Thread: Article V – Searching for Honest Brokers

Article V – Searching for Honest Brokers

I wish I could speak only to state legislators, but I know some who disagree with what I have to say here would move heaven and earth to ensure none of the men and women who actually have to vote Yea or Nay for an Article V resolution should ever see this.
It's not that I'm totally against taking the Article V risk, and this separates me from the anti- crowd, at least to a point, but I think the people who have to put their reputations, and their states' reputations, on the line, should be the beneficiaries of full disclosure of what might lay ahead.

As of this moment I'm convinced they haven't been served well.
As one who favors state showdowns with the federal government in general, the intent of Article V is fine with me. It was put there for a purpose, although, in his oft-cited letter to George Tuberville in 1788, James Madison cast dire warnings about its use. (I think Article V architects such as Mark Levin are incorrect in asserting that Madison favored Article V over Nullification, but I also understand why he would say it. The opposite is easily argued, but is generally outside the scope of this article. Still, the spirit of nullification can't help but be found hanging around the edges of this Article V process, as I'll demonstrate in due course, and which is one reason I am not knee-jerk against it.)
So then, it's not my intention to try to stop Article V in its tracks. There are others dedicated to that. My purpose here is to try to 1) ensure that the legislators, as they move forward in considering this action, are fully aware of the possible pitfalls that may lay ahead, and are none too cocksure that a simple Aye vote for an Article V resolution will end in the desired, and sometimes wrongly promised, success. I also want to impress on them the great solemnity of the moment. In doing so, I wish to insure 2) that the Article V process is packaged honestly, by honest brokers, and 3) that opponents to Article V are given an honest and collegial hearing. (So far they have not.)
Once done, I can then light out after the sellers of Article V "tainted beef" and try to split them from this company of honest men and women. Let the honest brokers debate this process alone.
These are the limits of my interest in the Article V argument. I personally know people for whom I hold in the highest regard on both sides of this issue, plus others I hold almost as high based on their reputations alone. We have other fights to fight together, so why sow discordant seeds with this?
It's the sellers of "tainted beef" who are my enduring purpose, and always had been, even before I knew their names. I'm here because I cannot abide hucksters, profiteers, and snake oil salesmen being allowed to march around in the garb of honest purveyors of ideas. To this end, I've dedicated Part II.
The Article V Debate, Looking for Honest Brokers
The players in the Article V drama are four:
First, there are the Legislators. These are the primary objects of the Article V campaign. These are the people who must affix their names, and their states', to the resolutions that will "make application to Congress" to "call a convention for proposing Amendments" to the Constitution. There still may be legislators who don't even know this is what they will be doing…or maybe all they will be doing.
A note on the Mount Vernon Assembly: Last December 97 legislators from various states assembled at George Washington's home to discuss organizational groundwork for an Article V convention. From press reports I got the impression that every attendee was a pro-Article V supporter, so no one went there to debate "if" but rather "how." This was not a pre-convention convention by any stretch. Everyone attended with a suitcase filled with assumptions they had received from their own reading of various Article V proponents.
What is important to note about this fine assemblage is that these were not "official" delegates of their states, and while organized, they have no official capacity in the resolution process as it moves through the several legislatures.
It is these Legislators, all of them, who by their votes will either succeed or fail, and for good or ill, on whose shoulders this burden will fall. It is no small thing. No glory comes to anyone unless there is at least some risk of defeat.
While shutting the press and ordinary citizens out of this assembly, I assume these legislators were in daily contact with prominent civilian backers of this idea. Highest among them would likely have been well known conservative attorney, and talk show host, Mark Levin, whose 2013 book, The Liberty Amendments helped ignite this movement in the public's eye, and Michael Farris, founder and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, a 49-mile bike path away from Washington, and founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association. Glenn Beck has also showed a great deal of interest, and has endorsed the movement, at least in some form; likewise Neal Boortz and Herman Cain, more narrowly. Their reputations and accomplishments as conservatives have always been high, and any issue I may have with any of them would be one of style, not of patriotism or lack of fight against the Left and authoritarianism.
The second group is the General Public, who are also the objects of these same arguments for and against Article V, for they are encouraged by both sides to convey their sentiments to their respective legislators, and also to send money to help defray at least the Petitioner's expenses of paying for various media campaigns. (I'm unaware if the Respondents are raising money in this fashion.) We all agree, public support and enthusiasm is needed for this project to move to its fail-safe point.
Thirdly, there are the Petitioners, the Brokers who are proposing this Article V approach to change the Constitution, and who are making their case(s) (there are actually more than one, although again, I'm not sure the legislators are aware of this), of whom I've mentioned the two top leading proponents, Mark Levin and Michael Farris.
Finally, there are the Respondents, also Brokers, the men and women who believe this Article V drive is a bad idea, and who from the outset have voiced concerns and opposition; among them Phyllis Schlafly, the John Birch Society, and Publius Huldah, whose reputations as constitutionalists, conservatives and patriots are equal to those of the aforementioned Mssrs Levin and Farris and others I'll mention later.
As to this nomenclature, I think it is appropriate to refer to the pro-Article V crowd as "Petitioners" since, in the 227 years since it was ratified, Article V has never been tried. So it is The New Case on the docket, and must be marketed accordingly. It can't be offered to the public or legislators as if it were commonplace, a household idea. It has been bandied about since FDR at least, but never has it reached critical mass, (which I call the "fail-safe" point) where the collective states can actually march up to Capitol Hill, knock on the door, and hand their application for such a convention over to the Congress.
So it is the Petitioners' first job to present an honest, well-briefed petition for Article V's viability, not just its desirability, to the legislators and the people at large, as if they were judges and juries, not mere gawking patrons at a game of ring toss at the county fair. So certain rules should apply.
I assume you're sufficiently up to snuff on the actual wording of Article V in the US Constitution, without my having to repeat it here. It's about as long as the Boy Scout Oath or the 23rd Psalm and not nearly as complex. Anyone who can diagram a sentence can diagram the clear meaning of Article V.
You'll see Article V is far more notable for what it doesn't say than what it does, which is why it invites speculation and debate. It also invites false promises and claims, and false certainties…on both sides. It is an untruth to say that it will succeed if 34 states will just sign on to it, just as it is an untruth to say that it cannot succeed if they do the same things. These sorts of celestial certainties have no place in honest discourse between honest brokers.
So when it comes to defining what Article V does, is supposed to do, can do, can't do, might not be able to do, every opinion is just as good as the next one, since there are so many empty pages yet to be written. Everyone is equally an amateur and expert at the same time. As with nullification and secession, the final word on Article V is that there will never be a final word.
These are all opinions. Not facts, not certainties, and anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed, incompetent (stupid), a liar (with ulterior motives), or delusional (a little in love with oneself). It's above my pay grade to know which, so I'll leave it at that.
This is why we find ourselves here today; we are trying to find honest brokers to sit down and politely make both the cases, pro- and con-, on Article V.

A comment on tone
I'm not sure you understand how important tone is in debate such as this. Remember, both sides of this argument purport to be Constitution-loving, patriotic Americans. This is not Left-Right, Reality vs Unreality, but Right-Right, where higher things than what the legislature can be told to do should still rule our intellectual corpus. Yet, I have read some of the most condescendingly small things said about some very fine conservatives. I have read, short of the potty language common to the species, mockery and disrespect used against some of our finest people that reminds me more of what one finds in the bowels of "DailyKuss."
May I suggest, by comparison: thirty-six years ago, in Jan, 1978, then-Governor Ronald Reagan and William F Buckley Jr sat down to debate the signing of the Panama Canal Treaty, and it was aired (watch here, well worth your time) on Buckley's Firing Line program. I watched it live. Still in their 20s' then, perhaps Mssrs Farris and Levin have never seen it. Buckley was for the Treaty, and Reagan against it, and being a bigger Buckley fan than Reagan at the time, I leaned toward Buckley's argument. (I think history has proved Reagan more right than WFB, however.)
But the greatest impression anyone would come away with from that debate is how congenially two honorable men could debate a really hotly-contested issue, looking one another in the eye, each knowing the other to be as deeply committed to the United States as the other.
Call me old fashioned, but this is how I imagine a debate over as serious a subject as an Article V application to Congress should be; the same respectful tone, the same mutual understanding between patriots of equal passion and strength of courage.
As for that message Americans wish to send to Congress, I empathize totally with the public sentiment, and through their state representatives they would like to force the Congress to do things it will not voluntarily do itself. It's an appetizing thought, and, as I said, I've always been in favor of the states picking fights with Congress. But I never thought too much about Article V because it is so loaded with unresolved process issues. Besides, if the government is truly on track toward tyranny, it telegraphs too many punches and is painstakingly slow. Although we can't divine it, authoritarianism has its own timetable to keep, you see.
Any state can spit in the federal government's eye any time it takes a notion, and can even get others states to stand next to it without having to stand on what looks like a decade-long ritual of getting 33 states to join it. I do agree that, today, a state has to bite off an especially large plug of tobacco before it can start spitting painfully since the federal government has a much greater (financial) stranglehold over the states than it did over South Carolina in 1828. Still, I'd like to see some dust kicked up once the states decide to take on Washington.
Since you may not know, I'm an analyst, not a constitutional scholar. But I am a lawyer and can tell a horse from a mule. My resume in analysis comes from some history dealing with communists of the Soviet variety, at the ground level. I've been on record for several years saying that this current regime has gone all-in. The Left and the government establishment, the totality of it, will not simply surrender what they have spent fifty years in acquiring simply because some legislators come knocking on their door with a piece of paper in their hand.
It's because of what might happen next, if that Capitol door is slammed shut, or worse, the application taken by the Congress to use as it wishes, that has always had me leaning a little in favor of this Article V process…because I'm almost certain none of the things the state legislators have been promised will happen, will, in fact, happen. Tortured logic? No, for what will they do then? Having thrown down the gauntlet, do they then just pick it back up, dust it off, and walk back home?
What might ensue could be shillelagh law or the threat of it, which delights me, for today that might be the only cure that will really work against this growing shadow of authoritarianism. I've never liked the idea of walking up to Capitol Hill with a writ in one hand without a rolled up newspaper in the other.
Some of you are being told the Congress can be circumvented. The language of Article V does not support this. The people are not well served, nor are the legislators, who are putting their reputations on the line, if they are made to believe that all they have to do is vote a resolution, then join with thirty-three others who do the same, and a Convention is automatically called, and they are the masters of it. Or the scope of it. Or the language of it.
It is not a slam dunk, and it's hard for me to believe that the Petitioners don't already know this. And anyone who tells them otherwise is a false prophet. I have asked several times over the past few months, "What if Congress rejects the application?" I don't get artful-dodging, or deflections. I get silence. You see, in the internet venues now used, no one is compelled to answer uncomfortable questions. Frederich Hayek had strong feelings about the journal-to-journal method of scholarly debate, for it had become an asset of the Left by the 1960s, and is why I strongly recommend face-to-face debates. They are more honest, for all to see, especially for legislators. These days you can find some who know they cannot answer certain direct questions, so will refuse to debate, e.g, Al Gore and Dr Dawkins refuse, each in their respective hoaxes.)
"Where's your trigger?" I've asked. How do you compel a Congress already known not to be in harmony with our aspirations, or for that matter, the Government Printing Office, or the various agencies such as IRS and Treasury Department, to go along with say, your balanced budget amendment(s) unless they concede your authority? Who compels them? Who settles disputes? The Supreme Court, I assume, but have all the voting legislators been made aware that this may be a legal detour to their plans of several years? Silence.
Or, what happens if Congress instead accepts your application but then writes its own rules for the convention, and in the bi-partisan manner in which it's famous for, throws open the convention? Did you know that Leftish money and strategy has been involved in this Article V movement longer than Mark Levine or Michael Farris? Did you know they have a math for this very exigency? Who on your current list of Petitioners are holding hands with the Left? Have you vetted them?
This is the fertile field for "lies and damned lies" (Mark Twain). And as long as citizens are allowed only to read "debate journals," silence is truly golden to the sellers of tainted beef. No question will be substantively answered.
The suggested "ease" of this process, once the states' votes are cast is what causes me the greatest dis-ease. I've read some of the proponents' articles, and they ring out almost like a Wilsonian enlistment drive in World War I, "Let's go beat Kaiser Bill!" I can almost hear the marching band as the states march up to the doors of Congress. Only, and hear me, an Article V process is a grave deed, calling for a solemn mind and a grim jutted jaw, as one might when taking his best dog out to be put down. Not with a Hoorah! but a quivering lip. (My dad always did it with a pistol, never a vet, and like an Indian, he would speak to the pup for a long time before he pulled the trigger, thanking him for the time they had together.) It is this realm of sober reality you are entering here, for once this is done, things will never be as they were…ever again…so keep the champagne corked.
So, it's the Petitioners who must not only make their case, but also answer honestly the counter-arguments rather than dismiss them out of hand, or worse, mock them…especially for the sake of the legislators who they have persuaded to climb out on that limb. So far all I have seen, beyond Levin's book, instead of sound arguments, are boiler plate scriptures about turning back Big Government, set to martial music, with no mention of any of these "what-if's." They are more like brochures, glossy ads you might see for a house that just came on the market, highlighting all it attractive features, while leaving it up to the buyer to do his own due diligence as to what might may lay buried in the basement or the rafters.
Article V dissenters are not "deniers" to be mocked and ridiculed and dismissed as the Left has used hiding its climate hoax. And the more I hear that sort of language, the more I sense there are hoaxers involved in the dissemination of this message as well.
While the Petitioners are alleging the road is clear, and the bridge is in good repair, and it's pedal to the metal, 70mph the whole way, the Respondents are urging, the road may be filled with roadblocks, the bridge may be out, and a more diligent speed might be better. Yes, they'd prefer you turn the car around, but at least be aware of what might lay ahead. Proceed with caution.
FIN
And should the Respondents be correct, and the road rougher than imagined, or the bridge out entirely, and the legislators being burned in effigy back in capital City, consider that some of the Petitioners may not be anywhere to be seen, instead sipping pina coladas on the beach in St Thomas, having "made their purse." It is these tainted beef salesmen, these hoaxers, I want to split from the herd of honest brokers.
So I hope you can see the profit in a series of debates, state-by-state, legislature-by-legislature, with both Petitioners and Respondents present, while I get about my primary business. Hire a hall, as I like to say.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/ar...q8iclmgR58I.99

Congress: Hands Off State Con-Con Rescissions

Congress: Hands Off State Con-Con Rescissions

On April 1, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) noted that Michigan's approval of its Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) Article V convention application on March 26 made it the 34th state to apply to Congress to call a constitutional convention (aka Con-Con) for the purpose of proposing a BBA. On the same day he wrote a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, strongly advocating that the House take the lead in determining whether enough states have now applied for a BBA Article V convention to require it to call such a convention. However, click on the image on the left for an analysis of state BBA Article V convention applications that shows that although Michigan is the 34th state to apply for such a convention, twelve of those states have rescinded (taken back) their applications, making Michigan only the 22nd state with a "live" application. Of course, 22 states is nowhere near the required 34 (two-thirds) for Congress to call a convention as provided in Article V of the Constitution.

So, the issue is: Either Congress has 34 valid state applications for a BBA Article V convention, in which case Congress "shall call a convention," OR Congress has only 22 valid applications due to the twelve state rescissions, in which case we're nowhere near the 34 needed for calling a convention.

Although there's no indication that any of the leading Article V convention proponents support the idea that rescissions should not be allowed, there areactuallysome people who maintain that once a state has applied to Congress to call an Article V convention, it can never rescind that application.However, since it is the right of the people to alter their form of government according to the Declaration of Independence and as provided for in Article V of the Constitution, that right surely includes the right to decide when to alter the government, and therefore it is surely valid for state legislators acting as representatives of the people to decide on rescinding their applications to Congress to call a convention for altering the Constitution.

Therefore, the best reaction to Rep. Hunter's request would be for congressional leaders to take note that since there are only 22 states with "live" applications for a BBA Article V convention, there is no action required by Congress.

Please contact your representative and senators in Congress. In short, your message should be - Congress, please take no action on calling an Article V convention because even though 34 states have applied to Congress to call a BBA Article V convention over the past 60 years, twelve of them have rescinded their applications leaving only 22 "live" state BBA Article V convention applications, well short of the required 34 (two-thirds) for Congress to call a convention. Furthermore, the state legislatures should be the judge of the validity of rescissions of their convention applications, not Congress.

Also let them know that you oppose the calling of an Article V convention on the basis that such a convention would be inherently unlimited and could propose harmful revisions to the Constitution including a new ratification procedure.

For more information go to our "Choose Freedom - STOP A CON-CON" action project page on JBS.org.

Thanks.

Your Friends at The John Birch Society

---

Balanced budget convention gains steam as congressman calls for official evaluation

By Stephen Dinan
-

Rep. Duncan Hunter on Tuesday asked Congress to evaluate whether enough states have officially called for a constitutional convention to propose a balanced budget amendment — marking the next step toward what could be an historic gathering.
Mr. Hunter, California Republican, said Congress should take stock of where things stand after Michigan last week approved an official call for a balanced budget amendment convention. According to some analysts, Michigan’s move makes it the 34th state to request a convention.

---

SEE ALSO: Constitutional conundrum: Michigan demand for a balanced budget could trigger amendment convention

---

The final decision is up to Congress.
“It is my belief that the House should lead an effort to ascertain whether 34 states have voted affirmatively,” Mr. Hunter said in a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner.
“A balanced budget amendment is long overdue and remains an effective tool to address runaway spending and deficits,” he wrote. “With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House — and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment — determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case.”
Article V of the Constitution lays out two different ways for amendments to be proposed. The usual way, which has been the case for all 27 amendments so far, involves two-thirds of each house of Congress approving a resolution proposing an amendment. But the Constitution also says if two-thirds of state legislatures demand a convention, Congress shall convene one for the purpose of considering amendments.
In either case, the amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
The key question for Congress right now is whether 34 states have issued valid calls for a convention.
Gregory Watson, a constitutional scholar who helped ratify the 27th Amendment in the 1990s, said his count stands at 34 — though he said 12 of those are states that later rescinded their applications.
He said it’s an open question, however, whether an application can be rescinded. That’s one of the issues Congress would have to grapple with should it follow Mr. Hunter’s suggestion and take a closer look at where the tally stands.
Congress would also have to determine if the 34 applications are all similar enough.
A spokesman for Mr. Boehner, Michael Steel, would only say that the speaker’s lawyers will review Mr. Hunter’s request.
“Beyond that, I don’t have any comment at this time,” he said.
Legal scholars say that while an amendment convention has never been tried, it is legitimate.
However, analysts are split on whether it’s a good idea.
Some fear the danger of a runaway convention, which though called for a specific purpose such as proposing a balanced budget amendment, instead ends up rewriting much of the founding document. Others dismiss that, saying the convention can be limited, and that states will have a chance to approve or reject whatever comes out of a convention.

Story Continues →


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2yzZuBttq
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Congress: Hands Off State Con-Con Rescissions

Why do you think it is called a CON CON

What's the Outcome Expected from an Article V Constitutional Convention?

Did you promote an Article V convention for your state? Were you sold on the safety of such a measure? Were you told that a balanced budget amendment was the focus of this effort?

It's time to look once again at the people and agendas behind this movement. As we have previously exposed, the various Article V movements work in coalition with each other. From the Convention of States to Occupy, they have been united via Lawrence Lessig's Call a Convention site. Note that the original coalition page, as well as an article by Michael Farris, defending his participation on it, have since been deleted or reworded. That alone should make you think twice about how honest this entire movement is.

The two favored by conservative backers, such as Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, are the Compact for America and the Convention of States. With their promotion of a balanced budget amendment (BBA), this sounds like an appealing option to many who have jumped on board. But is that really the end goal here? Even if it is for them, is that really the result they can assure you of?

Among the coalition of movements they are working with, a very different outcome is desired by some; the progressive's golden ring, "campaign finance reform". A balanced budget is definitely not high on their priority list.

Just last week, Lawrence Lessing, who heads the CallAConvention.org coalition, started a SuperPAC for campaign finance reform called Mayday. It should be no surprise that he chose May 1st, a significant day to many, as the launch date for this new effort.

"In the capitalist countries May Day will be as always a day of struggle for the immediate political demands of the working class, with the slogans of proletarian dictatorship and a Soviet Republic kept not far in the background."

Along with Lessig, we find Mark McKinnon on the Board of this May One effort. Yes, the same Mark McKinnon that advises the Compact for America "conservative" Article V effort.

Meanwhile, the far Left WolfPAC, a progressive member of the ConCon coalition, explains the Article V route to campaign finance reform on their site (emphasis mine):

Once an Article V. Convention has been called we will continue to put pressure on our Legislators to do exactly what they called the convention to do. There will be so much media attention at this point due to the historic nature of the event that no Legislator would dare propose an amendment that the vast majority of the country does not agree with. Once an Article V convention has proposed amendments, then they would have to be ratified by three-fourths of our state governments (I.e. 38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution. That is why we are confident that an amendment to deal with money in politics in the United States is the only possible amendment that could come from such a convention.

There are two very big problems with this scenario. First of all, many Americans have signed on to this effort, believing that a balanced budget amendment is the planned outcome, based on the "reassuring" essays by those promoting it, such as Michael Farris, Nick Dranias and Mark Meckler. However, the coalition website makes it clear that there are many ideas and possibilities for amendments floating around. The second problem is that, although everyone would like to see true reform that would make elections fair and equitable, the people who have pushed so hard for their brand of "campaign finance reform" are not likely to be the ones who are going to deliver anything fair or equitable. From Capital Research:

The Center for Competitive Politics describes such laws as "welfare for politicians." As for whether these welfare payments lead to sound policy, consider that Arizona—a red state that adopted this law in 1998—has one of the highest budget deficits in the country, according to the Center.

"Tax-financed campaigns are often lauded as ways to increase competition, promote candidate diversity, and reduce interest group influence," the Center's website observes. But "despite the continuous insistence by the 'reform' community that this system is beneficial, there really is no credible research to support these claims. In fact, it stands to reason that lawmakers would vote in favor of 'special interest' groups more when they participate in tax-financing programs. While at first this seems preposterous, there is a fairly simple reason this might occur. Rather than raising so many small donations to qualify for public funding on their own, candidates often rely on 'special interest' groups with ready-made donation lists and 'bundling' capabilities to provide the infrastructure necessary for this kind of fundraising. States already mired in debt need to focus on dealing with their budget woes [rather] than adding to them by subsidizing candidates for office."

According to Discover the Networks, "To qualify for public funding, a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives would have to collect, from donors in his or her state, a minimum of 1,500 small contributions with an aggregate value of at least $50,000. A U.S. Senate candidate, meanwhile, would be required to collect a base of 2,000 small donations, plus 500 additional contributions per each congressional district in his or her state. For example, a candidate running for the U.S. Senate in Maine, where there are two congressional districts, would require 3,000 qualifying contributions before receiving Fair Elections funding."

Public Campaign abhors big money from corporations or Tea Party groups, but it seems to have no problem with, say, the National Education Association blocking any meaningful education improvements and the environmental lobby inhibiting economic growth. In general, Public Campaign is not so different from other "good government" or "watchdog" groups in Washington, all of which have an agenda but insist they are nonpartisan. What's interesting about this group is that it detests the evils of money in politics—except for the big money that is underwriting the causes it supports.

PC is indeed an appropriate ally for the tiny group of big donors who have long sought to use campaign finance reform to stealthily achieve their own political agenda.

The Soros backed McCain-Feingold got them far along this road, so it is no wonder why progressives were devastated by its' overturning. From Discover the Networks:

But Soros' motive becomes clear when we look at the types of organizations whose fundraising activities were left unaffected by McCain-Feingold. These were "527 committees"―nonprofits named after Section 527 of the IRS code―which, unlike ordinary PACS, were not required to register with the FEC. Run mostly by special-interest groups, these 527s were technically supposed to be independent of, and unaffiliated with, any party or candidate. As such, they were permitted to raise soft money―in amounts unbound by any legal limits―for all manner of political activities other than express advocacy. That is, so long as a 527's soft money was not being used to pay for ads explicitly urging people to cast their ballots either for or against any particular candidate, the letter of the McCain-Feingold law technically was being followed. Practically speaking, of course, such things as "issue-oriented ads" and "voter-education" ads can easily be tailored to favor one party or candidate over another, while carefully steering clear of "express advocacy."

Once McCain-Feingold was in place, Soros and his political allies collaborated to set up a network of "527 committees" ready to receive the soft money that individual donors and big labor unions normally would have given directly to the Democratic Party. These 527s could then use that money to fund issue-oriented ads, voter-education initiatives, get-out-the-vote drives, and other "party-building" activities―not only to help elect Democratic candidates in 2004, but more broadly to guide the Democratic Party ever-further leftward and to reject the "closed" society that Bush and the Republicans presumably favored. By helping to push McCain-Feingold through Congress, Soros had effectively cut off the Democrats' soft-money supply and diverted it to the coffers of an alternative network of beneficiaries―which he personally controlled.10 That network of beneficiaries constituted the so-called "Shadow Party," which was dominated by Soros. As Byron York observed, "[T]he new campaign finance rules had actually increased the influence of big money in politics. By giving directly to 'independent' groups rather than to the party itself, big-ticket donors could influence campaign strategy and tactics more directly than they ever had previously.... And the power was concentrated in very few hands"―most notably Soros'.

At this point, it seems very naive to believe that an Article V convention will stick with the BBA that so many have been led to believe is the real goal and outcome to expect.
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/wh...kppFDOo3mpH.99

PSSSSSTT why do you think they call it Con Con!!!!

Con-Con Ploys



TheJohnBirchSociety

Published on Aug 8, 2014
The risks of holding a constitutional convention are immense! Do you trust any of today’s politicians to have a hand in rewriting the Constitution? Mr. Bradley discusses the latest ploys from conservative “allies” to bring on an Article V convention by exercising the nuclear option in Article V. (This video was recorded at the national Council Dinner of The John Birch Society, held in Jacksonville, Florida, May 3, 2014.)

Scott Bradley is Founder and Chairman, The Constitution Commemoration Foundation, Inc.

To learn more and then take action, go to http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/no-co...


Wake up America!!!!









Our Constitution is just fine it is our Government that is not fine!!!!