Amending the First Amendment
The Columbus Dispatch: Tampering with First Amendment endangers liberty
By David HarsanyiNo single issue is more important to the needs of average Americans than upholding the Constitution over the vagaries of contemporary political life. The people elected to office should be responsive to the needs of their constituents. They should also be prepared to be challenged. But mostly, they should uphold their oath to protect the Constitution rather than find ways to undermine it.When the Supreme Court finds, for purposes of the First Amendment, that corporations are people, that writing checks from the company’s bank account is constitutionally protected speech and that attempts to impose coercive restrictions on political debate are unconstitutional, we realize that we live in a republic that isn’t always fair but is, for the most part, free.Americans’ right to free speech should not be proportionate to their political power. This is why it’s vital to stop senators from imposing capricious limits on Americans.
Detroit News: Free speech needs no amending
EditorialBoth sides take money from rich people and corporations. And certainly it would be nice if there were less money in politics.But the Constitution does not permit politicians to place arbitrary restrictions on speech. Protecting the First Amendment should not give way to those so determined to gain a partisan edge that they are willing to rewrite the fundamental rights of Americans.This stunt should be seen for what it is: an attempt to embed today’s political divisiveness into America’s most sacred document.
IRS
Daily Signal: The Latest Clue That the Justice Department Investigation of IRS Scandal Is a Sham
By Hans von SpakovskyEvidence has been accumulating for some time the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into the IRS scandal isn’t a real investigation.But the latest indication it may be a sham came to light through an embarrassing but highly revealing error made by a senior communications aide to Attorney General Eric Holder. It occurred when that aide mistakenly called the office of Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, instead of Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the committee’s top Democrat. He wanted to ask for Cummings’ help in leaking documents related to the IRS scandal.
SCOTUS/Judiciary
More Soft Money Hard Law: More on the “Criminalization of Politics”: Constituent Service and the McDonnell Case
By Bob BauerWe see a glimmer of this behavior in the McDonnell case in the arrangement the former Governor made for his benefactor to have or attend events at the governor’s mansion, and to meet with other executive branch officials , to showcase his product. McDonnell argued that he was doing the least he might do—extending courtesies, ones that were easily arranged, without selling law, rule or policy. But the prosecution is not terribly effective in clarifying the issue of “criminalized politics,” and particularly in sorting out which constituent services fall on the wrong side of the law, because the case involves a personal relationship entailing personal rather than political benefits to the governor.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
Daily Caller: Bombshell Emails: White House Coordinated With Department of Labor To Hide Illegal Obama Fundraiser Hilda Solis’ Schedule
By Patrick HowleyThe Department of Labor coordinated with the White House on whether or not to release hidden portions of former Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ schedule as Solis battled an FBI investigation into her illegal fundraising for President Obama.New emails provided to The Daily Caller from the nonprofit legal research firm Cause of Action show the White House thanking the Department of Labor for “flagging” a public information request for “withheld” portions of Solis’ schedule.(SEE THE EMAIL CHAIN). The White House then asked for the name of the conservative group making the request — information that Labor officials were eager to give up.
Politico: Mary Landrieu reimburses feds for plane travel
By James HohmannLouisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu sent the federal government a check for more than $33,000 after wrongly charging taxpayers for political travel over a period of 12 years, her campaign announced Friday.Landrieu, who is facing a tough reelection campaign, took responsibility for what she called “sloppy book keeping” that led to charter flights for political purposes being billed to the government.
State and Local
Arizona –– Arizona Daily Star: Arizona Supreme Court to review political attack ads
By Howard Fischer
PHOENIX — The state’s high court is being asked to decide when groups attacking politicians up for election have to disclose who is financing the effort.Attorney Tom Irvine wants the Supreme Court to rule only groups which run commercials specifically asking viewers to vote for or against someone must spell out the source of the cash.He argues any spots without certain “magic words” like “vote for,” “elect,” “support” or “oppose” are exempt from laws saying who is paying for it, no matter how nasty the attack and no matter how close to election day it runs.
Wisconsin –– Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Source who accused Chisholm of vendetta has troubled past
By Daniel BiceThe source for reporter Stuart Taylor Jr.’slengthy article in Legal Newsline: a “longtime Chisholm subordinate” who is now a “former staff prosecutor in Chisholm’s office.”Only those descriptions are not accurate. Not even close.No Quarter has confirmed that the source making the allegations is a figure well-known in Milwaukee’s legal community — but not for his prosecutorial record.
Wisconsin –– Federal court ruling removes limits on donations to political parties
By Patrick MarleyMadison — A recent federal court decision allows individuals to give unlimited amounts of money to political parties — funds that can immediately be turned over to candidates.That Sept. 5 ruling by U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa creates an easy way for donors to sidestep the limits they normally face when giving to candidates. His decision also allows candidates to accept more special interest money.Donors are limited to giving candidates for governor $10,000 each election cycle, and that restriction remains in place. But under Randa’s decision, wealthy donors can now give millions of dollars to political parties, which in turn can give the full amount to candidates.
