Disunity and Elitism at the DNC Convention – Beyond Reality TV

After the GOP convention, all eyes turned to Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention, and what a slow motion train wreck it has been.  Once you get past the lies and blatant attempts to deceive the American people, you can start to see that even the most tenured of Democrats are not buying the garbage spewing forth from the stage. There have been walkouts, consistent “booing” frequently when Clinton’s name is mentioned, and even resignations in the first few days. The DNC is in a tailspin plummeting toward the ground at a high rate of speed.

Before the convention even started, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida was forced to step down after several thousand internal DNC emails were released by WikiLeaks. Some of the emails contain attempts by the DNC to exert control over the message being spread by the media, which clearly reinforces the well-known fact that media readily caters to and communicates with the DNC, putting a leftist spin on real news and painting it as reality.

But the real story in the leaked emails is the fall of Bernie Sanders. He consistently raised questions about the impartiality of the Democratic Party during the primaries. He was right - the DNC actively conspired against his campaign and in support of Hillary. The party enabled a scandal-laden Hillary Clinton to steal the nomination away from him. This is not Democracy nor is it fair.

“Myself and other Democrats who were Clinton supporters, we have been saying this was serious. It truly violates what the DNC’s proper role should be,” said Edward G. Rendell, a former DNC chairman and former Pennsylvania governor.

“The DNC did something incredibly inappropriate here” and needed to acknowledge that, Rendell said.

In the midst of the drama, one cannot help but pause and reflect on what would have happened without a corrupt DNC functioning off of a system rigged to negate the American public’s vote. As a point of clarity, Sanders is a crazy socialist and I put very little stock in much of anything that he says; however, that does not give his party the right to override America’s choice.  We vote for what we believe. Bernie believes what he preached. You can see that on his face when he speaks, and he lives it and owns it like few politicians on the left have over the years.  That does not make him right, but it does make him different. Americans believed him and that is what matters in our system, or at least it should be.  It became abundantly clear to many (both Republicans and Democrats) watching the primaries progress that Sanders was gaining steam and arguably could have won were it not for the completely rigged super delegate system that enabled Clinton to hang on for the win.

Clinton’s camp is continuing to scream unity over the chorus of “Boos” at the convention, but that unity is not for the voters, and many have started to realize that division most certainly exists between average Americans and the left’s political elite. That unity is not for Americans. That unity is not for Bernie. That unity is for DNC’s inner circle alone.  

The fact is that Democrats have now proven that they are no longer the party of the people.  Despite my personal disagreements with Bernie on just about every possible policy, I genuinely feel bad for the man. His run was admirable and instead of accepting the nomination, he is forced to deal with this travesty that is slap in the face to every American voter in this country. At least for Republicans, our voice still matters and our leaders are strong enough to uphold the will of the American people rather than cave to political corruption and elitism.

The DNC consistently states that they support the people, yet their actions paint a starkly different picture. The Democrats' goal is most certainly not to ensure that the people have a voice in their government.  This is yet another scandal feather that the Clintons can put in their already brimming caps.

Clinton Reiterates Support for Unrealistic and Dangerous Election "Reforms"

While the media focused on Bernie Sanders' endorsement of Hillary Clinton yesterday, Hillary made a speech following Sen. Sanders' endorsement that contained calls for liberal election and campaign finance "reform."  This is a familiar refrain from the Democrats this year, but Hillary's speech had some new points.  The "reforms" are in line with the draft of the "most progressive platform in the history of party" released by the Democrats earlier this week.

Hillary's "Reform" - Everyone has to disclose all donors
Campaign finance reform is a subject to which liberals and Democrats criticize the current laws while exploiting loopholes in the system they claim to deride.  The campaign finance laws are already so complicated that national campaigns with full-time staff, attorneys, accountants, and compliance personnel struggle to comply.  Requiring the disclosure of additional donors would not only violate those donors' constitutional rights but also pose immense practical challenges for campaigns and non-profits.

Hillary's "Reform" - Automatic voter registration for everyone when they turn 18
Hillary's proposal goes far beyond the mandatory voter registration systems that are being implemented in several states across the country.  Those systems are dangerous enough, but Hillary's proposal goes beyond registering people who interact with the DMV to automatically registering everyone when they turn 18.  While she did not go into details, her proposal appears to be mandatory, universal voter registration, not the systems currently being implemented that at least have underused opt-out mechanisms.

Hillary's "Reform" - 20 days of in-person voting in every state
This is where Hillary's speech covered some new ground.  Universal donor disclosure and universal mandatory registration are frequently discussed by today's radically liberal Democrat leaders.  20 days of in-person early voting would be an enormous expense and procedural hassle for the states that would have to implement it, and very few states already have such a long period of early voting in place (including none of Hillary's "home" states of Arkansas, Illinois, and New York).  Early voting does not increase turnout, can actually harm voters, and increases the risk of voter fraud.

Hillary's "Reform" - No one waits more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot
Short lines at the polls are a good goal, one that was a focus of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration and for which hard-working local election officials strive, but the federal government cannot simply dictate that no person must wait more than 30 minutes to cast a ballot.  Local election officials allocate scarce resources and personnel based on expected turnout, but they can not perfectly anticipate the innumerable things that could go wrong on election day, causing people to wait a long time to vote.  Long lines at the polling place are unfortunate and all local election officials should, and do, strive to shorten them, but Hillary ignores all the considerations and efforts of those officials when she unrealistically declares that no one should wait more than 30 minutes to vote.

Disenfranchisement of New Voters in Oregon Primary Benefits Clinton over Sanders

Yesterday, Joanne W. Young published a piece at the Daily Caller that further illustrates the dangers associated with mandatory voter registration. Oregon, a bastion for most things liberal, attempted to force mandatory registration through the DMV. This drew more than a few warnings from Young earlier this year. It turns out the initial concerns were well founded as new voters are likely being disenfranchised as a result of the system.

Oregon was the first state to enact a system of automatic or mandatory voter registration. At the beginning of 2016, Oregon began mandatorily registering its citizens to vote when they visited the Department of Motor Vehicles, changing from an “opt-in” to an “opt-out” registration system. Liberals hailed this as a leap forward in making voting easier for everyone and encouraging broader engagement by citizens in our democracy.

Mandatory voter registration is a new experiment in the United States, and there is no proof it will meet its intended goals. Indeed, there is evidence from other countries, such as Canada, that have had systems of mandatory voter registration for years that, instead of increasing voter engagement and turnout, it actually decreases it . . . .

The issue will undoubtedly effect many voters in the Oregon primary today as those who are not declared for a party will be unable to vote given the state’s primary rules.

Oregon is a closed primary state, meaning that only those voters registered with a political party may vote in that party’s primary. The government cannot choose a party for a person, so by default, all new voters registered through the mandatory voter registration system areregistered as non-affiliated voters. To be registered with a party, new voters, who did not take the initiative to register to vote, must take the initiative to proactively indicate a party on a follow-up postcard they mail back to the Secretary of State.

In what should come as a surprise to very few, many of those who were mandatorily registered failed to return the postcard and as a consequence will be unable to vote in the primary.

At the end of April, only 16 percent of new voters had returned the postcard selecting a party. Fully76 percent of newly registered voters did not return the card at all, meaning they are registered to vote but registered as not affiliated with any party. The Oregon presidential primary is May 17, and the deadline for registering with a party was April 26 . . . . 

Further complicating matters, Oregon is an entirely vote-by-mail state, meaning that those non-affiliated voters have not even received a ballot and may not realize they are being disenfranchised.

The mandatory voter registration process in Oregon has been a glaring failure on many levels. It has achieved only the exact opposite of what it was advertised to do. Other countries have shown its impact to be at best negligible, and more than likely detrimental. 

The recent voter disenfranchisement in Oregon simply adds to a growing list of questionable policies emanating from the left. Young goes on to discuss who the situation does likely help; none other than the Democratic “establishment candidate,” Hillary Clinton. While I personally loathe Sanders ideals and general platform, it is hard to look at the integrity of this election from his perspective and not cringe. Step by step, state by state, super delegate by super delegate, the establishment is stealing the Democratic nomination away from him. Elections should have integrity. As Joanne Young pointed out regarding the New Hampshire primary in February, elections should always be right and just, not stolen.

Hillary Clinton v. The ABA’s Judicial Code of Judicial Contact

On February 11, we wrote about Bernie Sanders demanding judges violate one of the most basic judicial tenants, bind themselves to decide a case in advance of hearing the case.  Bernie did this as part of his war of on free speech in discussing Citizen’s United.  

Last night in the Democratic Presidential Debate, Hillary Clinton did him one better:

The only people that I would ever appoint to the Supreme Court are people who believe that Roe v. Wade is settled law and Citizens United needs to be overturned.

Let us restate this basic tenant of judicial ethics, from the ABA’s Code of Judicial Conduct - Canon 2, Rule 2.4:

(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.
(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.

Judges must refrain from speaking about topics that are currently before or may be before the court for just this reason. Their task is to apply law to the facts of cases; it is not to make good on a promise that directly procured their appointment.

To be clear, Senator Sanders also did it again last night, and seemed to imply that he might oppose President Obama’s current nominee, Merrick Garland, for failing to violate judicial ethics:

I think that we need a Supreme Court justice who will make it crystal clear and this nominee has not yet done that, crystal clear that he or she will vote to overturn Citizens United.

The assertions in the statement above speaks to the potential Democrat nominees' misunderstanding of the purpose and power of the Office of the President of the United States and likely of the Judicial Branch as well.

Sanders Campaign Accepts Thousands of Potentially Illegal Contributions

According to the Federal Election Commission's review of recent disclosure reports from Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, the Sanders campaign has accepted thousands of illegal contributions:

The Federal Election Commission sent a letter to the Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign committee . . . with a 90-page spreadsheet listing 3,457 “excessive, prohibited, and impermissible contributions.” 

The campaign’s January financial disclosure filing listed contributions from foreign nationals and unregistered political committees, the FEC said. Other contributions came from donors who exceeded the $2,700 per-election limit. 

[. . .] The FEC sent a letter to the Sanders campaign earlier this month flagging an additional 1,316 “excessive, prohibited, and impermissible contributions” in the fourth quarter of 2015.

Scott Blackburn from the Center for Competitive Politics points out that the illegal contributions to the Sanders campaign are demonstrative of pervasive problems with the campaign finance system:

Such letters are routine in political campaigns; it is essentially impossible to follow the FEC’s reporting requirements to the letter of the law, and even more difficult to make sure that donors don’t accidentally violate federal contribution limits in their zeal to support their preferred candidate. So the regulators at the FEC send letters to warn campaigns that if they don’t fix their paperwork, the Commission is going to audit and fine them. 

These violations, in relation to Sanders, whose candidacy has been propelled by the passion of hundreds of thousands of small donors, provide a window into how ridiculous our campaign finance regulatory regime, particularly our strict campaign contribution limits, have become.

While Sen. Sanders may criticize the campaign finance system, his campaign still must abide by the current law.  The failure of his campaign to follow some of the relatively simple regulatory requirements of the campaign finance system should make him realize that the true problem with the campaign finance system is the burden it places on the exercise of First Amendment freedoms, not “dark money.”

Sanders Obliterates Clinton in NH, Ties on Delegates?

Despite the large margin by which Sen. Bernie Sanders defeated Secretary Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, she leaves the state with 15 delegates, half the state's total. The Democratic National Committee’s delegate allocation system is strange to say the least:

Sanders won 60 percent of the vote, but thanks to the Democratic Party’s nominating system, he leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while she leaves with at least 15 delegates.

New Hampshire has 24 “pledged” delegates, which are allotted based on the popular vote. Sanders has 13, and Clinton has 9, with 2 currently allotted to neither. [Since the article, delegates committed leaving the candidates at 15 a piece].

But under Democratic National Committee rules, New Hampshire also has 8 “superdelegates,” party officials who are free to commit to whomever they like, regardless of how their state votes. Their votes count the same as delegates won through the primary.

As it stands, Sanders, who has been the bane of Clinton’s seemingly foregone procurement of the presidential nomination, has an extremely difficult path ahead due in no small part to delegate allocation.

Conversely, the GOP system is far clearer and geared toward a fair and open election of the best candidate. The state of New Hampshire’s GOP executive director noted:

The process is not open to discretion. Our delegates are bound to vote proportionally.

The RNC has a far more clear and concise, democratic process for candidate selection while the DNC utilizes a system that functions to negate the will of the people in favor of the will of the establishment.

Either Pointless or Wrong - Sanders' Claim Not to Have a Super PAC

In last night's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterated what has become one of the themes of his campaign: 

We had a decision to make early on, do we do a Super PAC? And, we said no. [I]t ends up I'm the only candidate up here of the many candidates who has no Super PAC. 

At face value, Sen. Sanders' assertion is a pointless statement.  No candidate "has" a Super PAC.  Super PACs are political action committees that only make independent expenditures and are prohibited by law from coordinating or cooperating with the candidate(s) they support.  Candidates may have varying opinions of the Super PACs that support them, but the candidates cannot control or work with them.  

If Sen. Sanders means that he is not supported by any Super PACs, that is simply incorrect.  Sen. Sanders is supported by three independent expenditure-only committees, the legal definition of what is commonly called a Super PAC.  The Super PACs supporting Sen. Sanders are certainly less well funded than the Super PACs supporting other candidates, but that does not mean they do not exist.

While Sen. Sanders' claim not to have a Super PAC may fit well with his opposition to Citizens United, it is either correct but pointless or factually incorrect. 

Bernie Sanders v. The ABA’s Code of Judicial Conduct

Bernie Sanders is not only attacking our freedom of speech but he is proposing to do so in a manner that directly contradicts the most basic of judicial tenets. Justices cannot bind themselves to decide a case before it is before them. This is a basic tenet of judicial ethics.
 
The ABA’s Code of Judicial Conduct - Canon 2, Rule 2.4(b) states the issue at hand very clearly:

(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.

Judges refrain from speaking about topics that are currently before the court for just this reason. Their task is to apply law to the facts of cases; it is not one of arguing policy, making legislation, or asserting the beliefs of others on any case that could potentially come before them on an issue to make good on a promise that directly procured their appointment.
  
We again point to the comments Sen. Sanders uttered during the latest Democratic debate.
    

[SANDERS:] No nominee of mine, if I’m elected president, to the United States Supreme Court will get that nomination unless he or she is loud and clear, and says they will vote to overturn Citizens United.

  
The assertion in the statement above speaks to Sen. Sanders' misunderstanding of the purpose and power of the Office of the President of the United States and likely that of the Judicial Branch as well.