Opinion: Courage shown in speaking up against John Swallow [KSL]

SALT LAKE CITY — I’m sure there was a moment when Traci Gundersen wondered if making a bar complaint against Utah Attorney General John Swallow was a wise step for her career.

As far as I can tell, she’s the only person who has been inside the attorney general’s office and has come forward to call “foul” on the attorney general. Unlike others who have publicly accused Swallow of wrongdoing in recent months, Gundersen is unique in that she is not under indictment, in jail or anonymous. In other words, unlike other Swallow accusers, she seems like an honest person with nothing to gain by the claim. Rather, she is a reputable and upstanding attorney who worked in the Utah attorney general’s office during Mark Shurtleff’s term.

Not only has she worked in the attorney general’s office — where she was when Swallow was first brought on by Shurtleff to be groomed as his successor — but her work there caught the attention of others in state government and she was lured away to a job as director of the Utah Division of Consumer Protection. Her job, from 2010 to until last week, when she left the office voluntarily, was to protect Utahns against scam artists and pyramid schemes.

A longtime employee of the state and a well-respected attorney, she must have known that accusing the state’s chief legal officer of violating the attorney/client relationship — one of the most important tenets of the legal profession — would put her on dangerous footing.

Unlike Jeremy Johnson, who is under indictment, accused of a litany of scams, Gunderson is an attorney in good standing with the Utah Bar.

Unlike Marc Sessions Jenson, who is currently interned at the Utah State Prison for failing to pay $4 million in restitution for scams, Gundersen has nothing to gain by attacking Swallow.

But she does have everything to lose.

By taking her complaint straight to the Utah Bar, a body that has the ability to discipline, disbar or impose sanctions on any member of the Utah Bar — including Swallow — she added yet another dimension to the layers of Swallow’s difficulties. Swallow will now need to undergo review by the Utah Bar Association.
With everything to lose, and nothing to gain, Gundersen’s bar complaint, filed quietly and without fanfare, is an act of true courage.

What makes Gundersen’s charge against Swallow so compelling is that it lies in an event that Swallow does not deny. On the contrary, in an interview with Doug Wright, Swallow said, on the air, that he was “proud” of the phone call.

The event in question is a recorded conversation between Swallow and what City Weekly described as “the owner of a telemarketing sales floor” by the name of Aaron Christner.

Recorded while Swallow was still running for attorney general — and still collecting checks for his campaign — Swallow is heard promising to take over the Utah Division of Consumer Protection — housed in the Utah Department of Commerce — and move it into the attorney general’s office.

What makes the call suspect is that at the time the Division of Consumer Protection already had a $400,000 civil penalty imposed on Christner and his business partner Ryan Jensen, as well as an order to cease and desist operations. Further, the Division of Consumer Protection was Swallow’s client, which Swallow readily acknowledged during the call. As his client, Swallow was under a duty not only to tell them that he had been contacted by Christner, the target of their efforts, but to consult with the division on how it would want to proceed.

In the real world, clients give direction on how to proceed with a case to their attorneys, not the other way around. Sure, attorneys know the law, but they cannot act without consulting with their client.

To collect on the penalty, the division referred the case against Christner, and the $400,000 penalty and cease and desist order, to Assistant Attorney General Jeff Buckner, who filed a case with the 2nd District Court in late 2011. However, Christner and Jensen were difficult to find, and throughout early 2012 the division continued to look for them.

Meanwhile, in defiance of the cease and desist order, Christner and Jensen opened another telemarketing company, the last of several proxy companies they are accused of using to hide alleged scams.

Meanwhile, during this time the Republican nomination battle to replace Shurtleff as attorney general was in full swing, and an associate of Christner’s suggested that he should get in contact with Swallow, specifically to attend a fundraising breakfast at Mimi’s Cafe. Christner took the advice to heart and called Swallow, then chief deputy attorney general under Shurtleff with oversight of “the civil divisions and all litigation involving the state of Utah.”

After a few preliminary questions, including Christner informing Swallow that he was being pursued by the Division of Consumer Protection for $400,000 in civil penalties, Swallow offers to help Christner sit down with Shurtleff and then bashes into the Division of Consumer Protection, his own client:

“(T)he way Utah’s so dysfunctional right now, is the client is the Department of Commerce and Consumer Protection, and that is something we, uh, control or even influence greatly, it’s because the work for the governor’s office, and now when I’m attorney general you know, this is kind of confidential, I will try to restructure it so consumer protection is under the attorney general (office) and the attorney general has more authority over those investigations. In fact, complete authority over that,” said Swallow, according to the complaint.

If you can’t tell, Swallow is telling Christner that while Swallow can’t do anything now — because Swallow’s client is the Division of Consumer Protection and they’re calling the shots — once he’s in charge, he’ll flip the relationship and start telling them who they can and cannot pursue.

It’s like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. The lawyer will take over the client’s organization and start calling the shots.

But that’s not even the rub, not yet. Swallow never told his client — the Division of Consumer Protection — that he had had a conversation with the guy that they had been chasing. The first they heard about it was from the newspaper when City Weekly published the recording of the conversation online.

If you’re looking for a rule — and I know you are — look no further than Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires that an attorney “inform” the client and “consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished.”

Clearly, Swallow has not consulted nor informed his client of relevent and important communications with an accused malfactor.

Worse, Swallow is expressing an interest in the outcome of the case, a clear violation of another rule, that of Rule 1.8(i):

(i) A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client.

In this case, Swallow has been introduced to Christner through a fundraising function, has explained that when he is elected he will attempt a take-over of the government agency that is chasing Christner, and seeking political favor for the action.

If exchanging political contributions for a desired outcome in violation of the law is not a proprietary interest, I don’t know what is. Whatever it is, it isn’t honest.

And the complaint goes on.

Gundersen has now done what no honest person has yet done: she’s made a claim and backed it up by filing charges with the appropriate body. She’s put her name, and her reputation, on the line against a powerful man with powerful friends. Whether it results in moving the Utah Bar to take action against Swallow remains to be seen, but what is not in doubt is her courage.

I hope more like her will step forward in coming weeks and months. It’s time for the attorney general’s office to move out from under the cloud of scandal and restore its integrity, and I fear that we won’t see it happen while the current occupant retains his office.

Related articles

• Opinion: Courage shown in speaking up against John Swallow (ksl.com)
• Swallow, Shurtleff facing allegations of taking favors from man convicted of fraud (fox13now.com)
• Ethics complaint filed against AG Swallow over consumer protection row (ksl.com)
• Swallow facing new allegations of unethical behavior (fox13now.com)
• Utah attorney general involved in money extortion, claims convict (rt.com)
• Special counsel called to investigate Attorney General (abc4.com)
• Politicans request being answered for Special Counsel in Utah Attorney General allegations(abc4.com)

---

Daniel Burton lives in Holladay, Utah, where he practices law by day and everything else by night. You can follow him on Twitter as @publiusdb or on his blog PubliusOnline.com where he muses on books, politics and ideas. View additional posts by Daniel, here.

PoliticIt provides campaign software for politicians and special interest groups. The software provides voter/donor micro-targeting in social networks, social media management, daily It Scores, competitor tracking, and digital influence tools. To sign up for your free trial please visit us atwww.politicit.com/politicitcampaign.

Opinion: The 2013 Utah Republican Party Organizing Convention: It (often) came back to me

Emily Brontë's novel “Wuthering Heights” has influenced Jim Steinman’s 1989 song “It’s All Coming Back to Me Now” in a rather uncustomary way. Steinman compared his work to “Heights” character Heathcliff digging up the corpse of Catherine Earnshaw, a foster sister whom he loved, and dancing with it in the moonlight. Expressing his belief that one cannot get more passionate than Heathcliff was in the deathly moment, Steinman once remarked that he was seeking through the high-ranking Billboard power ballad to convey that sense of being obsessed, even “enslaved,” by love. 

At the 2013 Utah Republican Party Organizing Convention on May 18, no one is believed to have removed any decadent bodies from their resting place nor creatively moved with them. But the proceedings of the event sure invoked memories of conventions and legislation gone by (and certainly did feature plenty of passion—and certainly Love).

Sure, there were landmarks. James Evans became the first African-American GOP chairman in the state’s history. A resolution passed for the party to officially request that the United States Congress find “reasonable” and “responsible” solutions to issues of illegal immigration (though that was an expression already reflecting the sentiments of the national GOP). 

Otherwise, familiar legislation and individuals, well, resurfaced—in forms of mild surprises at most. Perhaps a discord with the faith presumably of most of the delegates was most unanticipated. 

Key votes 

Many pundits were right: the threshold for the party’s nominee in election years stayed at 60 percent of state delegate votes. Despite a plea during the convention from former U.S. Congresswoman Enid Greene to raise the threshold to 66 percent, 55 percent of this convention’s body voted otherwise. 

Greene said that the party never should have lowered the minimum requirement from 70 percent in 2000. That requirement does, after all, invite a nominee who garners more solid support from those who have promised to represent their own electors in their precinct. Even then, opponents to the change would need to tolerate just five additional primary races from 2000-2012.

Additionally, a “yes” vote for the measure may have actually helped to preserve the system, because now Count My Vote begins its march in earnest. The initiative, led by former Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt and Utah Policy and Utah Pulse publisher LaVarr Webb, seeks to reform the system, seeking to implement a more “inclusive” and “accessible” process by which all voters can select a nominee during caucuses. Evans headlined the elections of a new state party leadership team, filled out by former Washington County party chairman Willie Billings (vice president), Michelle Mumford (secretary) and Dave Crittenden (treasurer). 

Despite a spirited and diligent campaign from Wasatch County GOP chair Aaron Gabrielson that campaign manager Michael Melendez said featured volunteers found all over the political scale, he and Utah Republican Hispanic Assembly chair Marco Diaz managed only about one-third of the overall vote. It proved that Evans may not have had a stronghold not just on the mainstream sentiments of the party, as Gabrielson said he feared was true. Evans also had that influence on the delegation—regardless of their policies.

Evans said after his election that he merely stared in silence at reporters who asked him about being the state’s first African-American GOP chairman, emphasizing that he wanted to look past “label” politics. But some media reports, including the Salt Lake Tribune article, included the fact nonetheless—something Evans said he expected would happen.

Billings found himself in a run-off against Rick Votaw after eliminating Lowell Nelson, the interim Utah coordinator for the national organization Campaign for Liberty. Yet, he took about 65 percent of the vote in the second vote despite branding himself as someone who wanted to apply several new ideas to party administration, despite being the vice president. Votaw, however, emphasized again in his run-off speech that he simply wanted to do the will of the chairman.

It was surprising that Kristen Cannon Brown garnered just 15 percent of the delegate’s vote against Mumford, given her professional background and comparative family life situation. Brown was a former Reagan administration intern and investment banking copywriter in New York who, unlike Mumford, featured a campaign ad in the Organizing Convention booklet that all delegates received. She also is left with just one child, a BYU student, living at home, having made domestic motherhood her focus after having her first child. Mumford, a former attorney, currently oversees six children at home. 

Mild surprises

Cherilyn Eagar had her day. The Eagle Forum leader submitted the third and fourth resolutions of the day: a Resolution on Medicaid Expansion and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as “Obamacare”) and another on the Common Core Standards and Assessments. Each called on Utah Governor Gary Herbert with the state legislature to take action against each program. Both passed—the latter with 65 percent of the vote. 

The first asks Herbert and the legislature to reject Medicaid expansion and calls on the Utah Congressional delegation to continue to support and pass federal legislation to defund and repeal Obamacare. The problem is that the Herbert administration has already put in the work to operate their own plan (Avenue H, for small businesses) in accordance with Obamacare (as an exchange for individual citizens). They did it because the Utah legislature during the 2013 general session refused to give him permission to update Avenue H to be fully compliant with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) standards—which would have allowed it to also cover individuals. Without that approval from legislature, this deal is probably the best the governor could get. To make true resolution, then, Eagar really ought to talk to the body that gave Gov. Herbert nothing but a bite from the bad part of the sandwich.

The Resolution on Common Core Standards and Assessments specifically called on the governor and the state school board to withdraw from the Core’s state standards initiative and “any other alliance that promotes and tests for un-American and inferior, curricula, standards and assessments.” It also asked the state legislature to discontinue any funding programs in association with the Core. Currently, the State of Utah may remove themselves from the standards—but Congressman Rob Bishop (UT-1) testified that the Obama administration wanted to use the program to “hook” states into federal funding, which would then not allow the state to abandon the Core. The U.S. president made his intentions of a national education program clear in his most recent State of the Union address, Bishop said. The 11-year U.S. House member’s testimony may have figured into the strong vote in favor of Eagar’s resolution.

The 2013 Immigration and Inclusion Resolution, submitted by Diaz, calls on Congress to “find reasonable and responsible solutions to the issues of legal and illegal immigration in a manner that secures our borders and allows undocumented immigrants who are already here, who meet certain requirements, to square themselves with the law.” That passed without a problem—a positive move toward a policy that the party nationally understands it must embrace if it wants to maintain its social values.

The Utah Compact Resolution didn’t have as good a day, however. The Compact itself has broad support from community leaders, business associations, law enforcement officers and members of Utah’s religious community. “It is a simple document that expresses our values as community as they relate to specific policy issues that have become central to the immigration discussion,” asking for “a humane approach” to the “reality” that “immigrants are integrated into communities across Utah…reflecting our unique culture, history and spirit of inclusion.”

What did the resolution seek to do? Cause the Utah GOP to officially support the Compact. That’s all. The delegates wholly weren’t quite there, however, as 51.2 percent of the delegates opposed it.

The rejection invited what may be the largest surprise from the convention. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has stated that it “supports” the “principles“ of the set of guidelines. It has said that it “regards the declaration of the Utah Compact as a responsible approach to the urgent challenge of immigration reform” because of its loving sentiments and encouragement of strengthening families.

The delegation is, assumedly, primarily members of the faith. Latter-day Saints reportedly comprise 62 percent of Utah’s population.

What wasn’t a surprise

Mia Love officially declaring that she would once again challenge Democrat Jim Matheson for his U.S. Congressional seat in Utah’s 4th district. When did anyone in the media first report this?

---

Rhett Wilkinson is a senior at Utah State University studying journalism/communications and political science. A co-founder of Aggie BluePrint—USU’s first student magazine—he has worked as an intern in Congressional and Gubernatorial offices and as a correspondent for the Deseret News and Standard-Examiner.

PoliticIt provides campaign software for politicians and special interest groups. To sign up for your free trial please visit us at www.politicit.com/politicitcampaign.

Opinion: Murder? The Gosnell trial and media silence

Kermit Barron Gosnell

By Daniel Burton
If you’ve not heard about Gosnell, I recommend you google it. According to Wikipedia (I know, the lazy man’s research tool):

"Kermit Barron Gosnell is an American medical doctor who ran two women’s health clinics in Philadelphia between 1972 and 2011, and as of April 2013, is on trial for first and third degree murder, illegal prescribing of drugs, and related offenses."

It’s a very sterilized description. It gets more gruesome, though, as you start clicking links:

One woman died when an unlicensed employee in the clinic over-sedated her to keep her out until Gosnell, out of the clinic at the time, arrived. She was a healthy 41-year old. 

It’s reported that “Gosnell has been named in at least 46 malpractice suits, including one over the death of a 22-year-old mother who died of sepsis and a perforated uterus in 2000. Many others also involve perforated uteruses. Gosnell sometimes sewed up the injury without telling women their uteruses had been perforated,[.]“

According to page 87 of the Grand Jury report, Gosnell would charge up to $3,000 for abortions at 30 weeks, six weeks after the legal limit in Pennsylvania, when fetuses have become viable outside the womb. To give some context, a friend of our family’s recently gave birth at 20 weeks and while the child is in intensive care, it is alive and will be well.

According to page 23 of the Presentment of the Grand Jury, “Gosnell’s staff testified that they often witnessed Gosnell killing large, late-term babies whom they had observed breathing and moving.”

And here is where it gets disturbing. What follows may make you squeamish and explains why Gosnell’s clinics have been given the infamous nickname “House of Horrors.” All are directly quoted from either the Presentment or the Grand Jury report:

• According to an ultrasound, the 17-year old mother was 29.4 weeks pregnant. Gosnell induced labor and sedated the mother, who delivered a baby boy. Cross saw [the baby boy] breathe and move. Gosnell dismissed Cross’s observations, telling her, “it’s the baby’s reflexes. It’s not really moving.” Cross told us that the baby was 18 to 19 inches long and nearly the size of her own newborn daughter, who was six pounds, six ounces at birth. Even Gosnell commented on [the baby boy's] size, joking “this baby is big enough to walk around with me or walk me to the bus stop.” Cross testified that she saw “the doctor just slit the neck” and place the remains in a clear plastic shoe box for disposal.
• The search team discovered red biohazard bags containing the remains of 47 fetuses, which were turned over to the medical examiner. One was ”Baby Boy B,” found frozen in a plastic spring-water jug [...]. The medical examiner determined that this baby had a gestational age of at least 28 weeks. Kareema Cross testified that she saw Williams [an employee of Gosnell] cut the neck of Baby C, who had been moving and breathing for approximately 20 minutes. Gosnell had delivered the baby and put it on a counter while he suctioned the placenta from the mother. Williams called Cross [an employee of Gosnell] over to look at the baby because it was breathing and moving its arms when Williams pulled on them. After touching the baby, Williams slit its neck. When asked why Williams had killed the baby, Cross answered: Because the baby, I guess, because the baby was moving and breathing. And she see Dr. Gosnell do it so many times, I guess she felt, you know, she can do it. It’s okay.
• Ashley Baldwin testified that she heard a baby crying in the large procedure room (the one used for later-term abortions) and saw it moving. She said Lynda Williams summoned Dr. Gosnell, who then went into the procedure room where the baby was. Ashley testified that Dr. Gosnell was the only person in the room with the baby, that he came out of the room and put the baby in the waste bin, and that she saw an incision. Kareema Cross testified that Ashley had called her over because she had heard the baby crying; Cross said that she heard this baby “whine” while Dr. Gosnell was alone in the procedure room with the baby. Based on the testimony of the neonatology expert, we believe this baby must have been at least 23 weeks of age and, because it cried more than once, probably older. This baby was born alive, and consistent with the medical guidelines and standards cited by the neonatology expert should have been resuscitated. Instead, it was killed.

A lot of issues are difficult. Ask two Republicans or two Democrats for their take on immigration reform or gay marriage, and you’re likely to find they disagree. They are not clear cut issues.

Abortion, however, is not and should not be one of those issues. A woman’s right to choose whether she has a baby should begin, and end, at the point when she may choose to engage in consensual sexual relations. Rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life aside, it’s difficult to find a gray area for abortion.

In fact, not only is it difficult to find, but the clarity of that distinction has been covered by advocates such as Planned Parenthood–which recently argued “against a state law that would protect babies born alive after a botched abortion from being left to die, or worse yet, killed. She [the Planned Parent lobbyist] was asked about Planned Parenthood’s position on whether an infant born in this situation should receive medical care, she repeatedly testified, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

Lest we be confused, we’re talking a baby that is alive and breathing on the operating table and whether it should live is a decision “between patient and the health care provider” says Planned Parenthood. Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood has revised their position in the wake of public outrage that they would advocate the death of infants that survive abortion.

Which turns back to the question here: why are we drawing a distinction from a life in utero and the life delivered?

But the question remains: How can killing a newborn infant be illegal and shocking to the collective conscience, yet ending that same life moments, days or weeks before be perfectly legal and socially acceptable as long as the baby is still in the womb? There is no logical answer. 

Aside from how a baby receives food and oxygen, what changes occur to make the baby human out of the womb but something other than human the second before? Does the baby’s brain magically begin activity; does his or her heartbeat suddenly begin; does the baby abruptly begin moving on his or her own after birth? No, of course not. A baby possesses all of these qualities of life in utero.

It’s a tragedy, but perhaps more tragic is the appalling lack of media coverage the trial has received.

A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months. The exception is when Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan hijacked a segment on Meet the Press meant to foment outrage over an anti-abortion rights law in some backward red state.

The Washington Post has not published original reporting on this during the trial and The New York Times saw fit to run one original story on A-17 on the trial’s first day. They’ve been silent ever since, despite headline-worthy testimony.

As Kirstin Powers puts it, it only took Rush Limbaugh to attack Sandra Fluke for women’s groups and the media to work into a frenzy, but the late term abortions of viable infants has been met with media silence. “The deafening silence of too much of the media, once a force for justice in America, is a disgrace.”

---

Daniel Burton lives in Holladay, Utah, where he practices law by day and everything else by night. You can follow him on Twitter as @publiusdb or on his blog PubliusOnline.com where he muses on books, politics and ideas. View additional posts by Daniel, here. 

Daniel is currently participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month-long quest to post every day. Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter I, as in Idealism.

PoliticIt provides campaign software for politicians and special interest groups. The software provides voter/donor micro-targeting in social networks, social media management, daily It Scores, competitor tracking, and digital influence tools. To sign up for your free trial please visit us at www.politicit.com/politicitcampaign.

Opinion: Gun Background Checks

By Rhett Wilkinson       

With the fate of gun control as muddled as ever, the best hope for congressional compromise centers on the most popular policy move Washington could make: universal background checks. 

Among all the limits on gun ownership that Democrats have advanced since the December shooting in Newtown, Conn., background checks enjoy the most support.

A recent Quinnipiac University poll in April 2013 showed 91 percent of respondents in favor of “requiring background checks for all gun buyers.”

Enough of the Senate apparently doesn’t think it’s a good idea, though, with the U.S. Senate on April 17 defeating a plan to expand background checks on firearms sales—one amendment among a broad package of gun laws pushed by President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in the aftermath of the school massacre.

Since background checks have stopped hundreds of thousands of prohibited purchasers, however, they certainly have shown to be, in some way, a sound method. However, it’s easy to sympathize with those arguing that federally expanded background checks are poor policy, aside from already increasing government power: among other trepidations, few prosecutions of denied gun buyers actually occur, they might be too broad, and criminals don’t submit to background checks.

With all the argument at the federal level, then, the states really should sort this out themselves, as the 10th Amendment of the Constitution suggests.

Check… 

The non-profit Brady Center has argued that surveys of prisoners underestimate how many criminals get their guns from private sellers and gun shows, and the center has chronicled cases in which criminals bought guns from private sellers and used them to kill people.
The stories of criminals who bought guns that would be prevented by universal background checks are admittedly heartbreaking. In 2009, the Brady Center released a report entitled “No Check, No Gun,” disputing many of the cases made against universal background checks and chronicling instances in which they would have saved lives.

By 2009, the group argued, background checks had blocked more than 1.6 million prohibited purchasers in the United States from buying guns.

Mate? 

Few prosecutions of denied gun buyers actually occur. Created under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and implemented in 1998, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System allows licensed gun sellers to check with the FBI, as required by law, before making a sale. While background checks have prevented tens of thousands of unlawful gun sales each year, opponents have said that the government doesn’t prosecute enough attempted buyers who are turned away. According to Justice Department statistics supplied by the office of Sen. John Cornyn, out of more than 76,000 denials in 2010, only 62 were referred for prosecution, and 13 resulted in guilty pleas or verdicts.

They might be too broad. Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union said that, if a “transfer” of guns is defined too broadly, people with good intentions could unwittingly become criminals. “You worry about, in essence, a criminal justice trap where a lawful gun owner who wants to obey the law inadvertently runs afoul of the criminal law,” Calabrese told The Daily Caller. The Heritage Foundation has said it is wary of any bill that would ban loaning guns to friends at gun ranges or on hunting trips.

Criminals don’t submit to background checks. This argument sounds a bit echoic, but the National Rifle Association argues that most criminals don’t get their guns from stores, but on a black market. “My problem with background checks is, you’re never going to get criminals to go through universal background checks,” the NRA’s LaPierre said at the February hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Gun shows … are not a source of crime guns, anyway. It’s 1.7 percent.” The Washington Post’s fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, notes that this figure comes from Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, who cites a 2004 survey of incarcerated gun-violence convicts about where they got their guns, in his new book “Reducing Gun Violence in America.” A Johns Hopkins spokeswoman said the figure is probably higher, as some “friends and family members” who give guns to criminals (forty percent of inmates surveyed said they obtained their guns this way) likely get them from gun shows in the first place.

…insert a Bishop instead

Congressman Rob Bishop has proven to be a strong advocate for the rights of states to resolve issues and form policy and laws, as outlined in the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The founder of the 10th Amendment Task Force, Rep. Bishop has said the following of the principle of federalism—to observe states’ rights to work out issues:

“I’m convinced that federalism and the 10th Amendment is the solutions to our country’s problems and perhaps even the salvation of this country. When the Founding Fathers got together, they decided that the best way to preserve people’s individual rights and freedoms was to balance power out, so they did that… through separation of powers.

“But equally important to them was balancing power vertically between the national government and states. That’s federalism. Allow Congress to do those things that are only the core constitutional responsibilities, for which we were designed. Allow other issues to be done by the state and local governments, where they can provide creativity, efficiency and justice so it’s not one size fits all coming out of Washington.

“Take power out of Washington and give power to those who actually work in the state capitols of our states.”

It’s difficult to agree with Kentucky senator and filibusting crusader Rand Paul that families and friends of victims of the Newton shootings were used merely as “props.” I doubt the Obama administration forced them to D.C. to make their case. On any account, it sure would have been nice to see those individuals visiting their state capitol in Connecticut and surrounding states to make the plea, where these policies can be best implemented—and perhaps even passed.

---

Rhett Wilkinson is a senior at Utah State University studying journalism/communications and political science. A co-founder of Aggie BluePrint—USU’s first student magazine—he has worked as an intern in Congressional and Gubernatorial offices and as a correspondent for the Deseret News and Standard-Examiner.

PoliticIt provides campaign software for politicians and special interest groups.  The software provides voter/donor micro-targeting in social networks, social media management, daily It Scores, competitor tracking, and digital influence tools.  To sign up for your free trial please visit us at www.politicit.com/politicitcampaign. 

Can idealism save the Grand Old Party?

Ron Paul

By Daniel Burton
I is for idealism, which may very much be the future of the GOP, if it is to regain relevancy.

---

For 37 years, Ron Paul was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Largely ineffective there, he earned the nickname Dr. No for his unwillingness to vote for government spending. It wasn’t until he ran for president, though, that he really hit his stride and reawakened interest in a national libertarian movement.

Now, Congress and Presidential campaigns behind him, Paul is almost more popular now than when he was in office. With his son, Senator Rand Paul, taking the baton, speaking out against war and the growth of government and regularly mentioned as a possible contender for the GOP nomination in 2016, libertarianism (little ‘l’) is coming out from the shadows and, to paraphrase Politico, going mainstream.

Could it save the Republican Party?

With post-mortem of the 2012 election continuing six months after the polls close, it’s clear that Republicans are taking a close look at what it takes to win an election, and whether the White House will be attainable in the foreseeable future.

Led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), libertarians hope to become a dominant wing of the GOP by tapping into a potent mix of war weariness, economic anxiety and frustration with federal overreach in the fifth year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

 The country’s continuing fixation on fiscal issues, especially spending and debt, allows them to emphasize areas of agreement with conservative allies who are looking for ways to connect with Republicans who aren’t passionate about abortion or same-sex marriage. A Democratic administration ensures consensus on the right that states should get as much power as possible.

Senator Rand Paul filibusters from
the Senate floor in March of 2013.

Libertarianism is no new member of the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan famously stated that “libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism.” In the years since his 1980 election, though, the influence of evangelicals have pushed their own brand of big government into the forefront of the Republican Party, and libertarians have been largely left in the wings.

However, America has changed over the last generation. Whether it’s the war on drugs/poverty/terrorism/marriage–Americans are tired of the government telling them what they should, or shouldn’t do, and they are leery of the secrecy and expanse of a government that has colluded with Wall Street for big “bailouts” while compiling kill lists for drone hunter/killers.

When Senator Paul took to the Senate floor to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as Director of the CIA, activists and individuals on both sides of the political spectrum applauded. As Harper’s Magazine observed

The antiwar left saw the filibuster as a challenge to the violence and the innocent dead left in the drone program’s wake. The antigovernment right rallied around Paul’s pointed question about whether a hypothetical Hellfire missile might just leave a crater where your neighborhood Starbucks once stood. Rush Limbaugh called him the future. Code Pink activists brought him boxes of chocolates. #StandWithRand was, for a moment, the most popular Twitter topic on the planet.

But can the popularity last? Can the anti-statist movement shift the Republican Party? Can idealism trump the establishment?

It’s an open question, but one that could hold the future of the Republican Party. For years Republicans have talked a good game, promising less government, then blithely creating programs that expand government’s reach and cost. For example, Medicare Part D, one of the largest expansions of government prior to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) received strong Republican support, including from conservatives like Congressman Denny Hastert and Senator Orrin Hatch.

But not anymore: with continued high unemployment and growth failing to return to pre-recession levels, Americans are starting to question whether a government that promises the world and delivers higher taxes and fewer jobs is a government “for the people.” Obamacare begins to take full effect in 2014, and already businesses are cutting workers hours to part-time levels to avoid providing mandated healthcare. It’s cheaper to pay a financial penalty.

And so, the rise of an idealistic view of government, where the government that serves best is that which weighs on us the least.

Can it work? Will it save the Republican Party?

---

Daniel Burton lives in Holladay, Utah, where he practices law by day and everything else by night. You can follow him on Twitter as @publiusdb or on his blog PubliusOnline.com where he muses on books, politics and ideas. View additional posts by Daniel, here.

Daniel is currently participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month-long quest to post every day. Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter I, as in Idealism.

PoliticIt provides campaign software for politicians and special interest groups.  The software provides voter/donor micro-targeting in social networks, social media management, daily It Scores, competitor tracking, and digital influence tools.  To sign up for your free trial please visit us at www.politicit.com/politicitcampaign. 

Social Media and Word Of Mouth Endorsement

A 2009 Nielsen poll that surveyed more than 25,000 internet consumers from 50 countries showed that word of mouth advertising was the most powerful way consumers gained trust in a message. 90 percent of respondents trusted "completely" or "somewhat" recommendations from people they know -- online and offline. Compare that to the relatively low levels of trust consumers have for statements made through online banner ads (33%) and online video ads (37%). 

These poll results make a compelling argument for the effectiveness of consumer generated media through social media outlets in shaping public dialogue surrounding a product, an individual, organization, or movement. 

A savvy marketer will find ways to get social media users to generate content in support of a product, an individual, organization, or movement. This concept has applications within and outside of politics. 

This Huffington Post article by Brian Levin illustrates a great example of how social media activity focused on one recent political movement could potentially lead to social change. 

---

Sterling Morris

PoliticIt provides It Scores on political races. An It Score measures a politician's digital influence. It Scores have correctly predicted more than 700 election outcomes in 2012 with 91% accuracy indicating that digital influence seems to correlate with election results. PoliticIt will release Politicit Campaign in early 2013 -- software that will enable politicians to access their daily It Score and monitor their digital influence. Contact Sterling at Sterling@PoliticIt.com if you would like to apply to become a beta tester of PoliticIt Campaign.

Sterling Morris is a co-founder at PoliticIt. Connect with PoliticIt on Twitter and Facebook.

PoliticIt provides campaign software for politicians and special interest groups.  The software provides voter/donor micro-targeting in social networks, social media management, daily It Scores, competitor tracking, and digital influence tools.  To sign up for your free trial please visit us at www.politicit.com/politicitcampaign. 

Opinion: Privatize Marriage

By Rhett Wilkinson
If the Supreme Court hearings last week on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act are any indication, the court and interested parties are quite representative of the American public: divided.

Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged that there were 1,100 references to marriage in the federal code, and that the definition of who is married is “intertwined with daily life.” He questioned whether the federal government may impose its own view of marriage, which has “always thought to be” the domain of the state.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that if those couples don’t receive federal benefits such as tax advantages, Social Security benefits and other recognition, “what kind of marriage is it?” She said it created two classes: real marriage and “skim-milk marriage.”

Paul Clement, representing Republican House leaders who are defending the law, said Congress was not discriminating but simply staying out of experiments by the states on same-sex marriage.

The Obama administration has said that it will not defend DOMA, and lower courts have said it is unconstitutional to deny federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married in the states where they live, while offering the same benefits to opposite-sex married couples. At the same time, however, the administration has said it will continue to enforce the law until the Supreme Court rules.

Of course, the U.S. Constitution protects same-sex couples to be married—particularly under the statute of the Equal Protection Clause, part of the document’s Fourteenth Amendment. “No state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” it reads. Perhaps Aquinas’ theory that God’s law should determine public policy, if there weren’t so many definitions just as to what God’s law is. Or maybe Aristotle’s theory that natural law should be the key factor, except that studies haven’t been conclusive as to whether being gay is actually natural.

That’s why local groups should have the most say on this matter. If we want to look to the Constitution, this matter should be determined by the states, as clearly outlined in the Tenth Amendment. That’s aside from the Fifth Amendment, which protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure.

If we are intent on following the document that is the basis of American policy-making, there is no way that the Supreme Court should be determining the constitutionality of Proposition 8 or DOMA.

But the arguments will ensue, looking to higher authorities all the while. Basically, religious types will be intent on defending their faith in doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman. Secularists, however, will argue that those values should not be imposed on the rest of society which doesn’t agree with them. As long as individuals look to their state houses and Washington to define this issue, a battle will continue.

Why don’t we stop arguing about the issue by dropping it altogether, then? If marriage were private issue, neither side would need to banter. Religious adherents could observe their practice of marriage between a man and a woman, while secularists could live as they wanted. Both sides would be enabled to demonstrate their agency, living relationships as they desire.

Arguments about the two bills have certainly attested the theory of justification: if party B casts doubt on party A, the latter’s next move is to provide justification. Both sides are using empiricism and authoritative testimony to justify themselves. (Is it truly conservative to look to the Supreme Court—a branch of the federal government—for definition of this issue? No wonder the Fifth and Tenth Amendments have been penned.)

Let’s drop the issue entirely, then. The mantra “keep government out of the bedroom” couldn’t be truer.

---

Rhett Wilkinson is a senior at Utah State University studying journalism/communications and political science. A co-founder of Aggie BluePrint—USU’s first student magazine—he has worked as an intern in Congressional and Gubernatorial offices and as a correspondent for the Deseret News and Standard-Examiner.

PoliticIt provides campaign software for politicians and special interest groups.  The software provides voter/donor micro-targeting in social networks, social media management, daily It Scores, competitor tracking, and digital influence tools.  To sign up for your free trial please visit us at www.politicit.com/politicitcampaign.