The IRS scandal is anything but “phony,” as President Barack Obama has labeled it, and is instead an assault on the Constitution’s First Amendment, says Bradley Smith, former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.

“The IRS scandal is part of a long-term assault on First Amendment rights,” Smith, now chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, writes in the Wall Street Journal.

The scandal involved the targeting of conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, giving their applications more scrutiny than others. The groups sought 501(c)(4) tax status, which requires a group to be engaged in “the promotion of social welfare.” 

Via CNN, The Vice-Chair of the Federal Election Commission comments on the potential investigation into collusion between the FEC and the IRS.

“Things seemed weird to
me” after examining the undisclosed e-mails, McGahn told CNN. “The FEC
has not had a good track record with calling balls and strikes. They’ve
been criticized for not playing fair.”

If nothing else, he
added, this “creates the appearance that people are being selectively
targeted. And that’s something that should never happen.”

American Future Fund
founder Nick Ryan argued in a written statement last week that the
publicly released correspondence between the IRS and the FEC “indicates
questionable behavior.”

“We will cooperate with
(the) ongoing investigations to root out the bad actors in the
politically driven, out-of-control bureaucracy the IRS and the
government has become.”

Unsolicited and anonymous text messages sent just prior to the 2012 election by an individual, his company and his PAC are the subject of a new complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The messages expressed advocated the defeat of President Barack
Obama. Articles about the messages from The Washington Post, USA Today,
The Atlantic and The Hill, were attached to the complaint. The messages
were sent as emails to phone numbers as texts, not phone-to-ph one texts. 

Link at RollCall.

Pete Olson, the Congressman from the 22nd District in Texas, pens an opinion piece on H.R. 1280 which increases the penalties of election fraud crimes and addresses the handling of official election materials by the postal service.

Every vote is sacred. Throughout history, people have sacrificed
their lives to make sure that their voices count when determining who
will govern them. Congress has a duty to monitor and ensure the
integrity of the federal electoral process throughout the country. To
better address voter fraud, I introduced the Voter Fraud Prevention Act,
H.R.1280, a bill that stiffens the penalties for individuals convicted
of voter fraud or tampering with official election materials, such as
voter registration cards and absentee ballots. The bill increases the
jail sentence from 5 years to 10 years, and anyone convicted of either
of these offenses would permanently lose their right to vote in federal
elections.

My legislation also specifically addresses the
handling of official election materials by the US Postal Service, the
issue highlighted by the loss of the 22,000 voter registration cards in
Fort Bend County. It directs election officials to employ the existing
tracking system available to the US Postal Service for ballots and all
official election materials. Using this tool will better ensure that
election officials can track voter registration cards and absentee
ballots, and the likelihood of election materials being lost or stolen
will be greatly reduced.

Regardless of anyone’s personal political views, we can all agree that
the integrity of our democracy is critically important. As the world’s
oldest democracy, we must lead by example in ensuring every citizen’s
right to cast their vote is protected.

An opinion piece in the Courier Express supports photo ID in Pennsylvania:

The Legislature has as much right to require voters to present
government-issued photo identification before being allowed to vote as
it does requiring voters to put their signatures onto a piece of paper
in the polling place before getting a ballot.  

Jeffrey Toobin has posted an article entitled “Another Citizens United, But Worse” with his views and fears on the McCutcheon case that involved a Republican (gasp*!) named Shaun McCutcheon who had the audacity to want to contribute more than the statutory maximum.  Toobin also criticizes the legally “strange” rulings from the Supreme Court that actually require “quid pro quo” showings of corruption instead of the appearance of corruption for First Amendment regulation. The bottom line:  The left fears another defeat in the regulatory construct developed over decades.

Think the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United was bad? A worse one may be on the horizon.

…As Justice Kennedy wrote, the fact that contributors “may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt.” Indeed, he observed further, “political speech cannot be limited based on a speaker’s wealth.”

Citizens United was not an aberration for this Court. It emerged from a definite view about the intersection of campaigns and free speech. The Justices in the majority are engaging in a long-term project to deregulate campaigns. A blessing on unlimited aggregate contributions is the next logical step for them to take—and they have five votes.

Fox News Video here.

We agree with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who said, “The Obama administration’s attempt to assert control of Texas elections is an affront to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and hostile to the Constitution. On voter ID and redistricting, the Supreme Court has ruled in Texas’ favor, and we will continue to seek protection from the land’s highest court from overreaching federal government’s action.”  

A federal judge strikes down the lawsuit challenging the legality and constitutionality of the Harris County redistricting plan.

In a ruling filed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore said the lawyers for local Hispanic activists, who argued that the map illegally diluted Latino votes in the only Latino-opportunity county commissioner precinct, failed to prove the redistricting plan was unconstitutional or that race was the predominant factor in the design of the plan.