Tag: democracy

Categories
incumbents insider corruption

Involuntary Campaign Contributions

campaign, funding, politicians, elections, democracy, Labyrinth, advertising, propaganda

Incumbent lawmakers should not be looting taxpayer dollars to fund their election campaigns.

Investigative reporter Lee Fang has learned that incumbents of both major parties are ignoring ethics rules in order “to use government money for ads clearly designed to influence voters.” 

Back in the 1990s, I was shocked to discover that the average incumbent congressperson spent more using the franking privilege, government funding of “official” newsletters to constituents, than the average challenger spent in his or her entire campaign. In this video age, they’ve upgraded their bragging to living color.

Here is a bipartisan couple from the many examples Fang discovered:

Democrat: A taxpayer-funded ad aired by the campaign of New York Representative Tom Suozzi, talks about how “Tom worked across party lines to convince the president” to do something about the border.

Republican: A taxpayer-funded ad aired by the campaign of Virginia Representative Jen Kiggans, in which she boasts about her track record on issues pertaining to veterans and the military.

Fang has identified at least nine other culprits and put together a YouTube video compiling some of these taxpayer-funded ads. Everyone sees these as campaign spots — or “campaign-style ads,” as Fang also puts it.

The ads even say (for example, in Wesley Hunt’s video) that they were “paid for with official funds” from the office of the congressman or with “official funds authorized by the House of Representatives.”

These “official funds” are not voluntary campaign contributions.

Congressmen, you’ve been caught. 

So stop.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and ChatGPT and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law Voting

California’s Electoral Saboteurs

voter ID, immigration, election fraud, citizenship

Thou shalt not check the ID of a person showing up to vote.

California lawmakers — apparently eager to help noncitizens vote — have banned local voter ID laws like that of Huntington Beach.

Attorney General Rob Bonta says that requiring ID to vote “flies in the face” of the principle that “the right to cast your vote is the foundation of our democracy.”

But Huntington Beach didn’t impair “the right to cast your vote.”

Opponents of ID requirements say that the problem is the terrible hardship of presenting a valid ID or perhaps of obtaining one. These may be chores, but they’re hardly ventures into the unknown. If you’re a citizen, you can get ID showing you are. And almost everyone is capable of pulling an ID out of a pocket and displaying it.

Here’s a tell: “An amendment to Senate Bill 1174 that would have explicitly banned illegal migrants from voting was rejected.”

Is there evidence of fraud in American elections? 

Is it major — not a marginal issue having to do with one or two wayward ballots per decade?

Could lawmakers like California State Senator Dave Min, who asserts that “voter ID laws only subvert voter turnout,” be wrong?

Yes. 

The evidence can be found in John Fund’s books, such as Our Broken Elections, Stealing Elections, and Who’s Counting? A more recent report of attempts to undermine the vote and prevent the same is Elizabeth Nickson’s article “The 2024 Cheat and What’s Being Done About It.”

Voter IDs don’t subvert voter turnout, they subvert fraudulent voter turnout.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights ideological culture international affairs

Elon Musk’s Right Answer

Elon Musk, censorship, EU, free speech, democracy

“By the rules of the complicated pretense which all those people played for one another’s benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.”

These words are from a scene in Atlas Shrugged in which beleaguered industrialist Hank Rearden rejects “this court’s right to try me” and refuses to put on a defense. Thereby giving the best defense of all.

Elon Musk didn’t give a speech.

Instead, when an EU muck-a-muck, Thierry Breton, sent him a letter on the eve of Musk’s Twitter interview with presidential candidate Donald Trump, a letter babbling about dire consequences for Twitter if it were to “amplify potentially harmful content [i.e., any deviation from current government dogma] in connection with events with major audience around the world,” Musk responded with a quote and a clip from the movie Tropic Thunder.

Other EU officials are now rushing to disavow Breton’s letter, widely castigated as an attempt to interfere with the U.S. election.

I can’t repeat the line Musk quoted, because we don’t use cuss words here. If you don’t like to hear such words, don’t click into the video clip. Just don’t go there.

Mega-magnate Elon Musk is often badly wrong about China. But when he’s right, he’s right. Even super right. 

And we need a million more CEOs to be thus willing to stand up to regulators foreign and domestic.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law general freedom Voting

Jugglers & Clowns

immigration, voting, democracy, rigged election

“Shall the City of Santa Ana City Charter be amended to allow . . . noncitizen City residents, including those who are taxpayers and parents, to vote in all City of Santa Ana municipal elections?”

In November, this question about voting will be presented to voters. 

It is true that noncitizens in the city include both “taxpayers and parents,” of course. Still, by this same logic, why not change the ballot language to read “including the childless and the destitute”? Those noncitizens would also get to vote. 

Or get away from one’s tax status and childbirth proclivities altogether and change the wording to “including those who speak French and drink coffee.” Or maybe voters could be made aware that noncitizens will include “shopaholics and known thespians.”

All these statements are the truth and nothing but the truth. How could anyone object?

But object they did. Opponents of the measure filed suit, asking a California court to strike the “taxpayers and parents” wording from the ballot — as prejudicial in favor of the change.  

The court agreed, ordering the city to remove that language “sugarcoating” the proposition. 

But the city refuses (I didn’t know cities could tell courts No!*) and is keeping its current biased language to push a Yes vote on the proposition. 

Rule of law be damned.

My last suggestion to Santa Ana officials is to edit the wording after noncitizens to say, “including jugglers and clowns.” No, wait — that particular identification might be confusing, since it applies far less to noncitizens than to Santa Ana’s city council.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

* Unusual, indeed, for a local government to ignore a court order. It likely means the proposition, even if passed, will ultimately be blocked in court as improperly enacted. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall judiciary term limits

A Second Life for Limits

Congress, age limit, voters, democracy

Will the Supreme Court let states impose limits on the representatives and senators they send to Washington, D.C.?

Thanks to events in North Dakota, there’s a good chance this question is about to asked again. 

And get a different answer.

The first time was thirty years ago. The case: U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton.

In May 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that states cannot impose restrictions like term limits on their congressional delegations.

But: “Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress,” observed Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent. “And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.”

Now 61 percent of North Dakota voters have passed a ballot measure to impose an age limit on their congressmen. The 1995 Supreme Court would have ruled it unconstitutional. The only justice serving on the high court then who is still there is Thomas.

Everybody thinks that North Dakota’s outlawing of ancient candidates will be challenged in court. In a June 17 podcast for U.S. Term Limits, its president, Philip Blumel, says that USTL would welcome such a challenge.

“Surely, U.S. Term Limits versus Thornton would be the basis” for the challenge and would thus “provide an opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue.”

Moreover, a case brought in federal court won’t necessarily take years to decide, because “sometimes the [Supreme Court] expedites election-related cases.”

Fingers crossed, everybody.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

NOTE: Paul Jacob is a former president of U.S. Term Limits and continues to serve on its board of directors. Paul is currently the president of Liberty Initiative Fund, which made significant contributions to North Dakota’s age limits initiative.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access election law judiciary

A Done Decision

rock climber

We probably needn’t feel suspense about whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court will let certain sloppy voting practices continue.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty and the chairman of the Racine County Republican Party filed a lawsuit alleging that Racine city officials illegally used a van to collect absentee ballots in 2022. A circuit court ruled that such mobile voting sites violate state law.

Now, “without allowing any lower appellate courts to rule first,” the state’s supreme court will decide whether the circuit court is right about that.

The high court voted 4 to 3 to accept the case. The three justices who opposed end-running the appellate courts are conservative (read: Republican); the other four are liberal (read: Democrat).

The Democrat justices voted to take the case at the request of the Democratic National Committee, which leads a political party known to be a proponent of slapdash voting procedures, slapdashery that observers tend to agree favors Democrats.

Chief Justice Annette Ziegler, who is part of the conservative bloc, has stated that the “liberal” justices proceeded in this way in order to help the Democrats politically. Ziegler knows her “liberal” colleagues, and I guess they must be the sort of progressives who don’t make conscientious adherence to the law in the service of election integrity a top priority.

So I think what’s about to happen is more of a foregone conclusion than it is a cliffhanger.

We know how the court will decide — but wouldn’t we love a surprise ending?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Midjourney

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access insider corruption partisanship

Words for Jersey Insiders

New Jersey, ballots, design, voters, partisans

Effrontery. Chutzpah. Impudence.

I’m of course talking about partisan politics.

The case at hand is covered by Matthew Petti at Reason, “Are New Jersey Voters Too Dumb for Normal Ballots?” In this April 3rd report, Petti explains that a “federal judge has ordered Democrats in New Jersey to draw up ballots fairly instead of putting their favorite candidates at the front. But state Democratic bosses think that voters can’t be trusted to figure out how to think for themselves.”

This is a dispute about ballot design. Remember the notorious “butterfly” ballots that so confused Palm Beach County, Florida voters in 2000? You know, even Pat Buchanan acknowledged that thousands in the liberal county voted for him by mistake. 

Well, this is similar, though here the case is not so much a confusing ballot but a simple ballot with favored candidates getting the easiest-to-spot slots. “All but two of the state’s counties endorse candidates for the primary and then place their endorsed candidates all in one line,” explains NPR’s Nancy Solomon. “It’s called the ‘county line’ or ‘the party line’ and it includes candidates for various positions. . . . The other candidates for the same seat are placed in what’s known as ballot Siberia – way off to the right on the ballot and all alone.”

But when the party machine tried to replace the serially indicted Senator Bob Menendez with the governor’s wife, a challenger complained. And sued. And won.

County clerks are appealing the decision — but the court still requires them to design a new ballot.

“New” . . . meaning like ballots nearly everywhere.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access national politics & policies political challengers

The “We the People” Party Pooper

duopoly, two party system, third party

The only substantial challenger to the two parties, this presidential campaign season, has been Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 

The son of a presidential primary frontrunner in 1968, and nephew of the 35th President of the United States — both assassinated — has been an environmental litigator and vaccine skeptic for years, and, unlike Presidents Biden and Trump, has publicly and fundamentally criticized the handling of the recent pandemic.

Though a Democrat for years, he was marginalized by the Democratic Party — an efficient machine for an astoundingly monolithic power center — and last October decided not to run as a Democrat. 

So he’s gathering signatures, creating parties, all sorts of schemes to make good on his promise of being on the ballot in every state of the union.

As Ron Paul’s last-minute ballot access coordinator in 1988, I know how difficult that is. The two parties have only continued to tighten their grip on American election “rules.” If you were wondering why Bobby Kennedy made his Veep choice so early and picked wealthy Silicon Valley lawyer Nicole Shanahan, the reason is that many states require a Vice Presidential running mate to be on the petition before signatures are gathered.

RFK, Jr., was forced to jump the gun. Plus, now a candidate, there are no campaign finance limitations on Shanahan putting her personal wealth into the effort. 

Interestingly, RFK has formed a “national” political party, the “We the People Party,” which has established footholds in California, Delaware, Hawaii, Mississippi, and North Carolina. He has also formed The Texas Independent Party and is on the ballot as an Independent in Hawaii, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Utah.

While in recent years there has been tremendous focus on how people vote, look at all the hurdles and walls still facing the who, if that candidate exists outside the major-party duopoly, a victim of all its silly, anti-democratic laws.

Maybe that’s one way Kennedy’s campaign can “do good,” by highlighting an issue neither party cares about: free and fair elections.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access election law

More Is Less

citizen voting, democracy, elections, immigration, illegal

Jose Barrios was “quite happy to hear we’re going to have more democracy, not less in the District of Columbia.”

Barrios, the president of D.C. Latino Caucus, was reacting to a federal judge’s ruling to toss out the legal challenge, brought by several city voters, to the D.C. Noncitizen Voting Act.

That underlying law, passed by the DC City Council in 2022, certainly puts the “more” into democracy, allowing anyone residing in our nation’s capital for 30 days, even if in the country illegally, to legally vote for mayor, city council and local ballot measures. 

And I do mean “anyone.” China’s ambassador to the U.S. and other Chinese nationals working at their embassy are today eligible voters in Washington. Same for the FSB agents and other Russian nationals working out of their embassy. 

Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that plaintiffs “were simply raising a generalized grievance.” She elaborated: “They may object as a matter of policy to the fact that immigrants get to vote at all, but their votes will not receive less weight or be treated differently than noncitizens’ votes.”

I object to her poor choice of terms. “Immigrants” have been voting in this country for the last century and hopefully always will: By becoming citizens. 

The judge’s ruling also highlights that who votes is a pretty fundamental constitutional question, one that voters should decide. 

Yesterday, Idaho’s legislature voted to place a Citizen Only Voting Amendment on this November’s ballot — joining Wisconsin, Iowa, and Kentucky, which have similar amendments on the ballot. 

Certainly, yes, bestowing the vote on foreign citizens residing in the city for 30 days is an expansion of democracy. But sometimes more is less.

So, let’s ask voters.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ballot access election law ideological culture

The Colorado Gambit Crushed

Colorado, Trump, election, democracy

The Supreme Court unanimously nixed the clever scheme to keep Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot. The court explained its actions in the second paragraph of its anonymously written March 4th ruling: “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.”

That’s it. The 14th Amendment, which the Colorado gambit relied upon, does make Congress the instrument for preventing “an insurrectionist” from serving in office.

So Colorado’s ploy to rig the 2024 election out in the open has been stopped. And good thing, too, since the political repercussions could have been . . . harrowing. 

A lot of commentary and reporting on the ruling has been devoted to pushing what was not covered. Take the CNN article by John Fritz and Marshall Cohen, “Trump’s on the ballot, but the Supreme Court left key constitutional questions unanswered.” It is hard not to interpret such headlines as providing excuses to partisan Democrats — in this case those at CNN — who had put so much hope in Colorado’s (and other states’) taking of the Trump matter into their own hands. 

“But while the unsigned, 13-page opinion the Supreme Court handed down Monday decisively resolved the uncertainty around Trump’s eligibility for a second term,” the article explains, “it left unsettled questions that could some day boomerang back to the justices.”

True enough, but so what? Take the first mentioned: “Could Democratic lawmakers, for instance, disqualify Trump next January when the electoral votes are counted if he wins the November election?”

Well, no. 

The 14th’s third section does not list presidents as barred by insurrection: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President,” it says. Electors of. But not the President and VP.

I’m sure the Supreme Court would be happy to expedite an opinion to that effect should the Democrats attempt anything that stupid.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts