Supreme Court overturns more McCain-Feingold restrictions

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overturning several campaign finance-related restrictions as violative of the First Amendment.

SCOTUSblog has good roundups of media reactions and commentary on the ruling here and here.

You can read the Court's opinion here.

Of note, I believe both the NRA and the ACLU had filed amicus briefs urging the Court to overturn the contested provisions.

Buying your way into the major's office

From the New York Times:

To eke out an election victory over the city’s low-key comptroller, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg spent $102 million of his own fortune — or about $174 per vote — according to data released Friday, making his bid for a third term the most expensive campaign in the city’s history.

Mr. Bloomberg, the wealthiest man in New York City, shattered his own records: He poured $85 million into his campaign in 2005 (or $112 per vote) and $74 million into his first bid for office in 2001 ($99 per vote).

And the $102 million tab is likely to rise, because the mayor has not yet doled out postelection bonuses to campaign workers, which have routinely exceeded $100,000 a person in years past. That spending will not be reported until after his inauguration in January. [emphasis added]

Mr. Bloomberg has now spent at least $261 million of his own money in the pursuit of public office, more than anyone else in the United States.

Government watchdog groups criticized the nine-digit price tag for his re-election, saying it undermined a widely admired campaign finance system that Mr. Bloomberg helped install in the city. Mr. Bloomberg did not participate in the system, which rewards candidates who raise small donations with large matching money from taxpayers.

The downside for the billionaire mayor: It caps spending at $6 million in the general election. ...

Read the rest here. Well, he can't be that smart of a politician -- doesn't he know he's supposed to use other people's money to get (re)elected? :)

Of course, $100+ million is probably a small price to pay for someone with Bloomberg's wealth, in exchange for the opportunity to wield power over eight million New Yorkers for another four years.

Gun control and campaign contributions

Howard Nemerov writes on the relationship between gun control, politicians, and political donors here.

Part two of the series, dealing with the campaign contributions of lawyers and law firms, is here. An excerpt:

There is anecdotal evidence that pro-gun control voting correlates with lawyer contributions. For example, Congressional voting on the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006––prohibiting federal officers and employees from confiscating legally-owned firearms during emergencies or disasters––showed that “Yea” voters (supporting prohibition) averaged $35,534 from lawyers during the 2006 election cycle, while the “Nay” voters (supporting future confiscations) averaged $51,665, 45% more.*

As with any demographic group, it would be prejudicial to imply that all lawyers are pro-gun control and that their campaign contributions support only candidates who vote that way. However, the industry contains such organizations.

The American Association for Justice was the largest contributing lawyer organization in 2008, spending $2,991,290 on candidates. Open Secrets notes:

Formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA), this group of plaintiffs' attorneys and others in the legal profession now goes by the name of the American Association for Justice (AAJ) and boasts 56,000 members worldwide. A lobbying heavyweight, the association has been battling any attempt at tort reform… [emphasis added in original]

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (Senate Bill 397), passed by the Senate on July 29, 2005, represents such tort reform, banning civil liability suits due to injuries and damages resulting from strictly criminal abuse of a firearm. The 65 “Yea” Senators received an average of $366,847 in lawyer campaign contributions, while the 31 “Nay” Senators averaged $645,972, 73.4% more. ...

Part three, discussing NRA grades, is here.

Part four examines the data here.

McCain-Feingold and the book banners

From George Will, writing in the Washington Post:

Last March, during the Supreme Court argument concerning the Federal Election Commission's banning of a political movie, several justices were aghast. Suddenly and belatedly they saw the abyss that could swallow the First Amendment.

Justice Antonin Scalia was "a little disoriented" and Justice Samuel Alito said "that's pretty incredible." Chief Justice John Roberts said: "If we accept your constitutional argument, we're establishing a precedent that you yourself say would extend to banning the book" -- a hypothetical 500-page book containing one sentence that said "vote for" a particular candidate.

What shocked them, but should not have, were statements by a government lawyer who was only doing his professional duty with ruinous honesty -- ruinous to his cause. He was defending the mare's-nest of uncertainties that federal campaign finance law has made and the mess the court made in 2003 when, by affirming the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold's further speech restrictions, it allowed Congress to regulate speech by and about people running for Congress.

The government lawyer was trying to justify the FEC's 2008 decision that McCain-Feingold required banning "Hillary: The Movie" from video-on-demand distribution. The lawyer said, in effect:

Don't blame me. McCain-Feingold orders people to shut up when political speech matters most. It bans "electioneering communications" (communications "susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate") paid for by corporations in the 30 days before primaries and 60 days before general elections. Corporations include not only, or primarily, the likes of GM and GE; corporations also include issue advocacy groups, from the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club. So, yes, if a book published (as books are) by a corporation contains even a sentence of election-related advocacy, the book could -- must -- be banned by the federal government, and not just during the McCain-Feingold muzzle period.

Stunned, the court ordered that the case be reargued Sept. 9. On Aug. 30, a New York Times story included a delicious morsel about Fred Wertheimer, an indefatigable advocate of increased government control of the quantity, timing and content of campaign speech -- speech about the composition of the government:

"In an interview, Mr. Wertheimer seemed reluctant to answer questions about the government regulation of books. Pressed, Mr. Wertheimer finally said, 'A campaign document in the form of a book can be banned.' " ...

Read the rest here. McCain-Feingold (perhaps more accurately described as the Incumbent Protection Act) is an odious carbuncle on the flesh of the First Amendment that seeks to stifle political dissenting speech.

The high Court heard re-argument last Wednesday in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205). SCOTUSblog has coverage of the oral argument here, and SCOTUSwiki has the merit and amici briefs here for those interested. The NRA, which has long opposed McCain-Feingold, filed an amicus brief, available here.

Let's hope the Court excises the malignant tumor of McCain-Feingold from our beloved First Amendment.

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

[Texas] Seamen consider piracy risks:

In Houston’s maritime union halls, sailors and engineers were talking guns Thursday. They discussed the pirates’ guns. Their own lack of guns. And the possibility that the hijacking of a U.S.-flagged container ship off Somalia on Wednesday will force the Navy to bring more firepower to the high seas.

“Step it up, because the pirates are,” said Spencer Reed, 52, a marine engineer. “Those guys mean business.”

“Pirates have been around a long, long time, but now it’s gotten more sophisticated,” said another engineer, Phillip Sistrunk, 60, of Pasadena. “It was a little bit of a shocker because normally they don’t mess with U.S. vessels.”

Both men advocate allowing commercial seamen to use firearms to defend themselves from pirates. Most commercial ships sail the world unarmed, relying on “evasive maneuvers” and blasts from fire hoses to repel would-be hijackers, according to industry analysts. ...

Howard Nemerov on the lawyer lobby and gun rights [charts and stats at the link for the stats geeks:

Previous articles noted that gun rights groups contribute very little money to federal election campaigns, and that there appears to be a link between law firm contributions and Nancy Pelosi’s support for firearms registration. Looking at the entire House of Representatives, pro-rights voting records and law firm contributions negatively correlate, meaning that as law firm money comprises a greater percentage of a candidate’s total campaign fund, the more likely they are to vote against the civil right of self-defense. [emphasis added]

All winning 2008 House candidates’ campaign contributions (total and lawyer/law firm) were correlated with the National Rifle Association’s grading system (as an indicator of relative pro-rights voting records). The focus on winning House candidates is because only those winning a seat can vote, and it is the link between campaign contributions and voting records that need examining.

Since total campaign contributions varied from $117,097 for Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts to $7,353,034 for Colorado’s Jared Polis, the percent of total is a more accurate indicator of influence, assuming candidates are most beholden to those who gave them the greatest piece of their campaign pie. Races “cost” various amounts to win, based upon many factors such as rural versus urban, hotly-contested contests, etc. Law firm contributions comprised between 0.4% for Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri (NRA grade “A”) and 29.1% for Bruce Braley of Iowa (NRA grade “D-”). Total amounts are included for comparison purposes only. ...

[Washington] Politician: Criminals ought to expect a "lead enema":

MASON COUNTY, Wash. -- Mason County Commissioner Tim Sheldon said a budget crisis means the sheriff will have cut $382,000 from its budget which the sheriff said could mean up to five deputies yanked off the road.

The commissioner said he's confident Mason County residents can defend themselves from criminals if necessary.

"It's always open season on criminals in Mason County, and there is no bag limit," Sheldon said.
...
Sheldon said he's just warning criminals that people in Mason County have guns and know how to use them.

"You might expect a lead enema. I'm telling you, people in Mason County are fed up with crime. They know how to protect themselves," Sheldon said. ...

[Texas] Campus carry bill gaining support:

AUSTIN — Legislation allowing state university students and employees to carry their concealed handguns on campus appears to have enough pledged support from lawmakers to pass the full Texas House.

The bill would prohibit public universities across Texas from creating rules that forbid concealed handgun license holders from carrying their pistols into a classroom, but it would allow private institutions to exempt themselves.

Chances for passage in the House — if it gets there — look strong, as 76 members have signed on to support the bill, authored by Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland.

The House Public Safety Committee already has signed off on the measure. Now, it needs to get scheduled for debate in the full House. ...

[Missouri] Pro-gun rights bills advance:

Legislation lowering the minimum age for obtaining a concealed-weapons permit and allowing concealed guns at public colleges and universities received first-round approval Wednesday in the Missouri House.

A 2003 state law allows Missouri residents to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons if they are at least 23 years old, have no felony convictions and pass a firearms training course and background check.

That law also bars concealed weapons in certain places such as schools, public hospitals and stadiums with at least 5,000 seats.

The House bill lowers the minimum age for obtaining a concealed-carry permit to 21 and lifts the ban on concealed weapons at public colleges and universities and expands Missouri's castle doctrine law to allow the use of deadly force to cover any private property.

House members gave the measure first-round approval on a voice vote. It needs a second vote to move to the Senate. ...

Paper says prospects dim for more gun control:

Fatal shootings in Binghamton, N.Y., and Pittsburgh prompted renewed calls for stricter gun control from traditional advocates such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Rev. Jesse Jackson. But such calls haven't echoed in the halls of Congress or in statehouses across the country.

"The silence has been deafening," Dennis Goldford, a Drake University political scientist, said of federal lawmakers' response to new incidents of gun violence across the country.

In the face of a series of tragedies, the political position of opponents of firearms restrictions appears weaker than it's been in decades. On the national and state levels, the prospects for new restrictions on gun ownership are dim.

In the late 1980s and 1990s, gun-control debates were a staple of political discourse. But in more recent years, the national Democratic Party -- intent on expanding the party's natural constituency -- has essentially abandoned efforts to impose new restrictions on gun ownership. ...

[Virginia] Senate fails to override Gov. Kaine's veto:

RICHMOND, Va. - The Senate has upheld Gov. Tim Kaine's veto of a bill that would have allowed those with concealed carry permits to take handguns into restaurants as long as they don't drink alcohol.

The Senate came up three votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override Kaine's veto Wednesday. It was the second year the body upheld Kaine's objection to the bill on the grounds that it puts the public at risk. [emphasis added]

Retired law enforcement officers likely will be allowed to carry concealed guns into bars. The Senate voted 30-10 to override Kaine's veto of that bill. The House had not taken up the issue.

Currently, guns can be taken into restaurants as long as they are out in the open.

Comment: So close, and yet so far. According to the governor, not allowing law-abiding citizens (who can already carry openly in restaurants) to carry concealed will somehow put the public at risk. The anti-gunners aren't known for their irrationality for nothing.


[Tennessee] Meanwhile, in the Volunteer State:

NASHVILLE - The House on Monday passed a bill to allow people with handgun carry permits to bring their weapons into establishments that serve alcohol.
Advertisement

The chamber voted 70-26 in favor of the bill sponsored by Rep. Curry Todd, a Collierville Republican and a retired police officer.

"It's a matter of public safety," Todd said after the vote. "It's a matter of them protecting themselves, which they have a right to do.

"And to make them leave their guns in the car is just asinine," he said. ...

Law professors like donkeys

A recent analysis by Prof. Paul Caron of political contributions by law professors shows, not surprisingly, an overwhelming bias towards the Donkey Party:

FundRace 2008 on The Huffington Post lists 635 "law professors" as having made contributions to candidates in the 2008 Presidential election totalling $623,472. Of this amount, 92.7% ($577,924) has been contributed to Democratic candidates, 7.3% ($45,548) to Republican candidates. $487,772 has been contributed to the nominees of each party -- 94.7% ($461,754) to Barack Obama, 5.3% ($26,018) to John McCain. ...

See the breakdown by school here.

[Hat tip: WSJ Law Blog]

Mass. Gov. sidesteps campaign finance rules

The democrats (and pseudo-republicans like Senator McCain) are always yapping about the corrupting influence of money in election campaigns, and are big supporters of so-called "campaign finance reform" limiting how folks can spend their own money. Unless, of course, it benefits them.

Governor Deval Patrick has scheduled a picnic fund-raiser this month at his vacation estate in the Berkshires, where he will once again exploit a method he pioneered for skirting state campaign contribution limits, a funding system the Legislature so far has declined to shut down.

Guests at the gathering at the 7,500-square-foot mansion situated on 77 acres in Richmond are being asked to contribute up to $5,500 to the governor's Seventy-First Fund. The fund - as the formal invitation to the soiree explains - divides the contributions between Patrick's campaign and the state Democratic Party.

What the invitation does not say is that the Democratic Party, in turn, uses most of its share of the money to pay off Patrick's campaign expenses. That allows Patrick to get around the state's $500 limit on individual contributions to candidates, by giving him most of the benefit of the additional $5,000, the maximum an individual can give to a political party.

Read the rest here. The whole idea of campaign-finance reform, of restricting how much an individual can give of his own money, is neither effective, nor (in my opinion) constitutional. Disclosure requirements are fine, but limits on donations only serve to entrench and protect incumbents, which, not surprisingly, is why many incumbents support such limits.

Given that Gov. Patrick is a democrat, and the Massachusetts legislature is solidly democrat-controlled, don't expect this "loophole" (as the anti-gunners are fond of saying) to be closed anytime soon. At least, not unless the next Mass. governor is a republican.