors 

NRO’s John Fund writes:  Vice President Biden claimed voter ID laws were evidence of “hatred” and “zealotry” during a Black History Month event yesterday in Washington.

Ignoring the fact that voter ID laws were declared constitutional in a 2006 Supreme Court decision written by John Paul Stevens, the Court’s then most liberal justice, Biden is continuing the fact-free assault on anti-voter fraud measures.

“…five people have pleaded guilty to voter fraud and 15 others are facing charges….”

When such laws aren’t “hateful” they are “unnecessary.” The Brennan Center for Justice says “voter fraud is essentially irrational” so it almost never happens. Voter fraud is so rare “you’re more likely to get hit by lightning than find a case of prosecutorial voter fraud,” insists Judith Browne-Dianis, co-director of the liberal Advancement Project.

iowa-voter

Well, the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation disagrees. Not a state known for its hateful politics, Iowa’s DCI wrapped up its investigation this month and has referred more than 80 cases of voter fraud to county attorneys for possible prosecution. Since the investigation was initiated by GOP Secretary of State Matt Schultz a year and a half ago, five people have pleaded guilty to voter fraud and 15 others are facing charges. Read the rest of this entry »