Money, Money, Money: How Unregulated Campaign Spending Is Taking Away Your Rights

As a law student, I know firsthand how murky and confusing the law can be. I also know about loopholes. However, it seems to me that Karl Rove may have once again crossed the line between what is legal and what is not.

The Citizens United decision allows unlimited corporate spending on elections.

On June 22, Karl Rove gave a speech right outside one of Romney's donor retreats. The event was hosted by Solamere Capital and he spoke to about 200 wealthy donors. By the way, this private equity firm was founded by Tagg Romney (Mitt Romney's oldest son) and Spencer Zwick, the Romney campaign's chief fundraiser. Not shady at all...

Also, it must have merely been a coincidence that the event he spoke at was not only at the same time as Romney's donor retreat, but also in the same city at an adjacent hotel. Oh yes, purely coincidental. Because, you know, it's actually illegal for Super PACs to coordinate advertising strategies for attack ads against political candidates with campaign committees. The GOP wouldn't want to do something illegal, now would they? Rove and Romney are really walking on thin ice here.

I know I have blogged about Super PACs before, but the sheer amount of money that the GOP is using to try to buy our country and buy this election disgusts me. It goes against everything that I love about this country. Unregulated and anonymous cash is being used to try to "win" America.

This worries me; not only because it is corrupt, but because voter turnout is already going to be much lower than it was in the 2008 election. People are cynical and their bank accounts have dwindled, the youth is no longer fired up, and the message of "hope" that tied together Obama's campaign in 2008 has faded. The message that the GOP and Super PACs are sending us is that our votes do not matter. They are telling us that money is everything and if you have enough of it, you can run this country.

Is that the spirit upon which this country was founded? I don't think so.

The less power the people think they have, the less they are going to want to vote. The fewer the people who are excited and go out to vote, the less our government is a true representation of the people. The less our government is a true representation of the people, the less it is a true democracy. This is a slippery slope and I think you see where I am going here.

If we let money run our elections and basically give up all the precious rights that our people have fought for, the next thing we know, we will wake up, and we will not recognize where we are living. Our basic rights will have been thrown out the window.

You know how conservatives are always saying they need to "take back their country?" Well you know what? It's high time liberals grew some balls and stood up to TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY too. We will not stand for this. We did it grassroots style in 2008 and we will do it again this year. America will not be bought.

The Violence Against Women Act: Who Does It Actually Protect?

This past Wednesday, the House passed their version of the Violence Against Women Act on a 222 to 205 vote. Although this seems like pretty great news, I personally think the bill is much too narrow.

Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) shares her stories of being sexually assaulted as a young woman. "As a woman of color, I am particularly aggrieved that this bill ignores the special circumstances of women who are minorities. Women who are in the shadows."

Women in the lowest income category experience more than six times the rate of domestic violence as compared to women in the highest income category. African-American women face higher rates of domestic violence than white women, and Native-American women are victimized at a rate more than double that of women of other races.

President Bill Clinton signed The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) into law for the first time in 1994. The Act provided $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women. This law greatly improved the nation's response to domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. In United States v. Morrison, SCOTUS struck down the VAWA provision allowing women the right to sue their attackers in federal court. The Court's conservatives saw this as an attack on state's rights.

Needless to say, the law has borne the brunt of conservative opposition for years now. VAWA was reauthorized in 2000 and then again in 2005. This time, in 2012, Republicans had a huge problem with the fact that Democrats wanted to extend the Act's protections to same-sex couples and allow battered illegal immigrants to obtain temporary visas.

VAWA provides invaluable services to victims of domestic violence, including community violence protection programs, protections for victims who are evicted from their homes because of domestic violence, rape crisis centers and hotlines, as well as programs for immigrant women and women with disabilities.

What Are Republicans Complaining About?

Well, the new version of the VAWA included LGBT couples. The bill also included a provision from the SAVE Native American Women Act, which allows tribes to prosecute Native American and non-Native American offenders in domestic violence cases. Republicans also did not like the provision that would have protected female illegal aliens. This provision would have provided visas for undocumented victims to encourage them to come forward when they are abused without the fear of deportation.

Not to sound like a broken record, but this is undeniably yet another event that lends credence to the fact that the GOP is waging a War on Women! For those who think that The War on Women is a silly fantasy or a made-up scam by liberal America, I ask you to take a step back and look at the actions of the GOP lately. How can one NOT come to the conclusion that there is a war on not only women, but Americans who are LGBT! Domestic violence is severely under-reported in the gay community for many different reasons, and this is all the more reason to protect them under the VAWA.

Apparently Republicans think that it is "unnecessary" to include minority groups in the VAWA. Apparently these are "divisive distractions."  I have a huge problem with this.

Once again, politics, bigotry, and racism are blocking the doorway to justice.


Alas, the House did not adopt the Senate version of the bill, which protects all women, regardless of nationality or citizenship status, and LGBT individuals. Once again, the GOP says NO to justice.


The Republican-authored bill raises requirements to prove domestic violence and assault, erases protections for undocumented women, and eliminates protection for LGBT victims of domestic violence. This is going to hurt many Americans, and in my opinion, violates Constitutional principles of equal protection.

The fact that these protections were denied in the same week that President Obama formally announced his support for marriage equality/same-sex marriage is ironic and sad.

It's one thing to deny women the health care that they deserve, but it is another thing to tell certain groups of people that they do not deserve equal protection under the law because of their sexual orientation or citizenship status.

What Is Going to Happen Now?

The bill will now go to a House/Senate Conference Committee along with the VAWA passed by the Senate. I can only hope that the expanded protections under the Senate version are included in the final law.

If you are unhappy with the House version of the VAWA, click here to protest it!

VIOLENCE IS VIOLENCE, no matter who the victim is.

"Stand Up for Justice" Rally at SF City Hall: Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

Today I attended the "Stand Up for Justice" Rally at San Francisco City Hall! This event was organized by the Bar Association of San Francisco, and our Attorney General Kamala Harris showed up as well as many other amazing lawyers and politicians. The focus was on how the lack of court funding is affecting our most vulnerable citizens.

CA Attorney General Kamala Harris addresses the importance of the court system to access to justice and equality for ALL

SF Mayor Ed Lee

Kelly Dermody, the President of the Bar Association of San Francisco, hosted the event and introduced all the speakers. The first was of course, none other than Miss Attorney General, Kamala Harris.  Harris stressed the importance of proper funding for our court system. The people who will suffer the most from the drastic cuts to the court system in California are the underprivileged and underrepresented. She emphasized that having access to justice is a fundamental tenet upon which this country was founded, and to close the doors to the courts means to close the doors to justice.

Supervisor David Chiu

SF Public Defender Jeff Adachi (also a Hastings alum!)

The severe defunding of the court system has given rise to some really crucial constitutional issues such as due process of law. People will be waiting longer and longer to receive justice. Hearings are postponed time after time and the line for the court clerk (which is open one hour less each day) is out of control. At 4:00 pm when the clerk's office closes, whoever is still in line is out of luck. They cannot even use a drop box; they must simply COME BACK another time.

Many of these people are victims of domestic violence. Imagine this, ladies: Your abusive husband just beat you and you have bruises all over your body. As you pick up the phone to call the police, he yells at you and tells you that if you call the police, both you and your child won't be long for this earth. You have no choice but to leave and go immediately to the court to file a restraining order. You get to the court, wait in line for hours with your restless and frightened child, and alas, it is 4:00. The court doors close in your face and you have not even had the chance to file your papers.

Now what? Do you go back home and risk your lives? Do you stay in a shelter? Nobody in this country should be faced with this kind of dilemma. The courts need to be open, accessible, well funded and staffed so that every citizen has equal access to justice. The de-funding of the court system is real, and it is a scary thing for many people, especially victims of domestic violence.

Take a look at what has happened just in the Bay Area alone:

• San Francisco has closed six courtrooms
• 67 court personnel were laid off, including 29 court reporters and ALL 8 court funded commissioners
• In San Mateo, 114 positions were eliminated

There is a crisis going on in the justice system, and it affects all of us. Here were some of my favorite speakers from today.

Senator Joe Dunn (Ret.) (State Bar of California)

Justice Carlos Moreno (Ret.)

Judge La Doris Dordell (Ret.)

Ramon Arias (Bay Area Legal)

Julie Rumsey (SEIU)

If you are unhappy and outraged with the state of the justice system in California, PLEASE call your representatives and tell them that you care about court funding! Remind them how important court funding is to our communities and businesses.

Click here to find your elected representatives! If you are not familiar with them, this is the time to find out who they are and what they are all about! They were elected to serve you and if you are unhappy, you need to let them know.

Call Governor Jerry Brown at: (916) 445-2841.

Me (second to the right) and 3 of my awesome BLSA buddies at the rally!

Talk to your family and friends about this, and let everyone know that you care about justice for all!

Who is Spending Too Much Now? 2012 Presidential Campaign and How Super PACs Are Running the Show

Gingrich $4.5 in debt!

It seems like the Republican party is constantly bashing Democrats for "spending too much." Ironically enough, Newt Gingrich's campaign has spent about $4.5 million more than it has raised! Trying to keep up with Romney has proved disastrous for Gingrich (who also has almost no chance of winning). Who is spending too much now, Newt? Not too responsible, eh?

Super PACs - The New Craze

Interestingly enough, Obama was the first presidential nominee to forego public funding for the general election cycle, which created a huge advantage in his campaign against John McCain in 2008. Neither Obama nor Romney will take out the public fund this fall. If they did, it would limit each of their expenditures to about $91.2 million.

Awesome political cartoon by Dave Granlund

Super PACs (political action committees) are where the money is at. These groups basically exist as a legal means for corporations and trade unions to make donations to candidates. They are not legally permitted to do this directly. Super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support or oppose political candidates! As with almost anything that is "unlimited," things can get out of control...

Right now, President Obama's fundraising is not nearly where it was in 2008. Of the top 10 super PACs backing presidential candidates, 9 are Republican and have raised a combined $116 million! This is some serious money, people! Priorities USA Action (the only Democratic Super PAC) took in only $6.5 million. That's a huge discrepancy in funding. Democrats are having a really hard time adjusting to this super PAC era. It seems that a lot of people underestimate Romney as a potential threat to President Obama. This kind of thinking is dangerous, and if you want to win an election, you gotta be ready to fight until the end! It also does not help that we are in a recession...

I don't know about all of you, but I am not at all comfortable with the idea of unlimited amounts of money being spent on campaigns. This inevitably leads to corruption. There is a reason why there are limits on contributions to federal candidates, and I do not believe that using super PACs to basically get rid of this limit is fair or wise.

What do you think? Do you think super PACs should be made illegal?

Deceiving RNC ad about "ObamaCare" Trivializes the Real Issues

The Republican National Committee never ceases to amaze. Two days ago, they released an ad entitled: "ObamaCare: It's a Tough Sell." Needless to say, the ad is so heavily edited that it changes Solicitor General Donald Verrilli's entire opening statement and makes it look like he was helplessly stumbling over his words.

True, Verrilli did stumble over his words in the beginning of his opening remarks and did take a short break to take a drink of water. Umm...give the guy a break. He was giving oral argument at the Supreme Court of the United States on one of the most important issues right now for heaven's sake! The health care law is also not the easiest thing in the world to explain; it is highly complex. Perhaps it took him a minute to get composed, but he eventually did. As a law student, I have quite a bit of sympathy for him.

The video compresses these moments that Verrilli stumbled over his words and puts them all together so it sounds like he had no idea what he was talking about. The video also labels Verrilli as "Obama's lawyer." This is entirely incorrect. He is the Solicitor General and represents the government, not Obama, in litigation before the Supreme Court. It seems nit-pickety but it is just another way that the RNC tries to characterize the health care law as being all about Obama.

Courtroom sketch by Art Lien: Solicitor General Donald Verrilli speaking to Justice Antonin Scalia on March 26, 2012 as he argues his case before the Supreme Court

Alright, forget the stupid ad. The main issue is whether it is constitutional to require Americans to buy insurance coverage.

What I think:

1. I think the individual mandate comes within Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce. Whether or not people have insurance inevitably affects interstate commerce. Like Verrilli said, 

"Uninsured Americans each year use $43 billion of health care they cannot pay for, effectively transferring those costs to other American families to the tune of about $1,000 per year."

2. On its face, the individual mandate may look like it is "forcing people into the stream of commerce" by requiring someone who might not have obtained health insurance to obtain it. However, virtually everyone will end up needing some kind of health care at some point in their lives. Somebody has to pay for it...

Cut the crap, Republicans. Stop making this debate about "freedom" when it's really about every citizen's right to secure affordable health care. This is a very unique issue and I highly doubt whether this interpretation of the Commerce Clause is going to set a precedent for unlimited power of the federal government to control everything we do.

Plus, wasn't this A REPUBLICAN idea in the first place? In the words of Sarah Palin, "You betcha!"

Before the Affordable Care Act, health care was a complete mess in this country.


Now...

• Insurance companies cannot deny coverage to people with "pre-existing conditions"

• Small businesses can sleep at night, without the extra burden of figuring out how they are going to afford health care for their employees

• Women will get the preventative care that they need

• Medicare is stronger for seniors

The Supreme Court is probably going to vote on the health care law on Friday, although the rest of us will not know the results of that decision until late June. Drafts of the opinions will be written and re-written in the meantime.

Stay tuned! 

Make No Mistake, Racism Is Alive and Well. RIP Trayvon Martin.

It's been nearly a month since 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was gunned down in a Florida gated community by George Zimmerman.  Zimmerman is not in jail right now. In fact, he's hiding out after receiving numerous death threats. Why is this? Because of Florida's disgusting "Stand Your Ground" law.

Basically, the law eliminates the legal requirement that a person outside of his or her own home retreat rather than use force. However, there is nothing in the law that allows one to pursue and confront someone. Zimmerman took it upon himself to follow Trayvon even after the police advised otherwise.

The problem is that the actual language of the statute says that anyone can use deadly force when "he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or any other." This leaves a lot of room for anyone to get away with doing horrible things by saying they were acting in self defense. Even though this law does not explicitly give people the right to pursue and follow someone with a gun, it might as well.

This is a horrible piece of legislation that was heavily supported and lobbied by the National Rifle Association (NRA), obviously for financial reasons. Because of this legislation, more people bought guns and more people joined the NRA. Now an innocent young black boy is dead and his killer is still not in jail.

Leaving the law business aside, let's be honest. Trayvon Martin was murdered because he was black. He was wearing a hoodie and Zimmerman thought he looked "suspicious." To leave race out of this issue is to ignore the real problem here. Apparently some people think that there is no way that Zimmerman could be racist since he's Mexican. This argument is wrong on so many levels, but I am not going to go there right now. Unfortunately, racism did not disappear with the passage of the Civil Rights Act, people. We are far from being above it.

As a girl who is half black, this disturbs and saddens me, but I realize that it is a fact of life. I grew up in a predominantly white neighborhood and I was the only black girl in my graduating class in high school. I know how it feels to get weird looks when my dad and I are driving in our neighborhood. People used to turn their heads as we passed by and I knew they were probably wondering "what we were doing in that part of town." I am not saying this to evoke pity or to complain. I am saying this to spread awareness that racism is not over. The fight for equality is not over.

I think a lot of us forget that we have not come as far as we think in this country in terms of race. Most Americans tend to think of themselves as being pretty progressive. Most would say that they have quite a few "close black friends." This is great, but we are naive if we think that race did not come into play here. It is up to all of us to take a stand, no matter what race we are, and to say that THIS IS NOT OK.

The "Stand your Ground Law" must be repealed. It is a useless and harmful statute and it is the sole reason why Zimmerman walks free today.

In the name of justice, please sign this petition to repeal the law. It will not bring Trayvon back, but it could prevent another grave injustice.

We will not stop. The fight has only just begun.

Governor Romney, I Don't See How a Young American Could NOT Vote Democrat

As if Romney hadn't put his foot in his mouth enough. Yesterday afternoon, after a question-and-answer session at the University of Chicago, Romney said:

"I don't see how a young American can vote for a Democrat."

Um...excuse me, but....WHAT?!

As usual, he attacked Democrats for racking up "trillion-dollar annual deficits that [his] generation will never pay for."

Whatever the circumstances of the national debt are right now, it is a known fact that young people have consistently voted Democrat for many years now. Exit poll data show that in every presidential race since 1992, 18-29 year olds have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats. In 2008, 66% of 18-29 year olds voted for President Obama.

Things have changed since 2008 and enthusiasm is nowhere near what it was four years ago, but it is still not going to be enough to make the majority of young people start voting Republican. It's just not going to happen.

Young people vote Democrat because:

1. Democrats recognize the value of education for all citizens, regardless of socio-economic status and they have consistently made education a priority in their policy-making decisions. Democrats also recognize that access to education is directly linked to economic growth.

2. Democrats have made affordable health care a national priority.

3. Democrats recognize that science is real and global warming is real.

4. Democrats have supported small businesses and businesses that do not ship their jobs overseas.

5. Democrats supported and repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," finally giving equality to young, gay members of our military.

6. Democrats support women in getting fair pay. The Obama administration passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, ensuring that women get equal pay for equal work.

7. Democrats supported bringing and end to the Iraq war and did.

8. President Obama has fought for veterans rights and has introduced his Veterans Job Corps Initiative to ensure that veterans returning from war have jobs to come home to.

The list goes on and on. These are just a few reasons why young people vote Democrat.

If, like Rick Santorum, you think that it is "snobby" for Obama to think that every young American should have the chance to go to college, well then...you may want to think about voting Republican.