 | ||||
RepublicanGazette
Abernathy Strategies
Submissions welcome
The Republican Gazette welcomes Emails to the Editor and press releases. All submitted items must include the name and contact information for the author of the article, and all articles will only be published with the author's name included. Thank you for reading and participating in The Republican Gazette, another of West Virginia's most biased publications.
All opinions are those of The Republican Gazette and its editor, Gary Abernathy, except letters or commentary signed by others, and do not reflect the views of anyone else, including clients of Abernathy Strategies.
-------
Search the Republican Gazette ---->
Monday, June 30, 2008 "When news breaks, we fix it" Serving West Virginia since 2005
Russ Weeks: An American Life
Bad law, bad process, bad motives
Delegate Blair dared
Dems to adjourn and
save thousands of
dollars for taxpayers
Delegate Craig Blair, R-Berkeley, said Friday that even though Republicans supported the 2005 version of the campaign finance bill being revisited by Democrats in the Legislature this week, the GOP learned lessons in the past three years that apparently have been lost on the opposing party.“Unlike our Democrat counterparts, and unlike their chairman, Nick Casey, most Republicans have paid attention to changing circumstances,” said Blair. “A federal judge shot down a large part of the 2005 bill. The United States Supreme Court just this week made it clear that compelling disclosure for the sake of compelling disclosure will not likely hold water.”Blair said Republicans would rather avoid costing taxpayers the thousands of dollars in legal fees that will undoubtedly be spent defending this law in court, in an almost certain losing cause.Blair said that even though the 2005 bill was passed in a special session, “it was after at least three months of discussion and input. And we still didn’t get it right. I’ve seen at least 16 versions of this current bill, so even the Democrats aren’t sure what they want. But now, Democrats are upset that Republicans won’t roll over and play dead for a hastily-crafted bill written by a handful of trial lawyers and designed to protect one or two candidates of their own party. Maybe the Democrats can’t learn from their past mistakes, but that doesn’t mean Republicans have to be equally ignorant.”Blair said it is also significant that no other state has a law like the one West Virginia is trying to enact. “That should tell us something,” said Blair. “This is bad law, being passed under purely partisan circumstances, and I have no doubt Judge Faber will take those obvious facts into consideration when he reviews this case again.”Blair said it was outrageous for Democrat Chairman Nick Casey to blame Republicans for the cost of the extended special session. “Republicans would have preferred to go home two or three days ago, because we all have jobs in the real world,” said Blair. “The Democrats are proud of controlling government in this state. They can’t run from the fact that every hour, every day, that we remain in session, it’s their choice to do so, not ours. Who’s forcing them to keep this session going? I challenge the Democrats to end it right now, but I doubt I’ll have any takers.”Last week, trial lawyers took over the Democrat Party and cost the state thousands to pass campaign finance legislation destined to be shot down again
It was a textbook example of what happens when one special interest group is permitted to commandeer an entire political party for the purpose of ramming through legislation with the express purpose of protecting one incumbent in a specific election.With the assistance of a compliant Governor Joe Manchin, the campaign finance rules shoved down the throats of the people of West Virginia contained a triple threat -- a bad law, enacted through a bad process, and for bad motives.THE LAW
Democrats insisted that all they were doing was "fixing flaws" in legislation passed in 2005, as directed by Judge David Faber. In fact, they passed several provisions that again violate established First Amendment rights and are contrary to countless court decisions on the subject.Among the "legislative findings" included in the new law are these gems, which any judge is likely to question in regard to the claim versus the evidence:* "Large contributions and large expenditures by persons or committees, other than the candidate, reduce public confidence in the electoral process and increase the appearance that candidates and elected officials will not act in the best interests of the state’s citizens generally."Since when does input in campaigns by people not running for office reduce public confidence? Isn't that called democracy? If it appears candidates and elected officials will not act in the best interests of the state's citizens, perhaps that is the fault of the candidates and the elected officials. * "Robust debate of issues, candidate interaction with the electorate, and public involvement and confidences in the electoral process have decreased as campaign expenditures by persons or committees, other than the candidate, have increased."Where is the evidence to support this outrageous claim?* "Citizen interest, participation and confidence in the electoral process are lessened by excessively long and expensive campaigns."Again, where is the evidence for this?* "Concomitant with the first amendment right of the political speaker is the first amendment right of the listener. Disclosure of the identity of persons or entities funding political communications regarding candidates bolsters the right of listeners to be fully informed."First Amendment right of the listener? Where does that nonsense come from? Listeners may indeed have a right to be informed, but it is not a First Amendment right.The main aspect of the bill that will doom it from the start is through its definition of "electionioneering communication," which the bill defines as any paid communication that "refers to a clearly identified candidate for Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Auditor, Commissioner of Agriculture, Supreme Court of Appeals or the Legislature." Apparently, county and municipal candidates are exempt. But this is where Democrat lawmakers overstep their authority, and attempt to apply the same regulations to issue ads that apply to advocacy ads. The U.S. Supreme Court and other courts throughout the land have consistently held that unless groups are using the "magic words" -- vote for, vote against, support, elect, defeat, etc... they are not held to the same disclosure standards as advocacy campaigns. Just how West Virginia Democrats believe they can carve out a special exemption for the Mountain State in this regard is difficult to comprehend. They cannot simply say that all electioneering communications are equal, when they are not.The new law says it applies to ads that are the "functional equivalent" of an advocacy ad if it "urges a candidate to take a particular position or action with respect to the matter or issue, or urges the public to adopt a particular position and to contact the candidate with respect to the matter or issue." No, that is not an advocacy ad, or even its "functional equivalent," even if West Virginia Democrats say that it is, and the court is likely to laugh out loud at this claim. An orange is not the functional equivalent of an apple, no matter how many times you try to write a law saying so, and Democrat legislators are not the functional equivalent of the framers of the Constitution.It is interesting that Democrats specifically targeted West Virginians for Life in the new law, using as an example of an ad to which the law would apply one which says, ... "'vote Pro-Life' or 'vote Pro-Choice' accompanied by a listing of clearly identified candidates described as Pro-Life or Pro-Choice ..."The new law goes on at length in its effort to regulate activity by corporations or their employees (but not unions), again over-reaching in its authority. It is, in its entirety, so full of holes that it could be used as a screen door on a hot day.THE PROCESS
When Governor Manchin first announced this special session, he said it was to address the teacher pension issue. Russ Weeks, GOP candidate for governor, challenged him to add a pro-life bill to the session, but Manchin's spokesperson, Lara Ramsburg, "said special sessions are devoted to emergency funding matters, and that the abortion issue is a policy matter that should be discussed in a longer, regular legislative session," according to the Beckley Register-Herald.That, of course, turned out to be a lie. Manchin soon added the campaign finance bill and a greyhound track bill to the call for the special session, neither of which are emergency funding matters. When the session got underway, Manchin said it should all be wrapped up by Wednesday. Of course, the only way to pass legislation that quickly is for 80 percent of lawmakers to agree to suspend the three-reading rule, which the governor apparently assumed would happen, no matter what the bill or issue.Throughout its coverage of the session, The Associated Press more than once reported that Republicans were holding up the campaign finance bill through a "procedural" move, and in one story reported that "Republicans can delay the vote by blocking a suspension of a constitutional rule requiring the bill be read on three separate days."What?What a convoluted way to say that Republicans refused to suspend the rules. "Blocking a suspension" makes it sound like GOP lawmakers are stopping something that is supposed to happen as a matter of course.The law says bills are to be read on three separate days. Suspending that rule is supposed to happen only under emergency circumstances, and even though Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of abusing the suspension of rules, the fact remains that insisting on adhering to the law is not "blocking" anything, You could just as easily, and more accurately, say that Democrats were attempting to block the three-reading rule.So, not only did Democrats want to abuse a special session to pass a hastily-written campaign finance bill to protect a specific candidate in a specific election, they also wanted to suspend the rules and do it in one reading. Then, they attempted to portray Republicans as the bad guys for refusing to roll over and play dead.As more than one Republican noted, it would be nice if lawmakers were given copies of bills a few days before the session is supposed to start. The habit by Democrats of a handful of legislators 
CRAIG
BLAIR
McKinney: Dems wrong to extend session for bill so full of flaws
DOUG McKINNEY
State Republican Chairman Doug McKinney on Friday criticized Democrats in the State Legislature for dragging lawmakers through an unnecessary extended special session to force through campaign finance laws designed to protect their favored candidates.“Most Republicans were ready to adjourn and go home Tuesday or Wednesday,” said McKinney. “But Democrats refuse to end the session until they force through a bill that is badly written and likely to again be deemed unconstitutional when challenged in court.”McKinney scoffed at Democrat claims that Republicans are the ones responsible for the added costs of the session.“Since when did Republicans have the power to call a special session and keep it going day after day?” asked McKinney. “Democrats refuse to adjourn until they pass this bill, and then they point their fingers at Republicans for refusing to roll over and suspend the rules. Let’s be very clear — a Democrat governor called this special session, and Democrat leaders in the Legislature are the ones who refuse to end it until they get their way.”McKinney reiterated that Republicans are in favor of disclosure requirements in regard to campaign finance laws, “but they have to be written in a manner that stands up in court, and that invites public comment from all interested parties. And they should never be rushed through for the sake of one election or the protection of one or two particular candidates, which, sadly, is the case with this legislation.”and lobbyists writing legislation, then dumping it onto the desks of lawmakers just as the session gets underway, then demanding immediate passage, is government at its most arrogant and least responsible. But even some in the media seem to believe it is appropriate law making.
THE MOTIVE
Republicans far and wide claimed the campaign finance bill was designed solely for the purpose of helping Attorney General Darrell McGaw's reelection campaign as well as aiding the two Democrat candidates in the state Supreme Court race. Democrats did little to prove otherwise.Delegate Carrie Webster practically admitted the GOP was right on several occasions. At one point, she said "this election" -- referring to the 2008 general election -- was "too important" not to pass the legislation. She later noted that Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse had targeted her in her last campaign, and CALA needed to pay for that.Back in 2005, the original legislation was crafted purely as a response to Don Blankenship's "And For The Sake Of The Kids" organization, which had just funded an independent campaign against Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw and, to a lesser extent, his brother, Darrell, the attorney general. Blankenship, of course, responded in 2006 by simply self-funding a campaign, no doubt leading Webster to make her comment during this special session that if it was up to her, she would pass laws restricting the rights of individuals, too. Whatever it takes to protect the Democrats seems to be standard operating procedure.Whether targeting Blankenship or independent issue groups, laws that are crafted as a response to any particular individual or group, or are designed to help one or two specific campaigns, seldom stand up in court, because good judges typically see right through the motive and intent, and rule against legislation that is simply bad, partisan law. Just as some judges on the West Virginia Supreme Court may have felt that Russ Weeks' lawsuit against the legislative pay raises was a political ploy during a campaign season, the efforts of Democrats in the West Virginia Legislature regarding this campaign finance bill -- especially given its near party-line approval -- will be greeted in federal court with the same level of skepticism.DISCLOSURE VS. PRIVACY
Several times, Democrats and some in the media suggested that Republicans have flip-flopped on the campaign finance bill, since they supported it in 2005.Delegate Craig Blair answered that charge best (see his press release on this page), but it's also important to give credit to the notion that even people who believe in campaign disclosure also agree with the U.S. Supreme Court that forcing disclosure can also dampen free speech.(Incidentally, any newspaper that allows "vent lines" or other such anonymous commentary in its pages has no grounds to insist on full disclosure from campaigns.)In its ruling just last week striking down the so-called "Millionaire's Amendment," the nation's Supreme Court said, "Compelled disclosure, in itself, can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment."In commenting on that ruling, Loyola law professor Richard Hasen told USA Today on Friday that the decision "also means the court could reconsider decades-old restrictions on corporate and union money in federal elections." So, the Supreme Court is moving in the direction of lessening restrictions, while the West Virginia Legislature is trying to increase restrictions. When they collide, guess who wins?Just as there is a careful balance between the protection and restriction of freedoms in fighting terrorism, there is a balance regarding disclosure and non-disclosure in political campaigns. The courts seem to hold that full disclosure in regard to the direct advocacy of electing or defeating someone is appropriate. But when spending money to discuss issues -- even if that discussion leans heavily for or against a particular candidate -- courts largely agree that individuals and organizations should not be held to the same strict standard as advocacy ads. You would have to be the functional equivalent of a Democrat lawmaker in West Virginia not to understand the difference.Weeks: Manchin snubbed pro-lifers, but catered to trial lawyers and track interest
Russ Weeks, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, said today that in last week's special session of the State Legislature, Gov. Joe Manchin snubbed West Virginians for Life and the pro-life movement, but anxiously catered to trial lawyers and a specific track interest.Before the session began, Weeks challenged the governor to include a bill designed to end taxpayer funding of elective abortions in West Virginia. But the governor responded by saying that special sessions were reserved for emergency
funding issues, and abortion topics should be addressed in regular session with more deliberation and input.
"Clearly, the governor flat-out lied," said Weeks. "By adding to his call for the special session items like campaign finance legislation and a greyhound track bill, Joe Manchin has proven that anything is fair game for a special session if it's important to him. Sadly, the protection of the lives of unborn children is not an issue that fits that category."Weeks reiterated his pledge that if elected, he will include at least one piece of pro-life legislation in each of his annual legislative packages.RUSS WEEKS
