February 2010 - Posts

What’s Really Happening with ACORN?
Fri, Feb 26 2010 9:40 AM

This week has seen its share of coverage on ACORN's apparent dissolution as a national organization. Politico's Ben Smith reported that ACORN was "in the process of dissolving its national structure, with state and local-chapters splitting off from the . . . group.…" It appears Smith got his scoop from New York's City Hall News who reported that ACORN's New York office has closed. On Monday, the answering machine at the office stated, "ACORN is not providing services in New York, but if you would like to receive information from local organizations with similar purposes, please leave your name, number and mailing address after the beep."

This is no cause for celebration. It appears that most of ACORN's New York apparatus is moving to the newly formed "New York Communities for Change (NYCC)," a soon to be 501(c)(4). All indications are that this organization is ACORN in everything but name. NYCC was "formed by prominent community activists and leaders in the progressive community who are committed to promoting social and economic justice." On specific activities, NRCC's statement notes the organization's "initial focus will be working to put an end to the foreclosure crisis facing so many New Yorkers, enforcing New York's wage and hour laws, preserving tenant rights and preventing devastating state and local budget cuts that would harm services for low-income families." Pajamas Media also reports that ACORN's New York office "handed its lease over to New York Communities for Change."

New York Communities for Change held a fundraiser yesterday at the home of the treasurer of the Working Families Organization and Working Families Party. The organizers of the fundraiser read like a who's who of the Working Families Party and former ACORN bigwigs. Another fundraiser is planned in March.

BigGovernment.com's Matthew Vadum reports on a leaked email from Nathan Henderson-James, director of ACORN's online campaigns, confirming that ACORN's metamorphosis in New York to the NYCC is part of a nationwide strategy:

It is definitely true that over the next week or so we should see a dozen or more organizations launched on the state level by staff who used to work for ACORN and leaders who developed their skills as ACORN members. These are not just simple name changes, but reimaginings of how best to organize low and moderate income constitiuencies [sic] without any of the legal problems and funding issues dogging ACORN, not to mention the brand damage

And sure enough, this is exactly what's happening:

[I]n recent weeks, local ACORN—or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now—offices in California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Washington and New York have been shuttered, with employees at different stages of re-launch around the country. In California, the remnants of ACORN have become the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment. In Massachusetts, they have become New England United for Justice.

In Arkansas, Little Rock's KHTV reports that two local offices rebranded to "Arkansas Community Organizations." The rest of the story reads similar to that of ACORN in New York and elsewhere. The state and local ACORN affiliates had trouble raising money, receiving government contracts and funding, and were generally hindered by the negative publicity surrounding the organization. National Review sums up the motivation behind the rebranding effort nicely: "The reason is money."

There's absolutely nothing novel about ACORN's approach. It's something that we've seen happen in corporate America time and time again. Remember ValuJet and the tragic plane crash in the Everglades? They're now AirTran. Remember Arthur Andersen from the Enron scandal? They're now Accenture. Blackwater? They now operate under the name Xe. Philip Morris? They're now Altria. (Please see Time's "Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes" for some others.) These organizations were all involved in varying degrees to scandals, controversies, crimes, etc., that prevented the corporation from remaining viable (or at the least would have made survival difficult). ACORN has now taken a page from this playbook.

For now, it looks like ACORN continues to exist, at least nominally, as a national organization. Their website is still up and on Monday an ACORN spokesman denied that the national organization had shut down and confirmed that Bertha Lewis was still the CEO. (However, for what it's worth, the toll-free number on their website is disconnected.)

Do you have news that ACORN's local chapters have rebranded in your area? If so, please let us know.

Share |
Politico: ACORN ‘dissolved as a national structure’
Mon, Feb 22 2010 2:31 PM

Politico is reporting that "ACORN is in the process of dissolving its national structure, with state and local-chapters splitting off from the underfunded, controversial national group, an official close to the group confirmed." Politico links to an article from New York's City Hall that the organization "has been forced to suspend most operations as of today." More on this as it develops.

by Justin Riemer | with no comments
Filed under:
Share |
The Skinny on Proposed Legislation in Response to Citizens United
Mon, Feb 22 2010 1:20 PM

It was only a matter of time before Congress decided to respond to the recent Citizens United decision. While Senator McCain is skeptical on new legislation, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), ranking member on the Senate Rules Committee (the Senate Committee with oversight of federal elections issues), and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) have decided to move ahead with legislation. A review of some of the "highlights" of the proposed legislation:

  • Ban on corporations from spending money on U.S. elections if they have a foreign ownership of 20% or more, a majority of their board of directors is foreign principals, or if "their decision-making with respect to political activities falls under the direction or control of a foreign entity, including a foreign government."
  • Ban on government contractors and TARP recipients from spending money on elections.
  • Stand-By-Your-Ad: Force the CEO of a corporation spending money on a political ad to "approve" the message at the end of the ad. (eg. I'm Bill Gates and I approve this message.)
  • In order to prevent corporations from "funneling money through shell groups," the legislation will require the top funder of an advertisement to stand-by-the-ad. It will also require the listing of the top five contributors to the organization for political purposes to appear on the screen at the end of the advertisement.
  • The legislation also proposes several disclosure requirements by corporations to the FEC:
    • Requirements for separate spending accounts of money raised and spent on "political activities."
    • All donors, amounts, and spending from these accounts would be reported directly to the FEC.
    • Information on the candidate being supported or opposed through the expenditures must be reported.
    • Listing of all political expenditures by a corporation on their website within 24 hours.
    • Political expenditures disclosed to shareholders on a quarterly-basis.
  • Additional disclosure requirements for lobbyists.
  • A proposal that would allow a candidate (or political party or party committee) to "receive the lowest unit rate for the media market," when a "corporation buys airtime to run ads . . . that support or oppose" the candidate. "Broadcasters must also ensure that the candidate or political entity has reasonable access to airtime." (Think Fairness Doctrine, only for political advertising.)
  • Increased restrictions on coordination between corporations and candidates or parties.

Please click here for a full summary from Rep. Van Hollen's website. Please click here for their press conference announcing the proposals. 

The RNLA will withhold on editorializing on these proposals until a later date. Congressional Republicans have also yet to formally reply. However, as a preview, the RNLA has some serious reservations about many of these proposals. The constitutionality of many of the proposals are in doubt, and if the bill is passed as it is proposed, several will surely be litigated. (Of course, most of these regulations will likely still be in place for the 2010 elections.) Some of these proposals also duplicate existing law. If you are interested in specific criticism, please visit the Center for Competitive Politics for their initial reaction to the Schumer-Van Hollen proposals.

Judging by the Democrats' demagoguery on Citizens United, the chances that the legislation will be aggressively pushed are high. As Politico reports, part of President Obama's new strategy is to "replace change with reform." "A top administration official said that 'the biggest piece of reform' will be supporting congressional efforts to limit the impact of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling…." The White House has undoubtedly taken notice that recent public opinion polls show that the Citizens United decision was unpopular with the American public. After several months of pushing unpopular legislation like health care and cap and trade, Democrats are looking for a political winner. They think they have one.

Share |
"Saving Freedom From Vote Fraud" Highlights
Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:50 PM

The CPAC Session: "Saving Freedom from Vote Fraud" featured some of the leading figures in the fight for fair elections: RNLA Chairman David Norcross, Wall Street Journal's John Fund, ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief and RNLA Co-Chair Cleta Mitchell (who moderated the forum). The panel proved to be a lively discussion on ACORN, SEIU, and Democrats' efforts towards universal voter registration.

RNLA Chairman David Norcross warned of the dangers of ACORN and how the organization is intertwined with the SEIU. Specifically, Norcross pointed out that ACORN's efforts in the recent gubernatorial elections in his home state of New Jersey were minimal. Instead, the SEIU did most of the heavy lifting for former Governor Corzine. The point is one can't make clear distinctions between the two organizations or take comfort from the fact that ACORN has possibly scaled down it's voter registration and GOTV activities. The same people who want to steal elections are at work regardless of what organization they are officially identified with.

Norcross noted that this is part of the SEIU and ACORN's attempts to move the country to the left and to do it quickly. Attempting to steal elections and thwart the popular will is one step to help speed the process.

ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief had the CPAC crowd on its feet. She described her past experiences working with ACORN and how the organization engaged in a concerted effort to learn the provisional and absentee ballot laws in each of the 50 states in an effort to see where they could get away with mischief. Basically, they were looking for holes in the system that ACORN and other affiliated groups could exploit. Again, the common theme is that you can't get hung up on semantics: the official organization may not be ACORN, it could be the SEIU or America Votes, but the people involved are the same.

MonCrief also recounted ACORN's plans to recruit candidates for races at the local level and get them to climb the ranks to be governors, Secretaries of State, and Senators. She noted that they achieved their ultimate goal of the Presidency with the election of Barack Obama. (Obama worked for ACORN-affiliate Project Vote in his community organizing days.) In addition, the election of liberal, politically motivated Secretaries of State in states such as Ohio and Minnesota has removed a traditional check against voter fraud: a state's chief election official's nonideological treatment of the elections process.

Finally, John Fund highlighted the dangers associated with Congressional Democrats' plans for federally mandated universal voter registration. They use the ruse of pointing out examples like ACORN's voter registration fraud activities as evidence that our voter registration system is broken beyond repair. Rather than try to fix it, Democrats would rather just solve the problem by registering everyone.

To compile the voter registration lists the federal government would pull property records, drivers' licenses, tax records, and numerous other sources. This would create mass chaos caused by duplicate registrations, illegal aliens ending up on the rolls (some states allow illegal aliens to obtain drivers licenses), people being registered in multiple states (for example: if someone owns property in two states it's possible they would be registered in each), and problems with individuals using their middle names in some records and their first in others. There are numerous other scenarios for disaster and uncertainty in this situation and that's exactly the left's plan: cause chaos and exploit the system's vulnerabilities.

Cleta Mitchell ended the panel with two action items for CPAC attendees: 1. Visit your local voter registration office and get a list of those conducting voter registration drives. Get the names and google them to see if they are connected to ACORN, SEIU, or another left-wing organization. 2. Volunteer to be a poll watcher on Election Day.

Share |
RNLA Chair and Co-Chair on Saving Freedom from Vote Fraud Panel
Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:58 AM

RNLA Chair David Norcross and Co-Chair Cleta Mitchell will both appear on today's CPAC panel: "Saving Freedom from Vote Fraud." Norcross and Mitchell will appear with The Wall Street Journal's John Fund and ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief today at 2:45 p.m. in the Marriot Ballroom. For those not attending CPAC, please click here for a live webcast of the event.

This will be one of the most important panels during CPAC event as RNLA leaders explain how organizations like ACORN and the SEIU are threatening the integrity of our election system.

Share |
Why Republicans are Upset with the Timing of Bayh's Announcement
Wed, Feb 17 2010 8:14 AM

The Hill reports that Republicans, yes Republicans, are upset with the timing of Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-IN) retirement announcement. I think overall, Republicans are obviously happy with his decision. However, there are a few good reasons to be upset with the timing.

First is fairness. Indiana has onerous ballot access requirements for primaries in statewide offices. State law (IC 3-8-2-8) requires that candidates for U.S. Senate, governor, and U.S. President gather 4,500 signatures of registered Indiana voters, including 500 from each of Indiana's nine congressional districts. The Hill notes that Republicans have four candidates who have officially made the ballot and a fifth whose signatures are currently being validated. Senator Bayh, although an incumbent, still had to file the nominating petitions.

As Ed Morrissey wrote, the worst thing about the timing of Bayh's retirement is the fact he gave potential Democrat successors around 24 hours to gather 4,500 signatures by Tuesday's noon deadline imposed by state law. This task would have been near impossible. I spent several weeks working on Indiana ballot access for the McCain Campaign in early 2008 and the signature gathering is quite difficult. First, the true number of signatures needed to get on the ballot is greater than 4,500. A candidate should have a cushion of at least a few thousand signatures to have a comfortable margin of error in the event someone challenges the validity of the candidate's filing. It is quite possible that many signatures will be thrown out for being illegible, because the person signing was not registered to vote, or because he or she was registered to vote in a different county. (The county voter registration office checks each petition to ensure the signers are registered in that county.) Needless to say, this is a very difficult task that's made worse by the fact the signature gathering has to be done in the dead of an Indiana winter. A campaign needs to devote considerable resources to get this done. In our case, we had three full-time campaign staffers gathering signatures around the state and help from many Indiana volunteers and local and state party leaders. We barely made it.

The point in all of this is that these five Republicans had to devote the resources to collect the thousands of signatures to get on the ballot and the Democrats did not. (However, Tamyra d'Ippol, a café owner, who was challenging Biden from the left for the Senate nomination insisted she received enough signatures, however, it now looks like she wasn't even close.)

Realizing there was less than 24 hours to collect signatures, none of the other potential challengers bothered collecting even a single signature. Instead, "the party's executive committee will meet in the next six weeks to decide on a nominee." Democrats are already conducting polling to determine who runs best against likely Republican nominee, former Senator Dan Coats. In sum, the nominee of the party will be chosen in some smoke-filled backroom, something you would expect to see from Indiana's neighbor to the west, not in the Hoosier state. Moreover, two likely contenders for the seat are current House Democrats, leaving open the likelihood that Democrat leaders will also get to choose the nominee from the Senate nominee's district. comes from. This is not a victory for democracy.

Reports are that those close to Bayh were unaware that he was going to make the announcement until immediately before hand. Apparently, Bayh did not inform Harry Reid until the rumors were all over the web. Based on these facts, it seems quite possible that there's nothing nefarious going on here. However, the alternative isn't pretty: Bayh negotiating to ensure that Democratic Party leaders would be able to handpick his successor instead of the voters. Why risk a divisive and expensive primary? Why spend thousands to get on the ballot like the Republicans?

NRSC Chair John Cornyn (R-TX) released a statement urging Bayh to call for the state party "to extend the candidate filing deadline — both for this Senate candidacy and for any House candidacy that is left open by a Democrat House member who runs for the Senate nomination." This is unlikely to happen since the deadline is imposed by state statute. I am guessing special legislation would be needed to extend the deadline.

Share |
Republicans Gain in NY Suburbs; Part of a Wider Trend?
Thu, Feb 11 2010 11:57 AM

In the Washington Examiner, Michael Barone writes about Republican gains in the New York Assembly in special elections on Tuesday:

In special elections for the New York Assembly [Tuesday], Republicans appear to have captured two Assembly seats formerly held by Democrats, one in Suffolk County and one in Westchester County. They held a Republican seat in Nassau County and failed to capture a district in Queens that has been held not just by the Democrats but by the Weprin family for many years. The New York secretary of state's website doesn't have the results, and I can't find any mention of these elections in the New York Times website; perhaps the Times is content to let the Huffington Post cover this local story. But it appears that Republican Dean Murray has a narrow lead in 3rd Assembly district centered on Brookhaven, just west of the Hamptons in a district that has voted between 59% and 62% Democratic in the 20082006 and 2004 general elections. And the Republican nominee "easily defeated" the Democrat in the 89th district in Westchester County, which includes part of White Plains and runs north to Bedford and Pound Ridge, in which no Republican ran in 2008 or 2006 and the Democrat won 59%-41% in 2004.

These victories follow recent gains made by Republicans in November's local elections in the state. In a major upset, Republican Rob Astorino won the race for Westchester County Executive over three-term incumbent Andy Spano, then considered a rising star in the state Democratic Party. Republicans Peter Koo and Dan Halloran (who is an RNLA Member) also won seats on the Queens City Council, not an area where Republicans are used to winning. These small victories were overshadowed by the McDonnell and Christie victories (and for good reason); however, they very well could have been early signs that Republicans were beginning to show signs of life in the region.

Barone notes that, curiously, The New York Times failed to even report on the elections. Perhaps the honorable publication does not want to shed further light on the fact that Republicans have done well in the Northeast in recent months. One cannot ignore Doug Hoffman's loss to Rep. Bill Owens in the special election for New York's 23rd Congressional District. However, when you factor in the recent New York elections discussed above, Chris Christie's victory in New Jersey, and of course, Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts, there are reasons to be optimistic about a region of the country where Republicans have increasingly become an endangered species. Add in the fact that Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, Delaware, and Pennsylvania are currently polling well above their potential Democratic opponents, there are even more reasons to be hopeful about a Republican resurgence in the Northeast. (And yes, I'm including Delaware and Pennsylvania as part of the Northeast.)

Share |
Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Tort Reform Law
Wed, Feb 10 2010 7:57 AM

The Madison Record reports that the Illinois Supreme Court struck down the "state's historic medical malpractice reform law" in Lebron, a Minor v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital. The law at issue set caps on noneconomic (pain and suffering) damages in medical malpractice cases to $500,000 against doctors and $1 million against hospitals. Specifically, the court found "that the limitation on damages violates the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution . . . by permitting the [Illinois] General Assembly to supplant the judiciary's authority in determining whether a remittitur is appropriate under the facts of the case." (For non-lawyers, a remittitur is a ruling by a judge that lowers the amount of damages awarded by the jury.) Please click here for the opinion.

The Decatur Herald-Review notes that the law had solved the huge problem in the state of skyrocketing medical malpractice rates, "especially for those health professionals in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and neurosurgery." This, as what happens in other states without caps, caused a flight of doctors out of the state. "In many rural areas of the state, high-risk specialists were hard to find" before the passage of the law.

The Wall Street Journal also reported on the decision:

The ruling is a setback for supporters of tort-reform efforts in Illinois, including the state's doctors and hospitals. It was criticized by pro-business groups nationwide, which long have claimed that medical-malpractice suits are a major contributor to rising health-care costs.

"This is very disappointing and frustrating," said Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil Justice League, a pro-business group.

Plaintiffs' lawyers, meanwhile, hailed the ruling. "The Illinois Supreme Court has decided that the health-care crisis can not be solved by further hurting the patients who are victims of medical errors," the Illinois Trial Lawyers Associations said in a statement.

Many state supreme courts have upheld the constitutionality of damage limits, and the high courts in Times New Roman, Kansas, and Missouri are weighing the issue.

The Illinois case is "part of a national trend by the plaintiffs' bar to challenge damage caps," says Mark Behrens, a Washington, D.C., defense lawyer with Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP who tracks liability trends nationwide. Mr. Behrens says that the other courts opposed to caps may cite the decision as support, but "I doubt it will change many minds."

Unsurprisingly, "[t]he decision broke strictly along party lines," with the Democrats in the majority and the Republicans voting to uphold the caps.

Share |
RNLA Files Amicus Brief in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez
Mon, Feb 8 2010 10:18 AM

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) has joined in an Amicus Brief with Students for Life America and the College Republican National Committee in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a Supreme Court case involving a challenge to a University of California Hastings' derecognition of a Christian student group because it requires its members and leaders to be Christians. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the case on December 14, following a Ninth Circuit order affirming a Northern District of California decision declaring that Hastings' actions were permitted under the constitution. Jim Bopp, RNLA Vice President for Election Education, filed the amicus on behalf of the RNLA and the other parties. Please click here for the brief.

Share |
Brown Seated, Big Labor Not Happy
Fri, Feb 5 2010 10:05 AM

Senator Scott Brown was sworn in yesterday by Vice President Joe Biden to a loud ovation in the Senate chamber:

The Washington Examiner reports that Big Labor is "fuming" that Brown was sworn in a week earlier than when was previously reported. As the Examiner notes, Democrats "succeeded in getting Patricia Smith, the Obama administration's nominee for Solicitor of Labor, through a party-line cloture vote …" prior to Brown's swearing in. (Brown's predecessor, interim Senator Paul Kirk, was the magic 60th Democrat vote for cloture prior to Brown's swearing in.) Smith's confirmation became extremely controversial following reports (click here and here) that she was dishonest (or just flat out lied) when testifying at her confirmation hearing about "her role in a controversial 'wage and watch' program, which she ran as commissioner of the labor department in New York state."

In addition to pushing through Smith while Brown waited to be seated, Senate Democrats had other big plans: "Big Labor had a lot riding on the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Becker, a lawyer for the AFL-CIO and the SEIU, authored a paper as a law professor about how the NLRB could be used to enact a sweeping overhaul of labor laws that would benefit unions, and all without congressional approval." The Huffington Post reports, "[p]arty leadership had planned to hold a confirmation vote this week," prior to Brown's original expected swearing in date next week. At this stage, it looks like Becker's confirmation is in serious doubt.

It's clear that Senator Brown's impact has already been felt without him even casting a single vote.

Share |
What Brown Wants Brown Gets
Wed, Feb 3 2010 3:19 PM

The Hill is now reporting that Brown will be sworn in tomorrow afternoon.

Share |
Brown Demands Election to be “Certified Without Delay”
Wed, Feb 3 2010 1:52 PM

The Boston Globe is reporting that Senator-elect Scott Brown's attorney Dan Winslow "this afternoon sent a letter to Governor Deval Patrick and Secretary of State William Galvin, requesting them to 'certify without delay' the results of the Jan. 19 special election." Galvin completed his certification of the election today and by Massachusetts state law the papers "must be approved by the Governor's Council, and then signed by Galvin and [Gov.] Patrick." Brown's letter says he wants the "results certified no later than 11:00 a.m. Thursday so that he can deliver a copy to the Secretary of the United States Senate in time to be administered the oath of office by Thursday afternoon."

 

Share |
Update on Brown's Swearing In
Tue, Feb 2 2010 9:28 AM

The Hill reports that Senator-elect Scott Brown will be sworn in a week from Thursday (February 11). That would be 23 days after winning the special election to fill the vacancy left by the death of Ted Kennedy. Yesterday, FOX reported that a spokesman for Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin said he would file the certification papers "probably on Wednesday." Is there any reason to delay Brown's seating for over a week following the certification of the election? So far, no explanation has been given.

Share |