Republican Fears - Part 2

Fear #3: Standing By Their Words in Public – Republicans want to end all campaign finance regulation so there can be unfettered speech and doesn’t want members and backers to stand up in public saying "I paid for this ad and I approve of this message." The GOP’s stalwart defenders say that disclosing who is bankrolling their campaign efforts would be to expose donors to public criticism and possibly attack. The great benefit to the GOP’s patrons, including many corporate executives and trade associations (see May 12 – Political Sugar Daddies blog), is that the nonprofit ruse allows them to avoid limits on donation amounts, and equally important, donors to these nonprofits are not legally required to identify themselves. Think about this. It’s okay for multi-millionaires and corporate lobbies to bankroll the most negative ads in a presidential election year—ads that are thrust upon millions of people whether we want to hear them or not—but the individuals or interests who are paying for those messages are to be protected from criticism or angry responses.

What do these 3 fears say about the kind of national political party that is today’s GOP? It is a party that does not have the confidence to stand by its ideas or funders in public. It is a party that does not trust voters to accept or reject their agenda—in fair votes. It is a party that cannot live with the consequences of not obstructing bills and appointments in the US Senate. Instead, today's Republican Party must cheat, bully, lie and hide to preserve its power in 2012. Without gaming the rules in Congress, without limiting who votes in state and national elections, and without hiding their patrons from the American people, they know they’d lose—and lose badly.

Related other stories are: On July 26, 2012 Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) had to testify before a House Judiciary subcommittee on the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 and Pennsylvania (PA) voter ID law. Although Republicans accused the DOJ of not doing enough to make sure members of the military can register to vote and that they receive absentee ballots at least 45 days before federal elections – the fact is - "This year we (DOJ) sued 4 states -- Alabama, California, Georgia and Wisconsin -- for noncompliance with the MOVE Act during their primary and runoff elections." Perez said his department tries to block voter ID laws that threaten to disenfranchise minority voters. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said in the PA case officials have admitted they have no investigations or prosecutions concerning in-person voter fraud. Nadler played a June video in which PA House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, a Republican, says the voter ID law will "allow Governor Romney to win the state of PA." Nadler said "I don't think it goes too far to demand that the Civil Rights Division give close and careful scrutiny to any voting changes likely to or intended to disenfranchise voters. There is clearly a national strategy to disenfranchise voters for partisan political purposes and it is the most widespread and aggressive such campaign since the Jim Crow era." Perez noted that former Attorney General Michael Mukasey who served under President George W. Bush said that voter ID laws can sometimes represent a burden to voters. (In other words the laws can hinder people’s ability to vote.)

Here’s Politico’s list of the most competitive presidential swing states that have enacted new voting restrictions this cycle and where those laws stand: Pennsylvania - Several groups, led by the PA American Civil Liberties Union, have challenged its constitutionality in state courts; the first hearing took place July 25 (a decision to support the law came August 15). The DOJ opened an investigation into the law but it looks like the new requirements will be in effect for November. Florida - The early voting provisions and changes for voters who move between counties are in effect in 62 of Florida’s 67 counties; it cannot be implemented in the other 5 until the state gets pre-clearance from DOJ. The restrictions on third-party registration drives are on hold statewide after Groups like the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote successfully filed suit against the state. Virginia - Signed into law in May and awaiting DOJ pre-clearance before it can take effect. New Hampshire - The law is awaiting DOJ pre-clearance; it will most likely take effect before November. Ohio – A suit has been filed in Ohio to try to restore the extra 3 days of early voting; it’s unclear whether those days will be restored before Election Day. Wisconsin - Various outside groups challenged the new voter ID law in federal and state court. A state judge found the law unconstitutional under the Wisconsin Constitution and has placed a stay on the law. Proponents of the law have appealed the decision, and there’s still a chance the law could go into effect before November. North Carolina - It’s unlikely that the proposed photo ID requirements will be passed into law before November. Other states with strict photo ID laws: Alabama (not in effect until 2014, if it gets pre-clearance); Georgia (in effect); Indiana (in effect); Kansas (in effect); Mississippi (on hold); Rhode Island (in effect, but strict photo ID requirements begin in 2014); South Carolina (on hold); Tennessee (in effect); Texas (on hold) – DOJ is suing.

In my opinion the Republicans must go to extremes to make sure Americans hear their rhetoric and eliminate those that may actually be listening. Tomorrow I’ll give you the history of campaign laws.