by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute

Last week, the Goldwater Institute filed a formal appeal to the Supreme Court to strike down matching funds once and for all. The appeal follows the Court’s decision on June 8, 2010, to suspend temporarily the distribution of matching funds to taxpayer-funded “Clean Elections” candidates.

Matching funds seek to “level the playing field” between taxpayer-funded and privately-funded candidates by showering taxpayer-funded candidates with matching subsidies for every dollar that an opposing privately-funded opponent raises or spends above a specific spending limit.

Imagine if this concept were applied to the media in general, news websites that get “too many” visitors could trigger subsidies to bail out failing newspapers. To provide “balance,” talk shows with ratings that spike “too high” could spawn access to tax dollars for their struggling competition.

Sounds pretty far-fetched, right. The Federal Trade Commission recently published a report urging more funds to public broadcasting, creation of a government program to pay reporters and fund local news, and taxes on electronic devices and online news aggregators. Columbia University President Lee Bollinger wrote this summer in the Wall Street Journal that there is nothing to fear from government subsidizing the media – highlighting China’s CCTV and Xinhua news as examples of unbiased journalism.

If these ideas gain momentum, the government could easily shape the marketplace of ideas through triggered subsidies. Stopping the government from silencing candidates with the threat of massive subsidies to their political opponents is a necessary step to preventing the government’s wider expansion of fiscally-engineered censorship.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

by Clint Bolick

The federal health care bill is one of the most sweeping invasions of individual liberty in American history. Two weeks ago, the Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit to bring down the law and restore your right to make your own health care decisions.

The lead plaintiff is Nick Coons, who owns a small computer sales and repair business in Tempe. Mr. Coons pays his health care expenses out of his own pocket, so that he can invest every possible dollar in expanding his business. When he gets older, Mr. Coons plans to purchase a high-deductable health insurance policy that would cover a catastrophic accident or illness.

Neither of those options is allowed under the new federal law. Starting in 2014, Mr. Coons will be forced to purchase government-approved health insurance – covering far more than he needs. If he refuses, he will have to pay a stiff penalty to the IRS every year.

Our lawsuit, Coons v. Geithner, argues that forcing Mr. Coons to buy government-mandated health insurance violates his constitutional rights and exceeds the limited powers of Congress.

Joining Mr. Coons in this lawsuit are 29 state legislators and three members of Congress who are prevented by the health care bill from providing meaningful oversight or voting solely in the best interest of Arizona citizens. I’ll explain more about those issues in future articles.

The title of my most recent book, David’s Hammer, depicts the judicial gavel as a force that can be wielded by ordinary Americans to bring down government oppression. If ever we needed that hammer, it is now.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Monday, August 9, 2010

Horne trying desperately to hide his pro-amnesty record

Resorts to suing Arpaio to try and shut down powerful television

Breaking news….we have just heard that liberal Republican Tom Horne has filed a complaint against Sheriff Joe Arpaio over this television ad we sent out earlier today to try and get it taken off the air. If you haven’t had a chance to watch it, do it now. Horne’s record on amnesty and other issues can be found at the website http://www.thetomhornetruth.com/ According to the site,

The East Valley Tribune reported on February 14, 2007 that Horne has a “plan” to grant American citizenship to illegal immigrants who meet certain educational requirements.  According to the Tribune, “Horne has a plan that would reward high school graduates with citizenship. All they would have to do is pass a test. “If there’s a standardized test that confirms it, that the student does well and learned, I would have no objection to that” Horne said.

ALSO CRITICIZES FEDERAL BORDER POLICY IN VIDEO RELEASE OF BORDER VISIT. 

Republican Attorney General candidate Tom Horne says today’s S.B. 1070 ruling by judge Susan Bolton is a blow to Arizona’s effort to control the border with Mexico.

“I am committed to S.B. 1070 and I find this ruling disappointing,” Horne said.  “S.B. 1070 essentially mirrors federal immigration law, which is in not being vigilantly enforced by the U.S. government.  I have personally seen the multiple failures of federal immigration policy on my visits to the border, and there appears to be little stomach on the part of the Obama administration to actually deal with this crisis in a meaningful way.  That is why S.B. 1070 is so valuable in adding local law enforcement as a force multiplier for the border agents and why this decision should be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.” 

Horne’s statement came as he released video of his recent trip to the U.S. – Mexico border where he saw first-hand the challenges faced by border-area residents who are on the front line of the illegal immigration crisis.

“I visited with ranchers and cattle growers who told me the current federal border policy is failing,” Horne said.  “I drove more than 20 miles of the fence between Naco and the San Pedro River.  I was accompanied by a local rancher and was not given an official tour to ensure I could see things without being given a show by the federal government.   As I drove along the border fence, it was more than 20 minutes until I saw a Border Patrol vehicle – an unacceptably long amount of time.  My vehicle was shadowed for a period of time by a truck on the Mexican side , which I was told belonged to scouts for the Mexican drug cartels. These cartels know when U.S. agents have a shift change, they probe the weak points along the border, and they know how many U.S. agents are stationed at any given time.  They are well-funded and sophisticated.  Arizona law enforcement needs every tool available to battles these cartels and to apprehend all illegal crossers.  We need at least 3,000 more agents at the border, not just the 1,200 the Obama administration is sending.  We need forward operating bases every 12 miles, we need double fencing along the entire border, not just a select few areas, and we need to give local law enforcement more tools to apprehend illegal crossers.  I support S.B. 1070, and I endorse the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association Restore Our Border Security plan, which would create a much safer climate for U.S. citizens who live at or near the border.”

Tom in the News

 Arizona immigration law: Reaction to ruling

 Officials, groups react to SB1070 ruling  

 Political Insider: Horne doesn’t dodge ‘hate’ question 

 Arizona’s own Gila Courier Primary endorsements 

Tom Horne
Republican for Attorney General
527 West McDowell Road
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Paid for by Tom Horne for Attorney General

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

State Senator Russell Pearce, Author of Arizona’s

SB 1070, Seeks to Intervene in Federal Lawsuit to Defend Arizona Immigration Law

Judicial Watch to RepresentState Senator Pearce in “Legal Battle of Epic Proportions” against Obama Justice Department

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch, the government watchdog group, announced today that it has filed a “Motion to Intervene” on behalf of Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law SB 1070, in an Obama Justice Department lawsuit challenging the law which set to take effect on July 29th.  On July 6, the Obama Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer and requested a preliminary injunction preventing the law from being enforced.

According to today’s Judicial Watch’s court filing:

“To further the interests of his legislative district and all citizens of Arizona, Senator Pearce authored SB 1070.  On January 13, 2010, Senator Pearce introduced SB 1070 into the Arizona Senate.  Over several months, Senator Pearce worked with his colleagues to enact a statutory scheme that made SB 1070 the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.  Senator Pearce was the chief sponsor of SB 1070 and voted in favor of its passage.  Senator Pearce’s efforts came to fruition when Governor Brewer signed SB 1070 and HB 2762 into law.”

“As the author and driving force behind the enactment of SB 1070, Senator Pierce has the right to defend it.”

On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law legislation authored by State Sen. Pearce that, among other provisions, makes it a crime to be in the State of Arizona without proper documentation.  State Sen. Pearce crafted the language in the bill consistent with federal law.  However, the Obama Justice Department filed a lawsuit challenging the law and requesting a preliminary injunction preventing the law from being enforced.

 State Senator Pearce issued the following statement today on his legal effort to defend SB 1070:

“The purpose of SB 1070 is to protect the citizens of Arizona from the devastating and deadly impact of rampant illegal immigration.  And it is outrageous that the Obama administration would attack Arizona for simply protecting its own citizens, especially when it has failed so miserably to do its constitutional duty and secure the border.  This is a legal battle of epic proportions. As a Senator in a state on the frontlines, I see firsthand the damage being done to our state and our country. What happens here in Arizona will impact every state in the country interested in protecting its citizens by enforcing the rule of law.  We are a nation of laws.  We must have the courage – the fortitude – to enforce, with compassion but without apology, those laws that protect the integrity of our borders and the rights of our lawful citizens.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today on the new push to defend SB 1070:

Our work to defend SB 1070 for Senator Pearce may be the most important piece of litigation that Judicial Watch has undertaken in its 16 year history.  In many ways, this comes down to a fight between those who want to enforce the law and those who do not.  The Obama White House wants to kill this law because it does not want to bear its constitutional responsibility to secure the border and enforce the law.  We are proud to stand with Arizona State Sen. Pearce, Governor Brewer and the citizens of Arizona in support of the rule of law.”

Judicial Watch’s Arizona counsel is Geoffrey Kercsmar of the firm Kercsmar & Feltus PLLC.

To read State Senator Pearce’s “Motion to Intervene” in the Obama administration’s lawsuit against the State of Arizona, please visit www.judicialwatch.org

Happy 4th, all! At UnitedWeStandforAmericans.org, we had a special 2 hour show with Goldwater Institute attorney Clint Bolick on the Constitution and the current state of Constitutional law. Sounds long, but I think it goes by VERY fast! We cover everything from basic Constitutional concepts to recent cases like the McDonald gun rights case and Clean Elections. Enjoy!

4th of July UWSFA show on the Constitution

The Crisis in Arizona’s Judiciary, Part One:

In an effort to ensure better accountability and meaningful elections for members of the Arizona judiciary, former Maricopa County Attorney and Attorney General candidate Andrew Thomas announced today a plan that would require real elections of judges as well as other reforms.

Read the full plan here.

Goldwater Institute News Release

PHOENIX – After a three-year legal battle, Tom and Elizabeth Preston soon will be able to open Body Accents Tattoo and Piercing Studio in Tempe.

The Prestons have settled their lawsuit against Tempe which challenged the City’s refusal to allow the couple to open a tattoo studio near Scottsdale and Curry Roads. Both sides have agreed to dismiss their appeals of a 2009 trial court ruling. Maricopa County Judge Robert H. Oberbillig ruled the City’s revocation of the Prestons’ operating permit was arbitrary and capricious, and ordered Tempe to restore the permit. But Judge Oberbillig determined the Prestons shouldn’t receive monetary damages for more than $20,000 that they had invested in the business before Tempe revoked their permit.

“This lifts such a weight off of our shoulders,” Elizabeth Preston said. “Clearly, we lost money because we couldn’t open the studio three years ago. Now, we can do something that we are passionate about and will allow us to recover our losses in a business that continues to grow.”

“This little studio will be a monument to the triumph of economic freedom,” said Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, which represented the Prestons. “No business owner should have to endure what the Prestons went through. After the trial court precedent, we hope no one will have to do so again.”

This case protects the fundamental right of anyone to pursue a livelihood and operate a legal business without a local government shutting it down because of personal, negative feelings not based in fact or the law, Mr. Bolick said.
 
The Prestons have owned Virtual Reality, a tattoo studio in Mesa, for 20 years with no complaints filed against them. In 2007, the City of Tempe issued a permit for their new studio, Body Accents. But the City Council rescinded that permit after substantial investment by the Prestons based on the “perception” that the studio would harm the neighborhood.

The Prestons received their Tempe operating permit today and hope to open the Body Accents studio in early August. Mr. Bolick plans to fulfill a vow to get “inked” with his first tattoo when the studio opens.

Read more about this and other Goldwater lawsuits to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is a research and litigation organization whose work is made possible by the generosity of its supporters.

Goldwater Institute News Release

PHOENIX – In a major victory for free speech, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning blocked the use of taxpayer money as campaign “matching funds.” The Court will decide whether to review a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
 
“This ruling vindicates the right of traditionally funded candidates to run their campaigns without the heavy hand of government helping their opponents,” said Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney in the case known as McComish v. Bennett.
 
Under the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, candidates who run with public campaign subsidies receive an almost dollar-for-dollar match each time a privately funded opponent raises money above a certain amount, and additional matches when independent expenditures are made against the subsidized candidate.
 
Today, the Supreme Court restored an injunction against the use of matching funds ordered earlier this year by U.S. District Judge Roslyn O. Silver.
 
“In a time of soaring budget deficits, the last thing taxpayers should be paying for are politicians’ campaigns,” said Darcy Olsen, president and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.
 
The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents John McComish, Nancy McClain and Tony Bouie, candidates for the Arizona Legislature whose campaigns are funded by private donations. All three are running against taxpayer-funded candidates who will receive a dollar-for-dollar match from the government for every dollar they privately raise.
 
In January 2010, Judge Silver ruled that matching funds discourage traditionally funded candidates from raising or spending their donations so they can avoid triggering more taxpayer-funded campaign money for their opponents. Judge Silver determined matching funds are an unconstitutional burden on the election speech of privately funded candidates.
 
A three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit disagreed in May, and issued an opinion stating the damage to free speech is minimal.
 
The Goldwater Institute requested that the Supreme Court intervene before the state started to hand out this year’s first round of matching funds on June 22, 2010. In a filing before the Court on Monday, June 7, the Goldwater Institute emphasized that publicly subsidized candidates were first warned by Judge Silver more than 18 months ago that matching funds were unconstitutional. Judge Silver issued her final ruling in late January, but delayed her order so the state could appeal. The Supreme Court’s action today ended that delay and put Judge Silver’s order into effect immediately.
 
Read more about this and other Goldwater lawsuits to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

There’s more than one environmentally degrading spill being mis-managed by the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party and that’s the corrosive social environment undermining of law enforcement as the Federal government fails to uphold, first our international border enforcement, and now our state and local law enforcement. This is not accidental and it has been part of a consistent bias of oppression and bigotry against law enforcement rather than law breakers. It employs a fraud of an analogy to Southern Civil Rights, promoted disingenuously by the very political party that put oppressive racial constraints on Blacks in the South, the Political Party that has thieved Republican and Christian Martin Luther King’s life struggle against Democratic Party political oppression of Blacks in the South as if he was actually a Democrat. But this goes beyond one party or the other;  if rational thinking and priorities amongst all Americans, regardless of political party, does not re-establish itself, American citizens will no longer be safe in their homes or on the street or at work.

Third World nations have a number of characteristics in common with each other. One major blight of the Third World is corrupt law enforcement. It’s not an accident. Corrupt governments prefer corrupt policing. Police departments are underfunded, sometimes not paid for months, and woefully under-equipped. Police, reduced to hardly more than traffic officers,  survive in that environment by bribery, hitting up the commuter, being paid off by the politicians. It is common in Third World cities to have entire neighborhoods robbed by just one organized lethally-equipped gang, starting at the east and ending in the west, dozens and dozens of homes invaded, not a cop in sight, despite scores of frantic calls for help. The police don’t come, and who can blame them? They don’t have the training or more than one bullet in their guns, why would any rational citizen expect them to confront a gang equipped with numerous rifles, pistols and AK-47s?  Because of this, the other commonality of Third World cities is  security bars on all windows and doors, concertina wire rolled at the top of walls,  broken-glass-topped walls, and a thriving private security  industry for those elites who can afford it. Everyone else buys a solid front door and cowers behind it at night.

The degradation of our southern border Federal law enforcement has been going on for years, full of political meddling, tainted by drug money and loaded with brutality, while  devoid of even common-sense national self-preservation,  and has not been rectified.  On what rational basis does any American expect our Border Patrol to intercept illegals crossing the border when the chances of the Border Patrol Agents being thrown in prison is higher than the illegal they’ve arrested? Even though this current Adminsitration is aware of the situation, it has done nothing to correct this dangerous nonsense.  Dodging action by blaming previous administrations is worthless, even benign neglect becomes  a negative as expanding over-the-boarder drug cartels ramp up murders in growing turf wars. 

Today, the deliberate feeding of hysteria is now spreading aggressively against local law enforcement. The desperate illegal immigration lobby, with immense assistance from politicians and the media, has employed a phony analogy of “Civil Rights” – an emotional but dishonest evoking of  bigoted Southern white cops bullying the defenseless Black citizens which is toxically ramping up the volatility of a confrontation that will put first Arizona law enforcement officers on the front line, then their counterparts across the nation. This is enhanced by the open threats by officials and all manner of public figures of promising any and all manner of legal challenges to any law enforcement officer who has the audacity to actually arrest a law-breaker, and in what would be in any other time and place be considered total insanity, especially a foreign law-breaker. That the worst rhetoric is spewing out of the Democratic Party, from mayors to city councils, from the Homeland Security chief, the US Attorney General, from the White House , even incredibly the U.S. State Department,  the Obama Police Doctrine of,  ”I don’t know the facts, but the cops acted racist,”  is a national disgrace and a short-sighted tactic that will backfire on ALL Americans, regardless of political party, color, creed or religion.  There is no justice when people are falsely accused of doing something they didn’t do, there’s only chaos ahead when police are constantly falsely accused.

It would be useful for residents of Phoenix to have a taste of what it’s like to live in Lagos, Nigeria for a few days, to step out of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport the way travelers step out of Lagos International Airport at midnight, miles ahead to downtown Lagos along a run-down highway route, otherwise known as The Gauntlet. Kidnappings, overtuned vehicles with shoot-outs and high speed car chases as victims flee their pursuers are common. Nigerian armed gangs can throw up road blocks on a two-mile elevated stretch of highway in Lagos itself. It takes about three hours to rob every car trapped there, in broad daylight, no police. The equivalent would be a two mile stretch of I-10 by Sky Harbor jammed with rush-hour cars, people trapped from fleeing, a new brand of urban terror that our diligent law enforcement has never allowed to occur.  But Lagos is far away.  Armed gangs use the exact same modis operandi throughout Mexico, just across the border.  The only reason that  blight has been kept at bay is the diligence of Arizona law enforcement officers : the local police and sheriff departments who must pick up what the beleagered Border Patrol can’t.   That barrier gets breached, and the gangs can be in Phoenix in hours.

It would be a useful lesson, but the problem is, once law enforcement feels the citizens do not have their backs, they have no motivation to put their lives on the line or put up with the abuse and hassles of confronting criminals and criminality. Once that trust is lost, it is almost impossible to restore. Law enforcement officers have a hard job, at times a dangerous job. They must on every single call be prepared for anything from a stray kitten to a homicidal drug dealer. Few people are made for that sort of thing or could tolerate the stress. That we have such people made of the fiber and drive to be law enforcement officers is an incredible gift to the community, the state and the nation. The citizens who depend on city, county and state law enforcement officers to stand between them and brutality must also do their part and defend the earnest men and women of our law enforcement against political demonizing, and rebuke by words and voting out any politician who engages in such demonizing and undermining of the social contract between society and its law enforcement.   It will be a hard day to discover what we had only after we’ve lost it

How about starting with demanding an apology from Mayor Phil Gordon:  http://the-raw-deal.com/?p=2495

Sandra Day O’Connor yucked it up with former Clinton flak George Stephanapoulos on ABC’s Good Morning America today.  Though she refused to answer Stephanapoulos’ direct questions about whether she would have voted for SB 1070 or whether it was constitutional, she left little doubt what she thought:

“SB 1070 has been enacted, and I think what we have to look at now is, what does Arizona do now? How do we put a good step forward to show that Arizona is not as a whole, a biased state. And that we appreciate and respect the Hispanic population in our state very much.”

Maybe Justice O’Connor can use her elite Stanford Law School education to educate us on how we might possibly prove a negative–that we are NOT a bigoted state.  And why in the world do we have to apologize essentially for passing this law?  There is nothing bigoted about it–as Russell Pearce says, illegal alien is not a race.

Jon Kyl strikes out against conservatives once again, mitigating his opposition  against (read: spinning his support for)  Senate approval of Kagan for the Supreme Court.

This is not unprecedented.   Jon Kyl also voted for the “Assault Weapons Ban” in the 1990s hidden inside the Clinton Crime Bill and was a sponsor of one of the amnesty bills in the 2000s.

Gun Owners of America reports in a recent broadcast email to its membership (note Kyl’s past and current support of Kagan):

Why is Senator Kyl Caving in to the Obama Administration?

 

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

 

What is Senator Jon Kyl thinking?

On the Sunday talk show circuit, Senator Kyl said that, “The filibuster should be relegated to the extreme circumstances, and I don’t think Elena Kagan represents that.”

In other words, even though the Republicans have the 60 votes to defeat Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court using a filibuster, he (Jon Kyl) wants Republicans to keep their ultimate weapon holstered during the nomination process.

But without a filibuster against Kagan, there is no chance of defeating this radical nomination.

Never mind the fact that Elena Kagan could become the deciding vote that overturns the pro-gun aspects of the D.C. v. Heller decision and upholds ObamaCare, thus saddling us with socialized medicine for the rest of our lifetimes.

Kagan is a radical anti-gunner.  She helped draft a directive in favor of a semi-automatic import ban — and, as a law clerk, advised against allowing the Supreme Court to hear arguments that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional.

But how can she be the deciding vote on the Court, you say?  Isn’t she just replacing a liberal justice?  Won’t the votes still be slanted 5-4 in our direction?

Well, President Obama is hoping for much more than that.  There has been a lot of speculation at the White House that Elena Kagan will exert influence on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who until now, has usually been the “swing vote” that often sides with the conservatives on the Court.

President Obama is hoping that Kagan’s reputed consensus building skills will be able to pull Kennedy back over to the liberal side of the fence.  For example, Time magazine reported on May 11 that:

Few think [Kagan] will be able to change the positions of the most devoted conservatives, Scalia, Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. But apparently Obama thinks she may sway Kennedy….  Kagan supporters point to the fact that she convinced some hard-line Republicans to vote for her when she was nominated to be Solicitor General, most notably Jon Kyl of Arizona, the behind-the-scenes GOP power on the Judiciary Committee….  But what’s most important, her backers say, is her ability to work the process; her skill as a consensus builder, they argue, could eventually make a difference [in swaying Kennedy].

 

Back in 1999/2000, there was another “conservative” Senator trying to spin his support for Clinton federal court appointees, Orrin Hatch, at the time the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  In 2000 he was literally booed off the stage both in the Utah County Republican convention and at the Utah State Republican convention both for his support of all but 2 Clinton federal court appointees as well as for anti-gun provisions he wrote into his Juvenile Crime Bill.

It looks like Jon Kyl is trying very hard to uphold that tradition of pawing himself off in Arizona as a conservative, but behaving like a globalist liberal RINO sellout when he goes home to Washington.

Look at what just happened to another one of Kyl’s longtime “conservative” colleagues (click here).

It’s looks like it’s time to take a que from the Utah teapartyers and help another RINO retire from politics.  Two years to go. He starts campaigning for reelection next year.