The National Republican Congressional Committee supported Bob Dold’s 2010 campaign as one of its ostensibly conservative “Young Guns” candidates.   With this help from the NRCC, Bob Dold was elected to Congress.

On May 9, less than two years after this inflow of funds from the Republican Party, Representative Bob Dold (R-IL) introduced legislation protecting funding of Planned Parenthood.  This stands in stark contrast to legislation passed last year by the House seeking to eliminate all federal funding.  All but seven Republicans voted in favor of this ban.

In 2010, Planned Parenthood provided more than 329,445 abortions.  This makes it the largest abortion services provider in the county.  In that same year, 46%, of its more than $1 billion in revenue came from government health services grants and reimbursements!  Nearly 70% of its expenses fell under the “medical services” category which includes abortion services.  Partially due to this inflow of government funding, Planned Parenthood’s assets exceed its liabilities by more than $1 billion.  That’s quite a strong balance sheet!

Despite the fact that many of Bob Dold’s constituents oppose being forced to fund an abortion services provider, despite the fact that these funds could easily be directed to health organizations which do not provide abortions, and despite the fact that Bob Dold earned an endorsement from the NRCC’s Young Guns program, he advocates continued federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

Bob Dold’s campaign website states, “To put our government back on firm financial ground we must drastically cut spending. “  Actions speak louder than campaign rhetoric, Mr. Congressman.  And actions speak louder than any past “Young Guns” endorsement.  Then again, soon retiring Senator Dick Lugar once offered a glowing endorsement of Bob Dold, commending him for his fiscal discipline and common sense.  This proposed legislation shows little of either.

Follow Joel on Twitter @joelgriffith

Is Republican senatorial candidate Mark Neumann attempting to stack this upcoming weekend’s Wisconsin Republican state convention with delegates?  Or is the “Establishment” attempting to freeze out grassroots activists from the state convention?  A close look at the facts suggests both accusations might be true.

During the state convention, candidates vie for official Republican Party of Wisconsin endorsements leading to the August 14 congressional primary.  This year, Mark Neumann is competing with former Governor Tommy Thompson, state representative Jeff Fitzgerald, and businessman Eric Hovde for this trophy.  The delegates will play an important role in determining official state party endorsements.  As such, all candidates attempt to win the support of delegates prior to the convention.

The Republican Party of Wisconsin Constitution governs the selection of delegates to the state convention.  Article VIII, Section 4 states,

 Such delegates shall be elected by members in good standing of the Republican organization in each county at the regularly called County Caucus for the election of such delegates.  The members in good standing at the County Caucus may authorize the County Chairman to substitute delegates after the County Caucus if the County Chairman certifies in writing that the added delegate is a member in good standing of that County and the deleted delegate, if any, has no objection to the deletion.  No substitutions shall be allowed after the last meeting of the Credentials Committee prior to the convening of the convention.

These rules define the delegate selection process.  The state delegates are to be selected at the county caucuses.  If any substitutions are made after the caucus, the County Chairman must have been authorized to do so by those in attendance at the County Convention.  In addition, any deleted delegate must agree to the switch.  The language “the deleted delegate, if any” implies that a substitution does not necessarily involve deleting another delegate.   Thus, the County Chairman can also fill allocated delegate slots which remain unfilled following the County Caucus.

These unfilled slots may be quite numerous. The Republican Party of Wisconsin Constitution Article VIII, Section 3 (b) allocates one delegate for every 250 Republican votes cast for governor in the preceding election.  Based on Scott Walker’s 2010 vote totals, more than 4,500 delegates could theoretically gather at the state convention.  After all, last year was the biggest non-election year attendance in over forty years.  Even so, just 1,050 attended.  Presumably, nearly 3,000 delegate slots remained open! This year, a record attendance is expected of up to 2,000 attendees.  Yet, still this would leave over 2,000 delegate slots unfilled.

Our source says the Neumann campaign has been actively encouraging people to sign up as delegates to the state convention.  The strategy seems to have worked, as hundreds of delegate applications flood in.  Unclear is whether the county chairs have been authorized by those in attendance at the county caucuses to make such substitutions and appointments.

The state party credentials committee attempted to amend the rules to only certify as delegates those who signed up prior to the end of the county caucus.  Such an attempt to change the rules in the name of “clarification” does serve to alienate these potential delegates.  The credentials committee should instead be ensuring that the party constitution be followed.  Namely, any delegate additions may only be made (1) at the discretion of the County Chairman and that (2) such Chairman will have been authorized by the County Caucus to make such additions.

Simply following the party constitution as drafted will avoid ostracizing grass roots supporters and will also stop the Neumann campaign (and any other) from flouting the delegate rules.  Rather than amend the rules, the credential committee should enforce the rules.

Concerns that the Neumann campaign will drum up needless controversy are understandable.  In 2010, Neumann’s supporters picketed the state convention.  Neumann alleged that his supporters were being denied access to the convention.  After this feeble attempt to attract sympathizers, Neumann admitted the picketing supporters failed to sign up as delegates, alternates, or guests.

The Republican Party rightfully emphasizes the importance of the “rule of law.”  It’s time that GOP candidates operate campaigns in accordance with that principle.  It’s also time that those in charge of the party infrastructure enforce the rules as written.  Such enforcement should be equally applied, regardless of any official’s personal candidate bias.

follow Joel on Twitter @joelgriffith

The Dick Lugar campaign recently trumpeted its endorsement from the Lunch Pail Republicans, expressing “gratitude”  to the new organization for it support.  The Lunch Pail Republicans committee claims to be comprised of “Indiana Republicans” striving to return Indiana to “traditional core Republican values that used to define who we are.”   Extensive research suggests both claims are a distortion of the truth!

According to the organization’s first and only quarterly FEC filing, the Lunch Pail Republicans received $100,000 funding earlier this year.  ALL of this funding came from the Engineers Political Education Committee (EPEC).  To be clear, every dollar of funds collected by the Lunch Pail Republicans came from a single donor, the EPEC.  Not a single dollar reported came from any of the “Indiana Republicans” the organization claims to represent.

Let’s follow the money now.  Every dollar funding Lunch Pail Republicans came from EPEC.  What types of candidates does EPEC typically support?  During the last election cycle, EPEC contributed over $2,000,000 to congressional races.  Nearly 90% of those funds went to Democrats.  EPEC’s most recent monthly filing covering March of this year shows a similar breakdown.  In March, EPEC contributed to Representative Jim Moran, who recently tried to censor advertisement critical of Obamacare.  In addition, EPEC contributed to Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, who once suggested the Constitution guarantees a right to dental care!  It gets worse…EPEC also gave to notorious Democrat Alan Grayson, who earned the title “America’s Worst Politician” for intellectually inept and incendiary outbursts and Representative Jan Schakowsky, a member of the radical Progressive Caucus.  To top it off, in March of 2012, EPEC contributed $100,000 to AFL-CIO and $250,000 to the Michigan Democratic Party 21^st Century Fund.

Yet, the Lugar campaign proudly touts an endorsement from an group funded in its entirety by EPEC.  Ironically, a Lugar surrogate declared that “endorsements matter” while decrying Grover Norquist’s (of Americans for Tax Reform) endorsement of Mourdock.  Is the Lugar campaign unaware that most conservatives would appreciate the endorsement of a person known for fighting against tax increases rather than from an organization entirely funded by EPEC?

The Lunch Pail Republicans is an organization entirely funded by a “political education committee” funding opponents of Republican candidates 90% of the time.  Unfortunately, the impact from the deceptively named organization extends beyond the Indiana Senate race. Lunch Pail Republicans recently endorsed six Republicans running for the Indiana House of Representatives.  Conservatives should cast a wary eye on all of them.

Follow Joel Griffith on Twitter @joelgriffith

The Center for Media and Democracy proudly leads the charge against the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an organization dedicated to advancing limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty.  Several leading corporations have announced plans to withdraw membership contributions from ALEC following this outcry.

Who funds the Center for Media and Democracy?  The website proclaims, “We accept no funding from for-profit corporations or grants from the government.”   Based on this statement, one might be fooled into thinking that indeed no tax dollars find their way into the coffers of this progressive organization.  However, the truth suggests otherwise.

One of the prominent contributors to the Center for Media and Democracy is the Tides Foundation.  As it turns out, both the Tides Foundation and the related Tides Center receive funding from the federal government in the form of grants from an array of agencies.  These include the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Energy, and the Department of Agriculture.  According to the government database, www.usaspending.gov, the Tides Center received more than $3,000,000 in federal funding since 2000;  the Tides Foundation received in excess of $800,000 in the same period.

Matthew Vadum, Senior Editor at Capital Research Center and author of Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers, this week referred to the Tides Foundation as “a legal money-laundering outfit for the radical left that was founded by Drummond Pike, a leftover peacenik from the 1960s.”  In response to the revelation that the Tides Foundation collects millions of dollars in federal funding, Mr. Vadum stated, “This is disgraceful. Our tax dollars should not be funding an organization that helps racist groups like Color of Change and hyper-partisan propaganda shops like Media Matters for America.”

This bold criticism of this federal funding seems vindicated.  In short, the federal government funds the Tides Foundation.  This same foundation contributes significant sums to the Center for Media and Democracy, which launched a public relations offensive against ALEC.  The possibility of federal tax dollars being used to aid organizations stymying the work of a private advocacy group should be disconcerting to all who value our First Amendment right “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

According to Rebel Pundit, Alex Hayes, director of Mainstream Republicans of Washington State, distributed a list of preferred delegates to Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich supporters at this convention. The vast majority of these slates of delegates consisted of Romney supporters. This fact was not disclosed on the slate. Most disturbing was the letterhead on the slate–which prominently claimed the endorsements of the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns. In addition, Hayes verbally claimed that the Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich campaigns “agreed to work together” at the county convention. Such endorsements and agreements did not exist!  Indeed, the only campaign standing to benefit from the slate distributed by Alex Hayes was Mitt Romney’s.

**Update** We have received this photo of the proposed “Unity Slate,” Alex Hayes tried to persuade Washington voters to choose. The slate definitely appears to convey the slate is endorsed by Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

In this undercover video, Alex Hayes decried dishonesty in politics while attempting to lure Santorum supporters into casting ballots for Romney delegates. This is no way to treat so many hundreds of grassroots conservatives involved in politics for the first time.  His brazen attempt to fool those who aren’t professional politicos such as himself into handing over a massive win to his preferred candidate is disturbing.

Rick Santorum appears to have dealt Mitt Romney a surprising setback at the Pierce County Republican Convention yesterday.  Although Romney won the county caucuses by 12%, Santorum appears to have tied Romney for delegates according to unofficial results early this morning. Below is a district by district breakdown based on delegate counting inside the convention.  While conventional wisdom has Romney winning a vast majority of delegates from Washington based on his 13% statewide margin of victory, tonight’s results in Pierce County challenge that assumption.  This can only be good news for the Santorum campaign, on top of the Louisiana victory.

PIERCE COUNTY WA REPUBLICAN CONVENTION UNOFFICIAL RESULTS

1. Do you regret your support of abortion pill RU-486?
2. How can you claim to strongly support 2^nd amendment rights when you supported Clinton’s assault weapons ban, increased gun licensing fees 400%, and claim to not  “line up with the NRA”?
3. Do you think your myriad of state “fee” increases is partly responsibility for Massachusetts underperforming the national job creation rate?
4. Do you consider the 24% increase of state spending during your final three years as governor to be a fiscally responsible example?
5. Do you still support the internet tourism tax you once proposed?
6. You once stated capturing Osama bin Laden would result in “very insignificant increase in safety for America.”   Do you still subscribe to that analysis?
7. Do you still support a 10% tax on private donations to political campaigns?
8. How can you be trusted to defend First Amendment free speech while advocating capping election spending and abolishing PAC’s? Have you changed your views on this?
9. Do you still believe that “those here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship? Or have you changed your mind on this since 2006?
10. Do you still support increasing excise taxes on vehicles with low MPG?
11. Were you surprised at the praise your state health care plan received from Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry?
12. Do you regret signing into law a health care plan which required Planned Parenthood to be a representative on a state health policy panel?
13. Do you believe that a self-described “progressive-on-social-issues governor of Massachusetts” should be trusted by conservatives to nominate constitutionalists to the court?
14. Did you misspeak when you stated “Hillary Clinton is very much right, it does take a village”?
15. If you admire Reagan so much, why did you emphatically proclaim, “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush.  I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush”?
16. Why did you appoint a pro-choice judge to state district court after supposedly becoming pro-life?
17. Do you still “think it’s important that people not see me as a pro-life candidate”?
18. Do you still believe we “should sustain and support” Roe v. Wade?
19. Do you support your wife’s decision to give funds from your joint checking account to Planned Parenthood?
20. Why did you appoint a strong supporter of abortion rights to the Somerville District Court AFTER you’re conversion to the pro-life cause?
21. Do you think it fiscally responsible to subsidize insurance, as your health care plan did, for those making THREE TIMES the poverty level?
22. Do you regret signing into law Commonwealth Care, which subsidizes abortions?
23. Are you still a “rodent and rabbit hunter”?
24. Do you regret your decision to “recommit the commonwealth to affirmative action”?

According to a boisterous group of protesters chanting outside of a Chillicothe, OH Santorum campaign stop, Romney is less “dangerous” than Santorum.  The Occupy sympathizers listed a myriad of grievances against Santorum including his support of “fracking”, opposition to Obamacare, vocal pro-life advocacy and support for entitlement reform.

Based on Romney’s policy stances as governor of Massachusetts, Romney may indeed be “less dangerous” than Santorum– at least from a liberal’s point of view.  As governor, Romney indicated support of a cap-and-trade scheme, crafted a state health plan quite similar to Obamacare, and declared himself to be pro-choice.

Representative Mike Turner (R-OH) introduced Mitt Romney at a Dayton, OH campaign stop Saturday afternoon.  In 2009, Turner proudly declared, “I supported the CARS Act, also known as Cash for Clunkers, when it first passed the House in June and I also voted for the additional funding on July 31.”  Judging from Turner’s public remarks this afternoon, he stands firmly behind Romney.  The decision by Romney’s campaign to allow a politician such as Turner to introduce the governor is indicative of why Romney struggles to attract more support from conservative activists.  Turner’s record on fiscal issues does not often often reflect the principles espoused by the Tea Party.  Entrenched politicians such as Turner who favor egregious programs such as Cash for Clunkers share responsibility for the enormous national debt burdening this nation.

Then again, both Mike Turner and Mitt Romney also supported the Wall Street bailouts.  One should not be too surprised to find Turner among Romney’s most avid Ohio supporters.

Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) called for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) to remove an ad critical of Obamacare.  Although federal courts have declared the First Amendment guarantees such advertising, Moran insists the ad be removed. In reference to the ad’s closing line “go to hell Barack”, the congressman stated that “profanity has no place in the public forum.”

Strangely enough, the Representative Moran holds a quite different perspective on free speech regarding flag burning. In 2001, he stated, “”History informs us that the strength of America is derived from its basic ideals, one of the most important of which is tolerance for the full expression of ideas, even the most obnoxious ones.”  In fact, Representative Moran was part of a small minority voting against a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to prohibit physical desecration of the United States flag.

Moran’s convoluted perspective stretches beyond opposing the right to criticize the President while supporting the right to burn the flag.  He personally fails to live by the same restrictions on “profanity” which he attempts to impose on others.  At the 2006 Arlington County Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner, the congressman proclaimed that upon assuming the role of House appropriations committee chair, “When I become chairman, I’m going to earmark the shit of it.”  A crowd of 450 was subjected to this unprofessional language.

Congressman Moran strongly supports funding the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The NEA generates extreme controversy over some of the artists supported by NEA grants.  Just a few years before Moran’s election to Congress, artist Andres Serreno received $15,000 prize money for a piece presented in a competition at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Arts.  The competition was sponsored in part by the NEA. Despite controversial, arguably obscene, projects such as this, Moran became a congressional advocate for increased federal NEA funding.  The NEA issued a press release commending Moran for this strong support.

Representative Moran insists on censoring a privately funded political advertisement, suggesting it “defames” the President.  Yet, this same politician supports the right to desecrate the United States flag, chooses to cuss in a public speech, and favors federal funding of controversial artwork. How’s that for blatant hypocrisy?