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.

H.R.5741 — Universal National Service Act (Introduced in House – IH)
HR 5741 IH
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5741
To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 15, 2010

Read the bill in its entirety: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.5741:

A brief background: This bill has been introduced twice before. Rep. Charles Rangel (D) introduced it in 2003, expanding the draft to females, with the age parameters set at 18-26. With a Republican Congressional majority, it went nowhere; actually, not nowhere, but back in Rangel’s desk drawer. Rangel, with newly minted Senator Hillary Clinton singing its praises, and Democrats back in control, pulled it out in February 2006, as HR 4752, with a greatly expanded age range of 18-42, to encompass far more of the adult American population. But, the Democratic majority wasn’t quite major enough to pass it. It went back into Rangel’s top desk drawer.

Rangel evidently sees a new opportunity. He reintroduced it a few days ago, as the Universal National Service Act: HR 5741.

With Obama urging a “National Civilian Corps” and the Democrats firmly in control of both the Congress and Senate, and the leadership of Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who thinks nothing of hiding the contents of the power-grabbing bills she promotes from the public, “We’ll have to pass it before you find out what’s in it,” Rangel’s HR 5741, in this session, has the best chance ever of being passed and signed into law. It should have had a wooden stake driven through it and burned.

Behind the façade of “National Service,” which sounds okay enough and has a sly suggestive appeal of getting idle youth off the streets, and ‘push-up’ them into a discipline their parents were too lazy to instill in their progeny, and seems to ignore that the National Guard is already tasked with “the furtherance of the national defense and homeland security,” the Democrats are proposing a sweeping and devastating crushing of our individual liberties, of our fundamental unalienable rights as stated in the Constitution of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The military does NOT want a draft. They are on record as opposing one. It’s doing just fine with an all-volunteer military. They like the self-selecting aspect of it; that those who don’t want to be in the military don’t apply, saving the military endless headaches from dealing with sullen and recalcitrant inductees. The military can achieve more with a smaller, but better trained and more motivated force comprised of men and women who have a natural inclination for military work. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

But this isn’t about making the military better, but WORSE. Rangel’s motivation was to make military service onerous and unwanted, to discourage American military activity.

   “Ironically, in previous discussion leading up the bill, Rangel’s initiative to restore the draft was described as “an anti-war tactic” … “Rangel opposes war with Iraq and seeks to make the point that many soldiers are volunteers from low-income and minority families. Political leaders, his reasoning goes, would think twice about sending into war the sons and daughters of a more complete cross-section of America.” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2535

It’s a toxic inspiration for a truly vile piece of legislation, based on what has been proven to be no more than a phony urban, class warfare legend. The majority of our current all-volunteer military is not derived from poor and minority volunteers, but from the “white,” middle and upper middle class. The bill proposes seizing control of the lives of all males and females 18-42 for one of three demands of government:

1) National Service: ‘uniformed services’ or ‘civilian service’
2) Universal male-female Draft in time of war
3) For other purposes

    “The bill applies to both US citizens and non-citizens, to men and women. There does not appear to be a provision which would exempt women who are pregnant and/or caring for infants/children in a young age… The bill also supports Big Brother. Those who are not sent overseas to the war theater would… be inducted into the civilian homeland defense corps and other civilian duties, including the Citizens Corps, the “Neighborhood Watch Teams” and the “Volunteer Police Service …” http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2535

Evidently, these two categories are not quite enough, so the third provision, “for other purposes” is the lock on the shackles. This trifecta would establish a modern form of slavery, engineered by the Democratic Party, the same political party that was responsible for plunging the nation into civil war rather than give up slave labor, and jacks the executive branch power of Commander-in-Chief of the military, to Totalitarian in Chief of all the people. We can expect that Obama, being human, would be warm to this, in a self-promoting way, since he would be the first POTUS in American history to be able to exploit absolute power.

The consequences will be devastating. If anyone between the ages of 18-42, the most productive segment of our society can be yanked out of their professions, training or schooling to perform busywork for the government, then it’s the death of private enterprise in America. The societal hardships will be enormous. The government will be able to redirect work to favored partisan priorities and away from out of favor production and services. The burden on families would be worse than for singles as BOTH parents could be ordered away from their children, punishing marriage and child-raising with uncertainty, disruption and enormous emotional stress, businesses will be in a constant state of artificial disarray, dealing with unexpected employee absences, training staff only to suddenly lose them.

This “Universal National Service Act” isn’t about warfare needs, but about government totally controlling people; no one will be able to predict when they would be called up. And from what money tree is financing supposed to come for this? Taking people away from producing work to forcibly perform non-producing activities destroys personal and national wealth-creation.  People working long hours will suddenly have “volunteering” work or as it is becoming known as: “volun-TOLD,” to add to their work load.

Rangel’s perverse vision for this bill is that it is to undermine our fighting capabilities. With that as its fundamental premise, it will be easy to engineer infuriating and shocking outcomes for maximum public outrage – by cynically sending women to war, while men are sent to clean toilets at public schools.

The decision to assign a draftee to one of the three named services will be made by politically-appointed draft boards, and there the potential for great mischief will manifest itself. Political enemies get sent to military service, or harassed with random forms of “deployment,” political favorites to picking flowers in national parks, or to nice urban offices to drink coffee and roam the hallways or snoop on neighbors, reporting them for “un-patriotic” activities, a system developed by the Communists to control every single person in the society.

The undefined, “any other purpose” leaves citizens totally at the mercy of the whims of political hacks. Bribery will be rampant and blatant as people bargain the price out of hardship. Prison will be the punishment for “National-Service-Dodging.”

Where is the media? They are AWOL. Perhaps they are confident their political connections will allow them exemptions that lesser mortals will not get. Because of their failure to alert the public, most Americans are not aware that this bill even exists, much less that it’s been re-introduced in the House.

It’s hard to conceive of the duplicity of the many minds, all Democrats, which produced and support such a monstrosity, but the PEOPLE of the United States will be made chattel in their own country if this Universal National Slavery Act is allowed to pass.

Contact ALL your elected representatives to oppose this hideous bill, HR 5741, and to make sure it never is seen in any form, again, ever. Do not vote for ANY politician who does not in word and deed reject completely not just this piece of abusive legislation, but also this abusive legislative mindset.

Spread the word, show people the bill. Demand the Democratic Party explain this travesty, it is being sheltered and promoted by Democrats. Our elected officials should be publicizing this outrage to the American People to expose the despicable quality and devious goals of those in the Democratic Party who are misusing their majorities to establish not governance of the People, but lordship over us.

Start in November 2010. If a candidate has DEMOCRAT by his or her name, consider what the Democrats have in store for all of us if they retain any semblance of a majority and consider the corrosive enabling effects of any candidate (I) or (R) who colludes in any way with these exploitative and totalitarian aspirations.

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

Tuseday, August 3, 2010

The Obama administration and their allies in the media are celebrating Clinton appointee Susan Bolton’s temporary injunction against SB 1070.  I sure hope she gets that 9th Court appointment, she has earned it.  The New York Times called it “Warning to Other States.”  Some patriots are becoming discouraged.

In reality, SB 1070 is a warning to illegal aliens and their allies in the federal government respect our laws and Americans have reason to celebrate.

As of July 29, Sanctuary/Catch & Release policies in this state are illegal under state law.  Citizens, you remember the term, “We The People?” Well, We The People can sue our government for failure to enforce our laws and will and that will be a up to $5,000 per day for any policy that restricts or limits the enforcement our federal law to the full extent permitted by law.  State officials are required to report illegal aliens.  There are still increased penalties for hiring illegal day laborers.

SB 1070 is already working. CNN reported that even though SB 1070 “now heads for higher courts…some of the estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants in Arizona are leaving the state.”

Judge Bolton’s temporary injunction against parts of the law is minor setback, but Arizona will fight this in court until we prevail just as we did when a judge issued an injunction against Proposition 200.

The citizens of the United States are standing with Arizona.  According to a July 19 Quinnipiac University Poll, Americans oppose the Justice Department’s lawsuit against SB 1070 by a margin of over 2-1 and in another national poll support SB1070 by 66%, again by over 2 to 1.

Most know that illegal immigrants are, well, you know illegal.  Barack Obama does not.

The basis of the Justice Department’s complaint is not that SB 1070 interferes with federal immigration law, but rather that it interferes with the Obama administration’s “discretion in enforcing the provisions of the federal immigration laws” that means his priorities of NON enforcement over ours of enforcement.

This discretion means they only will go after illegal aliens who are also “engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage; aliens convicted of crimes, with a particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders; certain gang members; aliens subject to outstanding criminal warrants; and fugitive aliens, especially those with criminal records.”  He means they must commit another crime and have another victim before they will do anything and then maybe.  What is another homicide, molestation, home invasion, kidnapping, of job taken from an American bread winner to getting those future votes or the cheap labor the profits over patriotism crowd is demanding.

All this while the Mexican drug wars are flooding across the border into Arizona with home invasions and kidnappings becoming commonplace.  Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of America.  15 police officers have been shot or maimed by illegal aliens in Phoenix alone.  During the debate over 1070, my friend and 5th Generation Arizona Rancher Rob Krentz was murdered by illegal alien drug dealers.  Days after the law passed, a police officer was shot by other illegal alien drug smugglers.  I have a son who is a Deputy Sheriff who was shot and critically wounded while serving Homicide warrants on illegal alien suspects.

Illegal immigration also strains the economy of Arizona.  The non-partisan Federation for American Immigration Reform recently released a study that found illegal aliens cost Arizona Taxpayers 2.6 billion dollars a year.  Before Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act to keep employers for hiring illegal aliens, 9.8% of our workforce as illegal.

Arizona’s stand against illegal immigration is not just about States’ Rights, it’s about a State’s Responsibility.

When I assumed office, I put my hand on the bible and solemnly swore to “support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

SB 1070 is the law of the State of Arizona.

Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”  The flood of illegal aliens—many of whom are terrorists, violent drug dealers, and gang members—is nothing short of an invasion.   I swore to protect the Constitution as the founders intended it, not the political agenda of a left wing activist judge and administration.

By siding with lawbreakers and undermining the Democratic will of the American people, I’m tempted to call the Obama and his lackeys domestic enemies.   At the very least he is more concerned about what America’s enemies think about SB 1070 than the American people.  Obama’s Deputy Secretary of State issued an affidavit against SB 1070.  Among his justifications was Venezuela’s outrageous accusation that the law “could lead to the legitimization of racist attitudes and the latent risk of violence.”

That’s right, Obama’s state department is using slander by anti-American Socialist Dictators like Hugo Chavez as an excuse to overturn the democratic process in Arizona!

I do not take my oath of office lightly.  It is my duty as a public servant and an American citizen to ensure that SB 1070 is enacted and enforced.  The people of Arizona will not rest until this happens.

REVISED – UPDATED PRESS CONFERENCE TIME IS 9 AM

ALRA Chairman Joins Federal Immigration Lawsuit to Defend Arizona and SB 1070

Phoenix, AZ – The Chairman of the Arizona Latino Republican Association (ALRA), Jesse Hernandez, is expected to announce that he and ALRA have signed on to a federal immigration lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice.

ALRA will be represented by Freedom Watch, Inc. – a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and promoting freedom in the United States and around the world.  The organization is participating in the lawsuit to demonstrate support for Arizona and challenge the Obama Administration on the issue of states’ rights.

ALRA is the first Hispanic organization to publicly challenge the U.S. Department of Justice in support of SB 1070.

WHO:                    Arizona Latino Republican Association

Freedom Watch, Inc.

WHAT:                  Joint Press Conference

WHERE:                Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) Headquarters

1102 West Adams Street

Phoenix, AZ 85007

WHEN:                  Thursday, July 22, 2010

9 a.m. (Revised Time)

About ALRA

The mission of the Arizona Latino Republican Association (ALRA) is to foster the conservative principles of the Republican Party in Arizona’s Latino community creating an empowered network of Republican Latino leaders and grassroots activists.

Jesse Hernandez, Chairman

mexgop@yahoo.com

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

Despite protestations to the contrary from the law’s sponsor and others, this law turns the Arizona drivers license  (actually any state license) into a national id.

It’s a common misconception to believe that the national id must be a card or a chip.

National ID not a card or a chip, but is the data that the federal government has on you.  What the federal government has been attempting to do for many years, most notably under the Clinton administration, was to find a way to integrate all of the various data they have on American citizens into an easily searchable, easily sharable database and data exchange format.

SB1070 states

F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the purposes of determining eligibiltiy for any … license and for the purposes of verifying any claim of residence or domicile.

This section removes ALL restrictions from the exchange of license data between any state agency and any federal agency.  This section applies to ANY PERSON.  This section includes ANY LICENSE.  Under this section ANY state agency may exchange ANY person’s license data with ANY federal agency without any restriction whatsoever.

This problem has nothing to do with what occurs at a police stop. It removes ALL restrictions from data exchange, including a full data dump, or including full back and forth real-time queryability, between any state license database and any or ALL federal agencies, beginning July 1, including the IRS or Homeland Security.

Protestations from the bill’s sponsor have included:  “That’s not what it says.”  “That’s not what it means.”  “It’s not in there.”

Yes, Mr. Pearce, but that’s what the law SAYS word for word, in black and white, in 8th grade level English, no lawyers required.

Other  protestations such as in this post include playing word games….

The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, receiving, maintaining or exchanging of immigration status information with any federal, state or local agency does not in any way invoke the application of RIDA (REAL ID Act) in Arizona.

First, what does the REAL ID act have to do with it?   Nothing.  The REAL ID Act was a single federal program which attempted to force the state to turn over certain data to the feds.  This bill turns over the same data that the REAL ID Act mandated, but does so voluntarily by the state, having nothing to do with REAL ID, but having everything to do with national id once the federal government gets their hands on the data.  REAL ID here is completely irrelevant.

Second, what is “immigration status” relative to a citizens’ domicile?  Or how would you verify a citizen’s eligibility for a drivers license (or any license) via exchange of that citizen’s data with the federal government?  Why would you need to?  Where is the limitation to the term “immigration status” in the data exchange with the federal government in checking a citizen’s domicile information with the feds or a citizen’s eligibility for a driver’s license (or a business license, or a hunting license - ANY license, remember). Nowhere.  Why would the state need to do so relative to its citizens?  But that’s precisely what the law enables.

The county attorney’s office goes onto state:

Subsection F states four limiting “official purposes.” If a public agent or bureaucrat cannot demonstrate that he accessed a person’s information pursuant to subsections F’s official purposes

A bureaucrat accessing the person’ s information is not at question here.  Removal of all restrictions in sending law abiding citizen’s data to the federal government relevant to check the citizen’s domicile and/or eligibility for a license is.

Arizona law cannot dictate what the federal government does with law abiding citizen’s data once it is handed over to the feds.  The feds, of course, will promptly put the data into whatever database they want which accomplishes their longstanding goal to implement a national id system.

Again, national id is NOT a card. It is the unique identifiers such as your name, SSN, domicile and biometric data such as your digitial photo on file with the MVD, once turned over to the feds and put into their national id database.  Once the data is placed into the national id database, then your DL can be run against that national id database and is, VOILA, a national id.

Russell Pearce continues to protest stating that he’s against national ids and that this bill does not contain national id.

And, yet, he fails to address the matter of the data exchange of law abiding citizens’ license data with “any agency” of the federal government, including Janet Napolitano’s agency, who is dying to get her hands on this information, especially gun owners’ information.

The only time the exchange of citizens’ data has ever been addressed was in the opinion that Andrew Thomas’ office wrote, linked to above, which stated it’s not REAL ID.   So what?  REAL ID is not the only national id program.  PASS ID, BELIEVE ID, or just drivers’ license database dumps into the Homeland Security database all turn state drivers licenses into national ids…..

….but only if the state hands over the data.  Which SB1070 does, willingly, of all citizens.

Russell Pearce is quoted as saying, “If we don’t turn over all of our data to the federal government, then how will be know who is SUPPOSED to be here.”

Wait a second, Senator Pearce, I thought this bill was supposed to be about who is NOT supposed to be here.

Senator Pearce, if you’re telling the truth and are against national id, THEN FIX THE LAW and prohibit the exchange of law abiding citizens’ data with the federal government.

No patriot hands over the private data of law abiding citizens to the feds, such as you have done in SB1070.

Anyone who does betrays the hard work of conservative patriots who have been fighting national ids since before the Clinton administration and since.

Fix the law before July 1. Otherwise, welcome to the leftist globalist Clintonista agenda as implemented by the right.

Lastly, Ronald Reagan opposed national ids http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa237.html

Gun Owners of America oppose national ids because they state that once the federal government has your drivers license data, they have enough information to track gun purchases…

“Since I need a driver’s license to purchase a gun from a dealer, BATFE would finally have its long-coveted tool to impose gun control on targeted groups — particularly under a liberal anti-gun administration. If you believe in the Second Amendment, please vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.” http://seclists.org/politech/2005/Feb/0016.html

Not to mention the fact that from the federal side of the fence, they plan on using the SAME SYSTEM to enable AMNESTY.   We can’t have it both ways – to use secure ids to keep illegal aliens out and at the same time use secure ids to let them in.

Fix the law, Senator Pearce.

Goldwater Institute News Release

PHOENIX – When several new education reforms become law in late July, Arizona legislators and other state officials must seize the opportunity to improve student learning, says a new report from the Goldwater Institute.

“During the 2010 session, the Legislature embraced some innovative ideas that already are improving student learning in other states,” said report author Matthew Ladner, Ph.D., Goldwater Institute vice president for research. “But this is the first step of a journey. Ultimately, the goal of these reforms is to change the culture of public schools so they focus on improved learning for every child, whether they are at the top of their class or the bottom.”

The report, “On the Road to Excellence: Next Steps to Match Florida’s Success in Educating Children,” says Arizona policymakers will have to resist the pressure to weaken these reforms during implementation. After a decade of reform, Florida’s fourth-grade students have improved their reading test scores by 20 points, which is the equivalent of moving up two entire grade levels.

The Arizona Department of Education now will have the chance to carry out similar reforms, such as providing clear descriptions of a school’s performance with letter grades of A, B, C, D, or F; requiring third graders to read before entering the fourth grade; and offering tests for career professionals to teach in public schools.

Dr. Ladner notes there are at least two additional Florida reforms that Arizona lawmakers should consider in 2011. To reduce the number of third-grade students who are held back, Florida has required extensive teacher retraining in the fundamentals of reading instruction. Dr. Ladner recommends that Arizona schools use existing teacher professional development funds to contract with private companies for affordable online training programs to equip teachers with more effective techniques.

Florida also has tied additional funding for schools to improved student performance. As one example, the report explains that Florida schools and teachers earn bonus money for each student who passes an advanced placement exam. Dr. Ladner recommends that funding for K-12 education in Arizona be linked directly to student achievement and sent directly to schools – bypassing bureaucratic school district offices – to improve the chances that the money actually will make it to classrooms.

Read “On the Road to Excellence: Next Steps to Match Florida’s Success in Educating Children” here.

The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

by Dan Guerin
Goldwater Institute

What if you discovered a diabolical plot decades in the making to transform America into something sinister that could strip away your freedoms? Would you do all you could to reveal the plan and try to save the country, even if speaking out might destroy your life? That is the question facing the protagonist of Glenn Beck’s new novel The Overton Window.

Set for release on June 15, the political thriller is based on a theory developed by the late vice president of Michigan’s Mackinac Center, Joseph Overton, called The Overton Window. The theory states that policy proposals in any given area can be arranged from the most freedom to the least free. But only a narrow window of those policy options is considered politically acceptable to politicians. This smaller list of policy options does not necessarily reflect the stance a lawmaker would prefer to take on an issue. Rather, this “window” looks onto the range of choices the lawmaker believes he or she can support and still win re-election. As ideas change in society, the window shifts to include new policies or exclude old ones.

Policy research organizations such as the Goldwater Institute and the Mackinac Center play a critical part in shifting the Overton Window in the right direction. We call attention to good ideas that the public doesn’t know about. In turn, lawmakers recognize where these ideas fit within the range of policy options they can support. As Mackinac Center President Joseph Lehman puts it: “Today’s unacceptable ideas become acceptable. Yesterday’s acceptable policies become unacceptable. Change ideas to shift the Overton Window. Shift the window, and you change policy.” The Goldwater Institute has, and always will, work to move the Overton Window toward those policies that protect and expand your liberty.

Dan Guerin is a communications associate with the Goldwater Institute.

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.

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
 
As our nation’s capital continues to expand its power at an alarming rate, many conservatives (including me) are seeking shelter in the power of the states to protect the liberty of their citizens, on issues ranging from health insurance to the right of a secret ballot in deciding whether to form unions.

The nationwide call for state autonomy has grown so passionate that some are attempting to hijack it for wicked purposes.

H.R. 5034, sponsored by Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, invokes the language of states’ rights to advance one of the few powers clearly denied the states in the original Constitution: economic protectionism. This bill would give states the power to regulate interstate alcohol shipments, even in a discriminatory manner if there is a “justification” for doing so.

The law essentially would overturn Grandholm v. Heald, a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that I argued, in which the Court struck down discriminatory barriers that blocked wine shipments to consumers across state lines. The regulations benefited liquor wholesalers, who want to control every drop of alcohol and charge hefty middleman fees, while hurting wine consumers who want to buy directly from a vineyard in another state. With the advent of the Internet, this battle plays out every day over products ranging from cars to contact lenses, as middlemen seek to protect their delivery monopolies.

The Commerce Clause was intended to end protectionist trade barriers by the states. Over time, Congress has abused its power under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that have little or nothing to do with interstate commerce. We must curb the abuses without destroying the critical purpose of the Commerce Clause: to ensure an open national market.

True federalism gives states the power to expand liberty, not to diminish it. Regulation of interstate commerce is a power our Constitution’s framers thought the states could not be trusted to exercise fairly – and they were right.

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

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
In a new bill titled the DISCLOSE Act, U.S. Senator Charles Schumer has proposed burdensome new requirements for federal campaign spending in response to the January 2010 historic decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. The House Administration Committee is scheduled to consider amendments today to the proposed law.

But in an open letter sent to Congress Wednesday, eight former Federal Election Commission commissioners, including Goldwater Institute Senior Fellows Lee Ann Elliot and Bradley Smith, ask federal lawmakers to defend the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. These eight experts say the DISCLOSE Act will repress campaign speech just liberated by the Supreme Court. With this public petition, the former commissioners have joined the Institute’s effort to make clear to lawmakers and to the public that complex and burdensome campaign spending rules interfere with everyone’s right to speak freely during elections.

According to the letter Senator Schumer’s bill “makes the law even more complex, more incomprehensible to ordinary voters, and more open to subjective enforcement and manipulation by those seeking partisan gain.” The letter’s analysis mirrors the reasoning of “Citizens United v. FEC: A Case for Limiting Campaign Finance Regulations,” a Goldwater Institute policy report that explains why federal and state governments should be scaling back campaign regulations instead of adding new ones.

The Citizens United decision struck down federal election laws that prevented corporations, unions and other groups from directly spending money on campaign messages in the days leading up to an election. Congress and states around the country are now required to rewrite their own election laws to lift such bans and ease requirements on people and groups who spend money on campaign messages.

Instead, the DISCLOSE Act attempts to bring back many of the unconstitutional restrictions. For example, it would prohibit any company with a federal contract of more than $50,000 from making any independent expenditures or electioneering. But this prohibition would not apply to government employee unions. The $50,000 threshold is so low that it would literally exclude thousands of businesses from engaging in constitutionally protected political speech, the very core of the First Amendment. Yet public employee unions that negotiate directly with the government for benefits worth many times more than $50,000 would have a free pass to speak their minds.

Sophisticated politicians can easily navigate complex campaign finance rules with armies of lawyers and other professionals. But most people won’t go to such lengths and that creates a barrier to the exercise of First Amendment rights that should no longer be tolerated.

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
Goldwater Institute
 
With the passage of Proposition 207 in 2006, Arizona became the nation’s leader in the protection of private property rights. This year, the enactment of Senate Bill 1309 will make Arizona the leader in protecting the rights of parents as well.

The opening passage of the bill is clear: “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of their children is a fundamental right.” State and local governments “shall not infringe these rights without demonstrating that the compelling governmental interest as applied to the child involved is of the highest order, is narrowly tailored and is not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.”

The bill preserves protections against child abuse, and requires school districts to notify parents of rights under other state laws that many (including me) didn’t know they have.

The U.S. Constitution protects the right of parents to control the upbringing and education of their children. But in most cases the courts defer to school districts rather than parents. For instance, legal challenges to mandatory student community service routinely have been rejected, and parents’ concerns about sex education or political correctness in the schools often reach deaf ears among school officials who are quite sure they know best.

This bill reverses the equation, making parents the masters of their children’s upbringing and school officials their agents. This bill is a great example of how much can be done to protect freedom at the state level. Our federal constitution provides the baseline for our liberties. But states are empowered to go beyond those freedoms.

Arizona sets the standard for doing just that. For parents who believe they can better determine their children’s best interests than the state, Arizona is now the place to be.

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

Calculating how much he can spend

According to his campaign brochure, “Konopnicki opposes bigger government and party politics at taxpayer expenses” … Bill has “listened to your concerns … represented YOU and your issues…”  And finally, Bill Supports “… solving the budget problem.” [that he helped create]

The following oldie but goodie from the vault clearly illustrates where this term limited House member’s heart is – and just when Arizona’s economy was beginning to show signs of what was to come.

No wonder your county officials love him, they’re underpaid.

Az House-Senate panel clears way for county officials’ pay
Arizona Capitol Times, May 18, 2007 | by Luige del Puerto

A group of Arizona lawmakers stripped off an amendment to a proposal that would have required elected county officials to vote to accept a pay hike.

The current version of H2102, sponsored by Rep. William Konopnicki, R-5, seeks to raise the annual salary of seven county officials by approximately 13 percent. Affected officials include the county
attorney, assessor, recorder, sheriff, superintendent of schools, supervisors and treasurer.

In the original bill, the county attorney, for example, is guaranteed an increase to $123,678 from $109,450, and the sheriff, an increase to $100,824 from $89,225, beginning January 2009.
On May 15, six lawmakers – three members from each chamber – met in a conference committee and
adopted the House version of H2102. That version, which contains the sponsor’s original intent, now

goes back to the Senate and the House for final votes.
Konopnicki was opposed to the Senate amendment, offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-3. His intent was to
remove the amendment in the conference.

Gould, who represented the Senate side together with Senators Jake Flake, R-5, and Rebecca Rios, D-23, anticipated the move.  Immediately after the House side voted to adopt the House version, Gould offered a verbal amendment to the Senate version of the bill.  The gist of his verbal motion was to require the county board of supervisors to take a majority vote to accept all or part of the proposed pay raise.

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
On Monday, Governor Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2282, which will require most local governments to post on the Internet extensive budget information including individual spending items. In addition, the state will have a website where a street address can be entered and, at the touch of a button, links to every unit of government with authority over that address will pop up. Each of those governments must, in turn, post information about taxes, upcoming elections, and how to contact officials for more information.

Arizona recently earned an F on a government transparency report card produced by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Fortunately, Arizona now is poised to leapfrog many states and move to the forefront of government disclosure in the Internet age.

The state Department of Administration soon will launch a website revealing state finances in greater detail as a result of a bill passed two years ago. Special districts were given a similar mandate in 2009. HB2282, championed by Representative Steve Montenegro, Senator Russell Pearce, and former state Senator Jonathan Paton, covers most other local governments including cities, counties and school districts and must be implemented by 2013.

The vision of government transparency is not complete, though. We have to make sure government releases information that is understandable and follows common sense. In addition, not all aspects of government are covered by the law; small towns have been exempted even though there are few costs involved in providing public information on the Internet. Finally, government should reveal even more than its checkbook. It should also justify what it’s spending by posting information about the actual performance of agencies and employees.

Arizonans can be happy that our elected officials took action to make sure the state rates higher than an F in transparency. But there is still a way to go before the state gets the A+ that we all deserve as taxpayers.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.