Tucson Sammy

One philosophy holds that the best we can do for this imperfect world is set a few rules against force and fraud, and work to make it better as individuals. In practice, the world remains imperfect, but the aggregate of individual efforts creates a collection of benefits that is inconceivable by any one individual or committee.

Another philosophy holds that the world is imperfect, but with enough force and rules, the world can be ridded of most imperfections. In practice, the world remains imperfect—and many unforeseen and unintended consequences are created, most of which are bad.

A good example of the latter philosophy is Arizona’s Clean Elections Act, passed in 1998 by referendum. Many people thought that state elections were rife with imperfections, most of which centered around financing. It was thought that by controlling the money, the influence of “special interests” would be eliminated; voter participation would be increased; the field of candidates would be made larger; and that third-party participation would increase. These were the promises of the legislation.

In practice, of course, it turned out much differently. Voter participation has not changed, nor are there more candidates. The participation of third parties has remained the same. In the words of Sarah Fenske of the Phoenix New Times, “If the system’s not getting any cleaner, and the candidates aren’t getting any better, what’s the point?”

Yet it is not the failure (the “world remains imperfect”) that should give one pause; rather, it is the “unforeseen and unintended consequences” that assault some of our basic liberties, like the right to free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that political contributions are a form of speech. So what happens to that right when it collides with “Clean Elections”? Well, let’s say that you wanted to express your support of Rano Singh Sidhu in his 2006 race against Dean Martin for state treasurer. You may consider cutting him a check, but wait—he signed up for “Clean Elections” (candidate welfare), and cannot accept your support. Instead, he’s getting $121,253 from the government; that’s not a lot of speech when you’re looking at 2.5 million voters.

So, next time, you say, “I will only support a traditional candidate, not a welfare candidate.” You cut a check to your favorite traditional candidate—and he returns it, explaining that he is already at the level of the welfare candidate’s funding, and any more money he receives will be “matched” by the state and given to his opponent.

It’s actually worse. The “matching” of funds not only applies to the traditional campaign, but to independent groups who speak in favor of the traditional candidate.

My favorite example is the traditional candidate who is in a race with two welfare candidates: Every contribution over the base amount goes to both candidates. So if you send your candidate $100, a total of $200 ($100 each) goes to your candidate’s opponents.

Is this nuts or what? Fortunately, the Institute for Justice just got a break from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding their suit against the matching-funds provision (McComish v. Bennett). After a favorable decision from the U.S. District Court, it was reversed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; then the U.S. Supreme Court not only agreed to hear the case, but reinstated an injunction against any matching-funds payments. As one of the lead attorneys in the case, Bill Maurer, said, “The purpose of this law was to limit individuals’ speech by limiting their spending. But the First Amendment does not permit the government to restrain Americans from robustly exercising the right of free speech.” Amen.

It’s often said that there is too much money in electoral politics. What does that mean—too much speech? Too much information? Too much engagement? How much is too much? As George Will pointed out when referring to the 2008 presidential election, “Americans volunteering to fund the dissemination of speech about candidates for the nation’s most consequential office will contribute $1 billion, which is about half the sum they spend annually on Easter candy.”

The whole notion of controlling speech, or that too much speech is bad, offends both our Constitution and our culture. “Clean Elections” should be sent to the ash bin of history.

Though the University of Arizona is an institution of higher learning, it appears that the students and faculty are decades behind in regards to the cultural and legal progress of the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA).

It was back in 1987 that the state of Florida took the lead in passing a new type of concealed carry law. Concealed carry permitting laws that existed prior to that time were actually remnants from the Jim Crow era; permit applications had to be approved by either the local sheriff, judge, or magistrate with no provision for appeal – good luck if you were a man or woman of color. The new permit laws were written so that anyone who met the criteria, “shall” be issued a permit. When the word “shall” is used in the law, it means it must happen, no discretion here, no denying people of color, political adversaries, mother’s-in-law, etc.

Opponents of such laws warned of never seen before running gun battles up and down the streets, they never happened. The idea caught on, and Arizona passed a similar bill in 1994. Opponents of the law warned of never seen before running gun battles up and down the streets, you know the rest. The phenomenon swept the country, and now 45 of the 50 states have “shall issue” laws of some type.

Intrigued by this wave of new laws, research scientist John Lott (University of Maryland, College Park, University of Chicago, Yale University, and the Wharton School studied crime statistics from vitually all the counties in the United States. He published the results of this work in the book More Guns, Less Crime. According to Lott, enactment of such laws leads to a significant reduction in violent crime, with a slight increase in property crime. Oddly, Lott’s research received no serious challenged by opponents; rather, they generally chose to attack him personally. Ad hominem attacks are like shooting heroine, it feels really good when you’re doing it, but regular use makes you dull, frustrated, and hollow.

The next milestone was the 2008 United States Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v Heller. The court ruled that outright bans on firearms are unconstitutional because the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is an individual right. The case was followed by a wave of challenges to onerous restrictions on gun ownership.

It is interesting to note that the Obama administration, and the Democrat controlled congress, have made no attempt – to my knowledge, not even a mention – of any “gun control” initiatives or goals. Actions not taken are as telling as those that are.

So, both the people, and current legal thought, have evoled into a much more liberal (in the classic sense) view of the right ot keep and bear arms. Consistent with this new enlightenment, the Arizona Senate introduced SB 1011. According to the fact sheet, the bill, “Allows a faculty member with a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW permit) to possess a concealed firearm on university or college grounds.” This seems like a rather mild adjustment in these enlightened times, particularly in light of the fact that the universities would still have a more oppressive environment that the state as a whole.

Alas, the University of Arizona is a couple of decades behind the progressive (in the literal sense) thought of today. It became a hot topic with the Associated Students of the University of Arizona (ASUA). At a regular meeting, one day after the bill’s introduction, members showed up ready to pass a resolution against the bill. The Arizona Daily Wildcat reported Senator Daniel Wallace saying, “The overwhelming majority of students I’ve talked to are against having guns on campus,” and, “The faculty shares that opinion.”

Really? From where did this archaic mindset come? I think that there is a clue in Wallace’s statement, “The faculty shares that opinion.” Could it be that, for many faculty members, time stopped somewhere back in the late 60’s or 70’s when they entered academia as a career? Are students learning to pay attention, apply thought and reason, or are they being indoctrinated in politically correct thought that has been long abandoned by everyone from the courts, to the politicians, to the people?

We are well into the 21st century. For the benefit of the students, I hope the universities will decide to join us.

As I am sure you all know, December 15 was Bill of Rights Day. In Tucson, it was celebrated in a manner reminiscent of colonial times.

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791, which would make December 15, 2009 the 218th anniversary of that ratification. The Bill of Rights was critical to the adoption of the United States Constitution itself. A number of states refused to vote for adoption of the constitution because it did not specifically guarantee the rights of individuals. There were others who did not want any enumeration of rights for fear of the list being misinterpreted to mean that rights were limited to those enumerated therein. A deal was struck, and the the United States Constitution was adopted with the condition that the amendments would be adopted. The constitution was adopted, and shortly thereafter, the Bill of Rights was adopted. It has been said that that was the last time a group of politicians kept it’s promise.

I attended an event honoring Bill of Rights Day on Fourth Avenue. It was styled after colonial Committees of Correspondence. These committees were formed by citizens to deal with problems as they arose, or by local governments or institutions to provide news reports for other governments or citizens outside the area. Some committees were ongoing, some were disbanded after the problems for which they were created were resolved. Our committee was not organized (those with libertarian streaks do not organize well); rather, it was an informal meeting of local citizens for the purpose of discussing the first ten amendments and how the current governments might be influenced to abide by the its principles.

Charles Heller, host of the “Swap Shop” and “Liberty Watch” radio shows heard on KVOI 1030 AM, and all around good guy, arranged the event and acted as the moderator. The food was catered by Fourth Avenue Delectables; it was fantastic. Folks volunteered to take turns reading the amendments, including the preamble. After each was read aloud, it was discussed.

At one point, Charles asked Ken Rineer to read the second amendment of the constitution. Ken recited from memory, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize maintain or employ an armed body of men.” There was much smiling, and some chuckling, as the folks in the room recognized his recitation as not the second amendment of the United States constitution, but rather the equivalent in the State of Arizona constitution (Article II, Section 26) – as you can see, a much stronger statement than the federal version. Most states have there own version of a statement of rights in the their respective constitutions similar to the federal Bill of Rights.

The discussion touched on a broad range of topics from the affect of the fourteenth amendment on the application of the Bill of Rights, to state nullification of federal regulation, to the affect on checks and balances of the 17th amendment.

If as I described the discussion, you pictured in your mind’s eye a bunch of suits talking shop, or perhaps a few late middle-aged pony-tailed professorial types , guess again. Were you to line us up along the sidewalk, we would look no different then the folks waiting for the bus. The folks at the event were regular people – no celebrities, no movers, no shakers. They do, however, possess a depth of knowledge of American history and law rarely seen in modern citizenry. Most are engaged in the politics of their city, county, state, and country. This is American citizenship as God and James Madison intended. If this does not make you feel just a little choked-up, I pity you.

It is said that change does not happen from the top down, only from the bottom up. I do not believe that. As I write, we are getting hammered with change from the top down. I do believe that legitimate change only happens from the bottom up. If we all had the same love of America, and sense of civic duty as our neighbors who attended the informal Committee of Correspondence, imagine how much better our governments and institutions would be.

The Arizona Daily Star reports that Governor Napolitano wants any future economic “stimulus” payments to go to the state rather than the people. She said that it was a fact that government spending on “infrastructure” or “healthcare” had an immediate economic effect.

Governor, please, you must see how insulting those statements are to our intelligence. I am sure that you do not really believe that dumping money into the state coffers will have any effect on the economy – certainly not immediately. Wealth creation, jobs, better products and services, are all results of private sector activities. You know that, Governor….well, maybe you do not.

Earlier I talked about worldview. Perhaps the Governor has a worldview that differs from the rest of us. In her world, people make way too much money and spend it poorly. They move around needlessly in their cars, whenever they want, when they should be riding transit to work and home. They could be be allowed to keep enough money for food, shelter, and a bus pass (and maybe a little liquor money), and send the rest to the state where the Governor and her staff can spend it wisely, for the good of all. After all, what is the collective judgment of the proletariat compared to Gubernatorial Wisdom and Compassion? She will shower medical care, transportation, education, and public art upon you.

In our world, Lincoln freed the slaves. The owners pointed out that the slaves would just waste the money, were they allowed to keep it, and that they (the owners) knew how to spend it for the greater good of all the slaves. Still, Lincoln freed the slaves, and was a good thing… in our world, at least.

I am amazed, though I suppose I should not be, that the story of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs using their positions to advance the Obama campaign has had so little coverage outside the blogosphere. This is the most significant story regarding Obama, and his campaign, to date.

Youtube video of original news broadcast – click to watch!

Who would have thought that, in our lifetime, would openly take sides in a campaign as public officials?

Imagine if Governor Napolitano was up for re-election, and the head of the Arizona National Guard said, “We, and the people of Arizona, want this campaign to be about issues. If we see anyone lying about Governor Napolitano, or engaging in personal attacks, we’ll do what we can to prevent that – whether the attacks come from the a campaign, or 527’s. We are deploying assets to Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff to make sure these lies and personal attacks do not go unanswered.”

I would hope that we would all say, “How dare you! How dare you take sides in a political campaign as members of the military! How dare you engage in intimidation of those whom your are supposed to be serving! And who the heck is the National Guard to judge the veracity of campaign commercials!”

Why are these questions not being asked of those prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri?
According to the news report, they were recruited by the Obama campaign. What do you suppose these whores were promised – a staff position at the White House? A lawyer job at the Department of Justice? Maybe some cushy regional FEMA Director position?

The important thing, at this point, is the realization that an Obama administration will differ little from the thug machine politics of Chicago, where Obama learned the trade. Treat him like any other politician – do not listen to what he says, look at what he does.

Unity? Liberty? Prosperity? – not things we are likely to see in an Obama administration. Think about that when you vote.

Gee, do you think that these “Truth Squad” folks will adopt uniforms? If they do, will they be black like SWAT teams, or maybe just brown shirts like AmeriCorp?

Let us say that you vote very election. You consider it a civic duty. During this election cycle, you have been paying more attention, and want to become more involved by helping your favorite candidate financially.

Nice idea, but don’t bother because you can’t.

“Can’t what, send him a check?” you might ask.

“No,” I would reply, “you can’t help him.”

“How does that work?” you say.

Here’s how: say you want to give a hundred bucks to your guy in your local legislative district. Well, if he has met the arbitrary limit set by the state, the state will give a hundred bucks to each of the competing candidates, thereby neutralizing your help… you know, to make it fair.

“But my guy is not participating in Clean Elections!” you add.

“Yeah, that’s why he can raise the extra money, but his participating opponents get the match. Like it or not, everyone participates, though not everyone signs up,” I explain with a sigh.

At this point you shake your fist and scream, “What the heck is fair about denying me the ability to help my candidate!?!”

Welcome to the whacky world of “Arizona Clean Elections.” That’s right, the act that was designed to increase political participation, increase the number of candidates, and reduce the incumbent re-election rate, actually does none of those things. In fact, it often makes matters worse.

It is an atrociously bad law. Not only does it fail to fulfill the promises of its creators, it also removes an important tool with which the people influence their elected representatives.

There are three ways with which we, the people, do that – voting, campaign financing, and petitioning (letters, phone calls, etc.). The vote is clearly the most powerful. With it, we can “throw the bums out.” Campaign financing is next, it relates to the vote so it is right up there in significance. Once the critter is in there, we can communicate praise or displeasure, the old carrot and stick, which might spook him during and election year.

Arizona Clean Elections removes direct constituent influence over campaign financing. That means that the candidate gets the money, the “mother’s milk of politics”, not by pleasing his constituents, but by pleasing the some state employed bureaucrat.

Look, I know that at this point, you figure the political game is rigged, and you want to forget about it and go back to playing Halo or Grand Theft Auto, but don’t. There is hope.

Clint Bollick, up there at the Goldwater Institute, has filed suit on behalf of an angry mob of candidates who are getting hosed by this thing. He’s arguing that preventing people from supporting their candidates interferes with their free speech rights.

Now here’s the best part: there is United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case law that supports the claim! The case is Davis vs. F.E.C., you can look it up. It should be a slam-dunk for Clint.

“But why,” you ask, “if it doesn’t work and creates problems, don’t they just repeal the bad law?”

My friend, you have much to learn about politics. Remember, things are not always as they appear. Perhaps it never was about increased participation, more candidates, and all that crap. Maybe it has always been about control, about shifting power from the people to the state.

If that is the case, then it appears to be working just fine.