The Hill is reporting on a new Progressive campaign, this one ostensibly to protect the freedom of political speech. Unions and other groups, including Common Cause, Health Care for America Now, Public Citizen, and Occupy Wall Street and led by the Service Employees International Union are getting together to prevent, they say, corporate money from swaying the November elections outcomes. As Aaron Black, of Occupy Wall Street, puts it:
If you secretly contribute and scheme to buy our elections, we’re going to come knocking on your door. And it’s not just going to be a couple of us. It’s going to be thousands of us. Everywhere you turn your head.
Does this tactic sound familiar? There’s more. A sitting public official, the Public Advocate for the City of New York (the incumbent is first in line to succeed the city’s Mayor), Bill de Blasio, has joined the movement, and he is careful to remind us of the fate of another corporation that dared speak in the public forum: Target Corporation. Target was hit with a boycott campaign in 2010 for donating to a group that supported a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. De Blasio also assures us that that protest was only the start.
What happened to Target was child’s play compared to the strength that all of these organizations can bring to bear against companies that decide they’re going against the people’s will and involve themselves unduly in the political process.
Now it’s the government’s definition of “undue” involvement.
The Executive Director of Health Care for America Now, Ethan Rome, insists that they’re only targeting corporations because
There’s a world of difference between corporations and unions. We’re here because corporations don’t have to disclose their donations, to (c)4s and (c)6s, for example. Unions have to disclose all of their activity[.]
This misses, though, the fact that unions are corporations, also, and it misses the fact that union donations “to (c)4s and (c)6s, for example,” are treated the same as any corporation’s donations to these entities, and it misses the fact that there’s nothing stopping unions from setting up their own SuperPACs.
The President of Public Citizen, Robert Weissmann, claims
If you donate to a Republican-leaning, independent organization, trade association, we’re coming after you. You donate to a Democratic-leaning one, same deal.
Notice two things: one group donates more to Republican causes than to Democratic ones, and 13 of the 20 groups are unions. Weissman insists that, “You donate to a Democratic-leaning one, same deal.” Can we really can expect a coalition led by the SEIU—the same SEIU of Montgomery County, MD, infamy—to do anything about its fellow dozen unions that donate to Democratic causes? Or do these entities all behave correctly and so are above reproach?
Apparently free speech is free only to select groups. Only some organizations get to play in the November elections.
Here is a sample of the kind of campaign that President Obama is running in his attempt to get reelected.
They’re obsessed
By Jim Messina, Campaign Manager on
In just about 24 hours, Mitt Romney is headed to a hotel ballroom to give a speech sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a front group founded and funded by the Koch brothers.
Those are the same Koch brothers whose business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump, and who bankrolled Tea Party extremism, and committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama before Election Day.
So in the hours before Romney courts two men obsessed with making Barack Obama a one-term president, let’s see how many of us can chip in to the Two-Term Fund.
Here’s what Mitt Romney told his supporters just after his victory in the Florida GOP primary:
“We must not forget what this election is really about: defeating Barack Obama.”
Pitch in $3 or more over the next 24 hours to show that, while that message may fire up two oil-industry billionaires, it’s also one that plenty of us are tired of hearing.
The Koch Companies’ President of Government and Public Affairs, Philip Ellender, responded to this in a well-publicized manner. I won’t go into that letter; however, a copy of it can be seen here.
What’s interesting, though, is Obama’s response, through Messina, to the Koch Industries letter. I’ll cite relevant parts; the whole letter can be read at the link.
I am writing in response to your letter, in which you portrayed the oil and gas executives you represent as average citizens trying to make their voices heard.
Of course, no such representation was made. They did mention the “tens of thousands of members and contributors from across the country and from all walks of life” with respect to Americans for Prosperity. Of course Obama knows that there are not “tens of thousands” of oil and gas executives all across the country; this is deliberate, Alinsky-esque distortion.
But it is a cynical stretch to describe the political activities of your employers as furthering democracy when they are courting huge checks from special interest donors to pay for negative ads, with no public disclosure of the identity of those donors.
Hmm. Obama claims to know of “huge checks from special interest donors,” but there is “no public disclosure of the identity of these donors.” Which side of Obama’s mouth should we believe, here? Or is Obama confessing to domestic spying on private American citizens?
You argue that Americans for Prosperity is a grassroots organization of everyday citizens. But its emphasis on rolling back environmental protections and blocking a clean energy economy appears to be nothing more than an effort to promote the corporate interests of your employers and others who lavishly, and secretly, fund its operations.
This is another deliberate distortion. AFP doesn’t espouse rolling back environmental protections or blocking clean energy. AFP, along with all thinking Americans, do espouse eliminating excessive EPA regulations that hinder business—of any type—with no discernible gain for the environment. Nor do we Americans seek to block clean energy. We do object to Obama wasting our money on the Solyndras of the nation, and we do object to Obama wasting our money on “green” enterprises whose product cannot survive in an honestly competitive free market without those props.
You note in your letter that Americans for Prosperity has tens of thousands of members and contributors from all walks of life across the country, suggesting that this is the source of AFP’s funding. There is one way to verify your point: disclose those donors for the public to make that judgment.
How very Axelrod of Obama. He doesn’t have to supply any evidence. He just has to accuse, and given the accusation, of course the accused is perforce guilty unless he can prove his innocence.
But, even though I’ve spent some time on this, it’s all just cynical distraction, which is Obama’s intent with his Messina letter. What’s most important here is that at no time does Obama address the issues raised in the Koch Industries letter response to his original ad hominem attack.
If the President’s campaign has some principled disagreement with the arguments we are making publicly about the staggering debt the President and previous administrations have imposed on the country, the regulations that are stifling business growth and innovation, the increasing intrusion of government into nearly every aspect of American life, we would be eager to hear them.
and
It is understandable that the President and his campaign may be “tired of hearing” that many Americans would rather not see the president re-elected. However, the inference is that you would prefer that citizens who disagree with the President and his policies refrain from voicing their own viewpoint. Clearly, that’s not the way a free society should operate.
and
I…hope the President will reflect on how the approach the campaign is using is at odds with our national values and the constitutional right to free speech.
Oh, yeah—Obama did pretend to address the nation’s debt explosion:
That is why the President introduced a plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion and put us on a path to solvency.
Obama’s “plan” is two budget proposals so ludicrous that even the Democratic party voted it out of town unanimously, and the second proposal, just last month, doubles down on that bad joke.
But he carefully elided the Progressive regulatory environment and the increasing intrusion of the Progressive government into the lives of ordinary Americans and our businesses.
And on free speech,
When you attempt to drown out their voices through unlimited, secret contributions to pursue a special-interest agenda that conflicts with what’s best for our nation, you must expect some scrutiny of your actions.
Once again, cynically unsubstantiated accusations of secret donations (since you know of them, Mr Obama, provide the data), while continuing the free speech of ad hominem attacks.
Two reasons come to mind for such a campaign. One is the naked intimidation of those with dissenting speech in which Obama is so plainly engaged. He simply will not brook any disagreement with his own hallowed positions, and he attacks, personally and with demonization, all those who do disagree. Is this the sort of President of which we want another four years?
The other reason is that Obama simply is incapable of forming an argument that defends his own position, and so he runs away from the issues at hand and dives for the cover of the ad hominem as a means of changing the subject. He knows his policies have failed utterly, but he lacks the moral rigor to acknowledge that and change course: he is capable only of avoiding the issues and engaging in personal attacks. Is his the sort of President of which we can afford to risk another four years?
As corporate money continues its steady flow through the post-Citizens United world of U.S. elections, general counsel may soon have a new disclosure item to worry about. Last Friday, commissioner Luis Aguilar of the Securities and Exchange Commission called for the agency to consider a new rule requiring public companies to disclose all political spending. Shareholder proxy proposals seeking disclosure of corporate political donations are at a new high this year, according to the National Association of Corporate Directors. Aguilar says shareholder pressure is working, because nearly 60 percent of the S&P 100 companies had political disclosure policies in place as of December 31, compared with only a handful seven years earlier.
Never mind that, if shareholder pressure is working, a Government rule controlling free speech in this arena is plainly unwarranted. This is just another cynical Progressive administration attempt to regulate free speech.
Andrew McCarthy, writing for National Review Online last Friday, described a shocking—and revolting—development in American jurisprudence.
Before I go into that, though, let me digress and provide a couple of quotes from the Pennsylvania Constitution. First is a state judge’s oath of office, from Article VI, Section 3:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.
Next is the state constitution’s view of free speech, from Article I, Section 7 (I won’t go into the Federal Constitution’s 1st Amendment statement on free speech—a statement which a Pennsylvania state judge also is sworn to support, obey and defend):
The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
Now to cases. It seems that Ernest Perce was the victim of a criminal assault.
Ernest Perce wore a “Zombie Mohammed” costume and pretended to walk among the dead (in the company of an associate who was the “Zombie Pope….” The assailant, Talag Elbayomy, a Muslim immigrant, physically attacked Perce, attempted to pull his sign off, and, according to police, admitted what he had done right after the incident.
State Judge Mark Martin
dressed the victim down for failing to appreciate how sensitive Muslims — including the judge himself [a converted Muslim] — are about Islam.
The (now twice over) victim recorded the audio of Martin’s shameful performance and has posted it on YouTube.
Here is an excerpt from Martin’s…ruling (there’s more at the NRO link above).
Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. That makes you look like a doofus.
And Mr. Thomas [Elbayomi’s defense lawyer] is correct. In many other Muslim speaking countries – excuse me, in many Arabic speaking countries – call it “Muslim” – something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society, in fact, it could be punishable by death, and it frequently is, in their society.
Thus, what goes on in “other countries” must, of necessity, supersede domestic law governing behaviors done domestically. Even when what goes on in those countries is patently barbaric.
This story certainly has legs. As you might imagine, the public is only getting the version of the story put out by the “victim” (the atheist). Many, many gross misrepresentations. Among them: I’m a Muslim, and that’s why I dismissed the harassment charge (Fact: if anyone cares, I’m actually Lutheran, and have been for at least 41 years).
I also supposedly called him and threatened to throw him in jail if he released the tapes he had made in the courtroom without my knowledge/permission (Fact: HE called ME and told me that he was ready to “go public” with the tapes and was wondering what the consequences would be; I advised him again to not disseminate the recording, and that I would consider contempt charges; he then replied that he was “willing to go to jail for (his) 1st amendment rights”- I never even uttered the word “jail” in that conversation).
He said that I kept a copy of the Quran on the bench (fact: I keep a Bible on the bench, but out of respect to people with faiths other than Christianity, I DO have a Quran on the bookcase BESIDE my bench, and am trying to acquire a Torah, Book of Mormon, Book of Confucius and any other artifacts which those with a faith might respect).
He claims that I’m biased towards Islam, apparently because he thinks I’m Muslim. In fact, those of you who know me, know that I’m an Army reservist with 27 years of service towards our country (and still serving). I’ve done one tour in Afghanistan, and two tours in Iraq, and am scheduled to return to Afghanistan for a year this summer. During my first tour in Iraq, I was ambushed once, attacked by a mob once, sniped at once, and rocketed, bombed, and mortared so many times that I honestly don’t know how many time I’ve been attacked. Presumably by Muslim insurgents. My point: if anyone SHOULD be biased towards Muslims, one would think it would be me. I’m not, however, because I personally know or have met many good, decent people who follow Islam, and I shouldn’t characterize the actions of those who tried to kill me as characterizations of all Muslims.
When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;
In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.
A lesson learned here: there’s a very good reason for Rule 112 of Rules of Criminal Procedure- if someone makes an unauthorized recording in a Court not of Record, there’s no way to control how it might be manipulated later, and then passed off as the truth. We’ve received dozens upon dozens of phone calls, faxes, and e-mails. There are literally hundreds of not-so-nice posts all over the internet on at least 4 sites that have carried this story, mainly because I’ve been painted as a Muslim judge who didn’t recuse himself, and who’s trying to introduce Sharia law into Mechanicsburg.
Like Professor Volokh suggests, this is unconvincing. There remains the fact of the assault, both unprovoked and unjustified. As to “the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign,” there’s also the police’s hearing of the assailant’s confession and the possibility of an explanation of the sign’s condition, both of which he refused to hear when he tossed the case.
This judge has willfully and deliberately applied foreign law (and he as, as a separate matter, applied foreign religious law) to a domestic American criminal case, and he has done so by replacing applicable domestic law with that foreign law. This is a deliberate violation of his oath of office, and this should be an impeachable offense. We’ll see in the coming days whether the Pennsylvania legislature is up to the task of protecting American, and its own state, law. We’ll also see in the coming days whether the prosecutor involved is up to the task of appealing this willfully wrongful dismissal.
Last month the People’s Republic of China’s government news service, Xinhua News Service, carried a statement from the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT)concerning the PRC’s decision about what the Chinese people will be permitted to see on theirthe government’s television sets. The translation is courtesy of NightWatch.
A recently implemented rule has effectively curbed the “excessive entertainment” trend as two-thirds of the entertainment programs on China’s 34 satellite channels have been cut…. According to an SARFT directive last October, each of the country’s satellite channels would be limited to broadcasting two entertainment programs each week and a maximum of 90 minutes of content defined as entertainment every day during primetime…. The directive also required channels to broadcast at least two hours of news programming.
The restricted programs on the SARFT list include dating shows, talent contests, talk shows as well as emotional stories that were deemed ‘excessive entertainment’ and of “low taste.” …the satellite channels have started to broadcast programs that promote traditional virtues and socialist core values. The newly-added programs…are documentaries as well as cultural and educational programs…. The SARFT believes that the move to cut entertainment programming is crucial in improving cultural services for the public….
Nothing like limiting speech “for their own good.” The Chinese people apparently are sufficiently bereft in judgment that they cannot be left to their own devices—or to their own decisions concerning what speech they might wish to hear.
KnightWatch reminds us that the PRC does not have freedom of speech. It’s important to note, also, that these broadcasting restrictions are consistent with another fundamental ideological position of the PRC: free markets, free speech, freedom of association, and so on are not inalienable rights; they are privileges granted by government, to be adjusted from time to time solely according to government judgment.
Consider also, the background of this broadcasting move. In response to increasing influence in the PRC by Western culture and ideas, which has been facilitated by increasing foreign trade (and some loosening of economic strictures in the direction of freer markets), which in turn helps foster an increasingly prosperous peasant and middle class population (at least by historical Chinese standards), Chinese leadership is pulling back and retightening restrictions.
Last fall, the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee approved an explicitly ideological foundation for cultural activities, announcing a new policy specifically to eliminate many Western entertainment shows and so limit much foreign influence. Moreover, the PRC government earlier this year ordered internet service providers to ensure that microblog posters (a rough equivalent to the Western Twitter facility) have registered their accounts under their real names—no anonymity here. The government also has pressured those running the microblog platforms to censor themselves “voluntarily.”
So, I ask: of what is the PRC government so afraid? Oh, wait—it’s the men populating the government…. And I ask further: why do we want these guys for our national banker?
Notice two things: one group donates more to Republican causes than to Democratic ones, and 13 of the 20 groups are unions. Weissman insists that, “You donate to a Democratic-leaning one, same deal.” Can we really can expect a coalition led by the SEIU—the same SEIU of Montgomery County, MD, infamy—to do anything about its fellow dozen unions that donate to Democratic causes? Or do these entities all behave correctly and so are above reproach?