Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
3 Reasons Not To Sweat The "Citizens United" SCOTUS Ruling
No recent Supreme Court ruling have evoked more liberal fury than Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a campaign-finance case involving government censorship of a political documentary
The people of Wyoming are banding together to prevent the federal government's attempted takeover of healthcare in the state.
Six legislators are the initial sponsors the Healthcare Freedom Amendment and many more are expected to sign on once the bill reaches the floors of the House and Senate. The amendment specifies that the federal government does not have the authority to interfere with people's right to make their own healthcare decisions. It also clarifies that the federal government can not penalize people for choosing not to participate in any government mandated healthcare program, such at those being proposed by the U.S. House and Senate.
Citizens United v. FEC, a Win for Fans of Free Speech
Much hullabaloo has been tossed about regarding the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which the Wyoming Liberty Group was proud to take part in. Several news reports of the case showcase countless fears abound about the end of American democracy as we know it because corporations might speak more. When one takes the time to peel back this veneer of fear and loathing, we are left with little more than a small segment of people – incumbent politicians and an organized DC reform lobby – who are afraid to hear other people speak. This profound fear has spurred some to trick Americans into being scared of themselves.
While Citizens United centered on whether government had the authority to ban a small non-profit from producing a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton, the implications of its holding go much further. An important part of the Court’s holding involves corporations and their ability to speak during elections. At first blush, this concept seems startling to some – visions of Exxon spending billions of dollars come into mind. Central to this is a great deal of fear and misunderstanding about what will really happen after Citizens United to our electoral process.
A recent Gallup Poll shows that the majority of Americans support the actions of the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. FEC.
The poll showed that 57 percent agreed that campaign contributions were free speech and 55 percent agreed that the same rules should apply to corporations as apply to individuals. When broken into political party, 62 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans said that campaign contributions are free speech.
Supreme Court Cites Wyoming Liberty Group in Citizens United Decision
In a landmark decision, which cited the Cheyenne based Wyoming Liberty Group's amicus brief, the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 21 reversed precedence that limited the ability of Americans to freely participate in the election process.
The Wyoming Group's brief, written by University of Wyoming graduate constitutional attorney Benjamin Barr, described the arbitrary nature of Federal Election Campaign rulings. Barr served as Chief Counsel to two successive Federal Election Campaign Commissioners.
On December 9, 2009, U.S. Sens. Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg introduced a bill to create a “Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action.” The goal is to provide “a bipartisan solution” to “a perfect storm of exploding debt, brought on by rising health costs, a retiring baby boom generation, and an outdated and inefficient revenue system.”
Specifically, the bill mentions that they want to preserve Social Security and Medicare through both spending and revenue reforms, hoping to keep the programs solvent.
High Court must overturn more than 100 years of precedent dating to post-Civil War New Orleans
Living conditions in post-Civil War New Orleans weren't exactly what you would call ideal.
Water from the Mississippi River was polluted with the waste from dozens of slaughterhouses that operated about a mile up stream from the city. This waste, including intestines, blood and feces would clog around pipes that provided drinking water to the city. The pollution led to massive outbreaks of cholera, yellow fever and other diseases.
Health Reform: Why One-Size-Fits-All Does Not Fit Wyoming
On Saturday November 7, 2009, the House of Representatives of U.S. Congress passed a comprehensive bill aimed at fundamentally reforming the nation’s health care system. If the bill passes the Senate it will affect health insurance and health care delivery in every state. But the notion that a one-size-fits-all solution out of Washington, DC is good for every state is false. Not all states have the same problems with uninsured citizens or lack of employer-based insurance coverage.
Wyoming is a good example. Census Bureau data shows that the health insurance coverage situation in Wyoming is clearly different from the national average.
Gov. Dave Freudenthal has ranked near the bottom of the Cato Institute's “Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2008.”
Freudenthal was among 13 governors to receive a D, and only Montana Gov. Brian Scheweitzer ranked lower on the “D list.” Three governors received As, 14 earned Bs, eight earned Cs and eight earned Fs.
Gay Marriage Fight and Tax Referendum Fuel Debate Over Privacy
If you sign a petition or make a small donation, are you signing away your privacy?
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court voted with only one dissent to block the release of the names of Washington state residents who signed a petition for repeal of a same-sex domestic partner law. The ban will remain in place while the case works its way through the lower courts.
This paper provides an analysis of the concept of “essential government” as a representation of, broadly understood, limited government. It explains in what theoretical context essential government should be viewed and suggests that essential government is a process of public policy, rather than an end goal in itself.
“Standing” on Firm Ground: Preserving the Right to Ranch in Wyoming
Landowners and ranchers received rare news of relief last year from the U.S. Supreme Court. Far-flung accusations of environmental groups against landowners must now be heard with a healthy grain of salt. The question before the Court in Summers v. Earth Island Institute was just how great the role environmental activists should have in court proceedings regarding land use questions – especially when those activists share no connection to the land in question.
These “Who gets the Court’s ear?” questions share larger implications for those making their living in the ranching and agricultural fields. It has become trendy for radical environmentalists to regularly flood judicial proceedings with land use objections when private citizens try to make good use of their land. And that can lead to all sorts of hassles, delays and lost profits when others with no connection to the land interfere.
The relation of Government Size to Economic Growth is the second study by Sven R. Larson, Ph.D., on the Rahn Curve.
In it he finds that the size of government spending has a negative impact in economic growth. Larson demonstrates that the smaller a state's government the higher the rate of economic growth.
Currently in Colorado, citizens who give as little as $20 to a civic group could have their identities and personal information posted on the Internet. This can lead to all sorts of harassment, even physical violence.
To stop the Colorado speech patrol, The Wyoming Liberty Group filed an Amicus Brief Oct. 2 in Independence Institute v. Bernie Buescher to encourage the Supreme Court to review Colorado laws that harass and intimidate civic organizations.
June 15, 2009 "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." President Barak Obama
June 19, 2009 "White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally." Associated Press
June 23, 2009 "When I say . . . that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform." President Barak Obama
President Obama has put himself in the position of advocating health legislation now before Congress that is contrary to his spoken promises. In the short term keeping our current doctor and plan would be impossible for many should these bills pass. In the long term it would become highly unlikely.
