Published: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 00:00:00 -0500
Last Build Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 23:14:16 -0500
Mon, 07 Nov 2016 12:01:00 -0500Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) sent a letter to the heads of the four "major" TV networks—CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox—threatening to hold a hearing "to explore network media bias in coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign." To justify this grandstanding and overreaching display of concerned government, Cramer cites a recent Gallup poll which put Americans trust in "media" at around 32 percent and also asserted only 37 percent of Americans think the media's coverage of the 2016 campaign has been "balanced." If the public's tepid views of the news business aren't enough to make your fear for the fragile state of American democracy, Cramer's not done. For him, the polls confirm that "national network news has devolved from fact-based journalism to surreptitious propaganda" in violation of their "moral obligation to provide balanced, unbiased news coverage for the American people." Our mass media is not serving the public interest. I call on @ABC @CBS @FOX @nbc to #StopPoliticalBias Letter Here: https://t.co/hRAjY8YPvY pic.twitter.com/p9Bv0yoUoW — Rep. Kevin Cramer (@RepKevinCramer) November 4, 2016 Cramer wants the network executives to know that he's not in favor of re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine, but adds, "while the principle of an independent media is critical to our constitutional government, a news media free of political bias is required for a free system to flourish." So instead of wielding the Fairness Doctrine as a means of forcing the networks to rid themselves of all political bias (which would be impossible to quantify, not least because bias is in the eye of the beholder), Cramer threatens their "the use of federally-allocated spectrum" afforded by their FCC licenses, writing "Your FCC license and the liberty that comes with your First Amendment rights are not a license to broadcast anything you want or in any way you choose." Cramer appears to have not read the FCC's website, which explicitly states (emphasis theirs), "We license only individual broadcast stations. We do not license TV or radio networks (such as CBS, NBC, ABC or Fox) or other organizations with which stations have relationships (such as PBS or NPR), except to the extent that those entities may also be station licensees." If Cramer has a problem with the national news media and wants to use the FCC as a cudgel, he'd need to sic them on hundreds of individual stations, not just four networks. Though Cramer might want to use the FCC as his own task force, the FCC's website also states the commission "cannot prevent the broadcast of any particular point of view. In this regard, the Commission has observed that 'the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views." They're not done: The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) had responded to reports that Facebook's Trending News section was politically biased against right-leaning voices and stories by asking the company for extensive internal documentation and summoning senior employees to Washington, D.C. for a briefing with the senator, who is also the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Communication. What Thune and Cramer—both Republicans in good standing and ostensibly pro-free market—fail to understand is that Facebook and the major television networks are all private organizations, and whether or not they cover the election or any news from a neutral point of view is absolutely none of the government's business. (Note: This post has been updated to clarify Sen. Thune's actions.)[...]
Sun, 06 Nov 2016 10:35:00 -0500State legislative elections don't get much attention, even in years when the presidential race isn't the only thing anyone talks about for months on end. But those local races do more than simply determine which lawmakers get a desk in the state capitol. In more ways than one, state legislative races shape the foundation of government—and not only in faraway places like Harrisburg, Springfield, and Raleigh. If Hillary Clinton wins the White House but Republicans hold their majority in the U.S. House (as is likely), it will be in large part because of the victories Republicans have won in state-level races over the past decade. In most states, controlling state legislatures means controlling the ability to redraw congressional districts and giving your own party an electoral advantage before any voters line-up at the polls. The massive advantage that the GOP holds at the state level is something Democrats will have to reverse if they want a realistic shot at winning full control of Congress any time before 2030. They've got a lot of work to do. Heading into Election Day 2016, Republicans control both chambers in 30 state legislatures, while Democrats have dual-house control in just 12 states. There are seven states with Republican majorities in one chamber and Democratic majorities in another. Unofficially, Republicans also control Nebraska's unique unicameral legislature (all Nebraskan lawmakers are technically "nonpartisan" but party affiliations are hardly a secret and 35 of the chamber's 49 members are affiliated with the Republican Party). Contrast that with where things stood when Obama was elected for the first time in 2008. Following that election, Democrats had control of both chambers in 27 states, while Republicans held all the cards in only 14 states. Then 2010 happened. The midterm election swept Republicans into control of both chambers of Congress, but it also produced an astounding swing in control of state legislatures. Even as Democrats re-elected Barack Obama comfortably in 2012 and made small inroads against the GOP congressional majority, the GOP tightened their grip on state legislatures. Obama, who probably learned this lesson better than anyone else in the wake of the 2010 election, has tried this year to use his campaigning superpowers to help Democratic candidates in state-level races, endorsing 150 candidates across 20 states. They could use the help, because the red tide that rose in 2010 hasn't shown signs of receding. In Pennsylvania, for example, Republicans are eyeing veto-proof majorities in both the state House and state Senate this year even as polling shows that the state is likely to go "blue" for the seventh consecutive presidential cycle. Wisconsin is another reliably blue state in presidential races, but Republicans have been able to pass some of the most significant anti-union reforms in the country because of their recent success at winning seats in Madison. Like a hurricane that hits at high tide, the storm surge from the 2010 legislative elections inundated Democrats because of bad timing. It coincided with the once-per-decade process of redrawing congressional districts. Redistricting processes vary from state-to-state, but legislators almost always have significant influence. In many states, they literally draw the congressional maps, sometimes with no practical oversight from courts or the governor's mansion. Even when there is input from other branches of government or from the public (or from the U.S. Department of Justice, which has the authority to discard congressional maps for many southern states if they are judged to disenfranchise minorities), the process remains fundamentally political. There are plenty of ideas for how to reform the redistricting process and there are also good arguments in favor of just letting it be the political thing that it is, but those don't matter much for the point I'm making here. As it stands, control of state legislatures after the 2010 election is a major reason why Republicans are likely to control the U[...]
Fri, 21 Oct 2016 11:15:00 -0400
(image) Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona has a message for his fellow Republicans. In an interview with Politico, Flake said that if Hillary Clinton wins the election next month, Senate Republicans should stop stonewalling and instead move quickly to hold hearings and a vote on Merrick Garland, the languishing Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Barack Obama back in March. "If Hillary Clinton is president-elect then we should move forward with hearings in the lame duck," Flake said. "That's what I'm encouraging my colleagues to do."
What explains Flake's thinking? In the words of Politico, "the political calculus is straightforward: Better to deal with Garland now and avoid swallowing a more liberal nominee from Hillary Clinton."
But not every Republican is on the same page as Flake. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, for example, believes that Garland will be just as left-wing as any nominee that Clinton might offer. "I don't believe there would be a real substantive distinction, a real noticeable difference between the voting pattern of a justice who would be appointed by a President Hillary Clinton...and Merrick Garland," Lee recently said.
Meanwhile, over in the House of Representatives, Republican Congressman Justin Amash disagrees with all of the above. According to Amash, the Senate should reject Garland right now because Garland is a lousy nominee in his own right—plus, Garland may well be worse than anybody put forward by Hillary Clinton. "Odds are the next president will pick someone less extreme than the anti-libertarian Garland," Amash wrote last night on Twitter. Amash then elaborated on the point: "Garland is 'moderate' only from the view of political elites. His record is anti-civil liberties and pro-unchecked executive powers."
Amash is correct about Garland's record, which is replete with judicial deference to both law enforcement agencies and to the executive branch.
All of which raises an interesting question. If the Senate does hold hearings on the Garland nomination, how many Senate Republicans will be forced to admit that they approve of Garland's judicial passivity in these important areas of the law? Like it or not, the Senate is not exactly packed to the gills with libertarian-minded lawmakers in the vein of Justin Amash (or Rand Paul). What will traditional conservatives have to say about Garland's record on these matters? What about the so-called law and order crowd? Remember, from the standpoint of a certain type of legal conservatism, the courts should be deferential towards the actions of police and prosecutors, or should be deferential towards the "inherent" powers of the presidency. Perhaps Garland will pick up more than a few votes from those segments of the Senate GOP.
If nothing else, Senate confirmation hearings on Merrrick Garland would be a positive development because they might force conservative lawmakers to publicly air their differences on these crucial legal questions.
Wed, 05 Oct 2016 16:40:00 -0400
(image) U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany (R-Louisiana) is suing author Ethan Brown and his publisher, Simon & Schuster, over a new book that claims Boustany was a client of murdered sex workers in Louisiana's Jefferson Davis Parish. The book, Murder in the Bayou, was released in September and explores the unsolved murders of eight women in western Louisiana who came to be known as "the Jeff Davis 8."
After years of digging into the case, Brown, a New Orleans-based investigative reporter, asserts that the serial-killer narrative pushed by police and media was wrong and "it should have been obvious all along that the Jeff Davis 8 killings were not the handiwork of a serial killer…[since they] all knew one another intimately." Without answering any questions about the case definitively, Murder in the Bayou explores how police incompetence, indifference, and possibly corruption sabotaged the murder investigations.
The book also includes three anonymous sources who say Rep. Boustany patronized one or more of the murdered sex workers. And it notes that a Boustany field staffer, Martin "Big G" Guillory, ran a hotel, the Boudreaux Inn, where the victims had seen clients. "Several of the slain workers were constantly involved in incidents resulting in police presence at the Boudreaux Inn" while Guillory owned it, the book states.
But Brown was also careful to note that "there is no evidence that either Congressman Boustany or Big G had any involvement with the murders of the Jeff Davis 8."
It wasn't enough to keep Boustany—one of 24 people up for David Vitter's open Senate seat in November—from filing a defamation lawsuit Monday against Brown and Simon & Schuster. The suit claims Brown's book includes statements that "were known to be false when made or were made with malicious intent and reckless disregard for the truth." Boustany and his wife have also vigorously denied the book's claims.
Brown told the Associated Press that he stands by what he reported in the book.
Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:20:00 -0400Saudi Arabia has long been a troublesome ally for the United States. Sure, the government has provided space for military bases, but those ended up being Osama bin Laden's top grievance with the United States. And sure, the Saudis have been helpful in cracking down on some violent radical Islamist groups, but they've sponsored and created just as many. And yes, they're a major trading partner in both oil and arms, but they've also been using our military support to indiscriminately kill civilians in Yemen. And of course, they're basically among the worst in the world when it comes to freedom of speech and religion, women's rights, LGBT rights, and human rights in general. But the special relationship between the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States may be forever transformed by Congress handing President Obama an overwhelming veto override yesterday—the first of his administration—on a bill that strips immunity of foreign governments and their officials from lawsuits regarding terrorism on U.S. soil. The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) enjoys its robust support in Congress due to its association with 9/11—and congresspeople don't want to be seen as voting against the interests of 9/11 victims' families in an election year, just weeks after the fifteenth anniversary of the attacks. The bill was spurred by allegations that certain Saudi government officials provided financial support to 9/11 hijackers, which were detailed in the recently-released "28 Pages" of a congressional inquiry into 9/11. But President Obama and the few dissenters of the bill in Congress have argued JASTA is too broadly written and not limited to 9/11 victims' families, and that it could also make U.S. military personnel and officials liable to legal retaliation in foreign courts. White House press secretary Josh Earnest called Congress' override of the president's veto "the single most embarrassing thing the United States Senate has done" in decades, and that by not fully considering the consequences of the bill to diplomatic relations and military servicepeople, "Ultimately these senators are going to have to answer their own conscience and their constituents as they account for their actions today." At least two senators who supported the bill and the veto override—Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.)—have suggested trying to "tighten up" the bill during the upcoming lame duck session of Congress by limiting the legislation only to 9/11. The Washington Post quotes Corker as saying the bill as written could end up "exporting...foreign policy to trial lawyers" and make U.S. personnel liable for lawsuits from anything to drones strikes to support for Israel's military actions. Congressional support for Saudi Arabia was once as good as a rubber stamp, but a number of congresspeople recently made a bipartisan push to restrict a more than $1 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia because of concerns over the Kingdom's bombardment of schools, hospitals, and civilians in Yemen. The resolution almost certainly will not have the support to stop the sale, but the pushback from Congress is new and noteworthy, regardless. There are legitimate concerns about the reciprocal nature of laws pertaining to the liability of foreign officials, but editor emeritus of World Policy Journal David A. Andelman made some pretty weak arguments against the bill in a CNN op-ed. One of his concerns is that the Saudis could clamp down on oil production and thereby contribute to a rise in fuel prices worldwide. A fair if potentially overstated economic concern, but it assumes the Saudis would be more concerned with lawsuits than they are with their ongoing proxy war against Iran, where keeping oil prices low is in the Saudi interest. An even worse argument Andelman makes is that American jobs could be lost if Saudi Arabia stops buying weapons from the U.S., even though the [...]
Thu, 15 Sep 2016 22:00:00 -0400
(image) This is a movie promotion strategy like no other. Oliver Stone's retelling of Edward Snowden's surveillance whistleblowing, Snowden, hits the theaters Friday. There's a big push now to attempt to convince President Barack Obama to pardon Snowden and allow him to return home.
Ron Bailey made note of this new effort yesterday. My own cynical take is that Obama is only interested in correcting the overreach in prosecutions of citizens during previous administrations. He has demonstrated absolutely no interest in even remotely restraining the authority of his own Department of Justice in any way whatsoever. The "right people" are in charge. There will be no pardon coming.
Now, this afternoon, the House Intelligence Committee decided to wade into the world of film promotion by releasing a summary of a classified report extremely critical of Snowden. And it's a bipartisan critique. Every member of the committee signed a letter to Obama urging him not to pardon Snowden.
The report, a result of two years of investigation, concludes that Snowden was not a whistleblower at all and didn't attempt to properly bring problems with National Security Agency (NSA) snooping to lawmakers before snatching documents and fleeing the country. And the report makes it personal, accusing Snowden of feuding with coworkers and accusing him of lying about the reasons he left the Army (he says broken legs—they say "shin splnts") and lying about his education. Wondering what any of that has to do with whether his whistleblowing exposed illegal NSA surveillance? Keep wondering.
Read the summary of the House's report here. The full report is classified, so we have no actual foundation to evaluate the assertions presented in the summary. On Twitter, Snowden offered a handful of responses accusing the lawmakers themselves of misleading the public:
Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:00:00 -0400In 2014 America came so close to electing an openly gay Republican to Congress. Two candidates on opposite sides of the country, Carl DeMaio in California and Richard Tisei in Massachusetts, landed their party's nominations, but lost in the general election. It's a trend worth noting because a success here serves as an indicator of Republicans and conservatives further turning away from an attitude that there's something bad or wrong about being gay and a push away from government policies that are influenced by sexual orientation. Also, Tisei and DeMaio both had some libertarian-friendly positions in their platforms (DeMaio had previously worked with the Reason Foundation as an independent contractor on pension reform). As of Tuesday night's Arizona primary, we now have Paul Babeu, the Republican sheriff of Pinal County in Arizona. He won last night's primary and will be facing Tom O'Halleran, a Democrat and a former Chicago police officer, to replace Ann Kirkpatrick as the representative for Arizona's 1st District. Kirkpatrick, a Democrat, is challenging Sen. John McCain for his seat in November. If elected, Babeu would not be the first gay Republican to serve in Congress. Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin and Jim Kolbe, also of Arizona, both came out of the closet while serving. Babeu would be the first to actually be elected as an openly gay man. Kolbe, incidentally, has endorsed Babeu. As a candidate, Babeu is a bit of a mixed bag for libertarians. He is a hardcore border security and control advocate and is very vocal about saying America has "complete lawlessness" on immigration enforcement. He holds President Barack Obama responsible for any crimes committed by illegal immigrants within the United States. He's also a hardcore drug warrior and promotes on his campaign site the fact that his sheriff's office was responsible for the largest drug bust in Arizona history. These two positions appear intertwined. In May he warned hikers and campers to be wary of "Mexican drug assassins" operating his county. When Vice News investigated, they couldn't find much evidence that there was a serious problem. On the other hand, much of his economic platforms are pro-innovation and pro-freedom. He's against the Enivornmental Protection Agency's and the Obama administration's meddling in coal power operations, but also supports the development of renewable energy. He's very critical of EPA regulatory overreach, which is a hot-button issue in a state like Arizona with a lot of federal land. He's pro-gun rights, and anti-Common Core. Babeu's public coming out story is also tied to his strong immigration positions due to an odd scandal from 2012, the first time he attempted to run for Congress. He came out of the closet publicly following accusations from an ex-lover who also happened to be an illegal immigrant from Mexico, claiming he was threatened with deportation after the relationship turned sour. An investigation by Arizona's Attorney General's office cleared Babeu of any wrongdoing, but he nevertheless dropped out of the race for Congress. This will be his second attempt, and it appears as though he's going to be heavily focused on getting out votes on the basis of immigration, energy, and local control issues.[...]
Tue, 30 Aug 2016 12:50:00 -0400Congress will be returning to session next week after Labor Day with a busy agenda that nobody actually wants to deal with because this year's elections seem so crazy. At the top of mind of small-government conservatives (and obviously libertarians) is the intense pressure to pass a spending bill to keep the government in operation. The omnibus spending bill approved last December funds the government to the end of September. So they've got to pass something. Several activist groups that support reducing the size of government and lowering taxes are putting forward an organized effort to try to discourage Congress from kicking the can down the road to December's lame duck session and then pushing through a last-minute, post-election, must-pass spending bill influenced by members of Congress who are on their way out the door and don't have to worry about accountability. (We're looking at you, Sen. Harry Reid.) Some of the groups involved—like Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and Americans for Task Reform—are heavy-hitters in small-government and Tea Party activism. They, and several dozen other organizations, are calling on Congress to avoid a last-minute push to fund government all the way through 2017 and quietly include all sorts of cronyist regulations that benefit certain influential parties that lobby the government. In a teleconference with the media this morning, participants noted efforts to re-establish the loan authority of the cronyist Export-Import Bank as a concern. In a letter, the groups note how last year's last-minute, must-pass omnibus spending bill turned out: Congress already considered the matter of expiring tax provisions a little under a year ago. The $680 billion package signed into law last December made some of these items permanent and allowed more than two dozen others to expire at the end of 2015, laying the groundwork for comprehensive tax reform. Included in the nearly $20 billion in tax provisions that are set to expire are provisions pertaining to small-scale wind power, geothermal heat pumps, race horses, film production—provisions that distort our tax laws and narrowly benefit favored industries over the rest of the tax base. These provisions were made temporary for a reason. It makes no sense to come back just one year later and selectively extend certain provisions in a lame duck. Reason noted some of the secret stuff buried in that Omnibus legislation earlier in our April issue (not all of it was bad—but it was certainly not transparent). In a press call this morning, representatives from three of the groups involved in this push said they're specifically focused on making sure spending legislation is not approved at the last minute, and only spending and tax-related legislation. They're going to stay focused on that goal and not other types of bills that could get pushed through in December. That may matter in the event that heavily negotiated criminal justice and sentencing reforms finally make it through Congress before the end of the year. But clearly something does need to be passed in order to prevent a government shutdown. What some Republicans are pushing for is a continuing resolution to fund the government through March of next year. That would put the new president and a new Congress into place. Read more about the push behind that six-month plan here.[...]
Wed, 17 Aug 2016 06:30:00 -0400Yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that a spending rider approved by Congress in 2014 and 2015 prohibits the Justice Department from prosecuting marijuana suppliers who "fully comply" with state laws allowing medical use of the plant. The DOJ had argued that the rider, which says the department may not use appropriated money to "prevent" states from "implementing" their medical marijuana laws, applies only to litigation against the states themselves, not to prosecution of individuals who provide cannabis to patients. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously rejected that interpretation, saying federal marijuana defendants are entitled to evidentiary hearings at which they can try to show their actions were authorized by state law. The case, United States v. McIntosh, consolidates 10 appeals by medical marijuana growers and dispensary operators in California and Washington, including the proprietors of Hollywood Compassionate Care in Los Angeles. The defendants argued that prosecuting them violates Section 542 of the omnibus spending bill that Congress approved last December, which covers the fiscal year that ends on September 30, as well as a similar provision that applied to the previous fiscal year. The amendment, which was introduced by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Sam Farr (D-Calif.), says "none of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used" to "prevent [states] from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." The 9th Circuit agreed with the defendants that the Rohrabacher/Farr amendment, although "not a model of clarity," covers criminal prosecution of people who engage in those activities as well as lawsuits aimed at overturning or neutralizing medical marijuana laws: DOJ argues that [Section 542] does not prevent the Medical Marijuana States from giving practical effect to their medical marijuana laws by prosecuting private individuals, rather than taking legal action against the state. We are not persuaded.... DOJ, without taking any legal action against the Medical Marijuana States, prevents them from implementing their laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana by prosecuting individuals for use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana that is authorized by such laws. By officially permitting certain conduct, state law provides for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in such conduct. If the federal government prosecutes such individuals, it has prevented the state from giving practical effect to its law providing for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in the permitted conduct. We therefore conclude that, at a minimum, § 542 prohibits DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by the State Medical Marijuana Laws and who fully complied with such laws.... If DOJ wishes to continue these prosecutions, Appellants are entitled to evidentiary hearings to determine whether their conduct was completely authorized by state law, by which we mean that they strictly complied with all relevant conditions imposed by state law on the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana. Passing that test may not be easy, since neither California nor Washington licensed or explicitly allowed commercial production and distribution of medical marijuana when these defendants were arrested. In both states dispensaries operated based on controversial interpretations of state law, as patient cooperatives or collectives in California and as "collective gardens" in Washington. The 9th Circuit explicitly rejected the argument that Section 542 means the DOJ must let states deal [...]
Wed, 03 Aug 2016 11:45:00 -0400Republican Kansas Rep. Tim Huelskamp is out, defeated in the state's primaries last night by a challenger, Roger Marshall, a political newcomer. The latest numbers have Marshall ahead 57 percent to 44 percent. That's not a narrow loss. Huelskamp came into office in 2010 as part of the Tea Party push. He is a member of the House Freedom Caucus and was one of the small group of Republican congressman who in 2015—along with familiar-to-Reason reader names like Justin Amash, David Brat, and Thomas Massie—voted against naming John Boehner speaker of the House. Huelskamp had previously been punished by Boehner in 2012 for voting against Republican establishment positions by being booted from the Agriculture Committee (this happened at the same time Amash was booted by Republicans from the Budget Committee). This apparently turned the agriculture industry against Huelskamp. Club for Growth and the Freedom Caucus maintained support for Huelskamp, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and agriculture industry groups turned to Marshall. Marshall's endorsements include a host of agriculture interests, including ethanol representatives. Huelskamp opposes the federal renewable fuel standard. Marshall supports it. The narrative for Huelskamp's loss was that he was just too combative and that his clashes had hurt his district, which is an interesting way of describing the party's establishment punishing Huelskamp by stripping him of his influence for voting in ways they didn't like. But as McClatchy notes, there was a little bit more than just the agriculture lobby plotting against Huelskamp. His district lines were redrawn to include Fort Riley and Kansas State University, bringing voters who "are not as libertarian on economic issues nor as socially conservative as those who live in the west." Possibly relevant, beyond just the agricultural lobby, was the fact that Huelskamp's social conservativism had a strong anti-gay bend to it. He believed that proponents of gay marriage recognition were trying to weaken and destroy the institution altogether and was a supporter of the National Organization for Marriage's efforts. His position went far beyond the "let the states decide" position of many current conservatives. In 2013 he introduced a constitutional amendment to try to restrict marriage recognition across the country to heterosexual couples only. Marshall holds many conservative positions and is pro-life (he's also an obstetrician), but there's nothing on his issues page about gay marriage or gay rights at all. Huelskamp's campaign actually attacked Marshall for belonging to a physician's group (the American College for OB-GYNs) that supports gay marriage recognition and the right to abortion. Is this a warning sign for the future of the Tea Party movement? Hard to say. Given the state of the Republican Party right now with Donald Trump as a completely uncontrollable presidential candidate, it's tough to even speculate about the party's future other than to say that regardless of what happens in November, it's going to have to really figure out what the heck it is. It is worth noting that despite the crazy tone of the election, we're not actually seeing a lot of shocking primary results. ABC notes that Huelskamp is only the fourth incumbent legislator to lose a primary. Two others had their district boundaries significantly altered and one was indicted on corruption charges. Below the fold is House Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan's (R-Ohio) statement in response to Huelskamp's loss: "Our colleague Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) is a fifth generation farmer and conservative Republican who, since the day he was elected, has stood up for the values of the families and taxpayers in his district. "At times, Tim's commitment to fighting for smaller, more accountable government required him to stand up [...]
Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:30:00 -0400Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) is perhaps best known for casting the one vote in Congress against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Afghanistan days after 9/11. For her vote of conscience, she was pilloried by a traumatized, terrified, and hyper-patriotic American populace. She defended her bold and lonely vote on the floor of the House by arguing that "military action will not prevent further acts of terrorism against the United States." She added that she had "agonized" over the vote but felt it necessary for someone to urge "restraint." In hindsight, Rep. Lee's call for caution proved prescient, as that AUMF has been used to authorize military actions which had nothing to do with 9/11, but were instead vaguely lumped into what was once called the Global War on Terror, but which the Obama administration prefers to not define at all while it bombs countries and combatants that also had nothing to do with 9/11. On the floor of the Democratic National Convention (DNC), I asked Rep. Lee—a Hillary Clinton supoporter—if she has any issues with Clinton's career-long track record supporting military intervention. Of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, which many believe was a well-intentioned humanitarian mission that ultimately helped produce a failed state (and which Clinton still describes as an example of "smart power" even while President Obama calls it his greatest foreign policy "mistake") Lee makes very clear that "I did not support that." However, the congresswoman wanted me to know that she believes "Secretary of State Clinton's foreign policy does emphasize diplomacy and development. Where I disagree [with Clinton] is often times with the use of force." Lee pointed to her votes against the AUMF in both Afghanistan and Iraq and added, "I've been calling for a new authorization and congressional debate on this new war footing," but said she believed in Clinton's ability to provide a "comprehensive strategy" and identify "the root causes of terrorism." She added that President Obama had submitted a new AUMF to Congress but that Congress has yet to put it up for a vote. Watch Lee's speech from 9/14/01 below: src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Zh_sxilhyV0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" width="560" height="340" frameborder="0">[...]
Wed, 20 Jul 2016 19:53:00 -0400Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), sounds like he doesn't know how a smartphone works or what the role of Congress is. The ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee fired off a letter along with two Democratic colleagues demanding Pokémon Go explain what it does about how much data its users use playing the game. "We are writing to better understand what measures Niantic has undertaken to ensure consumers are informed of Pokémon Go's effect on their mobile data usage," the letter begins, continuing by explaining that the app had been downloaded 7.5 million times in its first week out and earned "an estimated $2.3 million day on the iOS and Android platforms. The reference to revenue is totally gratuitous and unrelated to anything else Pallone brings up. He does not mention that Pokémon Go is a free app or that he has no business getting involved with Pokémon Go and data usage in the first place. Amazingly, while trying to whip up fears over Pokémon Go and data usage, Pallone cites a Wall Street Journal article titled "Relax, Pokémon Go Isn't Eating Your Data Plan," which reports that according to Verizon the app takes up less than 1 percent of its total data traffic. Pokémon Go, like any sophisticated app, can drain battery life, but it does have a setting for "battery saver." Battery usage is a problem for many smartphone users and one smartphone makers have long been working to improve. Like data usage, battery usage isn't any of Pallone's business either. It's up to individuals how much they want to consider their data usage when playing Pokémon Go. Most smartphones allow you to check data usage by app—I've used about 300MB of data on Pokémon Go in the last two weeks, hardly my most data-taxing app—and there are even apps to help monitor data usage instead. But Pallone could relax even if that weren't the case, because issues like data usage on Pokemon Go are outside the purview of Congress. It's notable too that the concept of net neutrality, which Pallone and Democrats tend to support, make it harder for service providers and app operators to minimize the cost of data usage because "net neutrality" doesn't permit treating data spent on Pokémon Go to be treated differently than data used on any other program or internet service. If Pallone is interested in contributing, he could work to roll back net neutrality controls. Frank Pallone ends with four questions he asks Niantic to answer, none of which it should feel compelled to answer and none of which are intelligent enough to be worth asking. He wants to know whether there are "best practices" Niantic follows to minimize how much data is used (their code is none of Pallone or the government's business), whether it works with carriers to "ensure that consumers are not unexpectedly hit with large overage charges," (this is non-sensical as other apps use even more data), whether it warns consumers about data usage (again, nonsensical given that Pallone has overblown the data impact), and most incredibly, whether it had "any mechanisms in place to make sure consumers are made whole in the event they are hit with an unexpected overage charge resulting from the use of your app." Why would anyone but the user of a phone be responsible for the data they use? I wouldn't even say Congress has more important things to concern itself about. Even if Congress didn't have anything to concern itself with—no self-created foreign policy, fiscal and other messes to get itself out of—Pokémon Go would still not be something that's appropriate for Congress to concern itself with. If Frank Pallone has concerns about Pokémon Go, he should free to quit his job in Congress and work on developing an augmented-reality game he thinks is superior. Otherwise he should [...]
Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:15:00 -0400Instead of paying attention to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton today, take a moment to listen to Senators Tim Scott and Cory Booker. Scott is a black Republican from South Carolina. Booker is a black Democrat from New Jersey. Together, they've done something relatively unusual in Washington these days—teamed up across partisan lines to introduce two pieces of legislation aimed at increasing upward mobility and fighting poverty. The bills hadn't been on my radar screen until last week, when Sen. Scott took to the Senate floor to offer some disturbing firsthand accounts of how he'd been treated by law enforcement officers and to offer some ideas on how to move forward. These two pieces of legislation were among them. The first is the Leveraging and Energizing America's Apprenticeship Programs or "LEAP" Act. It would create a new $1,500 per apprentice tax credit for businesses that hire employees younger than 25 to participate in apprenticeship programs registered with the federal or state governments. The cost of the tax credits would be offset by having the government publish more documents on the Internet instead of printing them. The LEAP Act already has support from two other Republicans, Deb Fischer and Kelly Ayotte, and from two other Democrats, Chris Coons and Amy Klobuchar. The second bill is the Investing in Opportunity Act. It would give governors the power to create "opportunity zones" and provide a break on the capital gains tax for taxpayers who invest their gains in a qualified opportunity zone. This law, too, has bipartisan backing. Its supporters include Democrats Michael Bennet, Chris Coons, and Gary Peters, and Republicans Roy Blunt, Cory Gardner, and Lindsey Graham. Both these laws, unfortunately, would add complexity to a tax code that needs simplification. The senators get credit for good intentions, but federal antipoverty needs to be judged on results, not intentions, as decades of counterproductive spending have testified. Even so, perhaps they are onto something. Certainly, the problem of how people younger than 25 can gain valuable and employable skills is one worth tackling. Not all of them will go to college, and the combination of high state and local minimum wages, health insurance mandates, and payroll taxes means that, without a subsidy of some sort, entry-level employees in many cases aren't worth the cost for businesses to hire and train. My preferred solution would be to reduce the payroll tax, the minimum wage, or the healthcare mandate, or to let someone in the private sector find a way to make money by hiring and training these people better than competitors. As for the opportunity zones, again, the problem of entire neighborhoods or even cities or regions that have been left behind from the coastal urban booms that have affected places like Silicon Valley, New York City, and Washington, D.C. is one worth thinking about. The idea of dealing with it by offering a capital gains deferral may be a little too cute, though. The concept is to get people who made lots of money on, say, Facebook stock, to reinvest the money in some rundown city or rural backwater and avoid some of the tax hit on their gains. But as Mark Zuckerberg's unsuccessful $100 million gift to the Newark, N.J. public schools shows, the problems in some of these neighborhoods go well beyond the issue of lack of financial capital willing to invest. "It's a dark hour in race relations for America, but I bring you hope, real hope," Sen. Scott said in his remarks, speaking about how a heavily white congressional district in South Carolina elected him—the grandson of a cotton-picker—over Senator Strom Thurmond's son and over the son of the late Gov. Carroll Campbell. "Please remain optimistic." It's [...]
Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:30:00 -0400Does Congress actually need a special caucus to advocate on behalf of a civil liberty that is spelled out in the Constitution's Bill of Rights? For 25 lawmakers in the House of Representatives, when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the answer is increasingly "yes." On Wednesday, the Hill saw the formal launch of the Fourth Amendment Caucus, a bipartisan coalition (nearly evenly divided between the two parties) of those who are concerned about the degradation of the right of Americans to protect their communications and personal information from unwarranted government searches. Edward Snowden has become a household name since he revealed the United States government was secretly collecting massive amounts of data from its citizens own communications without their knowledge, all ostensibly to help fight terrorism. Snowden's decision to blow the whistle on the behavior of the National Security Agency (NSA) was intended, in part, to highlight the increasing degredation of the citizen protections of the Fourth Amendment. And yet, in the wake of his revelations and the public outrage, agencies like the NSA and FBI continue to push for more authority to collect data about American citizens without having to turn to warrants. The FBI wants to increase the data it can gather through the use of secret National Security Letters. An attempt to expand the authority of the Patriot Act to get banks to share data from its customers with the government to fight crimes beyond terrorism and money-laundering was just defeated in the House. Two of the House members who were vocal about stopping that Patriot Act expansion, Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), are members of this new Fourth Amendment Caucus. The caucus was the brainchild of Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) a strong supporter of requiring better citizen privacy protections and for the NSA and feds to respect the restrictions the Fourth Amendment puts in place when investigating crime and terrorism. Poe asked Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) to help chair the caucus. Lofgren recently worked with Massie to attempt to pass legislation to try to force the feds to get warrants to access collected data on American citizens. Their efforts failed. The two are also strong voices in trying to protect tech companies from federal efforts to force them to make "back doors" in their software or otherwise weaken their encryption to assist authorities in investigations. Other members of Congress known for speaking out on the Fourth Amendment are also on the caucus. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who has been trying to change federal law to require warrants to access old emails, is on the caucus. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who blatantly once told a district attorney with a dim view of encryption to "follow the damn Constitution," is in the caucus. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), himself once a target of federal surveillance during the civil rights movement, is in the caucus. After the caucus formally rolled out Wednesday, Lofgren explained to Reason that these legislators already work together on Fourth Amendment issues, but putting together a caucus allowed for a more formal structure for them to move forward together in the broad sense as a team. She sees the caucus as a necessary response to the push from authorities to collect more data and the unwillingness of some to make sure the Fourth Amendment retains its teeth. "Everybody says they're for the Constitution," Lofgren says, "but when you look at the application is when you see the problem." There's been a tendency to hope for the courts to pull back on overreach by the FBI and NSA in collecting citizen data, but Lofgren notes that the legislative branch has a role to play, particularly given [...]
Wed, 13 Jul 2016 06:30:00 -0400Responding to a lawsuit arguing that the U.S. war against ISIS is illegal because Congress never authorized it, the Obama administration argues that Congress kinda-sorta did, since it appropriated money that is being used to fight the terrorist organization. The administration's brief, filed on Monday, cites $5.6 billion that Congress approved in December 2014 for "overseas contingency operations to counter ISIL" (another name for ISIS), language in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2015 that authorized the Defense Department to help Iraqi security forces defend their country against "the threat posed by [ISIS]," a 2016 appropriations measure approving "additional funding...to conduct counter-ISIL operations," and the NDAA for fiscal year 2016, which expressed "the sense of the Congress" that ISIS "poses an acute threat to the people and territorial integrity of Iraq" and that "defeating ISIL is critical to maintaining a unified Iraq." None of these measures explicitly authorized the U.S. war against ISIS, and each of the appropriations bills warned that "none of the funds made available by this Act may be used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution," which requires the president to get congressional permission within 60 days of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or, failing that, withdraw them within 90 days. That law says Congress may not authorize military operations through an appropriations measure unless it "states that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization." The lawsuit to which the administration is responding was brought by Nathan Michael Smith, an Army captain who works at the Kuwait headquarters of the combined joint task force overseeing the forces fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. He is seeking clarification of the war's legal status, arguing that participating in an unauthorized war would violate his oath to uphold the Constitution. Smith notes that President Obama has blatantly failed to meet the requirements of the War Powers Resolution, and he rejects the administration's implausible contention that the war against ISIS is covered either by the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, which was approved before ISIS existed and which Obama himself describes as dangerously obsolete, or the 2002 AUMF in connection with the Iraq war, which Obama declared over in July 2014 and which in any event never involved military action in Syria. The administration argues in a footnote of its brief seeking dimissal of Smith's lawsuit that the provision of the War Powers Resolution requiring explicit authorization of military deployments is unconstitutional because one Congress cannot bind a subsequent Congress. But the Constitution can, and the War Powers Resolution is aimed at preventing the president from rendering meaningless the power "to declare war," which the Constitution unambiguously assigns to Congress. If presidents were free to use military force around the world at their sole discretion, there would be no need for such declarations. Still, the pieces of legislation cited by the administration show that congressional capitulation has combined with presidential presumption to make the war power all but irrelevant. Members of Congress, who could authorize the war against ISIS if they think it's a good idea or defund it if they don't, have chosen to do neither. They prefer to have it both ways, avoiding the blame for failing to confront ISIS while disowning responsibility for a war that may go terribly wrong. While Obama never got permission for his war, the administration notes, "Congress [...]