Supreme Court To Decide If Political Groups Can Lie In Advertising
Republican lawyers are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that they have a First Amendment right to lie during political campaigns.
The case concerns a challenge by a national anti-abortion group, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA), which tried to put up a billboard in 2010 attacking Rep. Steven Driehaus, D-Ohio, saying that he was pro-abortion because he supported Obamacare.
The Democratic incumbent stopped the billboard by threatening to sue SBA’s ad agency. He also filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC) that the ad would have violated a state law making it a crime to knowingly lie in a campaign ad. The OEC found probable cause to proceed with a case, which, in turn, prompted a series of court challenges that is now before the Supreme Court and will be heard later this year.
Note: Click Link For Complete Salon Article By Steven Rosenfeld Of AlterNet
..............................................................................................................................................
More from Salon.com:
The 9 Best Moments From Edward Snowden’s Online Q&A
For the first time since last summer, the former NSA contractor took questions from the public.
..............................................................................................................................................
The New York Times Editorial Board:
A Hidden Threat in the Farm Bill
The mammoth farm bill is reportedly near a conference compromise in Congress, bristling with more tragic cuts in the food stamp program for the needy and a revision of lucrative commodity subsidies for mostly big farmers. Running below the radar is a dangerous, broadly written amendment that would threaten states’ current powers to enact their own agricultural standards — standards that can extend far beyond farmyards to consumer, worker and environmental safety.
The amendment amounts to a federal fiat that states cannot set mandatory standards on agricultural products that block competition from farmers in other states where standards are looser. The amendment was approved by the Republican-dominated House at the instigation of Representative Steve King, the Iowa Republican and Tea Party champion. He is determined to protect his state’s egg producers from a new California requirement that hens thrive in more humane conditions — basically, a bit more room to move around in their cages.
Mr. King, a notorious mocker of animal protection reform, insists his amendment is “severely limited in scope” to stop “radical” protectionist advantages for California egg producers that he feels violate interstate commerce. But it is far from that specific and is so sweeping and vaguely worded that it threatens all manner of current state prerogatives. This from an avowed opponent of clumsy federal intrusion into local life.
The National Conference of State Legislatures has properly urged rejection of the amendment because it would pre-empt assorted local agricultural policies vital in protecting “our farmland, waterways, forests and most importantly, the health and welfare of our constituents.”
Note: Click Link For Complete NY Times Editorial
Update: Farm Bill Compromise
Washington — House and Senate negotiators on Monday agreed on a new five-year farm bill that will eliminate or consolidate dozens of agriculture subsidy programs, expand government-subsidized crop insurance and cut about $8 billion from the food stamp program over the next decade.
The bipartisan agreement, two years after lawmakers began work on the nearly $1 trillion bill, is a major step forward in reauthorizing hundreds of farm and nutrition programs that must be renewed every five years. And, at least for now, it brings an end to the partisan fighting that stalled two previous attempts to pass the legislation. The bill would reduce spending by about $23 billion over the next 10 years.
The House is expected to vote on the measure on Wednesday. It is unclear when the Senate will take up the legislation. Many Senate Democrats are likely to be unhappy with the food stamps measure, which cuts roughly twice as much as senators approved in May.
Yet the food stamp cuts may not be large enough to appease House conservatives, who in June helped defeat a bill backed by Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio that would have cut $20 billion from the program. The House eventually passed a bill covering only nutrition programs that would have sliced nearly $40 billion from food stamps.
The negotiations were headed by the leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, Representative Frank D. Lucas, Republican of Oklahoma, and Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan.
The deal “puts us on the verge of enacting a five-year farm bill that saves taxpayers billions, eliminates unnecessary subsidies, creates a more effective farm safety net and helps farmers and businesses create jobs,” Ms. Stabenow said.
The new bill would make the most significant changes to farm programs in decades. It would create a new milk insurance subsidy program and place a cap on farm subsidy payments.
It is expected to leave in place the federal sugar program, which is a combination of import restrictions and production quotas that are intended to keep the price of American sugar well above that available on the world market.
The full details of the bill have not been released.
Note: Click Link For Complete NY Times Article By Ron Nixon
..............................................................................................................................................
Say What?
"If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it." -- Mike Huckabee
.jpg)