The US Supreme Court today struck down a law passed in 1907 which limited the amount of money entities such as political corporations and unions could spend on political ads for federal candidates. The LA Times reacts as if the sky has fallen:

The Supreme Court today overturned a century-old restriction on corporations using their money to sway federal elections and ruled that companies have a free-speech right to spend as much as they wish to persuade voters to elect or defeat candidates for Congress and the White House.

In a 5-4 decision, the court’s conservative bloc said corporations have the same 1st Amendment rights as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending freely to influence the outcome of federal elections. . . .

Most election-law expert have predicted a court decision freeing corporations will send millions of extra dollars flooding into this fall’s contests for Congress. And they predict Republicans will be the main beneficiaries.

Sounds bad, doesn’t it? Especially when the LA Times uses “corporation” 16 times in the article and once again right there in the headline. The term “union” is buried and occurs only 8 times. Hmmm.

Read other MSM news sources for yourself and you will see that this is a familiar theme. I theorize that it is because there are fewer union members than in past decades. I.e., Democrats are scared.

Obama reacted quickly, calling on Congress to “develop a forceful response to this decision”:

“With its ruling today,” he said, “the Supreme Court has given a green
light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It
is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance
companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power
every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Gosh, special interest money in politics? Anyone remember George Soros and the host of 527s that sprung up in reaction to McCain-Feingold? Obama, please! A little less on the crazy-angel-dust-rhetoric, a little more attention to fixing the economy.

But what’s the bottom line, here? Chris Good, writing for The Atlantic, concisely sums up this decision in Citizens United Decision: Bring On The Spending (HT to Wall Street Journal Law Blog):

This basically eliminates a middleman: before today, corporations and unions had to set up PACs (political action committees), filed separately with the IRS, that would receive donations. And they did. Corporations and unions spend millions of dollars on elections. Now, however, the accounting firewall is gone, and Wal-Mart or the Service employees International Union, for instance, can spend their corporate money directly on candidates.

Exactly. Four decades of “campaign finance reform” has done nothing but impose unconstitutional restrictions on free speech and created fortunes for those smart enough to invent ways around the laws (*cough* MoveOn.org *cough*).

But now for the good news, that actually will have an effect. Also struck down was the part of McCain-Feingold that kept independent political groups from running advertisements within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

But we all knew that was unconstitutional when it was drafted. Question is, why didn’t Congress? And why didn’t they guy who help draft the legislation and then had the cajones to run for President?

Now there’s nothing to do but wait for Obama’s minions to draft more legislation to try to plug this “flaw” in the constitution, so we can look forward to yet another court battle. Geez, why didn’t I have the foresight to go to law school? I could get rich too!

Technorati Tags: SCOTUS, Supreme Court of the United States, Campaign Finance Reform, McCain-Feingold and Other Unconstutional Crimes Against America

The polls won’t close for an hour and a half, but Martha Coakley is already preparing for the coming court battle.

The thing is, the news release is dated the day before the election. The date has been corrected on her site. Was this an honest mistake on the part of an overworked press agent in the Coakley campaign? Or should the date of the election, January 19, be so ingrained in every Coakley associate that such an error is unthinkable?

See,I told ya so. Hunker down, folks, this is gonna get nasty.

Technorati Tags: Martha Coakley, Scott Brown, Massachusetts Senate Race, Massachusetts Special Election, Stealing Elections, Reform the Voting Process, Voter Fraud, Diebold and Other Flawed Systems

Martha Coakley has been heavily criticized for running a poor campaign from the start and now she may lose what should have been one of the safest seats for Democrats in the nation. I don’t put a lot of stock in polls, but they have historically tilted slightly in favor of liberals. So the trend in Massachusetts in fair-to-middlin’ surprising:

The latest polling in the race shows Republican Scott Brown with leads in the single digits, but some pollsters are predicting the swings in momentum suggest he’ll win Tuesday by double digits. That would be a stunning result for Democrats.

A survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling released late Sunday had Brown ahead of Democrat Martha Coakley 51-46, while a Suffolk University poll from late last week had Brown ahead 50-46.

Research 2000, which conducted polls for liberal websites both last week and over the weekend, showed the race a tie, but with Brown gaining eight points in a matter of days.

However, Obama has been campaigning heavily for Coakley in recent days so I think the margin will be pretty narrow.

In addition, I think Coakley will end up winning due to last minute voting machine shenanigans. The voting machines to be used in more than 90% of the state’s precincts are easily hacked, and have been in the past (HT to TCOT Report):

The electronic voting systems used in Massachusetts are notoriously plagued with problems and vulnerabilities, and are in violation of federal voting system standards. . . .

Making matters worse, the company who sells, services and programs the Diebold optical-scan paper ballot systems to be used next week, LHS Associates, has a disturbing criminal background, and has admitted to tampering illegally with voting systems during past elections.

Look for this one to end up in the courts, no matter who “wins”. The question is whether it will get resolved in time to affect the ObamaCare abomination.

Technorati Tags: Martha Coakley, Scott Brown, Massachusetts Senate Race, Massachusetts Special Election, Stealing Elections, Reform the Voting Process, Diebold and Other Flawed Systems

The 56 page document that outlines the Democrat platform contains few surprises yet is still frightening in the breadth and depth of promises for providing economic support (do you want to develop Guam? See page 57!) and entitlement programs (more money for starving artists — see page 49).

But what is surprising is the open opposition to measures designed to combat voter fraud (page 56):

Democrats openly admit that they are willing to fight for a system in which illegal aliens, felons, and even the neighbor’s dog can vote in every election. Yet even at that, one wonders if their "Count Every Vote" will continue to discriminate against the men and women fighting for our freedoms on foreign soil just because their ballots come back without a dated postmark. [OK, so I don't really wonder -- I know they'll oppose military votes.]

HT to A Disgruntled Republican, who notes:

This may be the most radical plank ever in any major party’s platform. What would happen it there were no laws requiring identification to register to vote or to cast a vote? Dead people would vote. Illegal aliens would vote. Underage people would vote. Some people would go from polling place to polling place and vote again and again and again. With early voting, the same individual could vote literally dozens, if not hundreds, of times.

A three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that vote swapping web sites like those that sprang up before the 2000 election are legal and protected under the First Amendment.

Ars Technica has a very good nutshell explanation of the vote swapping scheme:

The idea here was that the swing state voters could still cast their ballots for a third-party candidate (such as Ralph Nader) without endangering the Democratic candidate (Al Gore) in their states. Although Nader was in no danger of winning the presidency, votes were still crucial because his party hoped to exceed the five percent threshold for receiving federal election funds in the next campaign.

Prior to the decision, Eugene Volokh reasoned thusly:

Senator Smith to Senator Jones: “I’ll pay you $10,000 if you vote my way.” Criminal bribe. Senator Smith to Senator Jones: “I’ll vote your way on the bill you like if you vote my way on the bill I like.” Legislative business as usual, sometimes slimy but sometimes necessary for politics to function; clearly not illegal, and perhaps constitutionally protected (not that anyone has tested this). Yet “something of value is being given in exchange for a vote,” no? (In fact, if the Senators fear losing reelection if they don’t make deals like this, then the something of value translates into something of financial value for them — their salaries.)

OK, you say, legislative deals are special. But why should the sovereign voters have fewer rights to make deals than their servants in Congress?

Spot on.

I don’t see this as having much of an impact on the 2008 election. That’s mainly because I don’t think Bloomberg will make much of a splash even if he does run as an independent (in fact, I don’t think he’ll even make it on the ballot in all 50 states). Nor do I see a third party Democrat/Green standing up and making noise.

However, this could be very good news for Libertarians, the only third party in the US that has a broad enough base in the number of states that will be able to benefit. Imagine every Libertarian that holds his nose to vote Republican in a “safe” state (or a lost state, like California) being able to vote Libertarian.

Prediction: three parties on the presidential ballot in 2012.

Who knows? This might even be the beginning of the end of the two party monopoly in the US. [OK, so maybe I shouldn't go that far.]

A team of hackers hired by the California Secretary of State’s Office was able to break into every electronic voting machine they tested.

Sometimes it wasn’t even necessary to open it up. Just unplugging one or jostling it at an “inopportune time” caused errors.

This comes as no surprise to anyone in the computer industry as we’ve long known that these systems are vulnerable. And while it’s true that any voting system can be compromised, at least with ballots there is a paper trail.

A voting machine virus can change the results of an election and then delete itself, leaving no trace of impropriety.

Says the California Secretary of State:

“It’s a big deal for many people in this country,” she said. “We’re a democracy and our very existence as a democracy is dependent on our having voting systems that are secure, reliable and accurate.”

Too true. Of course, “secure, reliable and accurate” includes keeping illegal aliens and convicted felons from voting, but don’t expect California to do anything  about that.

Democrat Sells Political Influence: South Carolina state Sen. Darrell Jackson inked a $200,000 deal with Hillary just days before announcing that he was throwing his weight behind her bid for the presidency.

Jackson had also been in talks with Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign about endorsing him and entering into a consulting contract for more than $5,000, sources said – raising questions about whether Jackson’s endorsement was bought by a higher bidder.

Speaking of Democrats and those of similar ilk, it looks like Senator McCain is poised to begin raising millions of dollars in soft money in order to make a run at the presidency. So much for the unconstitutional abomination we call McCain-Feingold.

TeamGOP thinks someone is laundering dirty money using their name (via electronic newsletter):

TeamGOP has learned that the group’s name may have been used by Memphis Democrats to launder illegal campaign money during the 2006 election. According to the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance website, Democrats Ophelia Ford and Reginald Tate each received $1000.00 from “TeamGOP.”  Neither TeamGOP nor any member of its board donated one dollar to any Democrat in 2006. The records that report those donations are bogus.

“Today I have written letters to Drew Rawlings, Executive Director of the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance, and Mark Gwyn, Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations, asking for an immediate investigation into this blatantly illegal activity,” said TeamGOP’s General Chairman Jeff Ward. “I can see no other reason to use a false name other than to hide the real source of the money.”

Two thousand dollars is a lot of money and if there is one thing for certain it is that Jeff Ward would not donate a penny to a Ford. Something underhanded is afoot.

BTW, Jeff, when are you going to update your website?

The indispensable John Harvey is continuing his quest to stop election fixing in Shelby County.

In a press release emailed yesterday morning (not available on the web), Harvey once again spanks the local election commission for issuing false statements.

Briefly, WMC news has discovered that there are videos on the internet that clearly demonstrates the vulnerability of Diebold voting machines to vote-stealing software. The video in question is one produced by a Princeton University professor that exposed the flaw.

Shelby County Election Commissioner Rich Holden responds to WMCTV by asserting:

Continue Reading »

Memphis’ local paper, the Commercial Appeal, has done something unusual: real investigative journalism. And it’s even relevant: voter fraud in the days before a primary.

Using information available to the public (including the Election Commission), the CA found:

• Voters who died decades ago remain eligible to vote.
• Felons are ineligible to vote, but are hired at taxpayer expense to work the polls and oversee the election process. We’re talking everything from sexual assault to burglary, gun violence, prostitution and drugs.
• 20,000 residents who have moved out of Shelby County since 2002, yet remain on Shelby County’s voter rolls.
• Nearly 1,700 of those have returned to vote, sometimes years later.
• A total of over 66,000 Shelby County residents have moved since 2002, which means that potentially tens of thousands are no longer residing in the district in which they’re registered to vote. This was an issue in Democrat Ophilia Ford’s 13 vote “win” over Terry Roland, an election that has since been nullified by the state senate because it was proven dirty.
• 18,000 of the moves were to locations outside of Tennessee, another 2,900 to other counties. Yet the paper identified at least 1,600 incidents in which these names were used to cast votes.

In a follow-up story, the CA reports:

Using the same public records available to county officials, the newspaper identified at least 500 deceased residents still on the rolls — many shown as active voters.

One of these registered voters died in 1954!.

Moreover, John Harvey has found 575 people on the rolls over 100 years of age — including three people that are 177 years old! (I’d love to know how many of these people voted recently.)

Much of the research done by the CA was accomplished by matching the names of the county’s 603,000 registered voters against National Change of Address data maintained by the Postal Service, a practice that is growing among election commissions across the country. Shelby County, of course, does not.

Republican Representative Paul Stanley sponsored a bill that would require an annual statewide NCOA search, but pulled it “because of Democrat opposition to any tinkering with voter rolls.” Imagine that.

Yet by law, Tennessee’s 95 county election commissions must have an address verification program in place to help keep voting rolls clean. What has Shelby County done?

Last July, the commission passed an address verification program to be done once every two years, but it wouldn’t contact all voters, just those who didn’t vote or update registration. Those voters are then to be mailed a card that can’t be forwarded. If a card returns as undeliverable, the voter is to be deemed inactive — the first step toward purging.

That’s right — Shelby County has initiated a program to purge the voting rolls of all names that haven’t been fraudently used. Way to “clean up”!

Note that the CA didn’t even begin to address the whole “are you a citizen” issue. I suspect there are hundreds more violations under that rock.

One final thought: Tennessee is increasingly voting Republican (and proudly gave 11 electoral votes to W instead of native son Gore in 2000). Yet because the Tennessee House has a Democrat majority, all 95 county election commissions across the state have a Democrat majority, no matter what the makeup of the county’s electorate.

Here in Shelby County, Election Commission Chair Greg Duckett served as state counsel to Senator Gore and worked on the Clinton-Gore transition team. And member Maura Black Sullivan worked for US Congressman Harold Ford, Jr., was President of the Shelby County Democratic Women, and served as Vice Chair and Assistant Treasurer of the local Democratic Party.

Not exactly non-partisan supervisors of our democratic processes.

Ah, well. Life goes on and today is election day in Shelby County as the first primary of the year is being held. As the Commercial Appeal says:

It’s Election Day. Get out and vote: If exercising your right isn’t reason enough to vote, consider this:

You might just bump into a dearly departed friend or relative casting a ballot.

Cross posted to TennWatch, aka Volitics.

Technorati Tags: Voting Reform,
Crooked Politics,
Dead Man Voting,
Elections,
Memphis+Politics,
Shelby County Tennessee,
Tennessee Politics.