Month: March 2011

Because practice makes perfect…

March 28, 2011- With 2012 just around the corner and these babies still in use at polling places all over the country, why not get one or more of them now for your very own?! With one of these babies, you too can learn all the ins and outs of "voting" before the pressure of Election Day, when that "vote" will really "count"!

Great for social clubs, like political parties, or even terrorist groups! Why wait? They're sure to disappear fast! Just like the "votes" cast on them!

Because it's Diebold, you know it comes from a company you "trust", whether you'd like to or not. And with bids starting as low as, well, anything you like, this tens-of-thousands-of-a-kind e-voting machine is sure to be a "steal"!

FULL STORY HERE:

… Read More

WATCH ON YOUTUBE:

… Read More

March 25, 2011- Last year, Wisconsin Supreme Court justice and Gov. Scott Walker ally David Prosser cast the key vote in favor of a “justice-for-sale” ethics rule written by two corporate lobbying groups. Thanks to Justice Prosser, his colleagues are not required to recuse themselves from cases involving one of their major campaign donors. Now, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC), one of the lobbying groups that wrote the rule Prosser made into law, is rewarding him by raising “unlimited and undisclosed” funds to keep Prosser on the state supreme court:

… Read More

March 27, 2011- Thursday, ThinkProgress reported that the Ohio House had approved the most restrictive voter id law in the nation — a bill that would exclude 890,000 Ohioans from voting. Earlier this week Texas lawmakers passed a similar bill, and voter id legislation — which would make it significantly more difficult for seniors, students and minorities to vote — is now under consideration in more than 22 states across the country

… Read More

March 25, 2011- A year after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision easing campaign spending restrictions for corporations and interest groups, the Federal Election Commission has yet to issue regulations spelling out the full implications of the decision.

The commission increasingly has been paralyzed by a sometimes bitter standoff between Republicans and Democrats on the evenly divided panel. And although most of the commissioners will soon be serving in expired terms, President Obama and congressional Republicans have not been able to agree on replacements.

The court found in its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision that the First Amendment allows unfettered spending on campaigns by corporations, nonprofits and unions. Shortly after the January 2010 ruling, the commission said it would no longer enforce regulations that had been directly struck down by the court.

… Read More

-Originally posted on CREW:

March 24, 2011- If anyone needs more confirmation of the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) current role as a tool for the party establishments, we have a case for you.

The issue in front of the commissioners was pretty straightforward. Current law requires any campaign communication to include a “clear and conspicuous” disclaimer stating who paid for it.

“A disclaimer is not clear and conspicuous if it is difficult to read or hear, or if the placement is easily overlooked." 11 C.F.R. 110.11(c)(1).

It appears clear that freshman Dave Schweikert (R-AZ) intentionally violated this law during his successful bid to oust then-incumbent Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ).

… Read More

March 23, 2011- While Ohio public employees' rights to bargain collectively are under siege, the Ohio Republican Party executed a perfect sleight of hand by disenfranchising nearly 900,000 Ohio voters. In the most vicious and direct attack on voting rights since Bull Connor ran amok in the deep South, Ohio House Republicans passed HB 159 that requires Ohio voters to produce one of four state photo IDs at the polls.

The only IDs that will be accepted in Ohio if this bill passes the overwhelming Republican State Senate are a U.S. passport, a U.S. military ID, an Ohio driver's license, or an Ohio state ID. This is the most restrictive standard in the nation.

… Read More

March 12, 2011- Requiring voters to present a photo ID at the polls sounds like a good idea – but it is everything we hate about government: a complex and expensive nonsolution to a problem that doesn't exist.

To implement such a law would cost millions each year, would likely disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters – especially women, the elderly and minorities – and would not prevent fraud that it is designed to stop. Now the issue is coming to a head in North Carolina: The House Elections Committee is scheduled to take public comments on photo ID at 2 p.m. Tuesday in Room 643 of the Legislative Office Building in Raleigh.

At issue is not "voter ID" but rather the matter of imposing photo ID restrictions at the polling place. There's no problem, in general, with "voter ID," providing that there are many options for establishing identity, as there are in Alabama and Missouri, where many types of documents suffice.

… Read More

Would require photo ID at the polls 

March 16, 2011- Some college students’ right to vote might be threatened if a new piece of legislation is passed.

A bill requiring voters to present a form of photo ID at the polls is expected to be filed this week, and it might make it harder for students to vote. Similar bills have been introduced across the nation.

“It could dramatically affect students in different ways,” said Bob Hall, executive director for Democracy N.C., a nonpartisan organization that advocates for voter rights.

The exact wording of the bill is still unknown, but if it requires a government-sponsored ID, private university student ID cards will not be considered valid, he said.

Public university student ID cards would be acceptable, unless the bill requires an address on the card, Hall said.

… Read More

March 21, 2011- The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a Republican lawsuit challenging limits on party spending.

The lawsuit, brought by former Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.) and the Republican National Committee against the Federal Election Commission, argued that a rule limiting the amount that parties could spend in coordination with its candidates violated their First Amendment rights. The suit was part of a sustained assault on campaign finance restrictions by conservatives.

Election law experts had considered it likely that the court would at least agree to hear the case, given that its conservative majority has been skeptical of rules restricting the flow of money into politics, as borne out most significantly in its sweeping 5-4 decision last year in a case called Citizens United v. FEC allowing corporations to fund election ads.

… Read More