Bradley Smith, the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, writes a thoughtful essay on the value of anonymous political speech. In light of the Ref 71 petition signers case coming up for oral argument at the Supreme Court next month, Smith’s discussion couldn’t be any more timely concerning the dangers of “disclosure” laws. His key paragraph:

For 35 years, mandatory disclosure of political contributions has been the most popular part of the campaign-finance “reform” agenda. Yet the idea that Americans should report their political activity to the government is, in many ways, the most un-American part of that agenda. Excessive disclosure invades privacy to little benefit and provides government—and others—the information they need to retaliate against people holding unpopular or inconvenient views. Moreover, compulsory disclosure sends the message that identity, not ideas, matter. Call the result “ad hominem democracy,” an atmosphere in which serious, civil debate about issues seems ever harder to find.

The usual defense for disclosure laws is that they are needed to prevent corruption of the candidates and, hence, the process. But Smith points out that federal laws mandate disclosure of all donations over $200. And 40 states have a threshold of $100 or less. Can anyone seriously argue that you can buy a candidate for those amounts? And most of those states and federal government require the disclosure of the contributors’ occupations and employers. To what end?

Some of the stories of intimidation and retribution that Smith recounts in the name of “disclosure” are pretty eye-opening. It’s worth a read.

Signed,

Publius

More than 1 million students don’t finish high school each year—that’s nearly one in three, according to President Obama.

Hmm. How to fix this problem.

Hey …I have an idea. What about actually making the schools accountable to parents? How about letting parents use a portion of their tax dollars to choose the best school, public or private, in their area?

That puts the power in parents’ hands. It’s a market-driven way to spur reform —and best of all, there’s factual proof school choice works.

Oh wait—that idea’s already been axed by the Obama administration.

That’s the problem with big government. It always wants to keep the power in its hands. In fact, when it comes right down to it, it looks like this government would rather support firing teachers, than empowering parents.

This week President Obama and his education secretary, Arne Duncan, stirred the waters by praising a Rhode Island school board that fired all the staff—teachers, principals, counselors, everyone— in a small-town high school that was graduating less than half of its students. The board took this action after the teachers’ union blocked reform efforts minus significant extra pay.

In fact,  President Obama has made the Rhode Island school board the new poster child for his latest education initiative— $900 million worth of federal grants so states can “turnaround” their lowest performing schools. (This follows last year’s $3.5 billion allotment.)

“Turnaround” means they have choices ranging from converting the school to a charter, putting it under new management or, as is happening in Rhode Island, firing and replacing at least half of the staff.

While the effort to rescue kids trapped in failing schools—and buck unions entrenched in the status quo—is extremely heartening, at the same time, a top-down, government-directed strategy remains short-sighted.

Because it still makes the schools primarily accountable to big government—not parents, who are actually closest to the kids and the neighborhood schools they attend, and therefore have the best understanding of what’s really happening on the ground.

For instance, parents in Chicago—where Arne Duncan first tried out this “turnaround” strategy—have voiced concerns about whether their children actually end up in a better school after the original one is transformed or eliminated. They pointed to a study by the Consortium on Chicago School Research “showing that most students affected by closings were transferred into schools that also were academically weak,” reported a New York Times article.

Why not avoid these entanglements by just putting the power in the parents’ hands in the first place? After all, we know school choice works. But there’s scant evidence that turnarounds work.

And what was that again President Obama said about making “whether it works” the test for his policies?

If you haven’t turned on CSPAN, you need to.

The Democrats and Republicans are sitting at a table talking about the differences in their health care plans (and allegedly trying to come to some agreement).

I’m actually pretty glad that this is happening.  Why? Because even though they may not, at the end of the day, come to an agreement, this nationally televised health care summit is at least helping Americans understand, in pretty clear terms, what the Democrats want and what the Republicans want, why they disagree, and even where they do agree.  And that’s not something Americans always can understand easily when they’re bombarded with stock speeches and soundbites from floor speeches or in press conferences.   (And yes, this meeting of course contains some of that rhetoric).

For example, if you’ve been watching, you saw a disagreement between President Obama and Republican Senator Lamar Alexander over premium increases which lead to a great explanation of exactly why premiums would increase under the Obama plan.  And what’s even more interesting was that the president admitted that there was an honest disagreement over facts,  and that “by the end of the meeting” they would have those facts settled.

You can tune in to CSPAN to listen all day.

For years, there’s been a push among liberals for national standards. (Remember the failed attempt during the Clinton years?)

But thanks to this country’s long tradition of giving states and local communities primary control over what’s taught in our taxpayer-funded classrooms, those efforts have failed.

But now the “experts” in Washington, D.C., think they’ve found a way around that obstacle: The Obama administration and cronies have been loudly promoting “voluntary,” “common standards,” developed by a consortium of organizations (including those in the academic testing industry, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers).

So far 48 states have joined this effort, with Texas and Alaska being the only hold outs.

But there’s some dissension in the ranks lately—as states and  school boards discover they may have signed up for more than they bargained for. The first signs of that came when the Obama administration began citing the standards as a qualifier for Race to the Top money.

And many were taken aback earlier this month when “common standards” organizers revealed that “States that adopt the proposed common academic standards must use the document word for word,” reported Education Week.

In response to that surprise announcement, school board members in several states have voiced concerns about whether they could lose Race to the Top funds if they change their minds about swallowing the standards whole—and about the fact that they haven’t seen a final version of the standards.

One Montana board member (quoted in Education Week) repeated questions he’s been getting from concerned citizens in his state: “Where will we draw the line? First it’s standards, then curriculum, then textbooks.”

In Colorado, a state that recently revised standards, a board member expressed concern that they’re not “anxious to throw out our standards and start all over again…”

Just call it the first signs of buyers’ remorse.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to roll out plans that make this effort look less and less voluntary—including money budgeted for states to create “common assessments” (read tests) and yesterday’s announcement that Obama wants to require states to adopt “college and career-ready” standards in order to qualify for Title I funding for impoverished students.

Today, President Obama finally raised the veil on his much-awaited plans for revamping the nation’s signature education law (known as No Child Left Behind under President Bush).  

It’s the next step in what the Administration has been heavily promoting as the “common standards” for schools movement – a plan that dangles carrot money in front of states who agree to “voluntarily” abide by agreed-upon education standards. 

 But it looks like those carrots are transforming into sticks.

The centerpiece theme? Obama wants to “require all states to adopt and certify that they have college- and career-ready standards.” States that don’t meet that requirement wouldn’t qualify for federal funding for lower-income students (Title I).

So, who gets to decide the definition of “college- and career-ready standards”? Good question.

It seems the federal government would only certify state standards as acceptable if they 1) join the common standards movement (which some states have already discovered has more regulation than meets the eye) or 2) they are deemed certifiable  through a mysterious “process to be developed with universities,” according to a Washington Post article.)

What’s so sad about this, is that the more the federal government gets involved in policing education standards—the more parents will lose their ability to weigh in on what’s being taught in local schools.

Many conservatives expressed concerns when the Bush administration expanded the federal government’s role in public education through No Child Left Behind—but President Obama’s latest plans take federal intrusion a giant leap beyond that, opening the door toward unprecedented curriculum control and “assessment” testing.

(The White House press release calls “common standards” the “essential first step” and announces other funding roll outs designed to spur tie-ins like an “upgrade” in curriculum and “assessment” –read, tests–development.)

Right now, it’s easy to take for granted the fact that most parents can take a complaint about what’s in their child’s textbook to the local school board, or gather enough community signatures to gain a change in curriculum.

But if Washington succeeds with this latest power gab—your school board and your voice—won’t matter anymore. Because whoever sets the standards pulls the strings.

The Air Force Academy has come under fire in recent years for allegedly wearing Christianity on its sleeve, despite the fact that its world famous chapel holds weekly services for Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims.

The Academy’s brass have gone above and beyond the call of duty recently to undo any public misperceptions about the “free exercise of religion’ rights of its cadets, by creating a worship space on its property for “earth-centered religions,” i.e., Paganism, Druidism and Wicca. This circle of stones has recently become more publicly known because of a recent incident there. (See this article and accompanying photo)

A concerned Christian wrote to Focus recently about the accommodation by the Academy of these “earth-centered religions.” Pagans, Druids and Wiccans naturally set off all kinds of alarm bells in the theology of the average Christian, and our friend wondered what, if anything, could be done to stop it.

If the question behind the question is whether Paganism, et al, are “religions” duly protected under the First Amendment, the answer is “yes.” The Supreme Court and lower federal courts have looked favorably on a host of unconventional “religions” over the years, including, believe it or not, atheism and secular humanism. The Air Force has its own definition of religion which pretty much tracks with the wide range of those decisions:

“…a personal set or institutional system of attitudes, moral or ethical beliefs and practices held with the strength of traditional religious views, characterized by ardor or faith and generally evidenced through specific religious observances.”

While the faithfuls’ concern over false doctrines is legitimate, Christians ought never to fear our country’s accommodation of beliefs and philosophies that conflict with Christian biblical truth. The First Amendment protects all religious exercise, from the most popular to the least. In the marketplace of ideas, Christianity can more than hold its own. As Christians we can confidently encourage a robust public dialogue about faith, whether at the Air Force Academy, in our public parks, or even in our blogs.

Just so you know, the health care debate isn’t dead.  We still need you to make your voice heard on health care — even if you’ve already done so.

The President is holding a bipartisan meeting on Feb. 25th to try to hammer out a new version of the health care bill.   (Although it looks like he might have a bill crafted by the time the summit begins).

What that means is now is the time to remind your lawmakers where you stand on health care, particularly on the funding of abortions with federal dollars.  The Massachusetts election may have slowed down the Democrats from pushing their current health care version forward, but it hasn’t stopped them altogether.

So make sure your two U.S. senators and representative know that whatever bill they come up with, at a minimum, needs to keep your money from being used to pay for abortions.

Don’t know who your 2 U.S. senators and representative are? It’s easy to find them on our website by typing in you zip code here. You can even find the closest district office to you, in case you want to make an in-person visit!

George Weigel, a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., has an important column up today on the attempts by the Left both at home and abroad to define religious freedom down to merely the freedom to worship, as part of the Left’s battle to normalize homosexual behavior. His key conclusion:

Religious freedom, rightly understood, cannot be reduced to freedom of worship. Religious freedom includes the right to preach and evangelize, to make religiously informed moral arguments in the public square, and to conduct the affairs of one’s religious community without undue interference from the state. If religious freedom only involves the freedom to worship, then, as noted above, there is “religious freedom” in Saudi Arabia, where Bibles and evangelism are forbidden but expatriate Filipino laborers can attend Mass in the U.S. embassy compound in Riyadh.

Read the whole thing. The legislative and judicial efforts from the LGBT lobby in this country today usually come hand in hand with demands to exclude (and demonize if necessary) religious viewpoints as if those are not legitimately part of our constitutionally protected religious freedoms. Weigel’s column is a timely expose’ on the Left’s attempt to minimize those freedoms in order to accomplish a wider agenda.

At last! We’ve discovered the secret behind the vast conspiracy to keep facts out of schools about the Founding Fathers and their beliefs in the benefits of faith, freedom and free enterprise: We now have proof that students who lack knowledge about these basic facts are more likely to form left-wing viewpoints!    

 Just kidding. Well, sort of.

“College Makes Students More Liberal, but Not Smarter About Civics,” reports a headline in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The article cited results of a study released this Wednesday by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Among other things, the study explains that someone who graduates from college is more likely to “favor same-sex marriage and favor abortion on demand” than someone who shares similar background characteristics, but who doesn’t graduate from college.

However, gaining “civic knowledge—as opposed to merely graduating from college—increases a person’s beliefs in American ideas and free institutions.” Among other things, a person with greater civic knowledge is more likely to understand the benefits of “free enterprise” and the relevance of the Ten Commandments.

Interestingly—on the very same day of this report—data was also released from the Pew Research Center detailing information on the Millennial generation ( people born after 1980). “In their social and political views, young adults are clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life …” summarized the Pew report.  (Young adults are defined as ages 18-29).

They are also more  accepting of “bigger” government. And “less than half of adults under age 30 say that religion is very important in their lives.”  

These revelations should give us all pause—and make us consider the long-term cost of steeping an entire generation of students in the philosophy that they are nothing more than an accident of nature, that they have no higher destiny than to give into their most basic instincts and that there is nothing special about living in America, nothing costly about the freedom we enjoy.

When I heard that a Washington post poll found that 80% of Americans disagreed with the Citizens United ruling, my first reaction was: Okay, how did they word the poll question? Because there’s no way, to my way of thinking, that such a vast majority of Americans would approve of government censorship of speech simply because it was corporate speech.

You and I join groups that speak out on a variety of subjects because a collective voice is easier to make heard, and I’m guessing you wouldn’t want your group to be told to shut up at the very point in time when your issue is the most critical.

Because of consistent and terribly misleading polls from the mainstream media about Roe v. Wade and other social issues I’ve seen over the years, I have concluded that many of these poll questions on certain issues are either “push polls,” where the questions are designed to elicit a certain response, or the pollsters really don’t have a clue about what Supreme Court decisions actually say.

For example, the 80% “oppose” response in the WashPo poll was to this question:

Do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections?

If that’s really what the Citizens United decision said or meant, I might have joined the 80% also. But alas, the question is fatally misleading. I’ll let Newsbusters explain it in depth, if you’re interested. Short answer: corporations, which include grass-roots, issue-oriented corporations, and mom and pops, along with Exxon Mobil, can spend all they want on speech related to elections. But they still can’t donate to campaigns, which has been the law on the books since 1907.

If it was true, as WashPo impliedly suggested with its poll wording, that labor unions and gigantic corporations could send millions to the campaign coffers of their favorite candidate, I would join the 72% of respondents in the poll who wanted Congress to do something  to prevent such a horrible possibility.

But the only actual frightening possibility is that there will be a few more television and print ads I’ll have to ignore at election time.