LATEST DEMOCRAT STRATEGY: BANNING BOOKS

Welcome to a manifestation of the real reason Barack Obama was so agitated, he called out the Supreme Court during a joint session of Congress for its ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC. That case was about whether corporations could contribute to non-profits that were publishing / distributing books videos for or against political candidates close to an election. At issue was the ability of Citizens United to market a documentary about Hillary Clinton. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United.

This case is slightly different in that it doesn't involve just corporations; it involves members of congress who have written a book titled, "Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders" that Democrats apparently do not want released. In this case, three Republican congressmen - Eric Cantor (VA), Paul Ryan (WI), and Kevin McCarthy (CA) - are playing the role of Citizens United.

Via POLITICO:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s attorneys sent Simon & Schuster a letter Thursday, hinting that the publisher may have violated several campaign finance laws that prohibit in-kind contributions by corporations by posting on its website a promotional video for a book penned by three top House Republicans.

At issue: the publishing house’s promotion of “Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders” by Reps. Eric Cantor of Virginia, Kevin McCarthy of California and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. The DCCC’s attorneys at Perkins Coie sent the New York-based publisher a letter saying it’s improper for a corporation to host a video on its website that directs viewers to a website that solicits contributions for Republican candidates for Congress.

The book is scheduled to be released on September 14 but the way the Democrats have been acting lately, look for the DCCC to sue the publisher - Simon & Shuster - or seek an injunction to have the book withheld, pending an FEC decision. In light of the Citizens United ruling, this takes on an added smack of arrogance on the part of the Democratic leadership.

Here is the promotional video for the book. Ironic that the title is "Young Guns" because this tactic on the part of the DCCC very well could backfire by giving it free publicity. To illustrate my point, this video came out last week and I didn't post it because it didn't do much for me. Now?

Kinda likin' it.



h/t to Gateway Pundit

J.D. HAYWORTH KEEPS RINO ON LEASH

When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Committee (FEC), it was not only a slap in the face to the sponsors of McCain / Feingold. It also deeply bothered Barack Obama to the point of chastising the Supreme Court's Justices at his State of the Union.

The suit was filed on the basis of First Amendment freedoms surrounding a documentary about Hillary Clinton, called "Hillary: The Movie". Citizens United produced the film and was prohibited from marketing it based on the notorious campaign finance reform law penned by John McCain and Russ Feingold.

As further evidence that the Supreme Court ruling was very unwelcome news to the left, CQ is reporting that the Democrats are now hard at work, trying to overturn it with new legislation.

By early next week, House and Senate Democrats are expected to introduce a bill designed to blunt Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which tossed out most restrictions on corporate political ad buys. While language is still being finalized, the measure will more than likely expand disclosure requirements for corporations and nonprofit organizations looking to take advantage of the more liberal regulatory landscape.

Sounds like the Republican sponsor of McCain / Feingold would be the first one in line when it comes to writing new legislation, right?

Not so fast. John McCain is conspicuously silent on many of his notoriously liberal issues - immigration reform comes to mind - for one primary reason. That reason is that he is in the fight for his political life in Arizona. Here is another reason to embrace J.D. Hayworth's bid for the Senate seat McCain has held since the Reagan administration. Regardless of one's stance on Hayworth, his being in this race is serving to keep a RINO - John McCain - on a leash.

Conversely, if McCain wins the August 24th primary against Hayworth, many expect him to perform a flip flop that would make John Kerry proud:

“Given that [McCain] made the centerpiece of his earlier political efforts governmental reform and campaign finance reform in particular, it’s curious,” said Marc Elias, a Democratic campaign finance lawyer at Perkins Coie. “It seems clear that he is not planning on being a leader on reform, but is he really willing to vote against reform?”

Elias and other observers say that the day of reckoning for possible McCain support is Aug. 24, when Arizona voters take to the polls to decide the 2008 GOP presidential nominee’s fate against his primary opponent, GOP former Rep. J.D. Hayworth. Many observers speculate that after the primary, McCain may pivot toward the middle and could ultimately back a Schumer-Van Hollen bill.

I have received criticism for my stance of strongly opposing Sarah Palin's decision to actively campaign for McCain in his primary with Hayworth. Based on this news, I am even more convinced that Palin made a big mistake in doing so.

h/t to Free Republic

CITIZENS UNITED CASE GETS TWO SHOTS IN THE ARM

When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 this past January in favor of Citizens United against the FEC, Barack Obama didn't like it much. He voiced his displeasure directly at the Supreme Court Justices during the State of the Union. The argument that seemed to resonate with a majority of the public was that the ruling enabled big corporate interests, both foreign and domestic, to significantly alter elections.

That's not what this case was about........AT ALL. And there is a reason that Barack Obama is concerned. Politico reports that Obama is making campaign finance a huge issue this spring.

Aides say that with the momentum from the most complex domestic bill to pass Congress in 45 years, Obama now will push Congress to close campaign-finance loopholes opened by the Citizens United case…

People need to start asking why he is so concerned about this.

In any event, Obama's fight to render the Citizens United decision null and void took two significant blows on Friday. The New York Times reported:

WASHINGTON — Two federal courts here issued decisions on Friday addressing the impact of Citizens United, January’s big Supreme Court campaign finance ruling, on a new issue — whether the government may constitutionally restrict the size of contributions to groups that spend money to support political candidates.

One court said that individual contributions to advocacy groups known as 527s may not be limited. Another said that contributions to political parties can, though it said it was aware the resulting playing field might not be a level one.

Stephen M. Hoersting, a lawyer for the winning side in the first case, said the ruling represented a logical and welcome extension of Citizens United.

“The court affirmed,” Mr. Hoersting said in a statement, “that groups of passionate individuals, like billionaires — and corporations and unions after Citizens United — have the right to spend without limit to independently advocate for or against federal candidates.”

It would appear that the "loopholes" Obama is so concerned about closing seem to be getting closed without his help or intervention. Something else is afoot here. People need to step back and really take a look at why Mr. Obama might be so sensitive on this subject.

At the heart of the Citizens United case and why it was brought is a documentary film that was produced by a nonprofit organization which was subsequently not permitted to be advertised or marketed because of McCain Feingold. Citizens United produced a film called, Hillary: The Movie.

It was incredibly damaging to Hillary as her primary with Obama was starting to kick into gear in early 2008. With all of the baggage in Obama's past, a similar documentary about him could make Hillary look like a piker. Couple that with the fact that November 2010 has the makings of November 1994 on steroids. Obama is very concerned about groups like Citizens United tapping into that Tea Party anger and creating a buzz across the nation about a documentary that could do great political damage to not only Obama but to the entire Democratic party.

If Obama was so concerned about loopholes, he might look at those two decisions in New York on March 26th as evidence they're getting closed without him. I think it's safe to say he's not happy with either decision.

h/t to Special Guests

VIDEO: OBAMA VERSUS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS

In reaction to Barack Obama's chastising the U.S. Supreme Court at the last State of the Union address, Sam Alito mouthed the words "not true", displaying his view that Obama's perception of the Citizens United decision was a mis-characterization.

While speaking at the University of Alabama law students recently, Chief Justice John Roberts responded to a question about Obama's comment at the SOU.



What started it all...



Of course, Obama's White House mouthpiece responded between his "umms". Via the New York Post:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to Roberts’ criticism. "What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections -- drowning out the voices of average Americans," Gibbs said. "The president has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response."

Perhaps one of the most mis-understood rulings, the Citizens United case arose when David Bossie's group attempted to market a film about Hillary Clinton before the 2008 election. The ruling overturned a law that said Citizens United could not do so. In other words, Gibbs' account IS a mis-characterization of the decision.

Now, the WSJ is reporting that Harry Reid, of all people, is throwing boulders from the balcony of his glass house:

Now, Harry Reid has entered the ring. Yesterday, at a meeting with liberal bloggers, the Senate Majority Leader took a swing at Roberts.

“Do you think John Roberts knows or cares how people get elected?” Reid said, adding that the justices on the court lack understanding of the practical impact of their decisions.

As Majority leader of the most corrupt congress in the history of the United States, Reid once again lowers the bar on himself when it comes to hypocrisy - and you didn't think it was possible.

h/t to Gateway Pundit

HILLARY FILM GOES TO SUPREME COURT

BE SURE TO SEE THE VIDEOS AT BOTTOM OF THIS POST. On September 9th, the U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments surrounding a documentary that was made about Hillary Clinton in 2008. At the heart of the issue is the extent to which corporations should be permitted to financially support or oppose candidates.

A very interesting element to this case is the alliance of the National Rifle Association and the ACLU, who both support the makers of the film. Quoting the New York Times:

The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides, with the civil rights group fighting shoulder to shoulder with the National Rifle Association to support the corporation that made the film.

The ACLU appears to be the lone liberal group that has jumped sides.

Most of the rest of the liberal establishment is on the other side, saying that allowing corporate money to flood the airwaves would pollute and corrupt political discourse.

This case is making its way to the Supreme Court via Re-argument, which is extremely rare. According to the Times, the case Citizens United (makers of the film) is seeking to have overturned is AUSTIN v. MICHIGAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

Apparently, the answer to a hypothetical question was given by a government attorney at an earlier Supreme Court hearing and is being looked at as a possible reason for the SCOTUS hearing this case on the basis of re-argument:

At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees.

Understandably, when a lawyer advocates the banning of books, it is likely to raise eyebrows (which it did).

In an unbelievable admission, a man on the regulatory side of this issue admitted that he thought books could be banned, but only after being pressed on the issue:

In an interview, Mr. Wertheimer seemed reluctant to answer questions about the government regulation of books. Pressed, Mr. Wertheimer finally said, “A campaign document in the form of a book can be banned.”

Those pesky facts. The left's positions are always so untenable that they would prefer not to reveal them. However, when they do, it's like the unmasking of a hideous reality. This isn't about leveling the playing field anyway. It's about keeping it uneven. George Soros has his mits in so many front groups that the left is able to promote its candidates without repurcussion.

Here is the entire NEW YORK TIMES piece.

Another interesting side note to this story involves one of the people who appeared in the film. His name is Peter Paul, whose experiences with the Clintons (Hillary in particular) were chronicled in his film called, "Hillary Uncensored", the contents of which included home made video footage recorded by Paul. The trailer for the film garnered more than 10 million views between Google and YouTube.

Here is the trailer:





Here is a video of the polygraph test Peter Paul took that appeared in Hillary: The Movie. He passed with flying colors. Fast forward to the 1:52 mark to see the administering of the test.