Archive for the ‘Blogroll’ Category

Do You Want A Congressional Pay Cut?‏

November 12, 2010

Quote of the Day: “I leave symbolism to the symbol minded.” — George Carlin

Some people are calling for a Congressional pay cut as a symbolic gesture.

The idea will be wildly popular, but I don’t care for it.

The proposed pay cut isn’t tied to performance, so it will do NOTHING to change Congressional behavior.

A one-time pay cut won’t, in any way, create an incentive for change. It’s just a token.

If you read the story behind the link above you’ll find that the word “symbol” is used six times. The word “gesture” also appears. That’s a bad sign. Symbols are for suckers. Gestures are for losers.

The right way to manage Congressional pay is tie it to performance, PERPETUALLY.

We must not respond to token populism, like eager lap-dogs settling for table scraps. We must instead hold out for real reforms that address the crucial problem of Congressional incentives.

That’s the problem with The State. Politicians have too many incentives to say “yes” to more spending, taxing and regulating. We need to replace the incentives for “yes” with even more powerful incentives leading to “no.”

This should be the principle . . .

If Congress runs a deficit, then, BY LAW, they take a pay cut, EVERY term they do so. And that’s why we made the Fiscal Responsibility Act one of six bills that comprise our Downsize DC Agenda.

Please support this REAL REFORM. Here’s a sample letter you can send to your member of Congress . . .

I hear talk about a Congressional pay cut. I’m not fond of this idea because it dismisses a genuine reform in favor of a one-time symbolic act.

Tokens won’t change anything.

Representatives Deal, Gingrey, Westmoreland, Linder, and Paul have introduced a bill that isn’t merely a gesture. They’ve tied Congressional pay to performance.

After all, the problem isn’t that you want us to like you — it’s that you spend too much!

If Congress runs a deficit, it should see a pay cut. This shouldn’t happen just once. It shouldn’t be a token. It should be the law.

Every term that you run a deficit, you and your colleagues should have your pay cut. If you feel a deficit is good for the country, if you support such “sacrifice,” then I’m sure you’ll be more than willing to take the lead.

Leave symbolic one-time pay cuts to the symbol-minded. I demand something more effective. Bring HR 4336 to the floor and vote for it.

END LETTER

You can send your letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

URGENT: Food Safety Vote Next Week‏

November 12, 2010

Quote of the Day: “Given sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.” — Woody Page, Denver sports columnist

S. 510 will make your food more expensive and less safe. It will drive many small farms out of business. The leaders of the “lame duck” Congress want to pass this falsely named “food safety” bill NEXT WEEK, but . . .

They’ll need 60 votes to break Sen. Coburn’s “hold” on the bill.

That means we can defeat S.510 with just 40 votes, but we must apply the pressure now!

Please send a letter right now telling your Senators to oppose S. 510.

You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .

S.510 will crush family farms and small businesses with excessive regulations – even though they were NOT the source of recent food safety problems.

S.510 also violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the FDA to invade and search farms and food producers without court permission.

If you think the FDA will use this new power responsibly, think again. David Gumpert reports that the FDA shut down two raw-milk cheese-makers for the presence of the pathogen listeria, even though . . . http://tinyurl.com/2e5x2sq

* Nobody got sick
* The FDA almost never shuts down companies for the mere presence of pathogens – even when people DO get sick
* Companies have previously been allowed to clean things up, rather than shut down.

If the FDA is starting to behave like this now, just imagine how abusive it will be under S.510?

Finally, it must be stressed that big agribusiness has been the source of most recent food safety problems. S.510 will make this problem worse by burdening small producers, and driving them out of business. This will make our food supply more centralized, less diverse, and more dangerous.

Please STOP S.510. This Congress must NOT pass any food safety bill. Remember, the voters have repudiated this Congress, and it’s heavy handed ways.

END LETTER

You can send your letter through DownsizeDC’s Educate the Powerful System.

Remember, Congress DOES read your letters. They DO have an impact. The more letters they receive, the more we’re likely to succeed.

So please forward this, share on your social networks, and retweet this message: http://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch

And thank you for being a DC Downsizer!

James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.

Perhaps he needs his own reality show…

November 10, 2010

This is just to good not to republish! The epic fail obama, at his epic failing best!

“At his post-defeat press conference, Barack Obama worked hard to project an air of somber reflection, even as his remarks revealed that he had learned nothing from the defeat. Amidst the practiced pauses and detached narration of the crash came a litany of excuses, evasions, and arrogant denials. He more or less cast himself as the victim of a ‘bad economy,’ as if two years of sending anti-business signals to employers had nothing to do with the high jobless rate. He made sure to note that other presidents had gotten similarly clocked after two years. And he essentially blamed the American people for a lack of perception and patience. But since he couldn’t say that directly, he had to couch his self-justification in the form of patronizing blather about how he could have ‘accomplished’ more, made better ‘progress,’ and ‘communicated’ more effectively with the American people. … At the end of the day, he is nothing more than a shallow pol with little interest in or knowledge of governing. He backed into the White House through effortless luck (he ran against one of the worst Republican presidential candidates ever), and apparently assumed that running the White House would be just as easy. His shallowness also makes him obtuse, even from a rawly political and self-interested standpoint. He suffered one of the worst defeats in decades because of his environmental, socialist, and Brave New World dilettantism, yet spent much of the press conference talking about ‘electric cars,’ gays in the military, and 26-year-olds who, thanks to his largesse, will get to stay on the health care plans of their ‘parents.’ … Obama admitted that he lives in a ‘bubble,’ but that too was the fault of others. He presented himself as the passive victim of his own presidency. Near the end of the press conference, he allowed himself a particularly absurd and maudlin moment, complaining that because of the presidency’s inherently insular character no one can see the depth of his concern for the people. He said that ‘no one is filming him reading those letters’ from them which leave him so anguished and inspired. Perhaps he needs his own reality show.” –columnist George Neumayr

SOURCE

When is the federal government going to assume responsibility for the deficit spending?

November 10, 2010

“Can we solve the problems confronting us? Well, the answer is an unequivocal and emphatic ‘yes.’ To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I have just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world’s strongest economy. In the days ahead I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity. Steps will be taken aimed at restoring the balance between the various levels of government. Progress may be slow — measured in inches and feet, not miles — but we will progress. It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden. And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles, there will be no compromise.” —Ronald Reagan

“While ‘hope’ and ‘change’ were the mantras of yesterday’s elitists, ‘freedom’ and ‘truth’ are the rallying cries of today’s ordinary Americans. John Adams wrote, ‘Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.’ That statement reminds us who we are called to be. That ‘faith’ is a verb — an ‘action word’. Our Constitution is the finest governing document of any country. And as voters, we need to work to make certain that our government protects our constitutional freedoms, whether they be economic, religious, or speech. We must demand that we remain free to associate with whom we choose, to travel where we wish, to work in the fields in which we feel called, and to teach our children in the manner we think is best. As citizens, we need to renew our commitment to live up to the moral and religious ideals that make it all work. Ordinary Americans need to continue to step forward and take charge.” –columnist Rebecca Hagelin

“We should never despair, our Situation before has been unpromising and has changed for the better, so I trust, it will again. If new difficulties arise, we must only put forth new Exertions and proportion our Efforts to the exigency of the times.” –George Washington

“The public is in the mood for repairing America’s crumbling financial house. Democrats will have a more difficult time demagoguing spending cuts when they have been primarily (though not entirely) responsible for the ocean of red ink. The Debt Commission will issue its report on Dec. 1. Many conservatives suspect it will include a call for tax increases. Republicans should say ‘no’ to any tax hikes and focus entirely on government overspending and misspending. Many of us are ready for strong medicine. ‘We can’t afford it’ still rings in the ears of those old enough to remember what parents or grandparents said when we asked for an expensive toy as a child, or a car at 16. That Puritan ethic remains in the DNA of many Americans. It is now up to Republicans to get it out and remind us of what fiscal and personal responsibility can do to restore financial solvency. It may take a while and there will be some discomfort and even pain involved. But in the end, we will all be better off than we are now and much better off than we will be if we fail to reduce our unsustainable debt.” –columnist Cal Thomas

“[W]here [does] all this talk of rich equaling $250,000 a year, a million a year … start? What right does Obama have to sit there and proclaim that people who earn X are gonna be punished with Y, people who earn less than X won’t be punished with Y? … Looked at within the prism of liberty and freedom, as our founding documents spell out, the Declaration, the Constitution, in nowhere in any of our founding documents was it ever said that people earning X would be punished for it. It was never said in our founding documents that people earning X would share a greater burden of funding the government than people who didn’t. … [A]ll this is nothing more than a direct attack on liberty, a direct attack on freedom and it creates class envy and resentment and anger between the classes, between people of different income groups. So all of a sudden we’re faced with a possibility here of the Bush tax cuts ending for people who earn $250,000 a year or more. Well, why are we even discussing it in the first place? What did those people do? What is the magic? Who sets arbitrarily this figure of $250,000 a year? Why are they targeted? And look how easily people fall into the trap of debating the premise, when the real question is when is the federal government going to assume responsibility for the deficit spending, for the irresponsible position they put this country in? When are they going to be forced to reduce the behavior, to limit the behavior they are engaging in that is causing a usurpation of our liberty and freedom?” –radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh

SOURCE

Epic fail obamanomics: A Rebuttal

November 6, 2010

Rebutting Obama’s Rebuttal

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Obama after Midterm Election

Mark Alexander responds to Barack Hussein Obama’s spin on the midterm election derailment of his endeavor to “fundamentally transform America”:

Obama: I think that over the last two years, we have made a series of very tough decisions, but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward in an emergency situation, where we had the risk of slipping into a second Great Depression.

FACT: Obama “inherited” the Bush administration’s decision to prop up the banks in order to avoid a cascading economic collapse. Obama’s “stimulus plan” did little more than stimulated the growth of the central government in order to prop up the transition to a Democratic Socialist state. See the stats.

Obama: But what is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious — a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies — I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive in people’s lives than they were accustomed to.

FACT: I think he actually gets it right here. There is a Great Awakening to the threat of Obama’s Socialist agenda.

Obama: Now, the reason was there was an emergency situation, but I think it’s understandable that folks said to themselves, you know, maybe this is the agenda as opposed to a response to an emergency. And that’s something that I think, you know, everybody in the White House understood was a danger.

FACT: Right again, but Obama’s endeavor to nationalize health care (18 percent of the U.S. economy) had nothing to do with any financial emergency other than, in the words of O’s former Chief of Staff, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Obama: I think that what I think is absolutely true is, voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. I mean, if — if right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9.6 percent unemployment, then people would have more confidence in those policy choices. The fact is — is that, you know, for most folks, you know, proof of whether they work or not is, has the economy gotten back to where it needs to be? And it hasn’t.

FACT: “I think that what I think is absolutely true…” Obama just admitted that because his policies have done nothing to boost the economy and private sector employment, a majority of the American people have awakened to his ruse.

May Obama and his ilk continue to cling to their delusions … but the fact is, his endeavor to “fundamentally transform America” has been derailed.

SOURCE

A great night for the Second Amendment: Or was it really?

November 5, 2010

The Second Amendment had a great night on Tuesday. Across the nation, the right to arms is stronger than ever, and the stage has been set for constructive reforms in 2011.

U.S. Senate: The net result of Tuesday was a gain of +6 votes on Second Amendment issues.

In not a single U.S. Senate seat did the gun control lobby gain ground. Three open seats switched from anti-gun to pro-gun: Ohio (Rob Portman replacing George Voinovich), West Virginia (Joe Manchin taking the seat of the late Robert Byrd), North Dakota (John Hoeven replacing Byron Dorgan). In Arkansas, John Boozman’s victory over Blanche Lincoln is a significant gain.

Full Story

It just so happens that I agree with Dave Kopel about 99% of the time. Now, having said that..? Just how many of these new kids on the block will take on Lautenberg and Schumer. Two men devoted to the destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? How many will put forth legislation doing away with GCA 1968? Or the ex post facto law portion, if not the entire Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act? The abortion known as obamacare? With it’s hidden as well as blatant un Constitutional mandates..? I myself, am sick of hearing how this or that “D” is pro Second Amendment then all they do is pay lip service… Unless it’s election time, and that goes for RINO’s like McCain as well!

HERE is another good read that, especially if you read the comments. Shows to what extremes some people will go to for the sole purpose of “Lording it over” you and I.

Will the hoplophobia continue on. It is, after all, politically correct mental illness.

Zero tolerance at election time

November 4, 2010

“I think that the message is unmistakable that the Obama agenda is dead. … [N]ow it will depend on how Obama proceeds. He has now tried a two-year experiment in hyper-liberalism, and the country has said no.” –columnist Charles Krauthammer

“Democrats will spin Harry Reid’s victory and cling to it like the American people allegedly cling to their Bibles and guns, but I see a huge silver lining here for conservatives. … Yes, Reid would have made a great trophy on the GOP’s mantle. But cheer up: He’s even better as a leader of Senate Democrats — depending on your point of view.” –columnist Stephen Spruiell

“I so want to believe that the tea party marks the beginning of a comeback for small government. But I’m probably deluding myself. I know that big government usually wins. Remember the last time the Republicans took power? They promised fiscal responsibility, and for six of George W. Bush’s eight years, his party controlled Congress. What did we have to show for it? Federal spending increased by 54 percent. That’s more than any president in the last 50 years.” –columnist John Stossel

“[T]he GOP still faces significant challenges. Heck, an electoral bonanza notwithstanding, Republicans are still fairly unpopular. But if the first half of the Obama presidency proves anything, it is that straight-line predictions lead to political hubris. Events change and attitudes change with them, for every demographic.” –columnist Jonah Goldberg

“The Constitution cannot protect us and our freedoms as a self-governing people unless we protect the Constitution. That means zero tolerance at election time for people who circumvent the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Freedom is too precious to give it up in exchange for brassy words from arrogant elites.” –economist Thomas Sowell

“America, its founding principles, its Constitution, its robust liberty tradition and its strength are being stolen out from under us by a man who has no appreciation for America’s greatness and who has contempt for ordinary Americans (we’re ‘enemies’), whom he considers beneath him and unworthy of their sovereign prerogative to preserve this nation. The people have had enough. Consequently, absent unimaginable, comprehensive voter fraud … we’re going to see an unprecedented housecleaning.” –columnist David Limbaugh

SOURCE

Clear the Bench Colorado Press Release

October 7, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado invites comparison: our Evaluations vs. the ‘Commission on Judicial Performance’ “reviews”

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303-995-5533

Clear The Bench Colorado invites comparison: our Evaluations vs. the ‘Commission on Judicial Performance’ “reviews”

Colorado voters are being subjected to a barrage of big-money, special-interest advertising on judicial retention elections this year – as decried in editorials from the New York Times and other media sources across the country, as well as in other news coverage statewide.Special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars attempting to influence Coloradans to vote their way on the question of whether to retain incumbent judges (including three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices facing “stiff opposition” as they seek an additional 10-year term in office).

There’s just one problem with this narrative – and why you haven’t heard about it in the mass media.

All of this special-interest money is being spent in Colorado to prop up the judicial incumbents

Legal establishment special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars to convince Colorado voters that “all is well” with state courts – promoting the farcical rubber-stamp “reviews” conducted and published by the commissions on judicial “performance.”

Why are the “reviews” not a reliable source of information on judicial performance?

1. The “reviews” do not distinguish between good and bad judicial performance – and almost ALWAYS recommend a “retain” vote for the judges ‘reviewed.’ Colorado Commission on Judicial Performance Evaluations (CCJPE) Executive Director Jane Howell confirms that, over the decades-long history of the review process, Colorado Supreme Court justices “reviewed” by the commissions have received a “retain” vote 100% of the time.

(Similarly, Court of Appeals judges have also received a 100% “retain” recommendation, while all judges at other levels have received “retain” recommendations 99% of the time).

Even Fidel Castro and the late Saddam Hussein didn’t receive that level of “retain” votes!

(Although Colorado has plenty of good judges, at many levels – they’re not all that good.)

2. The “reviews” – published as a 5-paragraph narrative, only one paragraph of which even pretends to address actual judicial “performance” – provide very little substantive information on which to base an informed decision. The review criteria are shallow (“timeliness”, ‘orderliness’ and “demeanor”) rather than substantive and performance-based. The level of “evaluation” is more like a kindergarten report card (“Benny is punctual, keeps his area neat & tidy, and plays well with others” ) rather than a serious look at judicial performance.

A Denver Post guest commentary written by a former State Judicial Performance Commissioner provided an insightful critique of the current process several months ago.

3. The “reviews” provide NO information on how the justices actually voted in important constitutional cases – rulings which have had a tremendous (and highly negative) impact on Colorado citizens.

Where can voters get substantive analysis of the performance of Colorado Supreme Court justices?

Clear The Bench Colorado has conducted an exhaustive analysis of Colorado Supreme Court decisions addressing important constitutional issues of interest to the greatest number of Colorado voters.

We invite voters to compare and contrast our  Evaluations of judicial performance with the “reviews” perpetrated by the ‘performance’ commissions (and foisted upon voters, at great taxpayer expense and without opposing views, as is otherwise required by law for other ballot questions) in the “Blue Book.”

We are confident that discerning voters will find our  Evaluations of much greater value.

Voters deserve to be provided with more extensive, informative, and useful information on which to base their voting decisions.  “The high marks received by each justice through the system of evaluation in place” are NOT an endorsement of the justices, but rather  an indictment of the weakness and inadequacy of the judicial performance review process.  Despite the genuinely hard work and good intentions of the majority of the judicial performance review commissioners, the process (and end-products) are perhaps endemically flawed.

There has been a failure of real performance evaluation and a lack of analytical content in the write-ups for the voters.  If narratives provide meaningful information about how a justice has decided cases, there will be accountability and the system will work as it is designed to do.  Too often in the past, narratives have amounted to complimentary resumes instead of job performance evaluations.  Some commentators and observers have denigrated the narratives as a “rubber stamp” exercise for retaining judges.

The ultimate responsibility – and authority – rests with the voters.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges all Colorado citizens to become informed about how the Colorado Supreme Court has aided and abetted assaults on their rights (and wallets!) with a consistent pattern of not following the Constitution where it doesn’t agree with their own personal agenda – and drawing the necessary and logical conclusions.

 

Government Nannyism

October 5, 2010

“The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have adopted a view of virtually unlimited government power that is clearly contrary to the Founders] vision of a constitutionally limited government. In their vision, government roams the countryside fixing problems — any problems. Having trouble paying your mortgage? Don’t worry, the federal government will help you. Your local school not doing a good job? The federal government will be there to help. Don’t have health insurance? The federal government will make you buy it. … The Constitution, with all its messy checks and balances and its attempt to limit government to only certain ‘enumerated powers,’ is little more than a nuisance. … It makes one wonder why members of Congress take that silly oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution’ when they are sworn into office. ‘Are you serious?’ responded a stunned and baffled Nancy Pelosi when asked about the constitutionality of the health-care bill. … Perhaps the American public is waking up to the dangers of government power and the need for true constitutional restraint.” –Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner

SOURCE

Colorado tosses out it’s own Constitution!

September 30, 2010

Judge’s ruling against judicial reform group Clear The Bench Colorado undermines transparency, accountability in judicial retention vote

Judge’s ruling favors entrenched incumbents and big-money special interests

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.

Judge’s ruling against judicial reform group Clear The Bench Colorado undermines transparency, accountability in judicial retention vote

Judge’s ruling favors entrenched incumbents and big-money special interests

Late last Friday afternoon, Clear The Bench Colorado was stunned by the news that Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer (as an executive branch employee, answerable to the governor and not subject to a retention vote himself) set aside the documentary evidence, testimony by Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold along with the Elections Division director at the Colorado Secretary of State’s office AND the clear letter of the law to rule in favor of “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) in what the same judge had earlier characterized as a “frivolous, groundless, & vexatious” attack (er, “campaign finance complaint”).

Despite reliance on over a year’s worth of guidance issued by the office of Secretary of State (as confirmed in numerous documents and in witness testimony provided in hearings on 15 September) reached after “numerous” internal policy meetings and much research that Clear The Bench Colorado was, is, and ought to be properly characterized as an “Issue Committee” under campaign finance rules; CTBC’s scrupulous compliance with all rules, regulations, and reporting requirements for over a year; and dismissal of CEW’s earlier complaint as “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” – the judge changed course and found for CEW in their latest round of attacks, changing the rules in the final quarter of play.

Changing the rules at such a late date – mail ballots go out at the same time Clear The Bench Colorado has been directed to re-file as a political committee – and in direct contravention of the guidance upon which CTBC has relied for well over a year makes a mockery of the process of citizen civic engagement.  As noted by Clear The Bench Colorado lead attorney Scott Gessler,

“That’s just crazy, that ruling,” said Gessler. “What kind of crazy system is that, when you can’t trust what the Secretary of State tells you? [This ruling] means you have to hire a lawyer to do anything- to get involved at all in the political process.” (Colorado Independent, 9/25/2010)

From documentation provided by the office of Secretary of State:

Colorado campaign finance and Judicial retention

While judges are considered “candidates” for the purpose of campaign finance law in Art. XXVIII Sec. 2(2) of the Colorado Constitution, the question of the retention of a judge is a yes-or-no question.  Therefore, a committee organized for the purpose of advocating the retention or removal of a judge is advocating for a yes or no vote on that question, rather than advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate.  A committee organized for such a purpose is akin to a committee advocating for (or against) the recall of an elected official, which would register an issue committee under 1-45-108(6), C.R.S.  To that end, a committee established for the purpose of supporting or opposing the retention of a judge or judges is properly registered as an issue committee for campaign finance purposes.  Such an entity would not be considered a political committee, because political committees are established for the purpose of “support[ing] or oppos[ing] the nomination or election of one or more candidates” (Art. XXVII Sec. 2(12)(a)).  [emphasis added]

Adding insult to injury, the judge’s ruling is granting “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) more time to pay Clear The Bench Colorado what they’ve owed since July than time for Clear The Bench Colorado to re-file under “political committee” status or to appeal the ruling.

Naturally, Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) is trumpeting the ruling as a great victory, declaring in a press release Friday:

“The law does not permit a wealthy few to unduly influence the judicial retention process through large contributions against judges and justices whose rulings they don’t like.  Ethics Watch prevailed today in setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”

Ironically, the ruling “achieves” the exact opposite: big-money special interests will now be more prone to attempt to influence judicial retention elections behind the scenes, using vehicles other than the open and accountable “Issue Committee” organization types such as Clear The Bench Colorado.

In fact, big-money legal establishment special-interest groups are already active this year in promoting a “retain” vote for judicial incumbents (including, prominently, the three Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on the ballot this year).  They’re just significantly less honest about their intentions…

In a campaign that has been conspicuous for its LACK of big-money interests and “large contributions” (Toro is whining about two – TWO! – contributions exceeding $500), acting with complete transparency and absolute accountability to educate voters as to their right to hold judicial incumbents accountable for their performance in office, and to shed light on the records of judicial incumbents at the highest levels in order to provide substantive information on which voters can base an informed decision, CEW’s attacks (and the judge’s ruling in this case) do the Colorado electorate a great disservice.

CEW’s Toro is right about one thing: “Judges are… subject to corruption” via the influence of big-money special interests keeping them in office.

The expenditure of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) by legal establishment special-interest groups comprised of the very lawyers appearing before the judges they are supporting in office is much more likely to exert “undue influence” and raise the potential for “quid pro quo” corruption.

The Colorado Bar Association (COBAR) has already spent over $50,000 this last month (by their own admission) joining three other legal establishment special-interest groups (likely spending a similar amount, although the exact figures have not been made publicly available) in mounting an “education” campaign (electioneering without using the “magic words” of “vote yes” or “vote NO“) to prop up incumbent judges and justices.   In one month alone, they’ve spent more than CTBC has in a year.  Combined, these special interests are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in television, radio, and print ads providing “nonpartisan information about the performance of judges seeking retention” that, curiously, ALL supports a “retain” vote.

Another effort, sponsored by prominent Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin and other partisan attorneys (the “Colorado Judiciary Project”) is also spending large amounts (again, because this group formed as a “social welfare organization” their expenditures are NOT publicly available) supporting the judicial incumbents before whom they argue cases.  Conflict of interest?  Nah!

Ironically, these legal special-interest efforts come on top of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars used to produce and distribute the one-sided and shallow “evaluations” perpetrated by the (taxpayer-funded) commissions on judicial performance evaluation – which, again, advocate 100% of the time to “retain” Colorado Supreme Court justices in office.

NONE of these expenditures – hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the retention of judicial incumbents in office – are transparent and accountable to the public.

Did Friday’s ruling really succeed in “setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”?

Hardly.   It just provided cover for the big money that’s already comfortably ensconced in the process – erecting additional roadblocks to shedding light on the fact, and restoring accountability to the judiciary.

Clear The Bench Colorado has been consistently open, honest, and above-board in educating the public, and has scrupulously followed the rules under Colorado campaign finance laws for well over a year.  Forcing CTBC to re-file under a different set of rules – changed in the final quarter – makes a mockery of justice.

Yet another reason that now more than ever – it’s time to Clear The Bench, Colorado!

http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/