Newsmax Moneynews:  The same strategy applies to conjuring up fears over voting reforms like voter ID.

The financial crisis hit black Americans much harder than it did white Americans — more jobs and wealth were lost in the black community and in neither category have they since recouped as much as white individuals have. The fundamental problems are slow growth, especially in blue-collar manufacturing and construction, and deep-seated problems in the black community — lagging educational attainment, high rates of teen pregnancies and the like.

Instead of effectively addressing those, the president and Democratic members of Congress offer palliative solutions — more Medicaid, food stamps and other entitlements. They also raise alarm among black Americans that Republican-dominated state governments are conspiring to steal their right to vote and charge the GOP is contaminated by racists. The inconvenient truth is that in 2012, 66.2 percent of eligible black Americans voted versus 64.2 percent of eligible non-Hispanic whites, even though some 34 states have voter ID laws.

Gov. Terry McAuliffe is making it easier for felons to regain their voting rights.
    

Link.

Link here.  Summary here:

Emails obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act reveal Lois Lerner cooking up plans with Justice Department officials to talk about ways to criminally charge conservative groups that are insufficiently quiet. J. Christian Adams, who is an election lawyer and served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice told John that this is not just about the IRS. This is about a movement that exists inside and outside of government that wants to see speech controlled.

And despite the controversy swirling around Texas’ voter photo ID law, McKenzie said researchers had trouble finding anyone who had problems with their photo ID. Of those polled, 97 percent said they had no problems having to show a photo ID at the polls.

DOJ using the discovery process as a weapon against states who dare oppose them.

In his lone dissent to the disclosure requirement in Citizens United, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that American citizens should not be subject “to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in core political speech, the primary object of First Amendment protection.” (Internal quote marks omitted.)

In fact, wariness of full disclosure goes back to 1958 when the Supreme Court ruled that the NAACP did not have to release its membership list to the state, understanding that such disclosure would surely subject its members to persecution. “This court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations . . . particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.”

A different era, a different set of dissidents. But the naming of names, the listing of lists, goes on. The enforcers are at it again, this time armed with sortable Internet donor lists.

The ultimate victim here is full disclosure itself. If revealing your views opens you to the politics of personal destruction, then transparency, however valuable, must give way to the ultimate core political good, free expression.