Free Speech For Liberals

WASHINGTON EXAMINER EDITORIAL HIGHLIGHTS

Democrats: Free speech for me, not for thee
Examiner Editorial
"The bill is full of draconian restrictions on individual political speech expressed via corporations, but gives privileged status to the Democrats' union masters."

DISCLOSE Act attacks freedom of speech
Ken Klukowski, Examiner OpEd
"At least BCRA applied to unions. It was unconstitutional, but at least it went after both sides. DISCLOSE, by contrast, mostly criminalizes speech from conservative groups, while leaving liberals unfettered."

White House, Google violate lobbying pledge
Timothy P. Carney, Examiner Columnist
"Maybe a millionaire who spends his days leaning on policymakers to benefit his company isn't a lobbyist if he calls himself an 'Internet evangelist.'"

A role for the people in judicial selections
William J. Watkins Jr., OpEd Contributor
"The three nominees (it could be two or one depending on the political climate) would be listed on the ballot for the next regularly scheduled federal election (every two years), and the people would vote for one of the nominees to serve on the Supreme Court."

NRA Board Member Speaks Out On Collusion With DhimmiRats

NRA Board Member Cleta Mitchell Weighs in on the NRA's Backroom Deal for an Exemption from the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175):

"For its part, the NRA -- on whose board of directors I serve -- rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for "neutrality" from the legislation's requirements. In doing so, the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind...

Democrats would effectively neuter the [Citizens United] decision by requiring the names of multiple donors to be recited in ads (thus shrinking the time spent on actual speech), requiring the CEO of a corporate donor to personally appear in campaign-related ads, expanding the coverage period to virtually the entire election year, and including myriad other rules that the NRA described last month as "byzantine" and an "arbitrary patchwork of reporting and disclosure requirements."

The NRA's wheel-squeaking bought it an exemption from those requirements. Tea Party organizations arising spontaneously since 2009? Out of luck. Online organizations with large e-mail followings but perhaps no formal dues structure? Forget it."