Loading
Latest News |
(See all)

Latest Editorials

Statement of Citizens United President David N. Bossie on SCOTUS ruling on President Trump’s immigration EO:

"We are pleased the Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that President Trump's immigration executive order can take effect with limited exceptions. From the beginning, we have said that the executive order is constitutional because it was issued as a national security precaution. The President of the United States must be able to secure the homeland from foreign threats. Citizens United will continue to back this EO as it proceeds at the Supreme Court."

The Left's Unease with Free Speech

The First Amendment is under assault in America by the intolerant left.  A growing number of younger Americans on our college campuses believe it is appropriate to ban speech that they disagree with, are offended by, or find politically incorrect.  It’s a slippery slope that has caused several state legislatures to move legislation aiming to protect speech at state colleges.  Liberal leaning politicians as well as administrators and educators at our institutions of higher learning would be wise to speak out against the danger of suppressing free speech in an open society, but I’m not holding my breath.

For the past seven years, I've witnessed up close the left’s disdain for robust free speech rights. Ever since the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in 2010, the left has engaged in a nationally coordinated effort at all levels of government to "overturn" the Citizens United decision under the guises of "dark money", "corporations taking over the political process", "too much money in politics" or whatever the attack line du jour might be. These disingenuous attacks have systematically failed because overturning Citizens United would come down to limiting the free speech rights that are protected under the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The liberal attacks on Citizens United have become so falsified that most people don’t even remember - or realize - what the case was about in the first place. When folks hear the case was about limiting political speech and Citizens United’s desire to run advertisements to support a movie we produced, attitudes magically change. After all, even if one believes that there is too much money in the political system, should the government be able to censor a film or book or pamphlet because someone wishes to spend money to let people know that it exists? Reasonable people agree that this type of "big brother" government action has no place in America.

Furthermore, the liberal attacks on Citizens United are steeped in hypocrisy. One of the top priorities of failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was to overturn the Citizens United decision. However, the Democrat nominee for president and Super PACs supporting her candidacy outspent Donald Trump and Republican Super PACs by a two to one margin. If dark money was truly buying our elections, Hillary Clinton would be president right now. But it’s more than just liberals saying one thing and doing another; it’s much worse.

That brings us back to the politics of today and the left’s permanent campaign against President Trump. The anti-free speech movement targeting conservative speakers on college campuses makes me wonder if the anti-Citizens United effort is truly about the amount of money in the politics. If the left was so concerned about the flood of money in the system, wouldn’t they be against labor union money as well? And if corporate money was delivering a favorable message for the liberals, would that suddenly be fine too? If you recall, liberals had no problem with the corporate funded advertisements that ran in support of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary film.

The left in America today appears not to have a problem with the amount of money in politics, but rather the messenger and the message itself. Hillary Clinton argued that she wanted to overturn Citizens United because of the money it allowed in the political process, but she was also keenly aware that our film before the Supreme Court was entitled Hillary The Movie. “Citizens United was about me” Secretary Clinton used to tell crowds, making it sound as though she was in favor of banning speech that was critical of both her and her political beliefs.

Historically, liberal campuses like the University of California at Berkeley have fancied themselves as bastions of enlightened thinking and peaceful assembly. But these days it appears as though free speech and the right to assemble only deserve constitutional protections for people the left agrees with politically. Our mantra at Citizens United has always been, “we may not agree with what you’re saying, but we believe in your right to say it.” This is what conservatives believe in their heart of hearts.

My question is what does the left and their liberal enablers really believe about free speech in America?


New CU Op-Ed: Trump Is Right To Call For Big UN Funding Cuts

In 2005, Citizens United produced a documentary entitled Broken Promises: The United Nations At 60, hosted by the late actor Ron Silver. The film took a fresh look at the record of the UN over its six decade history and probed into whether or not it was living up to its original charter.  We found that the UN was failing horribly in its mission to rally and act against evil in the world and was rife with corruption and anti-Israel bias.  Now, twelve years later, we ask again:  has the United Nations been able to reform itself and if not, why does the United States continue to fund the UN at such high levels and why are we not seriously rethinking our relationship with the organization generally?

The Trump Administration is indicating it will be seeking deep cuts in funds that the U.S. sends to the United Nations, which could save taxpayers billions of dollars. President Trump has stated repeatedly that he wants to concentrate more American taxpayer funds on American jobs and infrastructure. The President’s platform of rethinking American foreign aid and our expensive support of international organizations is a big reason why he was propelled to the presidency in 2016.

President Trump has experience when it comes to the way the United Nations spends money. At the time our film was made, the UN was contemplating a building renovation project and President Trump offered to take on the project. He was kind enough to sit for an interview for the film to discuss his experiences with the UN in this regard. Here’s what our future president said in 2005:

I think you could save a billion dollars. I then get a letter saying we’re not interested…they weren’t interested in saving a billion dollars…then after that I started hearing about all of the scandals and everything else and I fully understand why those scandals took place. I don’t think it’s incompetence, I think it’s much worse than incompetence. They are going to spend much more than a ‘billion-five’ on fixing up a building and it’s impossible to do that.

Since our film was released, little has changed at the United Nations with regard to scandals. In April 2016, Reuters reported that a “21-page confidential report…outlines the results of an audit ordered by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in response to charges against John Ashe, General Assembly president in 2013-2014, and six other people…It is the biggest financial corruption crisis to rock the United Nations since the Oil-for-Food scandal hit the world body during the tenure of Ban’s predecessor Kofi Annan. U.N. officials and diplomats say latest [sic] scandal highlights the need for greater transparency at the United Nations.”

And with regard to anti-Israel sentiment at the United Nations, in January of this year Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham felt compelled to introduce a bill that would cut U.S. funding of the UN until the organization reverses an anti-Israel resolution that passed the Security Council in December. Senator Graham was correct when he stated, “Twenty-two percent of the money to fund the U.N. comes from the American taxpayer. I don’t think it’s a good investment for the American taxpayer to give money to an organization that condemns the only democracy in the Middle East.”

In summing up our film my friend Ron Silver said, “For decades there has been talk of UN reform. But on its 60th anniversary, there seems to be consensus that the UN must reform or face irrelevancy.” So I ask again, now in its 72nd year, has anything changed at the UN? This is the precise time for America to pull back on its massive investment in the United Nations. Perhaps the time has come for America to have a debate about leaving the body altogether. History has shown the UN is unlikely to undertake any true reform absent extreme measures by its primary financial benefactor.

David N. Bossie is President of Citizens United and Executive Producer of Broken Promises: The United Nations At 60

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/29/trump-is-right-to-call-for-big-un-funding-cuts/

Wash Exam: The campaign by the Left to permanently obstruct Trump shows how desperate they're getting

By DAVID BOSSIE • 3/8/17 7:00 PM

The oppose-it-all, oppose-it-now, oppose-it-forever campaign of the Left is getting more and more desperate as reality sets in. This month, the balance of President Trump's Cabinet will be confirmed, Judge Neil Gorsuch will continue on his smooth path to Senate confirmation, and voting on the big ticket items on the White House's conservative reform agenda will commence. This means that we should all expect more hyperventilating from the liberal media about meetings with the Russian ambassador, more anti-free speech outbursts at liberal universities, more juvenile calls for the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and maybe even an appearance by the community organizer-in-chief himself, President Barack Obama.

This destructive strategy of permanent obstruction is all that remains of the shrinking liberal ideology in America.

In the lead-up to Trump's incredibly well-received address to Congress, former Attorney General Eric Holder made news when he said Obama is poised to re-enter the political arena and is "ready to roll." This strategic announcement was meant to let the unhinged resistance know that their savior is ready to fight the Trump agenda.

Then, a few hours later, Trump delivered the best speech of his political career in which he laid out his common-sense agenda, including popular items like tax reform, enforcing immigration laws, and repealing and replacing the disaster that is Obamacare. Upon watching the presidential address, polling found that 57 percent of the American people had a very positive view of the speech, and almost 70 percent said the policies outlined would move the country in the right direction. Commanding numbers such as these are virtually non-existent in the United States today and must be causing panic attacks in liberal enclaves.

The best course of action for Trump going forward is to visit the many states he carried that have Democratic senators up for re-election in 2018 and repeat the speech he made to Congress at each stop. As Trump's optimistic and even-handed message continues to sink in, the chorus from the Left will become loonier. As more voters hear the president's agenda in states such as Missouri, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio, it will pick up more bipartisan support from Democratic senators in these states because their constituents will demand it. The bad news for the Left is that most people want economic growth, better and cheaper healthcare, and sanctuary city reform — and that's exactly what they're going to get over the next couple months, because Trump keeps his promises.

If Obama takes a public leadership role in the failing "resist Trump" effort, he will damage his legacy. Most Americans understandably want their president to succeed. Reasonable people believe that when the president succeeds, Americans will be better off. The mood of the country improves, optimism increases, and the future seems brighter. Obama taking on his successor's agenda in the public arena is not something most Americans will appreciate. President Bill Clinton got out of the way of President George W. Bush. Bush got out of the way of Obama. These men understood that in the U.S. we have elections, elections have consequences, and one of the consequences is the winner gets to set the agenda.

It's not surprising that the Left is having a hard time coming to grips with voters' decision to reject a third Obama term. The people chose a Republican president, a Republican Senate, and a Republican House. By doing so, they chose to have Obamacare replaced with something that works, they chose a conservative as Supreme Court Justice Scalia's successor, and they chose to put "America First." Obama should respect the results of the election and focus instead on improving his golf game.

Trump's greatest strength is his ability to deliver his message of reform directly to the American people, just like I witnessed first-hand during the presidential campaign. If he stays on the principles he laid out before Congress, more of his agenda will be enacted and our country will be a much better place to live.

David N. Bossie is president of Citizens United and served as President Trump's deputy campaign manager.


Daily Caller Op-ed: Foreign Emoluments Clause Lawsuit Against Trump Unlikely To Find Traction In Court

President Trump’s detractors are bent on forcing him into a fire sale of his vast business empire, arguing his ownership of various assets violates the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That clause prohibits federal officials from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or Foreign State.” The Framers considered an “emolument” as something similar to a perk associated with the performance of official duties. An automobile given by a head of state to the ambassador from the U.S. would be a classic example of an emolument prohibited by the clause.

Just three days after President Trump was sworn into office, the liberal activist group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) filed a lawsuit demanding the courts force him to divest the bulk of his business holdings. The complaint alleges Mr. Trump’s ownership of real estate assets such as The Trump Tower in New York and Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, and his receipt of royalties from the Television program “The Apprentice” qualify as emoluments that create conflicts of interests making him beholden to foreign governments.

The unprecedented legal theory of the case is that President Trump’s properties generate at least some receipts from foreign officials and governments, meaning some of those receipts will eventually find their way into Mr. Trump’s pocket as profits. Consequently, according to the lawsuit, the Emoluments Clause bars him from owning those assets because his judgment as President may be compromised by the profits he receives from foreign payments to his companies.

While the lawsuit drew major media coverage when it was filed, the case is unlikely to find traction in the courts. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/09/foreign-emoluments-clause-lawsuit-against-trump-unlikely-to-find-traction-in-court/


Wash Exam: Dems should think twice before delaying Trump's Supreme Court nomination

Democrats should think twice before using parliamentary tactics to delay or block President-elect Donald Trump's forthcoming nominee for the Supreme Court. The American people know the difference between holding up a nomination that would change the ideological balance of the court in the midst of a presidential election and denying the new president the opportunity to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia with a qualified conservative.

When Scalia passed away last February, high stakes Supreme Court politics were injected into an already contentious presidential election season. With the high court down to eight justices and the specter of many 4-4 deadlocked decisions on the horizon, President Obama wasted no time nominating liberal federal Judge Merrick Garland as his choice to succeed Scalia. Liberals sensed an enormous opportunity to score some controversial 5-4 court victories, which before Scalia's death would not have been possible.

To his credit, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stood tall and shut down any hope that Garland would get a hearing before the presidential election when he unequivocally stated: "the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court's direction ..."

Democratic leaders smelled blood in the water and attempted to make McConnell's principled position an election issue. Attack ads were launched trying to convince Republican senators in close races to embrace a hearing for Garland. Democrats dreamed of Hillary Clinton scoring political points nationally with a "stop blocking Garland" line of attack against GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. As it turned out, the American people would have none of it. Donald Trump was elected president with 306 electoral votes and swing state senators on the ballot like Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida all prevailed — as did Trump on top of the ticket in each of these critically important electoral states.

The American people said loud and clear that they wanted a Republican president and a Republican-led Senate to pick Scalia's replacement. Hillary Clinton's stated judicial priorities, such as overturning free speech rights granted in the Citizens United case and severely limiting the Second Amendment, were of great concern to voters. The election confirmed what conservatives had hoped was the case: Putting a liberal on the bench to replace Scalia would tip the balance of the court too far to the left.

The election notwithstanding, bitter Democrats are now threatening to block President-elect Trump's Supreme Court choice — apparently whoever it turns out to be — as revenge for the Republican strategy with regard to Merrick Garland's nomination. "Past is present, and what goes around comes around," is how Sen. Dianne Feinstein recently put it.

This strategy — if employed — is a big risk for Democrats. In 2018, 23 Senate seats currently occupied by Democrats are up for election. Two more are occupied by independents who caucus with the Democrats. Ten of those Senate seats are in states carried by Donald Trump. If Senate Democrats try to block President-elect Trump's nominee to replace Scalia, they will face the wrath of voters in those states, voters who clearly understand what is at stake. The outcome could leave Democrats with 40 or fewer Senate seats following the 2018 elections, a result that would give Republicans a filibuster-proof majority in the upper house.

The truth is that even with Scalia on the bench, the court was hardly a surefire 5-4 conservative majority, when you consider the recent Obamacare and gay marriage rulings. At most, the anticipated Trump selection will maintain the balance as it was prior to Scalia's passing, while Merrick Garland would have moved the court to the left. The Democrats should question the wisdom of moving to block our new president's Supreme Court pick for some sort of misguided political revenge.

J.T. Mastranadi is vice president for governmental affairs at Citizens United.


National Review: McConnell Can Make Super PACs Obsolete

As Congress and the Obama White House work to enact a funding bill to avoid yet another possible government shutdown, a rift has developed within the conservative community.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would like to repeal the limits on how much political parties may spend in coordination with their candidates. The congressional Freedom Caucus is skeptical of the proposal, because party spending is often heavily tilted toward “establishment” candidates. Other conservative groups, such as the Center for Competitive Politics, enthusiastically back the measure, saying the limits are unconstitutional.

To read more, click here.


Breitbart: Conservatives Should Think Bigger On Immigration Ban

Donald Trump is right.

We are at war and our homeland security and immigration policies are a complete mess. The Syrian refugee issue and the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino have kick-started a much needed debate and have brought some alarming information to the American people.

It starts with basic government incompetence and the suffocating PC culture that Republican and Democrat establishment leaders are slaves to along with the liberal media. Hopefully Trump’s policy idea will start a substantive conversation, because does anyone believe that the United States Government has a firm grasp on who is trying to come into our country, who is already in our country, and what they are doing when they get here?

Couple that with President Obama’s total lack of interest in securing America and we find ourselves in the midst of a perfect storm.

The next president should enact an immigration moratorium or strict quotas across the board.

To read more, click here.


Breitbart: Don’t let Quentin Tarantino off the Hook

Quentin Tarantino must be concerned about the prospects of his upcoming movie, The Hateful Eight.

Why else would he go on television last week to backtrack and claim he’s “not anti-police” and “not a cop-hater”? Tarantino’s disgraceful public comments about police officers have created a backlash and rightfully so.

But just because Tarantino is feeling pressure from Hollywood bosses to rectify the situation doesn’t mean Americans should let him off the hook. Decent-minded Americans from across the political spectrum must boycott this film to make the statement that our police men and women are heroes, and that out of touch blowhards like Tarantino won’t get one cent of our money.

There are a lot of phony wars being promoted by liberals such as the war on women and war on minorities, but one of the real wars being waged by the Left is against hardworking and professional police officers across the United States.

To read more, click here.


Bretbart News: OVERSIGHT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY

In 1973, when Senate Watergate Committee counsel Fred Thompson famously asked, “Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?” the committee was under extreme pressure from the Nixon White House. Even in the face of a constitutional crisis, the committee plowed ahead and fulfilled its core constitutional duty of executive branch oversight within our system of checks and balances. The committee went on to prove that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States.

Today, congressional investigators are under a lot of pressure as well. On Thursday a Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, when asked about the possibility of a thorough investigation into the Clinton email allegations, said, “They really don’t want to [mess] with us on this. Trust me.” This public threat from a Democrat Member of Congress tells me all I need to know about the still-unfolding Clinton email situation. Democrats are worried sick about the specter of a public congressional fact-finding investigation running parallel to the ongoing FBI investigation. But threats such as this – and there will be more – must not trump doing what is right, and that is to move forward with the investigation in Congress.

To read more, click here.


  You are viewing Page: 1 of 77
    
Subscribe RSS

David Bossie at CPAC 2017

© 2017 - Citizens United - 202-547-5420
1006 Pennsylvania Ave SE - Washington, DC 20003
Privacy Policy