Obama’s Executive Order Would Stifle the First Amendment

Daniel Hanson, FloydReports.com

The Obama administration has drafted a new, little-noticed executive order that would plainly stifle free speech. The “Disclosure of Political Spending by Government Contractors” order is still a draft, but if the administration has its way, the order will be in full force soon.

Premised on the idea that sunlight disinfects, President Obama’s executive order would require all bidders for federal contracts to disclose all financial contributions to candidates standing for election. The order includes all corporate contributions and all personal giving in excess of $5,000 by officers and directors of corporations concerned, and it also requires the disclosure of contributions made to third-party groups like the National Rifle Association or the Center for American Progress. The order takes direct aim at the $530 billion in federal contracts that will be issued in 2012, and it represents the latest move in a series of tactics designed to drag the Supreme Court’s defense of the First Amendment in the Citizens United decision through the mud.

The Court’s decision, announced in 2009, struck down parts of the McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited corporations and unions from broadcasting on behalf of candidates close to a primary. The move sparked a public feud between President Obama and the Court, as Obama (in an infamous moment) chose his State of the Union Address in 2010 to openly criticize the ruling. Reacting instinctively, Associate Justice Samuel Alito responded to Obama’s factually incorrect criticism by mouthing the words “not true” in a very public way.

The Court, of course, was acting to defend free speech from the muzzle of government regulation, even if that regulation was proscribed in the name of openness and transparency. Affirming the First Amendment, the Court sided with the Founding Fathers, who hotly rejected the idea of disclosure on all political communication. Indeed, the pseudonym “Publius” was employed by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay as a way to protect themselves as they defended the passage of the new Constitution in The Federalist Papers, and similar nom de plume moves came with such high-profile public debates as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, signed “Written by an Englishman,” and a cabinet debate between Hamilton and Madison under the names “Pacificus” and “Helvidius.”

Anonymity is an important cornerstone to American politics because it insulates the speaker from reprisal by the government or another disgruntled group in the face of political criticism. Additionally, providing the speaker with anonymity allows the argument to stand on its own merits, removing the caustic ad hominem barbs often attached to political discourse. The provision of anonymity has a rich heritage as, in the words of the Court, “a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”

This shield remains just as important in the digital era. In the wake of the Proposition 8 debates in California, major financial supporters of Prop 8 were routinely peppered with death threats, vandalism, and other intimidation tactics. Property was defaced, certain supporters were fired from their jobs, and some religious organizations even received envelopes containing white powder. The intimidation tactics were employed after the disclosure of the names….

Read more.

Who’s Buying Barry? Obama’s Swimming in Dubious Campaign Contributions

Susan Stamper Brown, FloydReports.com

President Obama had a busy week. After helping to eliminate the world’s number one terrorist, Obama switched gears to focus on raising a record $1 billion in campaign contributions. Rather than capitalizing on bin Laden’s demise by using an event to rally allies in a focused campaign to finish the job to root out bin Laden’s more notorious associates, Obama is rallying supporters to donate their capital so he can build up his campaign war chest. First things first.

Apparently the whole campaign finance issue is so complicated that only someone like Obama can fully understand it. He’s been all over the map when it comes to finance reform; you might say he was for it before he was against it. In June 2008, Obama announced he had reversed his original stance and would forgo public campaign financing because, “The broken system we have now, a system where special interests drown out the voices of the American people will continue to erode our politics and prevent the possibility of real change.”

Soon after making that statement, unprecedented amounts of cash poured into Obama’s campaign coffers from special interest groups showing us that the only “real change” he offered was a new spirit of corporatism, when powerful Silicon Valley Green energy leaders like Steve Westly seemingly purchased a seat at the government’s table.

The more than $500,000 in campaign contributions Westly raised is a gift that keeps on giving. Now appointed to Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s advisory panel, Westly is granted regular access to Chu. Companies backed by Westly’s venture capital firm received over a half-billion dollars and Tesla Motors, a company Westly has ties to, saw its stock rise six percent after the Obama administration announced a federal rebate plan for electric cars….

Read more.

Justices Alito, Scalia, and Thomas to Skip State of the Union?

Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News

Chief Justice John Roberts plans to lead a delegation of six justices at President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address tonight, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated.

Roberts had previously questioned whether justices should continue attending the annual event, likening it to a “political pep rally.” He sat passively last year as Obama criticized a just-issued campaign finance ruling and drew a standing ovation from congressional Democrats.

Kathy Arberg, the Supreme Court’s spokeswoman, said that six justices are planning to attend tonight, though she wouldn’t specify which ones. Justice Samuel Alito is in Hawaii, and two other Republican-appointed justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, have strongly suggested in public comments that they won’t go.

Read more.

Supreme Court Ruling will help drive for Impeachment

(Two great days for America, I enjoyed the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case nearly as much as I enjoyed watching the election returns from Massachusetts on Tuesday night. If you want to know more about my history as a political activist, this article from the News Tribune shares my views on the  Citizens United case and some background history. –Floyd)

logo_transparent_inside[1]

Today’s controversial Supreme Court ruling and its local ties

By Lewis Kamb

A controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling today that loosened restrictions on corporate campaign spending and had President Barack Obama fuming in the other Washington has strong ties to this Washington.

In fact, the legal case’s connections get even far more local than that – leading to a home in University Place, where conservative political consultant and columnist Floyd G. Brown hailed the high court’s decision as a “huge, huge victory for free speech.”

Brown, a Washington native, founded the Washington D.C.-based conservative nonprofit, Citizens United, in 1988 and served as its president until 2000.

He also worked with the group in 2007 while it produced, “Hillary: The Movie,” an unflattering portrait of then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that was timed to appear during her presidential campaign. The film ultimately led to the legal case, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, that prompted Thursday’s 5-4 court ruling.

The decision, which declared limits on so-called independent expenditures by corporations violate First Amendment free-speech rights, essentially means more money can be spent on federal elections, including this year’s midterm congressional elections. It will free corporations and unions to spend from their own treasuries on ads and other advocacy efforts.

“This gives corporations the same rights that individuals have,” Brown told me during a telephone call this afternoon.

“I know there’s a lot of people, especially political insiders, who want to control free speech, because it frightens them,” he said. “They want to protect their turf and incumbency. But I think this is going to enhance politics by getting more people involved.”

In a statement issued today, Obama said the court decision “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,” said the president, who vowed to work with Congress “to develop a forceful response to this decision.”

Brown, who these days runs several websites, including www.exposeobama.com, flatly disputes the president’s claims.

“It’s not a left thing or a right thing,” he said. “It’s a freedom thing.”

“This empowers both sides,” Brown said. “This empowers labor unions as much as corporations. It probably empowers Democrats more. I’m sure the Teamsters or SEIU will be out there first and spending the most.”

Married to biographer Mary Beth Brown, who wrote the New York Times bestseller, Hand of Providence: The Strong and Quiet Faith of Ronald Reagan , Brown, 48, was born in Bremerton, graduated from Olympia High School and the University of Washington. The couple has three children.

“I was born, raised and live here,” he said.

A longtime political consultant whose worked for several prominent Republican candidates, Brown probably is best known for the infamous “Willie Horton” ad that sank Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis’ 1988 presidential campaign. Brown also wrote a book called, "Slick Willie" Why America Cannot Trust Bill Clinton" ," and created a 1-900 line in 1992 so callers could hear edited excerpts of telephone conversations between Clinton and Arkansas lounge singer Gennifer Flowers.

“Hillary, The Movie,” was produced by Brown’s longtime friend and Citizens United successor, David Bossie, and former Bill Clinton adviser-turned critic Dick Morris.

Brown said the ruling will help lefty movie-makers, such as Michael Moore, whose films’ distributions he said have also been restricted by federal campaign finance laws, as much as it does his group’s flick about Hillary.

“This is not the first time a case I’ve been (involved) in went to the Supreme Court,” Brown added.

In 1983, Brown’s arrest for demonstrating in front of the Soviet embassy eventually led the high court ruling in Boos v. Berry, a decision that eliminated restrictions on demonstrations outside of embassies.

“The Supreme Court was right with that decision, and they’re right with this one,” Brown said. “I’m a very strong believer in free speech.”