Tuesday, October 29, 2013

NYC Could Change Who Can Vote by Intro 410 Bill


Intro 410 is a bill to expand voting in all municipal elections to anyone over the age of 18 legally residing in the city currently has 31 co-sponsors.  When the new City Council is seated in January the bill could gain enough new co-sponsors to make it veto-proof.  Permanent residents with green cards all the way down to holders of six-month student visas will be allowed to vote for mayor, comptroller, public advocate and members of the City Council, the same as any citizen of the United States.

The bill’s prime sponsor is Councilman Danny Dromm of Jackson Heights.  Those of the bill’s current co-sponsors who are leaving the Council could be replaced by a probable supporter, so the bill will certainly have a majority, if not a super-majority, as Councilman Dromm believes is likely, capable of overriding a mayoral veto should the next mayor oppose the legislation.

Councilman Mark Weprin, a co-sponsor of the bill, says that it is “only fair to let people who have a stake in the future of the city be able to choose their representatives in government.”  Dromm, at a hearing on the bill last May, spoke of American history as a gradual expansion of the franchise from propertied white men to all white men to African-Americans, women and 18-year-olds.  “The demographics of voters have changed over time, and this bill would just be the natural step in our nation’s voting history,” Dromm said.

New York City revived the practice of voting for all in 1969, when the Board of Education instituted local control of primary and intermediate schools. Community school boards composed of local residents were tasked with hiring district superintendents and setting school policy, following protests by black and Latino parents angered that the mostly white central board ignored their concerns.  School board members stood for three-year terms, and elections for these seats were open to all residents of the city until 2002, when the state Legislature abolished the boards and handed control of the city’s education system over to the mayor.

More recently, a number of Council members have introduced a system of direct democracy in their districts in the form of participatory budgeting, which allows all residents of the district, regardless of their citizenship status, to vote on the allocation of a portion of each district’s discretionary funding.  The system has been popular where administered, although surveys do indicate fairly low interest on the part of non-citizens so far.

The logistics of carrying out Intro 410 are formidable.  To begin with, the law would allow non-citizens to vote in municipal elections, though they would still be barred from casting a ballot for state or federal level offices.  So in the recent primary election, for example, a non-citizen voter would have been permitted to vote for mayor, but not for district attorney, since DA is considered a county office, not a municipal one and a judgeship would also not be covered by the law.  In this year’s general election, non-citizen voters could weigh in on who they wanted to be their Council member, but not on any of the referendums on the ballot.  Thus the Board of Elections will have to devise different ballots for different voters, and hand them out correctly.

The mechanics of this process presents a challenge.  Intro 410 very specifically precludes the establishment of any distinctions between citizen voters and non-citizen voters that could be ascertained by an observer, meaning that non-citizen voters could not legally be sent to separate polling sites, or asked to stand in a different line to vote.  The law will require the collation of what it calls “municipal voters” into the same poll lists as citizen voters, yet with enough distinction built in to block those voters from voting out of their class.

The impact of non-citizen voting on elections in New York City could be massive, depending on turnout.  Estimates of the city’s non-citizen population are rough, but based upon one estimate it appears to number approximately 1.8 million people, 1.4 million of whom are over the age of 18.  Of these, approximately 850,000 are legal residents of the city and would qualify under Intro 410 to participate in city elections, thereby expanding the electorate by about one quarter.

Another factor that needs to be thought through is voter fraud.  , It is worth contemplating what Election Day will look like in New York City if and when voting by non-citizens becomes a reality.  Holders of virtually any kind of visa, except tourist visas, will be allowed to vote.  There will be no check on who is allowed to register: The bar will be, as it is currently, strictly the word of the registrant that he or she is entitled to vote.  Yet whereas now it is relatively easy to confirm if someone is a citizen, one’s visa status is mutable and often uncertain.  Visa holders fall in and out of compliance.  Both New York City’s Board of Elections and Campaign Finance Board currently perform no examination of citizenship status for voters, or even campaign contributors, though federal law permits only citizens to vote, and allows only citizens or legal permanent residents to donate to campaigns.  If Intro 410 becomes law as written, plausible deniability for electoral irregularities will be immeasurably increased.  Intro 410 will create a massive grey area in election law where none currently exists.

Even some of the bill’s sponsors aren’t entirely clear about its implications.  “If you have a green card, are waiting to get citizenship and pay taxes, it seems that you should be able to vote,” said Councilman Weprin when asked about his support for Intro 410.  When told that the law is not limited to permanent residents, to people who want to become citizens, or to taxpayers, Weprin was nonplussed. “Are we talking about the same bill?” he asked.

Let me know what you think of Intro 410 and how you would implement it, if it became the law.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Court Allows Unlimited Donations to PACs in NYC Mayoral Race


The New York Progress and Protection PAC supporting Republican mayoral candidate Joe Lhota can now receive donations that exceed the $150,000 limit under New York State law.

A three-judge panel today overturned a lower court’s decision preventing the PAC from receiving contributions that exceed the state’s maximum.  As a result, the political action committee can now make unlimited independent expenditures in the mayoral race.  By law, PACs can’t coordinate with candidates.

The ruling may improve Lhota’s efforts to close his gap in the polls behind Democratic rival Bill de Blasio, but it’s still a lot of ground to cover in less than two weeks.

“You know, I have nothing to do with that case,” Lhota said.  “I have made it a point not to talk about independent expenditures.  It’s a violation of law for me to even coordinate with them or do anything with them.”

Previously, Lhota has defended the rights of political action committees to receive unlimited donations, calling it a First Amendment issue.

The panel grounded its ruling on precedent set by the controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which protected donations to PACs as political speech.

“The hardship faced by NYPPP and its donors from the denial of relief is significant,” wrote one of the judges in today’s decision.  “Every sum that a donor is forbidden to contribute to NYPPP because of this statute reduces constitutionally protected political speech.”

The panel also threw out the argument laid out in the original decision that the PAC had created an “artificial urgency” in waiting 41 days before the Nov. 5 election day to bring it’s lawsuit.  Instead, the appellate judges concluded it’s beyond the court’s power to decide if political speech is pressing or not.

Thanks to new rules put in place for this election, these contributions will be visible to the public.  Independent expenditures exceeding state limits must be disclosed to the board within 24 hours of being received by campaigns during the last two weeks of the election.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Political Parties Should Pay For Their Own Primaries



I have been writing about this issue for a long time.

Elections should be conducted for voters, not parties.  Did you know that taxpayers spent over $500 million to fund partisan primaries in 2012.  Taxpayers paid for this, whether or not they were registered with a party.


End Partisanship is a coalition of non-partisan organizations advocating for an end to party control of our elections.

They believe that representatives should represent people, not parties.

They are challenging partisan primaries in the courtroom, advancing non-partisan electoral reforms, and educating voters about the importance of primary elections.

CLICK HERE to sign their petition.

I signed!










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Monday, October 21, 2013

IL Supreme Court Strikes Down Amazon Sales Tax Law


Some background.  I was part of the 1992 Supreme Court Quill case that said you only had to collect sales tax if a entity had a retail location, a distribution operation, or a sales team in a state.  At the time of the decision, there was no concept of affiliate marketing of using blogs, coupon sites, or buying links to other websites.

When the state of Illinois passed a law in 2011 requiring online retailers to collect sales tax if they received sales through Illinois-based affiliate web sites, such as blogs and coupon sites, online retailers including Amazon.com Inc. and Overstock.com Inc. cut off their in-state affiliates. As a result, thousands of affiliate site owners moved their tax-generating operations to another state, according to the Performance Marketing Association (PMA), an industry group that challenged the state law in court.

After winning its case in lower state courts, the PMA’s case was upheld today by the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled the law as “void and unenforceable” and was pre-empted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, which prohibits discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.  “This means that advertisers are free to reinstate their Illinois affiliates whose contracts were terminated out of fear of the ‘click-through’ nexus law,” the PMA said in a blog posting today. The law, similar to ones in New York and other states, had sought to classify in-state web affiliate businesses as an extended physical presence of their client online retailers, and then require those retailers to collect sales tax.

The PMA estimates that about one-third of affiliates also left the 12 other states that have enacted affiliate tax laws since 2008, when New York became the first to pass one.  The laws have been commonly called an “Amazon Tax” because they are aimed at forcing sales tax collection by big web-only retailers like Amazon.com, No. 1 in the Internet Retailer Top 500.

The Illinois court’s ruling took the opposite direction of a March 28 ruling from New York’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, which upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New York’s Amazon Tax law.  Amazon and Overstock have each filed petitions to have that ruling reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.

What remains to be seen is whether today’s court ruling in Illinois will make it more likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will review the New York ruling.

We are still waiting for Congress to finalize a federal law that would provide for a nationwide system of sales tax collection, as proposed by the Marketplace Fairness Act legislation, which passed the Senate in April and is now before the House that can go to the Supreme Court to decide if the Quill case decision will be changed.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

NYC BOE Uses Tiny Print on the Ballot


Elected officials and government watchdogs criticized the New York City Board of Elections for printing ballots for the November elections with the candidates’ names in tiny, six-point font, with the Board arguing that the font size is necessary.

New York is a Fusion state that allows a candidate to be on more then one party line.  This year there will be 15 candidates for mayor and 20 party lines.

One of the candidates, Randy Credico, won a court case from the 2012 election that required that each cadidate should have a separate line for each party name.

Assemblyman Kavanagh, State Senator Liz Krueger, Councilwoman Gale A. Brewer and groups that include Common Cause New York and Citizens Union called on the board to reverse its decision and to print the candidates’ names in a larger size.

The board’s executive director, Michael J. Ryan, said in an interview that the small font was necessary in order to include all of the languages required by law on a single-page ballot.  In Queens, ballots must include Bengali, Chinese, English, Korean and Spanish; in parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan, they must include Chinese, English and Spanish.

As to the critics’ suggestion of printing separate bilingual ballots in different languages, Mr. Ryan said that was under consideration for the future but was not possible this year.  He said poll sites would have magnifying glasses available, as well as ballot-marking devices to allow voters to see their ballots enlarged up to 22-point font.

The typeface this year will not be the smallest ever used.  Mr. Ryan said that in the 2010 election, the board used a five-point font.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Adolfo Carrión Jr.: The Third Man



Adolfo Carrión Jr. is the Independence Party mayoral nominee, the first candidate to make the general election ballot on a major party line.  A recent Gallup poll shows that 60% of Americans want a third party and a third voice.  Americans and New Yorkers are ready for a third perspective but sadly the Campaign Finance Board debates and the ABC on Channel 7 debate tonight have decided to exclude Adolfo, one of the major party candidates from their debates.

NY1 on Channel 1, did have a debate between Adolfo and the Republican candidate, Joseph Lhota.



From an article by Morgan Pehme at City and State:

While the Independence Party’s nominee, Adolfo Carrión, made the biggest stink about being excluded from the debate, all of the third-party candidates would be right if they feel indignation at their mistreatment.  The most likely way for candidates without the benefit of a major party’s backing to raise a significant amount of money and increase their standing in the polls (if indeed their names are even being included in them) is to have the platform of a televised debate to make their case to the electorate.

Moreover, through setting the bar by which one can be considered a credible contender, the debate organizers are, by extension, relegating anyone who is not anointed as such to the standing of a fringe candidate in the general public’s perception.  In many instances this impression is manifestly unfair given the third party candidates’ indubitable qualifications for the elected office they are seeking, as was the case in 2012 with the Libertarian nominee for President, Gary Johnson, a former two-term governor of New Mexico, and in this year’s NYC mayoral race with Carrión, an ex-Bronx Borough President and past member of President Obama’s cabinet.

While it was particularly galling to some Latinos that Noticias 41 Univision—one of the sponsors of yesterday’s debate along with WABC-TV, the Daily News and the League of Women Voters—consented to exclude Carrión from yesterday’s debate, given that as the best-known Hispanic candidate in the race he likely could have presented himself to the channel’s Spanish-speaking viewership as a compelling alternative to the major parties’ nominees, the rules governing the next two debates—the sole debates remaining—are all the more upsetting.  That’s because, unlike in this most recent debate, which was organized privately, the next two are governed by ground rules set by the New York City Campaign Finance Board—a taxpayer-funded agency.

It is indisputable that any candidate who fails to qualify for these debates cannot possibly prevail—or even place respectably—on Election Day.  Thus, the CFB is essentially deciding which candidates the public should discard as unviable.  Surely, this should not be the role of an agency set up to enable more people to run for office, not to judge whose candidacies are worthy of serious consideration.

Some will argue that having so many candidates on the debate stage would be unwieldy—or even a freak show of sorts, reminiscent of the seven-way New York gubernatorial debate in 2010.  I would contend that not only was that 2010 debate far more engaging than last night’s rather pedestrian exchange, the public benefitted more from hearing the far wider range of views expressed in that battle royal.

Democracy is supposed to be messy—or as Plato described it in The Republic, it is “a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, dispensing a certain equality to equals and unequals alike.”

Right now we have an electoral system that pretends to treat all candidates equally, when in fact it treats some candidates more equally than others. It is time we bring this injustice to an end.


CLICK HERE  for Adolfo's information in the NYC Voter Guide.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Monday, October 14, 2013

NYC Independent Mayoral Candidate Adolfo Carrion Jr. Locked Out of Debate


Tomorrow, Tuesday, October 15, WABC Channel 7, along with Noticias Univision 41, the Daily News and the NYC League of Women Voters, is sponsoring a NYC Mayoral debate.  The sponsors have chosen to exclude Adolfo Carrion from this debate, favoring just two major parties.



Adolfo Carrion Jr. is the Independence Party mayoral nominee, the first candidate to make the general election ballot on a major party line.  A recent Gallup poll shows that 60% of Americans want a third party and a third voice.  Americans and New Yorkers are ready for a third perspective but sadly these four organizations have decided to exclude Adolfo Carrion, one of the major party candidates from this debate.

You can join fellow supporters tomorrow at 6:00pm outside ABC Studios, on the northeast corner of 67th and Columbus.

We have started a petition to support Adolfo's inclusion in the debate and we encourage you to join by CLICKING HERE.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Saturday, October 12, 2013

Voter Roll Purges using National Voter Registration Systems


In an effort to control voter registration and the ability to double vote, two organizations have created different interstate voter registration systems.

I have been to their presentations and hope we can get to a single statewide system.  Each system has their pluses and minuses and operational issues.


Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC)

The Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is a non-profit organization with the sole mission of assisting states to improve the accuracy of America’s voter rolls and increase access to voter registration for all eligible citizens.  ERIC is governed and managed by states who choose to join, and was formed in 2012 with assistance from The Pew Charitable Trusts.

The Pew Charitable Trusts report that 1 in 4 of those polled believed their registration is automatically updated when they move.

The seven states that pioneered the formation of ERIC in 2012 are: Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Nevada, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.

The states were inspired to create ERIC due to the challenges in maintaining the accuracy of voter registration records.  While most private industry, and many government agencies, have updated their systems to take advantage of modern technology, voter registration systems remain largely based on 19th century tools, such as handwriting on paper forms and postal mail.  The inherent inefficiencies in the system result in unnecessarily high costs, and make it difficult to keep voter rolls clean throughout the country.  For example, 1 in 8 voter registration records in America contain a serious error.

The ERIC data center is a sophisticated tool that allows states to securely and safely compare voter data, thereby improving the accuracy of their voter rolls.  States that choose to participate in ERIC gain access to state-of-the-art technology to compare information on eligible voters from official data sources submitted by the states, such as records from the voter registration rolls and from the state motor vehicle agency, and reports back to the states where there is a highly confident match indicating a voter moved or died, or the existence of a duplicate record.  States can then begin the process under federal and state law to clean up the voter rolls, targeting their efforts based on solid data.

Participating states also receive information on unregistered individuals who are potentially eligible to vote.  This information, which states have never previously received, will allow them to reach out to those citizens to encourage them to register in the most efficient way and at the most efficient time before an election or registration deadline.  Receiving actionable information earlier in the election cycle will reduce costs and administrative burdens to state election officials, while also reducing the incentive for unregulated third-party registration groups to engage in large scale registration efforts.

Benefits of ERIC membership

1. Reduced costs: Enabling election officials to keep their records up-to-date year-round, and discouraging the high volume of inefficient paper registrations driven by third party groups close to major elections will result in long-term cost savings.

2. More accurate voter rolls with the near elimination of duplicate and invalid registrations.

3. Reduced opportunity for and perception of potential election fraud.

4. Improved protection of voters’ privacy.

The Electronic Registration Information Center Crosscheck Program

The program compares voter registration records annually among the participating states to identify duplicate registrations and double votes.  It is a tool states can use to maintain clean, current and accurate voter lists and to fight voter fraud.

The program began in 2005 as an agreement between four Midwestern states – Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska.  The four original states comprised approximately 9 million registration records.  Today, the states in the program are: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia and will contain more than 90 million voter registration records in the database to compare in 2014.

Benefits of Membership

(1) Establishes procedures that will increase the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office.

(2) To make it possible for Federal, State, and local governments to implement this in a manner that enhances the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for Federal office.

(3) To protect the integrity of the electoral process.

(4) To ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.

How does it works

1. Each state pulls data on January 15 each year using prescribed data format.

2. Upload data to secure FTP site (hosted by Arkansas).

3. The Crosscheck Program's IT department pulls data, runs comparison, uploads results to FTP site.

4. Each state downloads results from FTP site, processes them according to state laws and regulations.

5. States' deletes all other states’ data.

A federal case has developed using the Crosscheck Progam.

The deadline for registering to vote in Virginia’s November 5, 2013 election is Monday, October 14.  Meanwhile, the State Board of Elections has obtained a list of 77,000 Virginia voters that allegedly are also registered voters in some other state.  The State Board has asked the various County and Independent City Boards to remove these voters from the rolls before the upcoming election.

On October 1, the Democratic Party filed a federal lawsuit to stop the purge, until after the election.  The lawsuit alleges that the list has many errors.  The lawsuit also points out that federal law does not permit purges to occur closer than 90 days before an election, although that law only relates to federal elections, not elections for state office.  Finally, the lawsuit says that a large proportion of the voters on the list registered in some other state as long ago as ten years, and that the same voters moved to Virginia after that time.  The case is Democratic Party of Virginia v Virginia State Board of Elections, eastern district, 1:13cv-1218.

Under the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck program, the 25 member states send their voter registration data to a central location where they are matched based on first name/last name/date of birth/last 4 digits of SSN.

Virginia apparently also checked against its own state voter database and removed voters whose Virginia activity was later than that indicated in the other states.

The issue here is not whether a purge of voter registrations is valid based on, for instance, change of address.  The issue is giving voters the time to register again if they are incorrectly purged from the voter rolls, and that’s why caging efforts like this are always undertaken in the last few weeks of an election cycle.

If a voter is incorrectly purged from the voter rolls, and appears at the polls, they may cast a provisional ballot.  Then they will have to return with proof they are eligible to vote in that state.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Friday, October 11, 2013

It Is Time to Put a Closed for Renovation Sign on the People's House


Throw the bums out!  That’s the message 60 percent of Americans are sending to Washington in a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, saying if they had the chance to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress, including their own representative, they would.

The 60 percent figure is the highest ever that question was recorded in the poll, registered in the wake of the government shutdown and threat of the U.S. defaulting on its debt for the first time in history.

CLICK HERE to read the full poll(PDF).

The numbers reflect a broader trend over the last few years.  Americans have traditionally said that while they might not like Congress, they usually liked their own representatives.  But that sentiment appears to have shifted.

The throw-them-all-out attitude has slowly taken hold over the last three years, coinciding with two things, the rise of the Tea Party caucus in the House and the debt ceiling fight of 2011.

The number of Americans who say they want to fire everyone is fairly consistent among most groups but it spikes among rural voters (70 percent), white independents (70 percent) and those in Republican-held congressional districts (67 percent).  Just 52 percent of respondents in Democratic-held districts would vote to fire every lawmaker on Capitol Hill.

In another sign of dissatisfaction with the state of politics, 47 percent of Americans said they do not strongly identify with either party.

Democratic pollster Fred Yang, who helped conduct the poll with Peter Hart (Peter D. Hart Research Associates), added that Americans are paying attention to this fight and want it resolved before the debt ceiling deadline of Oct. 17.

“This isn’t the calm before the storm,” Yang said. “This is the storm before the storm.”.

Hart points out that the seeds are there to give rise to independent or third-party candidates.  According to Hart, “Somewhere, someone’s going to pick up and run with the ‘throw them all out’” banner.

GALLUP POLL - Need for Third Party Reaches New High

Amid the government shutdown, 60% of Americans say the Democratic and Republicans parties do such a poor job of representing the American people that a third major party is needed.  That is the highest Gallup has measured in the 10-year history of this question.  A new low of 26% believe the two major parties adequately represent Americans.

The prior highs in perceived need for a third party came in August 2010, shortly before that year's midterm elections, when Americans were dissatisfied with government and the Tea Party movement was emerging as a political force; and in 2007, when the newly elected Democratic congressional majority was clashing with then-President George W. Bush.

Republicans (52%) and Democrats (49%) are similar in their perceptions that a third party is needed.  In fact, this marks the first time that a majority of either party's supporters have said a third party is needed.

As would be expected, a majority of independents, those who profess no initial allegiance to either party, have always said the U.S. needs a third party.  Seventy-one percent currently hold that view, which has been exceeded twice before, in 2007 and 2010.

Given the inability of the Republican and Democratic parties to agree on the most basic of government functions, passing an annual budget to pay for federal programs, it is perhaps not surprising that the percentage of Americans who believe a third party is needed has never been higher.

However, the desire for a third party is not sufficient to ensure there will be one.  Structural factors in the U.S. election system and the parties' own abilities to adapt to changing public preferences have helped the Republican and Democratic parties to remain the dominant parties in U.S. government for more than 150 years.  Third parties that have emerged to challenge their dominance have not been able to sustain any degree of electoral success.

Maybe it is time for congressional term limits.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Thursday, October 10, 2013

Citizen United Round 2 or McCutcheon is Corruption



The Supreme Court is hearing a campaign finance case called McCutcheon v. FEC. or as some are calling it, Citizen United Round 2.  McCutcheon could strike down aggregate donation limits for political campaigns.  How many people do you know who are running up against the “limitation” of donating no more than $117,000 every two years!?

Activists from Represent.Us were out in force at the Supreme Court for the opening of oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC.


Ernest Van Derr Bribes Speaks at SCOTUS

The American Anti-Corruption Act will make cases like McCutcheon irrelevant.

DEMANDS TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT:

- The 2010 Citizens United ruling has had disastrous effects on our country.

- We The People demand that you use your power to represent us and preserve the few election-spending laws still in place.

- Rule against McCutcheon and protect free and fair elections in America.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon