By Fred Smith
Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel has written an insightful, important book on the Left’s efforts to drive market-friendly voices from the public square. A skilled investigative journalist, Strassel documents the extensive efforts to suppress political opposition, intimidate dissidents, and weaken the First Amendment.
Strassel notes that attacks on speech-and defenders of it-have come from both parties. She traces the history of campaign “reform” initiatives, accompanying court challenges, and bipartisan support for “transparency” and “accountability.” Readers will gain clarity, but little comfort, from her chronicle of culture and politics conspiring to weaken free speech…
Strassel extols Bradley Smith, a law professor and member of the Federal Election Commission during George W. Bush’s presidency. Smith alerted conservatives to the risks of disclosure, helping them understand and challenge this policy. His work on campaign finance laws and disclosure requirements strengthened Republican resistance.
By Fred Smith
By Paul H. Jossey
While Weintraub accuses McGahn of refusing to accept the law, her actions show a disdain for Citizens United unbefitting her role. She penned an op-ed titled “Taking on Citizens United” where she seeks to “blunt its impact” with proposals that are almost certainly unconstitutional. She has absurdly misrepresented it as stating, “corporations are people” to sow public confusion. And she has used its guise to hold political-advocacy conferences at the FEC – making disturbing xenophobic overtures based on unproven charges that aliens might be influencing U.S. elections…
Beyond disdain for Supreme Court rulings, Weintraub is loath to follow the FEC’s own regulations. For example, along with fellow Democrat Ann Ravel, Weintraub has repeatedly refused to apply the FEC’s decade old regulations exempting much internet activity from regulation. The regulation is valid. Weintraub simply no longer likes it…
Another FEC doctrine Weintraub often ignores is the media exemption. Over the past few years, she and the other Democrats have refused to apply the exemption to network debate rules, a documentary filmmaker, or a book publisher.
The six weeks since the presidential election have seen a new phenomenon: liberals, progressives, and Democrats, and a handful of anti-Trump Republicans engaged in a series of wild efforts to convince Republican members of the Electoral College not to vote for Donald Trump, as pledged. There have been death threats, lesser threats, harassment, and sincere […]
Filed Under: Blog, Carolyn Hunter, Donald Trump, Electoral College, FEC, FECA, Hamilton electors, Hillary Clinton, john podesta, Lawrence Lessig, Lee Goodman, Matthew Petersen, Moral Electors, Unite for America
By Brad Smith
In a country as large and diverse as the United States, a system that forces candidates to campaign away from the people who already control the nation’s financial, cultural and governmental hubs is a good thing. The Electoral College forces candidates to build broad-based coalitions that cover the country.
Our constitution is full of anti-majoritarian provisions. The Bill of Rights places limits on what popular majorities can do through government. Texas has more people than the six New England states combined, but federalism prevents Texans from imposing their tax and spending priorities on New England states. It’s hard to imagine this country holding together if pure majoritarianism was the basis of power.
The Electoral College does not assure that the president will have received the most popular votes, but it does assure that the president will have won with substantial popular support, and that his support will not be restricted to one region of the country or to a handful of coastal metropolises. This is ample reason to support a system that, in just five of 49 elections, has gone against the nominal popular vote winner.
By Editorial Board
According to data compiled by the Center for Competitive Politics, the number of ads by Clinton and her supporters outnumbered the number of pro-Trump ads by 3-to-1. Meanwhile, outside groups raised and spent more than three times as much to tout Mrs. Clinton as to promote Mr. Trump.
Not only did the Clinton cash machine fail to deliver a win, the Democratic candidate actually did worse where her spending was highest. In the six states she directed the most financial resources – Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Iowa – Mrs. Clinton and her supporters ran 3.3 ads for every one supporting Mr. Trump. Yet Mrs. Clinton wound up losing all of those states except Nevada.
Excessive, fruitless spending wasn’t limited to the Clinton campaign. Each of the three biggest-spending super PACs supported candidates who lost. PACs backing Mrs. Clinton, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio dropped $275 million on the race, with Mrs. Clinton the only one who made it to the general…
Democrats love to complain about political spending. But they’ve shown time and again that they’re willing to shell out as much as it takes to guarantee victory. Trouble is, money is no guarantee of anything.
Comments to FEC regarding Revising Rules on Online Disclaimers to Adapt to New or Emerging Technologies
Via Electronic Filing Attn: Neven F. Stipanovic Acting Assistant General Counsel Federal Election Commission 999 E Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 On October 18, the Commission announced its intention to make “revisions to [its] rules” regarding online disclaimers “in order to adapt to new or emerging technologies.” In response to that Notice, the Center for […]