Inspired by the Occupy movement, the Justice Party of California seeks to advance the lapsed ideals of justice and equity by means of authentic participatory democracy. Voters are encouraged to register without delay, and begin shaping the party’s future. In a recent phone interview, ballot access expert Richard Winger explained why the Justice Party of California is likely to prevail if, as expected, it sues for an extension on the deadline to attract the 103,000 members needed to qualify for the ballot. More news on the legal front is coming soon.
Former investigative journalist Viveca Novak, now the editorial and communications director at the Center for Responsive Politics, joined us yesterday. Her fascinating article about James Bopp, the controversial plaintiff’s attorney who originally filed the Citizens United lawsuit, depicts her subject as more committed to the First Amendment than to the Republican Party:
“Though he’s socially conservative and highly partisan, Bopp nonetheless is willing, whenever possible, to find common ground with liberals if it furthers his primary, driving goal: to make the words ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech’ an insurmountable barrier to regulating money in politics.”
I asked Novak if her organization takes any position on campaign finance, or if it maintains a neutral stance, and she said, “We think that donors should be disclosed.”
I’ve heard it argued that some donors would be more likely to give money to challengers if it could be done anonymously, because if the incumbent is reelected, legislative revenge would be a real possibility. Novak escaped before that logic could be explored. But she was a good guest, and I hope she comes back.
In this episode, I lay out my argument as to why the Citizens United case was decided correctly. (Click here to read an article I wrote in 2010 about how liberals overreacted to the decision.) Although preventing corruption is a legitimate governmental interest, restricting what people spend to express opinions cannot possibly level the playing field or anything like it. It is simply beyond the abilities of Congress, which is why there have never been any fair or effective prohibitions on independent expenditures. I also discuss fundraising considerations that Rocky Anderson and other candidates must face.
Ballot access expert Richard Winger explains why the Justice Party of California is likely to prevail if it sues for an extension on the deadline to obtain the required 103,000 registrants to get on the ballot.
Among those calling for the arrest of Lt. John Pike after he pepper-sprayed docile UC Davis students, are some who think a so-called citizen’s arrest is in order. So far as I can tell, it is indeed possible for a civilian to legitimately put the cuffs on a peace officer, but an amateur enforcer could be vulnerable to a false arrest lawsuit. Therefore, anyone who might apprehend him should not only be able to say exactly which crime Pike committed, but be certain the allegation is correct.
Is fighting economic injustice such a righteous pursuit that it entitles Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters and their disciples to indefinitely control whatever space they invade? Even though the whole movement is centered around the word “occupy,” deciding which property to take over, or how long to monopolize it, doesn’t seem to be based on any guiding principle. Occupiers need to clarify what, in their eyes, makes terrain seizable.
At a fundraising party for The Veterans Project last Saturday night in Los Angeles, three compelling speakers helped us connect somewhat different stories, all of which involve allegations that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) habitually deprives veterans of services to which they are entitled.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 by Jeff Norman
Comments