Human Events on the Speech Regulators

“What is it about the First Amendment and the right to engage in political speech that so upsets liberals and so-called “reformers” such as former FEC Commissioner Trevor Potter?


In his latest attack on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in The Washington Post, Potter paints a misleading picture of the FEC and the federal restrictions that govern campaigns. Contrary to his erroneous claims, the three Republican commissioners that he criticizes have been trying to protect the First Amendment right of Americans to participate in the political process, while the other Democratic commissioners that he praises have been trying to issue over-restrictive regulations that violate the First Amendment and the holdings of the Supreme Court.”

Link here.

Human Events on the Speech Regulators

“What is it about the First Amendment and the right to engage in political speech that so upsets liberals and so-called “reformers” such as former FEC Commissioner Trevor Potter?


In his latest attack on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in The Washington Post, Potter paints a misleading picture of the FEC and the federal restrictions that govern campaigns. Contrary to his erroneous claims, the three Republican commissioners that he criticizes have been trying to protect the First Amendment right of Americans to participate in the political process, while the other Democratic commissioners that he praises have been trying to issue over-restrictive regulations that violate the First Amendment and the holdings of the Supreme Court.”

Link here.

Bench Memos on Bailout Boomerang

Ed Whelan, former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel and General Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee has this to say at Bench Memos about the Bailout Boomerang:

“In order to bolster Section 5 against the constitutional challenge pending against it in the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, the Department of Justice is illegally supporting legally deficient bailout requests by two townships and eight towns in New Hampshire and by California’s Merced County—and even making false representations in court.  . . .  As von Spakovsky sums it up, “The Justice Department is trying to create evidence that it can use in its effort to manipulate the Supreme Court in the Shelby case.”

If a Republican administration did something comparable to what von Spakovsky and Adams document, it would be a national scandal, with lots of front-page newspaper coverage.”


Stay tuned.

Bench Memos on Bailout Boomerang

Ed Whelan, former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel and General Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee has this to say at Bench Memos about the Bailout Boomerang:

“In order to bolster Section 5 against the constitutional challenge pending against it in the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, the Department of Justice is illegally supporting legally deficient bailout requests by two townships and eight towns in New Hampshire and by California’s Merced County—and even making false representations in court.  . . .  As von Spakovsky sums it up, “The Justice Department is trying to create evidence that it can use in its effort to manipulate the Supreme Court in the Shelby case.”

If a Republican administration did something comparable to what von Spakovsky and Adams document, it would be a national scandal, with lots of front-page newspaper coverage.”


Stay tuned.

“DOJ’s Hurricane Strength Misconduct”

 More.  This time a case brought by the Civil Rights Division with a US Attorney’s office, not involving elections.  Of particular note is a federal judge’s opinon of DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility:


First of all, having the DOJ investigate itself will likely only yield a delayed yet unconvincing result in which no confidence can rest. If no wrongdoing is uncovered, it will come as a surprise to no one given the conflict of interest existing between the investigator and the investigated. Moreover, the Perricone matter has been under investigation for eight months (since March), and yet it comes as a complete surprise to everyone at DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Office that another “poster” exists, especially one maintaining as high a position in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. It is difficult to imagine how this could possibly have been missed by OPR, and surely raises concerns about the capabilities and adequacy of DOJ’s investigatory techniques as exercised through OPR.

“DOJ’s Hurricane Strength Misconduct”

 More.  This time a case brought by the Civil Rights Division with a US Attorney’s office, not involving elections.  Of particular note is a federal judge’s opinon of DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility:


First of all, having the DOJ investigate itself will likely only yield a delayed yet unconvincing result in which no confidence can rest. If no wrongdoing is uncovered, it will come as a surprise to no one given the conflict of interest existing between the investigator and the investigated. Moreover, the Perricone matter has been under investigation for eight months (since March), and yet it comes as a complete surprise to everyone at DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Office that another “poster” exists, especially one maintaining as high a position in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. It is difficult to imagine how this could possibly have been missed by OPR, and surely raises concerns about the capabilities and adequacy of DOJ’s investigatory techniques as exercised through OPR.