Friday, June 25, 2010
Amendments that exempted Unions from participation, silenced anyone who holds a lease on the Outer Continental Shelf and which raised the the minimum limit that would bar government contractors from participating in campaign electioneering from $50,000 to $7 million were also included. As was a provision that exempted unions from adhering to disclosure of transfers of more than $50,000 among affiliate organizations if the money is used for electioneering.
The bill now moves on to the Senate which is historically the wiser of the two bodies. Here the bill will face a significant challenge in passing. This is where "We The People" will have a real opportunity to stop the insanity. This bill is nothing more than an Incumbent Protection Act that stifles the peoples voices. For DECADES liberals and progressives from both sides of the aisle have benefited from BILLIONS in union dollars without a word. Suddenly, when corporations, citizens groups (like your local T.E.A. Party/9-12 Patriot group) and other watchdogs get a bullhorn too, they want to shut the door on them, on YOU. This is where "We The People" must use OUR lobbying voice and make the phone calls...send the faxes and make them listen.
Call, write, fax and even show up to SEE your Senators and their staff. Engage them in a discussion about why OUR voice, the voice of the T.E.A. Party and of the small business owner is less important than the voices of unions and the huge activist groups like the NRA, Sierra Club and AARP. Click here to contact your Senator today. Below is a list of Senators who should be focused on:
Baucus, Max - (D - MT) 511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2651 - phone
(202) 224-9412 - fax
Bayh, Evan - (D - IN) 131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5623 - phone
(202) 228-1377 - fax
Brown, Scott P. - (R - MA) 317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4543 - phone
(202) 228-2646 - fax
Carper, Thomas R. - (D - DE) 513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2441 - phone
(202) 228-2190 - fax
Collins, Susan M. - (R - ME) 413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523 - phone
(202) 224-2693 - fax
Graham, Lindsey - (R - SC) 290 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5972 - phone
Lieberman, Joseph I. - (ID - CT) 706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4041 - phone
(202) 224-9750 - fax
McCain, John - (R - AZ) 241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2235 - phone
(202) 228-2862 - fax
Snowe, Olympia J. - (R - ME) 154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344 - phone
(202) 224-1946 - fax
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Well the proof is in the pudding, and Mike Castle's YEA vote is right here:
Please call your U.S. Senators and ask the reject this. They would if they believed in liberty.
However, the case brought before the Supreme Court by citizens United (whose President by the way has endorsed Christine O'Donnell in her Delaware Senate bid against Mike Castle) actually evened the playing field for all speakers. Up until January 21 of this year there were restrictions placed only on corporations spending its own money on running "political ads" not coordinated with political campaigns. However, labor unions, citizens groups and others were free to promote/denounce issues and contribute to candidates. By allowing corporations the same freedoms granted to all Americans and reinstating the rights of corporate speech which had been stifled for 20 years, the courts reintroduced a sense of fairness. Now small businesses, corporations, labor unions and citizens groups can speak out for or against their elected officials. Now the thoughts and concerns of your neighbors, local business owners and other groups are no longer stifled.
As for the "Disclose Bill" it self, the legislation is at best ambiguous and at worst purposely so. The bill which was written at the direction of President Obama by Castle and Van Hollen does little to keep "corporate money" out of the process and in fact, the toughest points of the legislation impact citizens groups who have members and rely on "donors". Corporations like Goldman Sachs and Hewlett-Packard would not be included in these provisions. These and other large corporations spent an estimated $3.48 BILLION (more than twice as much as they spent in '99) on lobbying to get around laws similar to the "Disclose Bill" in 2009 and they have PLENTY to continue doing that.
It's the non-profit organizations on all sides of the aisle that the legislation hits. The Disclose act will increase the costs of political speech for groups like your local 9-12 chapter, union or gun advocacy group. Disclosure and disclaimers are called for down to the top 5 donors for a particular ad and these disclosures will be costly to implement for groups who do not have the immense resources that corporations have. These disclosures ("My name is Ted Smith and i approve this message." or "Citizens United for Furry Fat Sloths paid for the content of this advertising.") which currently are only required to be around 4-5 seconds would be expanded to cover around 1/2 of a 30 second commercial by requiring the top 5 donors to be exposed ("My name is Ted Smith, My name is Jill Anderson, My name is Keith Richards, My name is Tyson Gray and My name is Megan Bacon and we approve this message" or "Citizens United for Furry Fat Sloths paid for the content of this advertising with the help of Megan Bacon, Ted Smith, Jill Anderson, Keith Richards and Tyson Gray who donated $250,000 for this ad.).
Also, membership-based groups are required to file a report with the FEC within 24 hours of running political ads. For organizations that raise funds via multiple sources (mail, Internet, telephone, etc.) this task would be nearly impossible in such a short time. Even candidates who file their FEC reports are given 15 days to complete the paperwork. The bill has undergone a few changes since it was written including increasing the previous $50,000 minimum to exclude contractors from being able to influence elections. The minimum was increased to $7 million on May 20th, 3 weeks before Congressman Castle joined Van Hollen in espousing the virtues of the bill in the Washington Post. Amendments offered by some representatives that would have extended the prohibitions on political activity by government contractors to labor unions (currently excluded); require that itemization thresholds be set at the same amount as required for candidates and finally to make the legislation effective on Jan. 1, 2011 were all rejected prior to Castle's joint statement. According to the Politico, Van Hollen has said impacting 2010 is the goal,
"Van Hollen has said he’s hopeful the bill could be implemented in time to
affect newly legal ad spending in 2010 congressional races"
So why is Mike Castle now turning against the bill? Some supporters of the Congressman who is seeking to become the next Senator from Delaware claim that his support hinges on the exemptions, Congressman Van Hollen noted that the op-ed published in the Washington Post referenced above was done so AFTER the NRA deal (which "would exempt longstanding groups if they have more than 1 million members and received less than 15 percent of their funding from corporations) was announced. Mike Castle has an F-rating from the NRA and while some pundits may assume that it was the groups like the Sierra Club and the Brady Center for Gun Violence who caused Castle to rethink his support for the bill my guess is that this is little more than finger in the wind during the campaign political spin. Spokeswoman Kate Dickens told The Hill that
“This is a slippery slope,” she said. “It’s just disclosure, for God’s sake …
now you’re just handing talking points to those who oppose the bill.”
Mr. Castle, these changes were already in the bill when you last told us you were for it. With your VAST "experience" in D.C. did you think you could pass a bill as written? If so it shows that you are completely out of touch with not just your voters and the culture in D.C. but with reality itself. You HAD to know that the liberal Democrats, who rely on Union money to get reelected would fight tooth and nail to exclude them. In fact you knew they would because the markup hearing on May 20th was 3 weeks before you defended the bill in the Washington Post. Which is it Congressman? Are you for the legislation or against it?
Mike Castle's opponent, Christine O'Donnell has called the bill a "grassroots gag order" and a "Power-player Protection Act" since day one. In an email blast to supporters Christine said that Castle's reversal on his own bill is,
"Shades of John Kerry’s “I voted for it . . . before I voted against it.” Does
the phrase flip-flopping come to mind?"
So, Congressman Castle, how can we trust you with becoming "Senator Castle" when you don't even appear to understand the process of passing legislation that impacts the freedom of speech of tens of millions of Americans and tens of thousands of Delawareans? Also, why is it that you were totally OK with the legislation as amended with the NRA deal in place as late as June 17th but 4 days later after public opinion began to turn on the bill (which YOU helped write) you're going to vote against it? Are you lacking the courage of your convictions? You certainly had no problem "voting your conscience" in 2009 when you voted FOR the Cap and Trade bill. Then again, you weren't in an election in 2009 were you?
Christine O'Donnell Responds to Rep. Mike Castle's Dramatic Change in Position on his "Disclose" Act
* Castle authored a bill that would lock-out grassroots groups from engaging in the political process.
* Last week we sent you an email telling you what he was up to. You made some noise ...
* Now he is backing off of the very bill HE authored ...
* Clearly, Castle is "seeing the light" because he's feeling the heat from Delaware voters.
My Delaware U.S. Senate opponent, Mike Castle, is Congress' most liberal Republican. He's also a desperate candidate . . . doing desperate things.
Why? Because he's aware that O'Donnell for U.S. Senate is an emerging force to be reckoned with so he's starting to backpedal from his liberal record.
In a Washington Post Op Ed last week1, Castle praised his controversial bill called the "Disclose Act" (H.R. 5175). Under the guise of election reform, Castle authored this bill along with ultra-liberal Democrat Rep. Chris Van Hollen.
His Post piece noted that, for purely political reasons, the Act exempts from its restrictions mega organizations over 10 years old... essentially ensuring only those who are currently political power players will remain so.
Rep. Van Hollen even admitted the bill is crafted to impact the 2010 mid-term elections2!!!
Last week I sent you an email criticizing the Castle-Van Hollen "Disclose" Act. I "disclosed" that this Act clearly defies the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This Act clearly is nothing more than a grassroots gag order.
Now, Castle has done a political pirouette regarding his "Disclose" Act. According to The Hill3, Castle is ready to vote against the bill.
Castle's spokeswoman stated, "He's absolutely opposed to the [power player] exemption."
Excuse me? Let me get this straight ...
In the Post, Castle was for it. Now, in The Hill, he's against it?!
Shades of John Kerry's "I voted for it . . . before I voted against it." Does the phrase flip-flopping come to mind?
With your help, we will continue shaping and influencing federal policy even before election day. But we need your generous financial support to win the Delaware Senate seat.
Candidate, U.S. Senate (R-DE)
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Once again Congressman Castle has his heart in the right place with this bill but he overreaches again with his Progressive friends in Congress. The bill seeks to prohibit government contractors and those negotiating for government contracts from participating in electioneering on behalf of candidates and/or parties. The question is, would this include the unions like SEIU, AFSCME and the AFL-CIO? Would the unions who currently hold government contracts be excluded from the bill? According to the Campaign for Liberty, thanks to the NRA's sweetheart deal that provides "parity" across ideological lines, the answer is yes. Organizations with more than 1 million members across all 50 states and who have been around for more than 10 years would be exempt from this provision. Why not just say no to everyone regardless of size if they have a government contract? Also, why does the bill limit the size of the contract to to above $7,000,000 taxpayer dollars in order to qualify for these rules? If you really want to stop these expenditures by government contractors why don't we stop them all regardless of the size of the contract?
The bill also stops foreign business owners from influencing elections. I haven't read anything in the bill relating to this condition that I do not think is fair. There's no reason foreign nationals should be influencing American elections.
The next section details coordinated campaign communications. This portion of the bill explains that American groups/corporations/unions cannot coordinate their messages with the political campaigns. The bill states that it stops donors from evading “contribution limits by making campaign expenditures which, while technically qualifying as independent expenditures under law, are for all relevant purposes coordinated with candidates and political parties and thus raise the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption". Someone should talk to SEIU and Barack Obama about that. I guess that means no more block walking with their union shirts on?
The next section mandates that all persons/corporations who make independent expenditures exceeding $10,000 must file an electronic report which will be made public. Corporations must also release the individual names of their employees who contribute to 3rd party funds that are used to make independent political expenditures. The bill further goes on to mandate that companies use specific types of their own funds for candidate assistance and even suggests that they should use a separate bank account.
Disclosure must include the name of the organization, the top funder (if an individual) or the top 5 funders if a group. Each must make a statement authorizing the message.
As usual, government's solution to the problem is to stand on liberty's throat. What we need in the bill is the following AND ONLY THE FOLLOWING:
1.) It must prohibit active government contractors and those negotiating for contracts(including labor unions) from engaging in electioneering.
2.) It must stop majority owned foreign corporations and foreign nationals from engaging in electioneering or contributing to political segregated funds.
3.) It must mandate full disclosure of each organizations total expenditures per candidate and mandate that ever political advertisement contain a full disclosure of the core group that funds it. (this means if the ad is placed by "Working Families for Skunks and Possums" which is funded by ACORN...ACORN must be identified as the funding group)
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
I must admit, a few weeks ago I was a bit of a skeptic about how the campaign would refire the engines but they have really done a great job. The website has undergone a complete makeover (Visit Christine2010.com) and in addition they have added a social networking site (Visit teamChristine) and have begun raising money through the ever popular money bombs. Her Facebook presence has nearly doubled in the last two weeks and with her successful fundraising effort last week she is poised to strike a blow to Mike Castle's thus far nearly impenetrable armor.
There's one missing piece to Christine's campaign resurgence and that is the voice of the Delaware voters. What do the voters think of Christine? Preliminary polling results from the educational non-profit group Founders Values suggests that conservative T.E.A. party candidate Christine O'Donnell out polls Congressman Mike Castle among likely Republican voters in Delaware by more than 3 to 1. In a survey of likely Republican voters the results give O'Donnell the edge 65%-18% in the race for the Republican to square off against Democrat Chris Coons in the November general election.
Also being released are the preliminary results of polling among the same likely voters for the U.S. House Republican Primary battle. The preliminary results in that race give Glen Urquhart the edge 53% to 18% over establishment candidate Michele Rollins.
Both of these numbers are a stark contrast to the results of the GOP convention which saw Mike Castle and Michele Rollins earning nearly identical 70/30 split wins over O'Donnell and Rollins respectively. More than anything else the poll shows the viability of O'Donnell and Urquhart going into their respective primary races this summer. If there is one certainty that can be gleaned from the results which are due to be released to the public on Friday June 15th it is that neither race is even close to being over and that the T.E.A. Party movement is certainly having an impact in Delaware.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
What is Mike Castle so afraid of that he won't stand up and debate his primary opponent?
Be a man, Mike Castle and debate Christine O'Donnell.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Posted by Christine O'Donnell (Profile)
Tuesday, June 8th at 8:00PM EDT
Our nation’s founding principles of individual liberty and free enterprise are no longer viewed by our leaders as indispensable. We must stand up to the Washington elites and fight back against a Congress and White House intent on saddling us with their reckless spending, unbearable taxes and unfair policies that stifle our freedom and weigh down future generations with enormous debt.
Our country is going broke. Voters deserve candidates who believe deficits are wrong, and that deficits destroy nations just as surely as they do families. Spending money America does not have has become an appealing option for too many politicians and common sense men and women of America know this is not sustainable.
My opponent in the Delaware Senate primary is incumbent Congressman Mike Castle, who has served in Congress for the past 18 years and first won elected office in 1966.
* I will support common sense legislation that does not cost us jobs and raise family’s utility bills -my opponent voted for Cap and Trade.
* I will support the earmark ban, responsible entitlement reforms, and a balanced budget – my opponent voted against balanced budget legislation.
* I will support policies that provide economic growth not dependent on hand outs from the federal government – my opponent voted for TARP.
These are just some of the recent highlights of a career on Capitol Hill that has witnessed a regular helping hand as our nation’s debt went from $4.1 trillion to over $13 trillion during his tenure in Congress. Organizations such as the National Rifle Association, Family Research Council, and National Taxpayers Union have been raising concerns for years through their voting scorecards. As Republicans we should once again fight for less government, lower taxes, and reduced spending. Our Members of Congress should stand for the values of the party of Lincoln and Reagan beyond just having an “R” next to their name for 18 years.
Delaware voters deserve new representation from someone who understands government cannot spend our way to recovery and cannot tax us into prosperity. I hope to be their voice in Senate.
Click on this link and watch the videos: http://bound4life.com/blog/2010/06/08/prayer-made-illegal-in-washington-dc
It sounds like someone needs an education on the the First Amendment.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Christine's race has been drawing money, support and volunteers from across the country because her race with Congressman Mike Castle (whose record paints him more like an Arlen Specter Democrat than a Republican). They understand the kind of machinery she is up against. Mike Castle and his cadre of pawns, namely Priscilla Rakestraw (a.k.a. Prissy Rakes), Tom Ross (a.k.a. Tommy Boy) and Basil Battaglia (a.k.a. Bates) have recruited an army of elite GOP leadership thugs to smear any and all candidates who challenge him. They've tried to do it to Ms. O'Donnell.
Castle and his cronies have claimed that Christine has no job despite her being a freelance PR and Marketing Consultant who has worked for the Vatican, the World Education and Development Fund and Mel Gibson to name just a few of her clients. She's helped to orchestrate pro-family legislation in Washington and has participated in White House and Capitol strategy meetings. Additionally, Christine is a gifted political commentator who is called upon by Fox News and other major news outlets frequently and has appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor", "Hannity", "The Glenn Beck Show", "Hardball with Chris Matthews" and "Entertainment Tonight".
Christine has been an invited guest of the Royal Jordanian government and has met with former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. She has travelled the world meeting with leaders and dignitaries, seeing first hand what Socialism, Radical Islamic Terrorism and Communism leaves in their wakes. She's been endorsed by Atlas Shrugs editor Pamela Gellar, documentary film maker David N. Bossie and numerous national bloggers and T.E.A. Party activists. In fact, the Wall Street Journal even highlighted her race with RINO Castle as part of a growing national trend of incumbents and GOP establishment candidates who stand to lose their bids in 2010.
All that has been missing is an opportunity for her to show that she can beat Castle and Coons. Thus far both Mike Castle and Chris Coons have avoided a debate with her. Castle has instead resorted to tactics akin to domestic abuse. At the Delaware GOP convention, Castle instructed his goons to disrupt the convention during Ms. O'Donnell's nominating speeches, hired the Dover High School Band (a publicly funded school whose children wore Castle campaign T-shirts and while using public instruments emblazoned with the High School name and logo) which is a violation of campaign ethics in most states and attempted to embarrass Christine by shouting disparaging (and untrue) comments.
Despite all of the Castle campaign's attempts to smear Ms. O'Donnell she remains as viable as ever. With her new national help and much needed funding she is poised to strike back at RINO Castle and make public is record of voting with Democrats more often than with Republicans; to spotlight his votes for Cap and Trade and bailouts; and to call him to explain his fiscal record before the people of Delaware. Christine is THE T.E.A. Party candidate for Delaware's U.S. Senate seat and she is the PEOPLE'S candidate. Visit her website to learn more at Christine2010.com
Representative Mike Castle is not dealing with the issues that matter most to America’s working-class voters.
Editor’s Note: The following article is the fifth installment in an expository series which outlines important issues facing the U.S. economy and reveals your elected officials voting records. Please write to your elected officials and demand that they represent their constituents, instead of succumbing to the whims of big business.
As one of the few Yankee Republicans left in a region rapidly turning blue, Delaware Representative Mike Castle is a dying breed and could be one of the last Northeastern/Mid-Atlantic Republicans left standing (See: Specter, Arlen) – or his continued support of job-killing “ free trade” agreements could be his political kiss of death.
According to The Cato Institute, “In the 108th Congress the most consistent free traders were Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Michael Castle (R-DE), Susan Davis (D-CA), Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), Jim Ramstad (R-MN), Christopher Shays (R-CT), and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).”
Over the course of his eight-term career in Congress, Castle has voted against imposing trade barriers to protect domestic industries 74 percent of the time and subsidies for domestic industries 54 percent of the time.
via Economyincrisis.org – America’s Economic Report – Daily.