Daily Caller: Gohmert: Lois Lerner Will Miss Eric Holder
By Patrick Howley
“Additionally, he has prosecuted more people for leaking, which sometimes is an effort at whistle blowing, than all other attorneys general added together,” Gohmert said. “He has not only failed to investigate crimes and potential crimes occurring in this administration, he has been the cover-upper-in-chief and will be sorely missed by those in the administration like Lois Lerner who want to disobey the law and flaunt it. It is my sincere hope that the Obama administration will appoint an attorney general who is reputable and truly desiring to uphold law and order for all Americans– not just cater to this administration’s whims and ideology.”
The Hill: Gohmert: Holder was ‘cover-upper-in-chief’
By Mario Trujillo
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) on Thursday said Attorney General Eric Holder will be sorely missed by administration officials who flaunt and disobey the law, calling him the “Cover-Upper-in-Chief.”
Gohmert called the departing attorney general the “most partisan, partial, prejudiced and self-pitying Attorney General in my lifetime, including John Mitchell who went to jail for his crime.”
Denver Post: Ken Buck: Democrats chill free speech by halting Citizens United film
By Ken Buck
The Colorado Democratic Party has struck another blow against the First Amendment by attempting to silence a documentary film that discusses the current political and policy atmosphere in Colorado.
The film intended to inform Coloradans before the election, and partisan politics prevailed over the public’s right to know the truth.
American Thinker: Court rules Walker witch hunt can resume
By Rick Moran
A federal court in Chicago ruled that the investigation of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s office and two dozen conservative groups can continue.
The court lifted an injunction by a federal judge who ruled that the Democratic prosecutor did “not show probable cause that the moving parties committed any violations of the campaign finance laws.”
ELB: Nudging in the Right Direction: A Response to Bob Bauer
By Heather Gerken, Wade Gibson, and Webb Lyons
Bauer worries that that the government may be “effectively weighing in on the credibility of a political message.” He asks whether there is “a material difference between the government mandating disclosure of facts, and the government inviting inferences in the absence of facts, in the First Amendment realm—particularly where the government is doing indirectly what it could, if it chose to do so, accomplish more directly by legislative mandate?”
We take Bauer’s concerns seriously and agree with him that it’s not enough for a state-mandated disclosure to be truthful for it to withstand scrutiny. There’s a great example from a voting-rights case decided during the 1960s. The Court invalidated a Louisiana law requiring that the photos of candidates appear on the ballot, recognizing it as a patent effort to invite voters to discriminate on the basis of race. We’re especially grateful that Bauer has pushed on this point rather than let us simply invoke truth as a constitutional shield. His prodding has made us think harder and frame our constitutional argument more precisely.
Candidates, Politicians, Campaigns, and Parties
National Journal: Why Won’t Democrats Talk About Obama’s Fundraising? The president and his party are less than transparent about campaign cash.
By JAMES OLIPHANT
But in today’s political environment, any factoid can be weaponized. Disclosing just how much the DSCC, for example, has relied on the president might clash with the efforts of endangered senators such as Mark Pryor of Arkansas to keep a healthy distance from Obama and Washington. Indeed, when asked about the issue, National Republican Senatorial Committee press secretary Brook Hougesen said, “Democrats like Mark Pryor, Kay Hagan, Mark Begich, and Mark Udall poke President Obama with one hand and collect Obama’s liberal political cash and resources with the other; a brazen display of hypocrisy if there ever was one.”
Wall Street Journal: Stingy Republican Lawmakers
By Allysia Finley
Senators aren’t required to tithe a share of their campaign funds to the NRSC, which is operating at a $30 million fundraising disadvantage compared to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Yet this financial disparity is a big reason why Democrats are slightly favored to win in states like Colorado and are competitive in others like Kentucky. A spokesperson for the Senator says he “has always actively supported the NRSC’s efforts to raise funds in order to help Republicans win back the Senate, and he will continue to do so.”
Utah –– Salt Lake Tribune: Utah third parties to file FEC complaints over debate exclusions
By Matt Canham
Third-party candidates upset at being left out of televised debates announced their intention Wednesday to file formal complaints with the Federal Election Commission and county district attorneys, among other officials.
The Utah Debate Commission held its first event Tuesday, pitting Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, against Democrat Donna McAleer. No third-party candidates were on the stage; they instead protested outside. And no third-party candidate will participate in the next debate, on Thursday at Southern Utah University, where Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, will face Democrat Luz Robles.