Who's holding the American public hostage?

Some of the Democrats are trying to blame the Republicans in Congress for making the continuing resolution depend on defunding “Obamacare,” saying that they're holding the American public hostage to their goal of gutting the health act. (And the mostly partisan Democratic media are abetting them in this charge.) But I think it's equally true that the Democrats in Congress have to take the blame for making the continuing resolution depend on keeping “Obamacare.” So who's holding the American public hostage?

The Republicans would be willing to pass a CR that funds everything else, just not “Obamacare,” but such a bill apparently will not be passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate. And since the American people are, by a strong majority, opposed to the act, it seems to me the Senate would be better advised to give in. But it's a big game of “chicken.” And the American people are the losers.

New Mexico and gay marriage

In most of the country, the question of same-sex marriage is coming up state by state. Thirteen states have legalized it; many of the remaining ones have tried to ban it, but cases like the decisions by Federal Judge Timothy Black (affecting only Ohio, so far) seem to indicate that even those states that will not perform same-sex marriages will have to recognize them when performed in the states that will. But in New Mexico, things are taking a county-by-county path. New Mexico has no state law that either permits or prohibits same-sex marriage. So some counties have recently begun issuing licenses for same-sex marriages, whil others have refused. And so in New Mexico, it depends on what county you live in.

However, this is about to change. The New Mexico Supreme Court has been asked to rule, so when it decides, this should decide it statewide.

An Ohio First Amendment case that deserves attention

The Wall Street Journal recently posted, on its Website, a column by Bradley A. Smith of Columbus, Ohio, entitled “The Supreme Court and Ed Corsi's Life of Political Crime — How one Ohio man's blog on politics got him in trouble with campaign-finance law.” This is probably the next big First Amendment issue that will be decided by the Supreme Court, so we need to follow it. Here is the article:

In the winter of 2008, Ed Corsi decided that he was tired of stewing about the politics in his home of Geauga County, Ohio, and the country at large. He started a website, put Thomas Jefferson's quote, “The price of freedom… constant vigilance” at the top, dubbed the site “Geauga Constitutional Council,” and set about blogging his thoughts on local and national politics. So began his life of political crime.

Over the next two years, Mr. Corsi and a few friends would sometimes gather to talk politics. He occasionally sponsored meetings featuring speakers (not political candidates) on public policy issues (not elections), and charged a nominal fee for seating to offset his costs. He and two friends passed out political pamphlets they made at the Geauga County Fair.

Mr. Corsi spent $40 a month to maintain his website, and perhaps a couple [of] hundred dollars a year in other expenses. According to the state of Ohio, however, these activities are illegal under campaign-finance laws[,] because Mr. Corsi did not first register with the state, report to the state on his activities, and subject himself to the regulations governing the operation of a state political action committee.

When he was summoned to a hearing before the Ohio Elections Commission in April 2011, Mr. Corsi asked, “Do I have to hire a lawyer to [do] these things?” Commission Chairman Bryan Felmet replied, “Yeah, I guess so. I think that it's very complicated without going to those lengths.” The commission ordered Mr. Corsi to register and report his activities to the state.

When the Supreme Court reconvenes in October, the big campaign-finance case will be McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which nervous censors have dubbed “the next Citizens United.” McCutcheon deals with the ability of affluent Americans to contribute to political parties and candidates. Never mind that the candidates and causes these people support represent the views of millions of citizens. “Reformers” argue, and many Americans seem to agree, that “big money” in politics must be regulated.

It is inconceivable, however, that America's founders thought the First Amendment would allow the government to routinely require citizens to report their political activity, and be subjected to such complex regulations. They wanted to prevent government from doing precisely this sort of thing. Yet Mr. Corsi lost in state court. Now he waits to see if the Supreme Court will agree to hear his case.

The “big money” in politics can afford the accountants, consultants and lawyers needed to cope with campaign- finance law. The burdens frequently fall more heavily on grass-roots politics—the very thing we ought to be encouraging. There also is abundant anecdotal evidence that the main result, if not the purpose, of campaign-finance laws is to allow political insiders and government officials to harass grass-roots activists. The IRS targeting scandals are merely the most prominent example of the way these laws are used by those in power to harass their opposition.

On his blog, Mr. Corsi was critical of Ed Ryder, the chairman of the Geauga County Republican Party and a member of the county Board of Elections, and of various officials and candidates supported by Mr. Ryder. The initial complaint against Mr. Corsi was filed by Mr. Ryder, who admitted spending two months to find out who constituted the “Geauga Constitutional Council,” so he could file a complaint against Mr. Corsi.

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), and again in Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986), the Supreme Court held that the regulatory requirements of operating a political action committee could not be imposed on groups that lacked the primary purpose of supporting or defeating political candidates in elections. But across the country, states are flouting that command, imposing rigid requirements on ordinary citizens who are trying to express their political opinions.

In Colorado, for example, a group of friends calling themselves the Coalition for Secular Government operate a website on which they posted a long policy paper on abortion and church-state relations. The paper concluded by urging Coloradans to vote “no” on a ballot measure. For that, the state says they must register as a political committee and report their activities, income and expenses.

Most state statutes now simply ignore the Supreme Court and require that two or more citizens who spend even nominal amounts on politics to register and report to the government. Even printing yard signs or running an email list can trigger these requirements. In Ohio, a single dollar in expenditures will do, so be careful if you talk politics over a cup of coffee.

As a former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, I have seen the effects these laws have on citizen participation and civic-mindedness. I have read the plaintive letters from citizens who could not afford a lawyer, and could not believe their government was fining them for political activity.

In the past, both liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court were sensitive to this problem. Liberal Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion in the Massachusetts Citizens for Life case. But that sensitivity appears to be vanishing.

Forty-seven years ago, in Mills v. Alabama, the court struck down a lawprohibiting election-day newspaper editorials, noting, “there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs."

Is that still true? Will the court leave millions of Americans who want to engage in politics at risk of prosecution? Will it leave Mr. Corsi hanging?

Like the author of that column, I would like to see how the Supreme Court answers these questions.

Good news in Australia

In Australia, an election has just taken place. And Tony Abbott is now their Prime Minister. Abbott is the leader of a right-of-center coalition of two parties: the so-called Liberal Party (which is anything but what we would call “liberal” in the United States) and the National Party, which used to be called the Country Party. Australia's Liberal Party was founded by Robert Menzies in the period around World War II, and has always been the friend of the United States and the opponent of the socialistic tendencies of the third important party in Australia, the Labor Party. (Note that, while most Australians write “labour” like the Brits, the Australian Labor Party spells their name the way we in the USA would, without the “u.”)

Let me not imply that friendship with the USA was the most important issue in this election. it was certainly based primarily on Australian local issues. The Labor Party has been in a lot of disarray lately. In the previous election, their then-leader, Julia Gillard, became Prime Minister, but the election was so close that she had no majority in Parliament and was able only to form a minority government. She turned out to be so unpopular within her own party that they called back their previous leader, Kevin Rudd, before that Parliament's term was over. And Rudd was no more able to hold the public's support than Gillard. He has now indicated that he is resigning as Labor leader.

But Abbott's victory was not just because Labor was falling apart. He has proposed repealing a carbon tax — and in a Parliamentary system like Australia's, the Prime Minister can usually get his way very easily — showing that Australia's public is no more in favor of such monkeying with the economy for dubious environmental reasons than the USA's public is. nd in general, Abbott's agenda is a center-right agenda, much like the moderates in the Republican Party. I cannot help saying that we can only be happy that the Australian public has chosen Tony Abbott.

The State of West Maryland?

This morning I just happened to notice a local newspaper, with a front-page headline telling me that five counties in Western Maryland would secede and form a new state under a proposal that has been made by a resident of that western area. The five counties — Garrett, Allegany, Washington, Frederick, and Carroll — according to the census statistics I have spotted on the Web, have a total population of 653,133, which is a rather small population for a State; Maryland is not considered a very large State, population-wise, and its total population is 5.8 million.

The person spearheading the secession movement says that Maryland is dominated by three jurisdictions — Prince George's and Montgomery Counties and the city of Baltimore; yet this seems natural, as these three jurisdictions have so many more people. Montgomery County (the county in which I live) alone has a population of 971,777, about 1½ times as many as that of the five counties combined that would form the proposed state. So if Western Maryland secedes from the state, how would the people of Garrett County feel? Their 30,097 people would be a negligible part of the whole West Maryland population; would they feel a need to secede to make themselves heard?

The last time a few counties seceded from a State was during the Civil War, and those counties seceded from Virginia to stay in the USA, so it was a special case. It hardly seems likely that West Maryland would be able to persuade Congress to accept them as the 51^st State.

It is true, however, that they have been treated shabbily, in some cases, by the State. Governor Martin O'Malley pushed a Congressional redistricting recently that divided up Western Maryland into two districts, both with enough Democrats in them to force out long-time Representative Roscoe Bartlett in last November's election. I can sympathize, to some extent, though their secession would leave me in an even bluer State than I'm in now. But I doubt that they have a chance.