By Theresa Camoriano via the Jefferson Review

Columnist Ruth Marcus opines after the scandal of the IRS targeting conservative groups that the IRS should be tougher on political groups, because its “lassitude… is creating a gusher of dark money” in politics.  Marcus subscribes to the commonly held opinion that political speech should be limited and people should not be able to contribute money anonymously to finance political ads.  She describes anonymous money as being “dark money.”

I was not aware that any money was “dark money” or bad money.  I thought it all was just plain old money.

Why shouldn’t our right to free speech include the right to speak anonymously and donate anonymously to finance political ads?

We have a long tradition of anonymous political speech in this country.  Would our revolution have been possible without Thomas Paine’s anonymous pamphlets?  And how about Benjamin Franklin’s political articles published under a pseudonym?  Sometimes the only way to speak unpopular truths with any degree of safety is to do so anonymously.

It is not uncommon for people to be afraid to identify themselves when they speak out for fear that they will be persecuted.  This is not a crazy notion of paranoid “voices” of people wearing tin-foil hats.  It is very real today, just as it was during our country’s early history.

As just one example, people who helped finance ads in California in favor of Proposition 8 were targeted for threats of violence (and some real violence), had their businesses shut down, and were forced out of their jobs thanks to the campaign finance laws’ reporting requirements that identified them, including their home addresses and places of employment.

Because the reporting requirements of our current campaign finance laws put people at real, serious risk of abuse, they stifle free speech and thereby promote the very corruption that they were designed to prevent.

In the days before campaign finance laws, which were supposed to “clean up politics” and get rid of “dark money”, was our government ever as corrupt as it is today?

The “Teapot Dome” scandal was nothing compared to the numerous crony capitalist scandals of today, with  Solyndra being just one example.  The Watergate cover-up scandal was nothing compared with the coverups we are seeing in the current administration, which has covered up a gun-running scheme that resulted in hundreds of murders in Mexico, has lied about the circumstances surrounding the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, has tried to whitewash the abusive treatment of conservative groups by the IRS, has tried to intimidate AP sources, and much more.

Clearly, the campaign finance laws have not cleaned up politics and likely have increased corruption rather than decreasing it.

Our founders tried to protect our right to free speech in the Constitution, because they knew that a free flow of ideas would help protect us against political corruption and abuse.  They were right.  While a real free flow of ideas may not be all sweetness and light, it is far better than what happens when  ideas and voices are stifled and not allowed to flow freely.

There would even be some advantages to anonymous speech in that people would have to deal with the ideas on their merits instead of just attacking the speaker.  They would have to consider whether the statements being made are true and whether the arguments make sense and could not just rely on groupthink and on demonizing various groups of people.  Of course, if the advertisement has an anonymous source, people would treat it with more skepticism than if it were from a trusted source.  People would have to develop their own analytical tools, which would be very healthy.

Our campaign finance laws mainly serve to protect the insider elites and corrupt politicians from people who otherwise would speak out against them. How could we ever support such laws with a clear conscience?

If we really want to take a step in the right direction, we need to restore real freedom of speech.

It is time to get rid of all reporting requirements and all limits on spending for political speech.  Let all people speak out as they wish, including anonymously, just as they did throughout most of our nation’s history.  Only then will the free market of ideas flourish, allowing people to shine a light on corruption and to promote policies that may not be popular with the ruling elites.

Theresa Camoriano is a patent attorney in Louisville KY and facilitates a local 912 group.

The IRS targeting of tea party groups is criminal.  By asking for extraneous information, the IRS intimidated many liberty-minded groups into submission.  They asked for transcripts of videos posted by these groups, screenshots of everything ever posted online, and even information about the relatives of board members.  In some cases, the IRS asked for information about planned future events and speakers, scaring many tea party groups into toning down their activities in the 2012 election cycle.  Those who benefited from this scheme were big government politicians like Barack Obama who, at every turn, seek to undermine the Constitution and our First Amendment rights.

The Obama Administration claims they knew nothing of this politically charged targeting, just as they knew nothing about Fast and Furious, the Benghazi cover-up, the AP wiretapping, and countless other scandals. But, ignorance and incompetence are not viable excuses for a president whose tenure overflows with criminal activity across multiple government agencies.

As a nation, we cannot accept the use of governmental agencies to attack political opponents.  This type of bullying is moving us towards becoming another Iran or Cuba where political dissidents live in fear that those in power might bring down the full force and weight of government resources to take them out.

We applaud the patriot groups who were targeted and refused to back down.  We applaud them for demanding answers.  And, we hope that after a full investigation, those who sought to deny them their Constitutional rights will be brought to justice.

(Editor’s note:  This is a letter from a LTP member in response to a post on the internet sales tax)

Dear Fellow Tea Party Members,

A few weeks ago members of the Louisville Tea Party received our newsletter asking us to take a stand, write our representatives, and request that they oppose the Marketplace Fairness Act. I have a different take on this legislation and the board has allowed me to voice my opinion to our members.

First a little back ground on who I am so you will understand where I am coming from.

I like to think of myself as a founding member of the Louisville Tea Party. I attended our first rally on April 15th, 2009 at Founders Square Downtown. I was so inspired I started to attend meeting and raise funding by selling Tea Party memorabilia. I attended the first march in Washington DC and the second march as well the next year. Over the years I have personally contributed a respectable amount of money to our Tea Party. I have embraced all that the Tea Party stands for and continue to give in Time, Treasure and Talent. I consider this an honor and a responsibility for all of the success I have benefitted by being a citizen of the United States of America.

I am a college graduate and a Vietnam Era Veteran. I am also a successful business owner of thirty years. During this time I have collected sales tax and sent it to our Commonwealth and have never had an audit on my payments. I have also employed six people paying payroll taxes. These same employees spend their hard earned money in our community. I also pay property taxes on my business building and my inventory. I also have to pay a tax on those that owe me money with my accounts receivables. This in addition to my personal taxes. Believe me I understand the Taxed Enough Already axiom of the Tea Party. I contribute to local charities and organizations, like the Louisville Tea Party, that I determine are worthy of my fiscal help. I also contribute as a Junior Achievement Instructor in our elementary schools for the past fifteen years and read and mentor to students in our schools system under Every1Reads. I also volunteer at the Ft. Knox Zussman Village as a role player against our troops getting ready to deploy. I am proud of all I have contributed and I state the above because it is only possible due to the success and strength of my business.

Other business owners in the Louisville Tea Party understand the difficulty of running businesses with the seemingly never ending interference of our government in regulations and taxes. I am all about smaller government and less taxes.

I find it very difficult to do all of the above while running a successful business and have the additional burden of being 6% more expensive than my internet competition due to Kentucky Sales Tax. I think all of us can agree we don’t need more taxes but to have no taxes is unreasonable as our government does provide essential services that we all agree benefit our community.

The proposed Marketplace Fairness Act actually seeks to create a level playing field for both Internet Sales and Brick and Mortar Sales by requiring internet businesses to contribute taxes to the states the same as I do. Will this legislation create some additional burden on Internet Stores? Most definitely. I have looked at this legislation from both sides and I do recognize the additional burden it requires of Internet business but these are comparable to the same burdens of our local businesses that support our local community and employee the citizens of our state. It is important to note that if the Marketplace Fairness Act passes, it is not a new tax, it is just a way to collect the taxes that are owed to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Those that purchase on the internet may or may not know that they are obligated by law to pay the sales take on their Internet purchases. It is common knowledge that most do not.

Ask yourself how many internet businesses are contributing their time, treasure and talent to our local community and its needs? They certainly are not doing so by paying taxes.

I ask all of our members to maintain an open view while contacting their representatives on this and all legislation’s impact. I have contacted my representatives to ask them to consider voting for the Marketplace Fairness Act. I think it will benefit our community and our local businesses.

Thanks for this opportunity. I welcome any comments from our members, board members and state and local representatives at brundage@brundagejewelers.com.

Yours,

Bill Brundage
Graduate Gemologist GIA
Bill Brundage Jewelers
141 Chenoweth Lane
Louisville, KY 40207

1-502-895-7717

The Louisville Tea Party is proud to announce Wisconsin Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch will speak at the “Stand with Rand” Liberty Rally on Friday, April 12.

Coining the phrase, “Wisconsin is open for business,” Lt. Gov. Kleefisch has successfully worked to bring new businesses into her state, growing Wisconsin’s economy.

After standing up for liberty against union bosses, Kleefisch and Governor Scott Walker were targeted by the unions in a recall election. Both won their recall elections by larger margins than the 2010 election because they had stuck to their campaign promises.

We are excited to have Lt. Governor Kleefisch join our rally to help us raise money for our Education Initiative.

Along with Lt. Governor Kleefisch, speakers include Senator Rand Paul, Congressman Thomas Massie, and WHAS radio host Mandy Connell.

Friday, April 12, 2013
6:00 pm Rally
7:30 pm – 8:30 pm Reception
Louisville Marriott Downtown
280 W Jefferson St Louisville, KY 40202
Marriott Ballroom–2nd floor

The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013, also called the “internet sales tax,” is a massive regulatory burden on small online businesses.

Sales taxes are already collected on items purchased online in the state where retailers have a physical presence.  However, this bill requires retailers to also pay sales tax in the states where the item purchaser is, regardless of where the retailer is located.

This bill hurts online small businesses by adding regulations only large online corporations have the ability to comply with.  That’s why online giants like Amazon are in support of the bill–so the government can help them crush their smaller competition through overregulation.

Furthermore, this tax allows states to extend their taxing power into other states where they currently have no right to tax, forcing taxation without representation.

We should be finding ways to lower the tax burden for our business community, instead of forcing retailers to learn how to comply with thousand of local and state tax codes.  This job-killing legislation opens the door for government control of the internet, a power grab recently attempt by the UN.

Call your representatives today and ask them to oppose the Marketplace Fairness Act.

See Congressman Thomas Massie’s comments on the issue on the House floor:

Section 1- Establishes the Charter School Pilot Project

• 15 schools per year for a total of 75 schools in five years
• Preference for applicants in districts where at least 50% of students qualify for FRL; for students identified as at risk of academic failure and for students with special needs as identified in their Individual Education Program, as defined in KRS 158.281.

Section 2- Definitions

Sections 3- Requirements for Charter Schools

• Allows for independent Boards of Directors; a charter school may incorporate as a non-profit operating as a public entity.
• Allows for single gender charter schools.
• Charters have access to empty or underutilized district school facilities.
• Charter schools may provide transportation and receive funding for such.
• Charter schools are free from laws and regulations other than those regarding health, life and safety.
• Charter schools are subject to the same reporting audit and financial practices as all other public schools.
• A charter school shall be eligible to participate in state-sponsored or district-sponsored interscholastic and district athletics, although is not required to offer such programs.
• A charter school shall be exempt to the same extent as other schools from all taxation, fees, assessments, or special ad valorem levies on its earnings and its property.
• Charter school teachers will adhere to the same qualifications as all other KY teachers and must be highly qualified, which means:

• A person certified by the Education Professional Standards Board under KRS 161.030 or 161.048; or
• A person who has a baccalaureate degree and exceptional work experience in the area in which he or she is hired to teach.

• Charter school teachers may organize under a collective bargaining agreement separate from district collective bargaining agreements.

Section 4- Requirements for Chartering Authorizers other than Local Board of Education or Public Charter School Commission

• Charter school authorizers must follow nationally-recognized principles and standards for charter school authorizing.
• The State Commissioner may allow another entity, other than the Commission and local districts, to apply for and be approved as an authorizer (such as a university.)
• Other authorizer entities must reapply every five years.
• Authorizers may receive up to 2% of a charter school budget for authorizing duties.

Section 5- Establish Public Charter School Commission

• The charter school commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the Governor by July 31, 2013. Membership shall include no more than five (5) members of the same political party.
• Commission members shall be confirmed by the Senate.
• Members shall serve terms of four (4) years.
• The Commission is an independent statewide body and collectively must possess expertise in areas including curriculum, school finance, non-profit governance, charter school experience.

Section 6- Charter School Application Process

• Includes a complete list of required components a charter application must contain to gain approval.
• Includes basis for approval, denial of new applications.
• Mandates that authorizer decisions be made in a public hearing.
• Applicants receive five-year charters.
• After the charter application is approved, the authorizer and charter school have 60 days to enter into a legally-binding performance contract that serves as the final authorization of the school.
• An application to establish a charter school may be submitted to a charter school authorizer by teachers, parents, school administrators, community residents, public organizations, private organizations, or a combination thereof.

Section 7- Requirements for Authorizers

• Requires an application and approval process for charter authorizers.
• Application is made to the State Commissioner of ED.
• Commissioner and authorizer sign a five-year agreement that lists the authorizer’s duties and responsibilities.
• Authorizer duties and responsibilities must be included in the charter contract.

Section 8- Process for Charter Renewal

• Renewal decisions must be driven by data collected through annual school visits and reports.
• A charter school authorizer may not renew or may revoke a charter if the authorizer determines the charter school:

• Fails to meet or make sufficient progress on the assessment measures adopted by the Kentucky Board of Education under KRS 158.6453 and student outcomes fall below the level that would allow the commissioner of education to sanction a school;
• Fails to meet or demonstrate sufficient progress over the preceding three (3) school years toward the performance expectations set forth in the charter;
• Fails to meet generally accepted accounting standards; and
• Commits a material and substantial violation of any of the terms, conditions, standards, or procedures required under the law.

Section 9- Establish Public Charter School Commission Trust Fund

• The fund may receive contributions, gifts, donations, appropriations, and any other moneys made available for the fund.
• The fund shall be used to support the operation of the commission, and all amounts included in the fund are appropriated for the purposes set forth in this section.

Section 10- Operation of Charter School and Powers of the School

• Charter schools are legally autonomous schools accountable to their authorizer.
• Graduation requirements must meet or exceed state standards.
• The Board of Directors of a charter school has the final authority on all decisions, and may delegate this power to an administrator and staff.

Section 11- Reasons for Nonrenewal or Revocation of Charter and Distribution of Remaining Funds

• A charter school authorizer may not renew or may revoke a charter if the authorizer determines the charter school:

• Fails to meet or make sufficient progress on the assessment measures adopted by the Kentucky Board of Education under KRS 158.6453 and student outcomes fall below the level that would allow the commissioner of education to sanction a school;
• Fails to meet or demonstrate sufficient progress over the preceding three (3) school years toward the performance expectations set forth in the charter;
• Fails to meet generally accepted accounting standards; and
• Commits a material and substantial violation of any of the terms, conditions, standards, or procedures required under the law or under the charter contract.
• The authorizer must develop a closure protocols consistent with national best practices and work with the closing school to allow for the orderly transition of students, teachers and student records.

Section 12- Responsibilities of the Commissioner of Education; Annual Reports

• Authorizers shall file annual reports with the Commissioner of Education, including a report on the performance of their schools and how the 2% administrative fee is used.
• Schools will file annual reports to their authorizers.
• The Commissioner will file an annual report to the interim education committee.

Section 13- Process for Enrollment/Withdrawal of Students

• Enrollment decisions shall be made in a nondiscriminatory manner and shall not be limited based on intellectual ability, measures of achievement or aptitude, athletic ability, disability, race, creed, gender, national origin, religion, or ancestry.
• If enrollment numbers are greater than the seats available, the charter school shall publish and follow a lottery system.

Section 14- Personnel and Attendance Issues; Employees’ Participation in Specific Retirement Systems

• No local board of education shall require any employee of the local school district to be employed in a charter school or any pupil enrolled in the school district to attend a charter school. No local board shall harass, threaten, discipline, discharge, retaliate, or in any manner discriminate against any district employee involved directly or indirectly with an application to establish a charter school as authorized under this section.
• A local board of education shall not discriminate against a charter school in publicizing the district’s educational options through advertising, direct mail, availability of mailing lists, or other informational activities.
• A teacher employed by a local school board under a continuing service contract may be granted a one (1) year leave of absence to teach in a charter school authorized by an entity other than the local board if the leave of absence is mutually agreed upon by the local board of education of the school district and the teacher. The leave of absence shall commence on the first day of service to the charter school. Upon the request of the teacher, a one (1) year leave of absence shall be renewed for up to two (2) additional years upon the mutual agreement of the teacher and the school district. At the end of three (3) years, the relationship between the teacher and the school district shall be determined by the school district. The school district shall notify the teacher of the decision.

Sections 15- Funding

• Local district authorizers and the Commission will distribute operational (state and federal) funds to a charter school using the same formulas and allocation processes as are used to distribute funds to other schools in the school district.
• Charter schools will not receive local facility tax revenues.

Sections 16 and 17- Retirement Systems

• Teachers and employees in a charter school shall participate in the Kentucky Teachers’ Retirement System or the County Employees Retirement System, as determined by their eligibility for participation in the appropriate system.

The fiscal cliff deal is nothing short of total capitulation by Republican leaders.  Republicans held one card in their hands–tax increases–and they gave it up while getting nothing in return.

Democrats promised comparable spending cuts for tax increases.  Instead of holding them to this promise, we got over $600 billion in tax increases and no spending cuts.  When will Republicans realize that to fiscally irresponsible Democrats, “compromise” means Republicans must completely surrender?

With the “deal,” the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that taxes will increase for 77% of Americans because it allows the 2% reduction in the payroll tax to expire. Income over $450,000 is taxed at 39.6%, with the tax-rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends increasing from 15% to 20% (on top of the 3.8% Obamacare tax on investment income).  Estate taxes rise from 35% to 40% (note that this is money that has already been taxed the first time around).  And, instead of spending cuts to reduce deficits, the CBO estimates that this deal will add $4 trillion to US deficits.

Republican leaders will argue that we had to pass something to stop from going over the fiscal cliff–the cliff manufactured by Congress.  But, we wouldn’t be in a so-called crisis if Congress had taken up this issue months ago, instead of waiting until the last second.  If Republicans had planned to give in to tax increases while getting nothing in return, why didn’t they do it before the elections?  If they had, the American people would have known that tax increases hurt our economy and do not help to reduce our nation’s debt.  And, Obama, who campaigned on raising taxes on the job creators, would have had nothing on which to campaign.

When McConnell strikes a deal that gets a “yes” vote from Yarmuth and “no” votes from Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Thomas Massie, it makes you wonder whose side he is on.  In this deal, he was not on our side, he was not on our children’s side, and Kentucky deserves better.

We are thankful to the leadership of Senator Rand Paul who took a stand against this legislation on the Senate floor.  We appreciate leaders like Senator Paul who make our job–to hold elected officials accountable on fiscal issues– an easy one.

Watch Senator Paul’s fiscal cliff speech on the Senate floor.

We are also thankful for Congressmen Thomas Massie, Brett Guthrie, and Ed Whitfield for being men of principle and voting “no.”

Read Congressman Massie’s statement on his vote. 

Senator McConnell seems more concerned with being the Great Compromiser by leading from a position of weakness, than he is with doing what is right for the future of America.

The next test will come with the debt ceiling debate–let’s hope McConnell’s “compromise” isn’t giving  in while getting nothing in return. However, if his fiscal cliff negotiations are any indication, we will most likely see him wave the white flag again, raising our nation’s debt and our children’s future liability.  If this is what establishment Republicans call leadership, it is no wonder they are having so much trouble winning elections.