NRA Challenges a Recent Handgun Ban

     As America's oldest civil rights and sportsman's group, it was expected that the National Rifle Association would have no part of a recent federal handgun ban. In Fairfax, Va the NRA is challenging (in US district court) federal laws that prohibit law-abiding Americans eighteen through twenty years of age from legally purchasing a handgun through a federally licensed firearm dealer. The NRA was quick to point out that in Heller and McDonald,  the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for all law-abiding citizens.  This being said, it is not fair or just to only offer this right to people 21 years of age and over.  Americans are considered to be an adult, in almost all instances, at the age of 18 and that's when they should be granted to right to bear arms.
     As stated in the article, "At eighteen years of age...   citizens are eligible (and male citizens could be conscripted) to serve in the military-to fight and die by arms for the country." The case is supported by the NRA, D'Cruz v. BATFE, and deals with a young man under the age of 21 pleading as to why he (and millions of others) deserves the right to bear arms at his age.   The Supreme Court has called the handgun "the quintessential self-defense weapon" and "the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home."  The NRA believes that this right and freedom should be offered to every law-abiding adult, 18 years of age and older and will continue to pressure the courts.
     I agree with the NRA in this case, and I feel that they have a strong case with the plaintiff, Mr. D'Cruz.  D'Cruz is a model student, citizen, and gun owner and I feel that he will be a strong factor in future of this handgun ban.  The NRA's mission is to uphold Second Amendment's rights and to push for firearm law enforcement, and this recent challenge in court shows their desire for just that.

Does the Public Care About Campaign Finance???

      It is known that the 5-4 vote in Citizens United V. FEC held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.  This being said, it is no secret that this years mid-term elections are becoming extremely expensive in the last two weeks of campaigning.  Donations and party contributions can now be kept secret, and millions of dollars are being slid through “social welfare” nonprofits aka 501(c)(4).  We are within two weeks of voting day and debates are almost non-existent dealing with campaign finance.  It has also come to a point where we, the public, know more about a candidate's dating history then we know about their financial honesty dealing with campaigns and the funding for them.
     For example, Stephen Fincher (D) who's running for an open seat in the 8th district of Tennessee, has had a complaint against him regarding a 250,000 dollar loan to his campaign.  Fincher, a soybean farmer, listed his family farm as his only asset in his financial disclosure form, and also included was an income of around $60,000 annually.  His $250,000 loan to himself/his campaign was listed as personal funds, but turned out to actually be a loan from Gates Banking & Trust, where his father holds a seat on the board of trustees.  After review, there's no question that the large sum of money came as an illegal corporate contribution.  Fincher chose not to debate his opponent and has refused to answer questions about the monies therefore, "If Fincher won't live by the rules of full disclosure and transparency before the election, how can he be trusted afterward?”
     This has brought to my attention the ignorance of many towards campaign finance.  The media, interest groups, and candidates alike point out things about an opponent's (or candidate's) character that may mean very little to their effectiveness in public office.  To me, I would like to know their honesty when dealing with rules, regulations, and laws that we all, as citizens, have to follow.  It upsets me that most of the voting public are unaware of current problems with campaign finance and criminality in the case of Stephen Fincher, and rather they are informed of or choose to remember things like a candidate's marriage history, their sexual preference, race and so on.     

TheHill 10/11/10

Election Day in Nevada

     For Nevada residents, election day is here starting with the state's Senate campaigns battle for votes.  Early voting is a unique voting technique that many states have adopted over the years.  Early voting is for you if you can't, or just don't want to go to your specified polling place on November 4th.  With early voting, you have a two-week window in which you can cast your ballot at numerous locations around the state.  Early voting can oftentimes take up a majority of the votes cast in some elections.  In the 2008 election, early voting was responsible for 58 percent of the votes cast and in this year's election it is estimated that early voting will count for 40 to 50 percent of the vote.  Candidates use early voting numbers to determine how they stand now, and how they'll stand in November.

     In preparation for early voting, incumbent Senator Harry Reid directed his getting-out-the-vote campaign and has focused its efforts on the Latino community in particular. 

"For the last four years, we have been building a state-of-the-art get-out-the-vote operation geared toward getting our voters to the polls during the final two weeks of this election," said Jon Summers, a Reid campaign spokesman.

     Republican Sharon Angle, Reid's challenger, is famous for her grassroots get-out-the-vote initiative.  "She will personally be precinct walking and knocking on doors throughout early voting to get people to the polls."  Also, the two campaigns are being aided by; President Obama (Reid), Sarah Palin (Angle), and others.

  --After a semester and a half of studying American Politics, I have never come across the "early voting system".  I researched the topic after reading the article, which is found on CNN.com, and I am a fan of it.  Early voting seems to be easier on the voter, and more convenient and accomodating to citizens (especially those who cannot make it to the polls on election day because of work, childcare, etc).  I also like early voting because you can keep a close eye on the candidates' progress all the way to election day, which may also urge more voters to get out and vote.  It will also be interesting to see how Obama and Palin's influence pays off for the two candidates... 

Money... And Midterm Elections

      Donations to House and Senate races across the country have hit near record numbers, much of this coming from anonymous individuals.  Spending on television advertisements made by interest groups has more than doubled what was spent at this point in the 2006 midterm races.  Unlike two years ago, the Republican side has become the biggest players in aiding campaigns financially this year.  As mentioned, These interest groups have become such powerful players this year because of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case that struck down restrictions on corporate spending, along with loosened restrictions governing campaign financing.

      Prior to the decision, third party donors had considerable room regarding sponsorship of political advertisements, as long as they were interpreted as "issue" ads.  Currently, they can simply be more direct with the issues and candidates they're supporting.  As stated by Steven Law, "The principal impact of the Citizens United decision was to give prospective donors a general sense that it was within their constitutional rights to support independent political activity." Others have ruled the court ruling as giving donors a "psychological green light".  The ruling also lifted restrictions on corporations, including labor unions, when it comes to financing radio and television commercials focusing on voters and identifying a political candidate. nytimes.com

      It appears to me that people are contributing more this election season, but i don't believe they're contributing just based on the Citizens United ruling.  I believe these people are contributing because they are concerned about the policies and direction of Congress and our country.  Also, I've noticed that many of these third party donors are still putting out the "issue ads" which were allowable prior to the court ruling, which makes me wonder how much this court case has actually changed.  In contrast, a few nonprofit Republican supporting groups have begun a more aggressive approach asking voters to cast their ballots for or against candidates.  Whether its new laws or just a current trend, it appears that elections in all years are becoming more and more pricey and perhaps increasingly competitive.

Forecasted Affects of the 2010 Census

       As mentioned in an abc news article this week, New York is expected to lose Congressional Representation along with up to nine other states.  States such as Texas, South Carolina, Florida, and a handful more are looking forward to gaining representation after the apportionment process.  The lines will be drawn in December when population counts from the U.S. Census Bureau are due, determining the number of House members allocated to states.

       Chris Jankowski, a redistricting leader for the GOP, predicts that Republicans could add as many as 25 seats in Congress as long as the boundary lines are drawn in their favor.  The Republican State Leadership Committee has budgeted to spend near $20 million to elect Republican state lawmakers who could affect the redistricting process.  "We see a tremendous opportunity to impact control of Congress in 2012 through the state elections that are about to take place," Jankowski said.

       The Census does not only affect redistricting and Congressional Representation (including the Electoral College), it also determines how 400 billion dollars in federal money is distributed among the states and regions.  While some states have neither grow nor shrank in population size, states like Texas as well as California are continuing their past trends of population growth and taking advantage of billions (dollars) in federal assistance as well as a hefty addition to their state's representation. 

       The topic of redistricting/gerrymandering is an already interesting topic to me, but it becomes even more interesting knowing that many large Democratic states are losing representation while many Republican states are gaining.  By looking at the projected figures, it seems that after redistricting, the Republican Party won't be trailing the Democrats in representation by such a large margin.  Also, this worries me because if it comes down to the power being split in Congress, I feel that nothing positive will be done for the American people for at least two more years.  I feel that our economy and country in general has a better chance at recovery and health if both houses are run by one party, and in this case the Democrats.  Lastly, it is disappointing to hear and expect that New York will be losing representation and federal money.