Patterico's Pontifications

3/2/2023

CPAC Carnival Comes To Town: Election Deniers! Populists! Failed MAGA Candidates!

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:58 am



[guest post by Dana]

The Republican conference known as Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) kicked off yesterday. The conference provides a platform for conservative luminaries, as well as announced and yet unannounced presidential candidates to speak to friendly audiences, schmooze, and convince voters that they should be taken seriously. This year’s lineup is unique for several reasons. It is a clear reminder that the Republican Party remains solidly in the grip of Donald Trump and the MAGA wing of the Party, and it’s notable for who will not be in attendance.

While Donald Trump is the headline speaker, Kari Lake, who legitimately lost her election in Arizona last year, will be the featured speaker at the high-profile Ronald Reagan Dinner. Just last month at Mar-a-Lago, Trump sang the failed candidate’s praises when he told an audience that: “[Lake] ran a great race in Arizona, she won, she won by a lot.” Along with Trump and Lake, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert are also slated to speak. But given that Trump is heading the show, it’s not surprising to see a roster of MAGA speakers. However, what is surprising is that Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has not yet officially announced a run for the presidency but has given every indication that he will, is not on the agenda. While it’s still early days, polling has consistently shown that if DeSantis was running, he would be Donald Trump’s strongest competitor. In some cases, he has had even better polling numbers than Trump. However, a new YouGov poll now gives Trump a solid lead over DeSantis:

A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll shows that after trailing for the last three months, former President Donald Trump has suddenly surged to a substantial lead over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in a two-man matchup for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

President Donald Trump has suddenly surged to a substantial lead over Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in a two-man matchup for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

Previously, DeSantis led Trump 45% to 41% among Republican voters. Now Trump leads DeSantis 47% to 39% — a net swing of 12 percentage points in Trump’s direction since early February.

Clearly, DeSantis isn’t skipping the popular confab for um, scheduling conflicts. I think it’s more than that. Schedules can be rearranged. I also don’t think it’s because of an unfavorable poll. So, what does he have to lose by attending? Well, it could be that he doesn’t want to risk losing a popularity contest with Trump before he has announced his candidacy. Let’s face it, the optics of DeSantis not besting Trump in the traditional CPAC straw poll certainly wouldn’t help his cause:

Rather than going to CPAC — which is a completely pro-Donald Trump crowd and having a number at the end that weekend where he’s made an appearance, and then there’s a straw poll and Trump wins the straw poll — rather than that, what’s he doing? He’s going to Dallas and Houston, Texas, and Orange County, California and speaking to the Republican county committees,” Karl Rove said.

“They’re big galas in each one of those places, making a lot of friends and avoiding what is going to be a sure story at the end of it. ‘Oh, well, he came here and he obviously didn’t make a big impact, because Trump still took the CPAC straw poll,’ which is completely meaningless but nonetheless would be the story coming out of the weekend.”

Along with the popular DeSantis being a CPAC no-show, Mike Pence, Tim Scott, Glenn Youngkin and Kristi Noem will also not be attending the event:

The Club for Growth…is holding a closed-door retreat for donors who will hear from a number of Republican presidential possibilities.

Pence is expected to be there, according to a Club For Growth schedule, as is Haley. Other possible presidential candidates attending the retreat include Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, Rick Scott, Chris Sununu, and Vivek Ramaswamy. (Cruz, Ramaswamy and Rick Scott also are scheduled to speak at CPAC.)

Another reason that some Republican luminaries may be avoiding the CPAC confab is that they don’t want to be associated with Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union which sponsors CPAC, and currently faces accusations of sexual misconduct.

But as far as Trump is concerned, he claims that the no-shows simply have nothing new to offer voters:

“The only reason certain ‘candidates’ won’t be going to CPAC is that the crowds have no interest in anything they have to say,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Thursday. “They’ve heard it all before, and don’t want to hear it again. But my speech, on Saturday night, is already a sold out ‘monster.’” Trump told attendees that his headline speech is going to be “about the fact that, obviously, our Country is going to ‘HELL,’ and how to fix it.”

On Truth Social, Trump provided a preview of his Saturday night speech. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like we’ve heard it all before. Many times over, in fact:

Trump will be “talking about the fact that, obviously, our Country is going to ‘HELL,’ and how to fix it.”

“Also, the Democrats use of Radical Left Prosecutors and the WEAPONIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. It is illegal, has never been used and abused like this, and has the potential to bring down our once fair and wonderful Country. These Marxist Thugs have been after me for years, only to help them win elections. In just Two Years, we have become a Third World Failing Nation.”

Should be a heckuva night.

–Dana

76 Responses to “CPAC Carnival Comes To Town: Election Deniers! Populists! Failed MAGA Candidates!”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (1225fc)

  2. It’s just a nightmare.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  3. It’s like a Greek myth courtesy of nk: the Right is becoming what they hate about the Left.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  4. Correct, Simon Jester. Trump aside, the fact that Kari Lake was given the prime Ronald Reagan Dinner headliner is the clearest evidence of the significant and continuing decline of the Republican Party. It’s incomprehensible to me that such a once-viable party continues to embrace and showcase election deniers and ardent populists at a landmark conservative conference.

    Dana (1225fc)

  5. I think it is fairer to say that this shows the decline of the conservative movement, as it’s libertarian component — which Reagan championed — has been utterly suppressed and been replaced by the racist, sexist, religiosity faction of the Old South. With a bit of crazy tossed in.

    The GOP is just their platform. These same people would have been Democrats in 1950.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  6. The Ronald Reagan Dinner thing is just ironic. The Reagan family should sue for trademark infringement.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  7. Along with Trump and Lake, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert are also slated to speak.

    Ave atque vale, Nikki.

    nk (bb1548)

  8. Reagan spoke at the very first CPAC, I’m told.
    Ack.

    For a conference that’s actually for conservatives instead of posers and grovelers and exploiters, Principles First is raring to go.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  9. Dana (1225fc) — 3/2/2023 @ 10:16 am

    there’s nothing stopping nevertrump from launching their own conference

    other than no one would buy tickets

    maybe rather than mope and complain that CPAC can attract an audience and your side can’t, and pretend to be above it all, why not figure out why that is without the reflexive put downs

    attracting voters means actually appealing to them in some way, and maybe your side is just too smart to figure out how to do that

    JF (db3f67)

  10. Ave atque vale, Nikki.

    That’s a bit harsh. You can’t win the nomination by dissing the MAGA folks entirely, and she’s risking videos of being booed by drunk misogynist racists in the crowd.

    Let’s see what she says. If she goes on about the stolen election, sure, it’s over. But she won’t. Instead she’ll talk up the points where they agree and not so much the other ones. She doesn’t have to win them over, but she has to be “acceptable” in the Trumpless world that’s coming.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  11. @4. ‘It’s incomprehensible to me that such a once-viable party continues to embrace and showcase election deniers and ardent populists at a landmark conservative conference.’

    How the 1964 Republican Convention Sparked a Revolution From the Right

    At the ugliest of Republican conventions since 1912, entrenched moderates faced off against conservative insurgents

    “What in God’s name has happened to the Republican Party!” muttered Henry Cabot Lodge —the party’s 1960 vice presidential nominee—as he paged through the delegate list in his hotel room. “I hardly know any of these people!”

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1964-republican-convention-revolution-from-the-right-915921/

    DCSCA (aafe62)

  12. I agree with Kevin and add that CPAC is the future of the GOP. I don’t really see much political alignment with it’s members and mission.

    Their beliefs and goals are fundamentally different from mine. They’re like the Green Party or the American Socialist party. There’s just not enough common ground to build a coalition on.

    Time123 (938b5b)

  13. Desatan feel victim to lincoln’s old adage “You can only fool some of the people all of the time!” People are starting to see what an evil opportunist who hurts people for political gain.

    asset (5ef9f3)

  14. CPAC is the future of the GOP

    It’s the future of the conservative movement, but the GOP has not generally been a conservative party. Right-of-center is a big tent.

    Remember that after Goldwater came Nixon, who did not govern as a conservative. Past performance does not imply future results.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  15. “other than no one would buy tickets”

    Lose a few more elections and we will see. The GOP has election denialism as its 800-pound anchor. Throw in Trump’s sporadic discomfort with the Constitution, his irritable ruminations about a free press, his bizarre affinity for authoritarians, and his laissez faire attitude about violent protests at the Capitol…and the GOP will continue to hemorrhage suburban moms and moderates who want to work on the nation’s problems.

    CPAC is hardly the prime indicator of the health of the party. It’s interesting that ticket sales for the event are actually down. It’s also interesting that DeSantis is NOT attending, having some local events that he is prioritizing over Lollapa-losers. Why lose a meaningless straw poll of the crazies? Can’t blame him. Haley is desperate for buzz, so she will join Pompeo trying to establish credibility with the MAGA crowd. Should normal Republicans have their own conference? In the current environment, there’s probably not enough oxygen. The GOP hasn’t quite lost enough for see-I-told-you-so to resonate yet. The driving anthem right now is that we actually won in 2020…heck, we won big…Kari Lake will sing forth that message…and everything else is RINO never-Trump sell-outism. The GOP car is in the ditch, but the wheels keep spinning. It’s just taking time for some to realize that we’re hopelessly stuck and need a new driver. It’s coming.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  16. In my experience, staying drunk is easier than getting sober.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  17. 13. Re: fooling people

    I saw in a book once that was in one of the Lincoln Douglas debates in 1858.

    We have online

    https://freakonomics.com/2009/07/quotes-uncovered-fools-and-theory

    “You can fool all of the people some of time; you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

    Attributed to Abraham Lincoln in The New York Times, August 27, 1887.

    According to The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P. Basler, “Tradition has come to attribute to the Clinton [Illinois] speeches [September 2, 1858] this “most famous” of Lincoln’s utterances. Basler indicates, however, that there is no evidence of this saying in Lincoln documents. P.T. Barnum has also been a putative source for the quotation.

    In documents!? It was in a newspaper! Or supposed to be.

    https://abrahamlincolnassociation.org/you-can-fool-all-of-the-people-lincoln-never-said-that

    Undoubtedly the most famous utterance ever attributed to Lincoln is, “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Early recollections place the saying in an 1858 speech Lincoln delivered in Clinton, Illinois. The first appeared in 1904 by E. E. Pierson, who remembered Lewis Campbell, a respected citizen of DeWitt County, telling him of the 1858 speeches that Lincoln and Douglas delivered in Clinton. According to Campbell, Lincoln said, “Judge Douglas cannot fool the people: you may fool people for a time; you can fool a part of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

    I think the book I saw it in might have been published a little bit before 1904.

    By Ida Tarbell I think.

    https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Abraham_Lincoln_Quarterly/OWzKMIDTTp8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22fool+some+of+the+people%22++lincoln+tarbell&dq=%22fool+some+of+the+people%22++lincoln+tarbell&printsec=frontcover

    From the Google search page:

    The Abraham Lincoln Quarterly – Volumes 3-4 – Page 323

    books.google.com › books

    1944 · ‎Snippet view

    FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 323

    Miss Ida M. Tarbell some years since reconstructed this speech with considerable accuracy , and it was published , I believe … you can fool some of the people all the time , but you can’t fool all the people all the time .

    And in the Congressional Record sometime in 1953: PAGE A-619

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  18. Along with Trump and Lake, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert are also slated to speak.

    I noticed Darling Nikki has joined the MAGA crowd. So much for being a “Never-Trumper” (which she never was).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  19. So much for being a “Never-Trumper” (which she never was).

    Who said she was? You have valiantly slain the strawman!

    A never trumper cannot win the nomination.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  20. I wonder how many Trump followers think that Trump’s second term will feature treason trials for election officials for stealing the 2020 election.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  21. Along with Trump and Lake, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert are also slated to speak.

    Four empty skirts and four empty suits. That’s diversity!

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  22. I wonder how many Trump followers think that Trump’s second term will feature treason trials for election officials for stealing the 2020 election.
    Kevin M (1ea396) — 3/2/2023 @ 3:23 pm

    hmm, let’s see…. last time Trump threatened to put HRC in jail, but pulled back on that to strike a conciliatory tone, then was rewarded with four years of attempts to put him in jail

    I think it would go like that

    JF (db3f67)

  23. More Trump! Yeah, that’s the ticket!

    His movement was so successful in the election just a few months ago! It was TREMENDOUS!

    Full steam ahead!

    norcal (7345e5)

  24. “You can fool some of the people some of the time — and that’s enough to make a decent living.” ― W.C. Fields

    Should be the motto of the critters in Congress (and State Legislatures, city halls, …)

    Horatio (b30604)

  25. OT:

    Alex Murdaugh found guilty of murdering his wife and son. Jury deliberated less than 3 hours.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  26. #15 A_J_Liberty said: “[Trump’s] bizarre affinity for authoritarians”. I think you are right about that, and would take it one step further. Trump admires power — especially if it is inherited. That explains his attraction to North Korea’s Kim, and to Saudia Arabia’s MBS. His first trip overseas was to Saudi Arabia.

    In contrast, Obama is attracted to authoritarians who gained their power through a leftist party, or a revolution. He was, as you probably know, the first Ameican president in some time to visit Cuba. And George W. Bush is attracted to people who won power through free elections. Remember how friendly he was with Tony Blair?

    Jim Miller (f29931)

  27. there’s nothing stopping nevertrump from launching their own conference

    other than no one would buy tickets

    maybe rather than mope and complain that CPAC can attract an audience and your side can’t, and pretend to be above it all, why not figure out why that is without the reflexive put downs

    attracting voters means actually appealing to them in some way, and maybe your side is just too smart to figure out how to do that

    It’s interesting to me that, despite MAGA owning CPAC, you still seem resentful and bitter. Reflexively so. Perhaps figuring out why that is, without the reflexive put-downs, would be a therapeutic exercise.

    While I agree that attracting voters to the party means appealing to them in some way, the cheap rides being offered by the CPAC carnival just aren’t that appealing to me. YMMV.

    (And that’s how we play passive-aggressive pattycake!)

    Dana (1225fc)

  28. Where’s my Leni Riefenstahl?

    nk (bb1548)

  29. “[Trump’s] bizarre affinity for authoritarians”. I think you are right about that, and would take it one step further. Trump admires power — especially if it is inherited. That explains his attraction to North Korea’s Kim, and to Saudia Arabia’s MBS.

    I also think he just admires strongmen, and somehow envisions himself as one. As if that’s a good thing.
    This (and other things) is why I’m glad that Trump was not the president when the invasion took place. I shudder to think what his view of Putin would be, and how he would try to appease him. I’m thinking he would be like Marge and refer to what’s happening as “the war against Russia in Ukraine.” A disgusting remark by a sitting member of Congress. For all of Biden’s faults, and there are many, he has been, at least in this, resolute in his support of Ukraine, and understands the threat that an unleashed Russia presents and the havoc wreaked if allowed.

    Dana (1225fc)

  30. Dana (1225fc) — 3/2/2023 @ 4:54 pm

    😊

    https://thegreatsarcasmo.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/never-give-a-sucker-an-even-break-w-c-fields/

    There’s an old saying, “There’s a sucker born every minute”. It’s attributed to P.T. Barnum, the man behind The Barnum & Bailey Circus but it was actually a quote from a banker, David Hannum, that was suing Barnum back in 1868 and who was making fun of the people who attended Barnum’s freak shows.

    Why yes, Trump can sell tickets to his freak shows. That’s nothing to brag about, and it’s not a reason for other candidates to start pandering to suckers.

    norcal (7345e5)

  31. A never trumper cannot win the nomination.

    And we’re back to whether a Republican candidate has an obligation to voters to publicly disavow Trump’s efforts to overthrow a legitimate election and fomenting the events of Jan. 6.

    Dana (1225fc)

  32. Oh, I dunno, norcal. We don’t want egg on our faces if MTG and Boebert headline the half-time show at next year’s Super Bowl, you know.

    nk (bb1548)

  33. Dana (1225fc) — 3/2/2023 @ 5:05 pm

    The devil will be in the details. If they say the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, they lose my vote.

    If they dance around the issue, and say there were some “concerns” or “irregularities”, then I’ll see what else they say and do before dismissing them.

    Dancing is what politicians do. No candidate gets elected telling voters the full and complete truth. Nobody. Left or right.

    norcal (7345e5)

  34. We don’t want egg on our faces if MTG and Boebert headline the half-time show at next year’s Super Bowl, you know.

    nk (bb1548) — 3/2/2023 @ 5:26 pm

    I’m sure Trump would say it was the BEST halftime show ever!

    norcal (7345e5)

  35. If they dance around the issue, and say there were some “concerns” or “irregularities”, then I’ll see what else they say and do before dismissing them.

    I’ll need to think about this.

    Dana (1225fc)

  36. If they want my vote, they will have to say: “We are the world’s oldest existing democracy and we know how to run our elections. The 2020 Presidential Election was legitimate and Joe Biden is the lawful President of the United States.”

    “Trump is a whiny loser with an unresolved Oedipus complex” optional.

    nk (bb1548)

  37. R.I.P. Wayne Shorter, jazz saxophonist extrordinaire

    Icy (41658a)

  38. Along with Trump and Lake, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert are also slated to speak.

    I noticed Darling Nikki has joined the MAGA crowd. So much for being a “Never-Trumper” (which she never was).

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 3/2/2023 @ 2:47 pm

    You’re known by the company you keep.

    Rip Murdock (24fce2)

  39. I took back the ave atque vale to myself when I read the post more carefully. They don’t all have to be at CPAC “together” when they’re there together.

    nk (bb1548)

  40. Patterico get ready to register with the state of floriduh if ron desatan’s name gets mentioned on the blog! any mention of his running dogs too!

    asset (6e8896)

  41. it’s not a reason for other candidates to start pandering to suckers.

    Why not? Stupid people have a majority of the votes.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  42. Nikki could cure cancer and Rip would be lamenting all the oncologists put out of work.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  43. I took back the ave atque vale to myself

    I have to admit an et tu crossed my lips.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  44. it’s not a reason for other candidates to start pandering to suckers.

    Why not? Stupid people have a majority of the votes.

    Kevin M (1ea396) — 3/2/2023 @ 10:16 pm

    It leads to things like January 6th.

    Yes, the voters are stupid, but politicians should try to enlighten and elevate them, not play to their basest instincts.

    norcal (7345e5)

  45. Ignorance can be treated. Stupidity is permanent.

    Not to say that all Trump voters are stupid (nor that none of Biden’s are), but Trump has a 3rd-grade vocabulary speaking pattern that indicates he’s wants to be, um, inclusive when he speaks to the masses.

    The Kingfisher would recognize Trump’s methods.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  46. @32 Dana, I’m willing to cut a GOP candidate some slack on this. They need to find a way to avoid telling the sedition wing of the GOP that the dress makes them look fat without causing offense. I get that and can stomach it. But that’s a different thing then telling the sedition wing that they agree with them in a way that doesn’t freak out normal ppl.

    I’d prefer a candidate that clearly called it what it is and stood up for the US constitution but ppl who do that aren’t welcome in the GOP anymore. There are too many shared policy preferences with the generic GOP for me to entirely give up on the party.

    The Dems are willing to clearly call out what happened, but I suspect that would drop to a similar level as the GOP if the political impacts were reversed.

    There is a compelling case to be made for wanting the GOP to lose until it’s crystal clear that trying to steal a presidential elections based on lies is completely unacceptable

    Time123 (233b5e)

  47. I love that Florida representatives are proposing a law compelling bloggers to register with the government if they are going to speak out critically about Florida government leadership. Hello first amendment? I think we’re seeing the general Orbanification of the GOP. Well, I guess this is the “fighting” that many here have been banging the table for….Constitution be damned! Storm the Capitol? No penalty…..and cheap threats by MTG that it will be done better next time. Great.

    On one hand, I’m happy that the loons will be on full display at CPAC. And as dramatic and entertaining as they think they are, normal Americans will watch the clips and understand that it’s still not safe to give them the reins. We can’t trust our national security, our international trade, and our internal stability to people who seem to only understand how to tear things apart and pi$$ on it…as if their impatience and frustration with institutional safeguards justifies it all.

    On the other hand, wouldn’t it be nice to see normal Republicans inspiring the nation and talking to the entire nation rather than the expected horde of stumbling zombies looking to devour liberal brain…if of course they actually thought liberals had brains. It’s just sad that the party continues to be dominated by silliness. Again, Trump should be persona non grata. Until that happens, the tent keeps shrinking.

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  48. Like I mentioned upthread, there is a conservative organization hosting a conference that is worth attending and is not chock full o’ nuts, happening right at the same time as CPAC.

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  49. We can’t trust our national security, our international trade, and our internal stability to people who seem to only understand how to tear things apart and pi$$ on it…as if their impatience and frustration with institutional safeguards justifies it all.

    That’s it!

    And I would add, not for another generation. I don’t trust this current crop not to switch to sheep’s clothing while remaining ravening wolves.

    nk (bb1548)

  50. Nikki could cure cancer and Rip would be lamenting all the oncologists put out of work.

    Kevin M (1ea396) — 3/2/2023 @ 10:17 pm

    Something I will never have to fear. Nikki could cure cancer and lament the unemployed oncologists at the same time, with the result of nothing getting done.

    Rip Murdock (24fce2)

  51. I love that Florida representatives are proposing a law compelling bloggers to register with the government if they are going to speak out critically about Florida government leadership. Hello first amendment?
    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3) — 3/3/2023 @ 6:03 am

    I’m against the law, but much like MTG and Biden Fentanyl I don’t see the reason to misstate the facts when being aligned with the facts should suffice.

    The law applies to bloggers who are compensated for the post, and how many bloggers does that apply to? And, lobbyists must register, which never seemed to be a 1A concern. (Why isn’t it?) It may be fair to say that bloggers who get compensated for posting about legislation are more of a 1A gray area.

    But, Biden Fentanyl, Orban, etc….

    JF (4c6095)

  52. The law applies to bloggers who are compensated for the post…

    Journalists are also compensated. Why aren’t they required to register under this bill? Why do bloggers have a lower level of First Amendment rights than paid reporters?

    Paul Montagu (8f0dc7)

  53. And, lobbyists must register, which never seemed to be a 1A concern.

    They’re like lawyers.

    nk (bb1548)

  54. The way the FL law is written any income from your blog, no matter how small, would require registration.

    Time123 (5e7e17)

  55. Lobbyist registration was upheld by the Supreme Court in US v. Harriss (1954), where

    the Supreme Court found constitutional the Federal Lobbying Act of 1946, the purpose of the which was to enable Congress to know “who is being hired, who is putting up the money, and how much.”

    The Supreme Court based its decision on an interpretation of the act that made it applicable only to individuals who solicited, collected, or received contributions for the purpose of influencing congressional legislation through direct contact with its members.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  56. Paul Montagu (8f0dc7) — 3/3/2023 @ 8:11 am

    I agree.

    The Local Journalism Sustainability Act, pushed by Biden and Democrats, would compensate newspapers but not bloggers.

    It hasn’t passed yet, but will be continually pushed along with other sketchy proposals, and I look forward to you and others here commenting against them all.

    JF (4c6095)

  57. The proposed Florida law is clearly unconstitutional. Bloggers, whether compensated or not, have a First Amendment right to write whatever they want. Under the proposed law, if a blogger writes “an article, a story, or a series of stories,” that is critical of “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature,” and receives or will receive payment for doing so, must register with state offices within five days after the publication of an article that mentions an elected state official. Other media are not required to register with the state.

    This bill is part and parcel with Ron DeSantis’s attack on the First Amendment. Like Trump, he wants to make it easier to sue media companies for libel, essentially overturning New York Times v. Sullivan.

    …….(A) DeSantis loyalist in the Florida legislature, Alex Andrade, introduced a bill to undermine decades of free speech-protecting defamation law last week (directly in response to DeSantis’ requests for such a bill). Apparently, someone pulled him aside and told him his initial bill wasn’t censorial enough, as he withdrew it the next day and introduced an even dumber, more censorial bill, HB 991.

    This bill is a full frontal attack on the 1st Amendment. It specifically calls out “professional journalists” and “media entities” saying that they no longer get journalist’s privilege (which is what protects journalists from having to reveal their sources — so basically an attack on whistleblowers who go to the press), it has a sort of reverse anti-SLAPP in that plaintiffs can recover attorney’s fees from defendants, limits who can be considered a public figure (which would take them away from the Sullivan standard, towards a much lower standard), and then has some confused nonsense about “defamation per se” complete with statutory damages. It also includes an out-and-out attack on the 1st Amendment’s protection of anonymous speech by saying that anything from an anonymous source “is presumptively false.” And, finally, it simply tries to say that NY Times v. Sullivan no longer applies to public figures, in that they do “not need to show actual malice to prevail in defamation” claims.

    Much of this is… pretty blatantly unconstitutional. It literally is the state of Florida saying that the 1st Amendment standards set out by the Supreme Court shouldn’t apply in Florida. ……….

    Source

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  58. I’d prefer a candidate that clearly called it what it is and stood up for the US constitution but ppl who do that aren’t welcome in the GOP anymore.

    I would, instead, demand that the candidate themselves be one who would preserve, protect and defend the constitution. While their attitude towards Trump is indicative, it’s not the whole story. There is a HUGE range between Ted Cruz and Liz Cheney.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  59. And as dramatic and entertaining as they think they are, normal Americans will watch the clips and understand that it’s still not safe to give them the reins

    I suspect that CPAC will get a LOT more attention that their mirror image gathering of Leftist crazies.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  60. This bill is part and parcel with Ron DeSantis’s attack on the First Amendment. Like Trump, he wants to make it easier to sue media companies for libel, essentially overturning New York Times v. Sullivan.

    nice begging the question fallacy there, Rip

    overturning NYT v Sullivan is an attack on the constitution like overturning Roe V Wade was

    JF (4c6095)

  61. there is a conservative organization hosting a conference that is worth attending and is not chock full o’ nuts

    A room full of urbane folks in bowties and spats, discussing the proper rules for knife fights.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  62. Like Section 230, NYT v. Sullivan protects both conservative and liberal media. So if you want to see people like Hillary Clinton and AOC suing conservative media outlets (from networks to blogs) for what they say about them into bankruptcy, be my guest.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  63. And, lobbyists must register, which never seemed to be a 1A concern.

    I’m a little more concerned about the law disallowing ANY political contribution from individuals with a federal government contract.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  64. JF (4c6095) — 3/3/2023 @ 9:14 am

    Nice whatabout, what with the bogus equivalency between state officials requiring bloggers to register versus a dead bill where journalists request subsidies.

    Paul Montagu (1888f5)

  65. I’m a little more concerned about the law disallowing ANY political contribution from individuals with a federal government contract.

    Kevin M (1ea396) — 3/3/2023 @ 9:39 am

    The ban on political contributions does not cover state or local elections.

    In addition:

    The spouses of individuals and sole proprietors who are federal government contractors and employees of federal government contractors, however, may make contributions from personal funds.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  66. It specifically calls out “professional journalists” and “media entities” saying that they no longer get journalist’s privilege (which is what protects journalists from having to reveal their sources — so basically an attack on whistleblowers who go to the press)

    There is no first amendment privilege to protect sources. Many states enact “shield” laws, but repealing such a law is not a constitutional issue. I don’t believe that there is a federal shield law.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  67. The spouses of individuals and sole proprietors who are federal government contractors and employees of federal government contractors, however, may make contributions from personal funds

    Are federal employees barred from making such contributions? Pretty sure not. This impacts a enumerated constitutional right and I don’t see it passing any high level of scrutiny. Perhaps you could point out a case on point.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  68. A room full of urbane folks in bowties and spats, discussing the proper rules for knife fights.

    Wow, Kevin. I guess I missed Principle #16, the one that said they would just roll over.

    Paul Montagu (1888f5)

  69. There have been cases lately when news media attempted to use Sullivan to defend libel charges involving people who were only public figures due to the libelous news coverage. Not sure what the disposition of those were, but “public figure” definitions may need some tightening.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  70. Paul Montagu (1888f5) — 3/3/2023 @ 9:44 am

    ah, I guess I made the mistake of attacking Democrats

    and neither are law, but if you read the link there are already Democrat laws in place (like in CA) which subsidize Democrat friendly journos

    JF (4c6095)

  71. ah, I guess I made the mistake of attacking Democrats

    No, your mistake is just what I said, JF, making bogus equivalencies for partisan political purposes.

    Paul Montagu (1888f5)

  72. Are federal employees barred from making such contributions? Pretty sure not. This impacts a enumerated constitutional right and I don’t see it passing any high level of scrutiny.

    There is no enumerated right to contribute to a campaign, the proof being that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld limits and bans on campaign contributions.

    The Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo held that contribution limits are subject to a more lenient standard of review than expenditure limits because they impose only a marginal restriction on speech and will be upheld if the government can demonstrate that they are a closely drawn means of achieving a sufficiently important governmental interest. (“The contribution provisions, along with those covering disclosure, are appropriate legislative weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions, and the ceilings imposed accordingly serve the basic governmental interest
    in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion.”
    ) Unlike expenditure limits, which reduce the amount of expression, the Court opined that contribution limits involve little direct restraint on the speech of a contributor. While acknowledging that a contribution limit restricts an aspect of a contributor’s freedom of association by affecting a contributor’s ability to support a candidate, the Court determined that a contribution limit still permits symbolic expressions of support and does not infringe on a contributor’s freedom to speak about candidates and issues.

    Under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has evaluated the constitutionality of specific types of contribution limits. In Buckley, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA)4 base limits, which cap the amounts of money an individual can contribute to a candidate, party, or political committee. In assessing whether a contribution limit is closely drawn, the Court determined it necessary to examine whether the limit is so low that it significantly impedes a candidate from raising the necessary funds for effective advocacy.
    ………

    Footnotes omitted.

    On July 7, 2015, an en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the ban on federal contractors in Wagner, et al. v. FEC.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  73. Link to quoted paragraphs.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  74. This is not a “contribution limit” but a Contribution BAN, and as such is not “marginal” in any sense of the word.

    will be upheld if the government can demonstrate that they are a closely drawn means of achieving a sufficiently important governmental interest.

    What purpose can be shown by banning a $50 contribution by anyone, to anyone? And again, please differentiate federal workers from individual federal contractors.

    Kevin M (1ea396)

  75. Thank you for the link to the sack of sh1t Wagner ruling.

    Kevin M (1ea396)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1689 secs.