It’s not very often that the so-called reform community explicitly states their desire to censor all political speech they disagree with, but a pair of Iowa legislators have done just that.

They introduced a bill in Iowa that would ban the distribution of campaign material without the consent of the person who would benefit from such material. The bill would also ban any cartoon or caricature of a candidate or a photo of a candidate without the candidate’s approval.

(more)

The game of Wack-a-Lobbyist was a regular feature of the 2008 presidential campaign, with both then-candidate-now-President Obama and Senator McCain making it clear to everyone that they believed lobbyists were part of the problem in Washington DC. Both vowed they would drive lobbyists from the temple of democracy, and I’m pretty sure McCain pledged to drive a stake through the heart of any lobbyist he saw and sprinkle the dusted remains with holy water.

Now, President Obama is finding it somewhat difficult to fill the thousands of positions his administration now has open without tapping the talent and experience of the much-maligned lobbyist community. The Huffington Post reports:

Obama’s Anti-Lobbyist Policy Causing Unintended Harm

Barack Obama made no secret of his feelings for "Washington lobbyists" during the campaign and vowed that they wouldn’t be staffing his White House.

Click here to read more about lobbyists and the Obama administration’s difficulty filling positions

The bill containing Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment banning the return of the so-called "fairness doctrine" (more appropriately called the Censorship Doctrine) is currently on hold, as House leadership considers what to do with another amendment to the bill concerning gun rights.

Even if the bill passes, however, the threat to free and unfettered political speech on the radio remains. "Localism" has become the new buzzword for those seeking to put broadcasters under the thumb of censors, as demonstrated by reports that Congressman Henry Waxman is seeking the return of the "fairness doctrine" through "localism."

Brian Anderson of the Manhattan Institute explains more in a recent op-ed on the "fairness doctrine" and "localism":

Although the Obama administration has said it is not inclined to support a new Fairness Doctrine… it has suggested it might support another reform, called "localism," which should also worry defenders of media freedom.

Click here to read more about "localism" and the "fairness doctrine"

The Tucson Weekly, which bills itself as Tucson’s alternative newspaper and seems to have a decidedly progressive/leftist slant, provides their perspective on Arizona’s so-called “clean elections” program in a recent column. You’ve got to read the last line.

HOW ABOUT MORE STATE DOLLARS FOR BOZOS?

Click here to read more about the Tucson Weekly’s problem with “clean elections” in Arizona

Advocates have an obligation to advocate zealously for their client, and an unfortunate by-product of that requirement, coupled with the rapid fire give and take of Supreme Court oral argument, the growing tendency of the justices not to hear out the answers to their questions, and the lack of any opportunity for clarification, often leads to some real distortions before the Court.  Below the fold are just a few problems and highlights we noted in today’s Supreme Court argument in Caperton v. Massey Coal Co.

The Supreme Court will be hearing arguments today in Caperton v. Massey Coal, a case about independent political spending and judicial recusal. The central question is this: do constitutional protections for due process require that a judge recuse himself or herself from cases involving a third party that independently spent significant funds in their race?

CCP filed an amicus brief in case arguing that the Supreme Court should not venture down the path toward forced recusal based on independent campaign speech because the “bias” standard for recusal requires a judge to have a “direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in the case being heard, which independent political speech does not create.

So-called “reform” groups and their allies are hoping for a ruling that would require recusal, opening the doors to further limits on independent political speech. Others, including the editorial page of USA Today, sense an opening for the silver bullet of taxpayer funded judicial campaigns.

Today’s USA Today approvingly cites the example of North Carolina, which doles out taxpayer dollars to candidates for judge.

Click here to read how “clean elections” for judges in North Carolina have failed