Why the Ex-Im Fight Is Worthwhile

Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Uncategorized

Part of the problem for conservatives is the disconnect that many American taxpayers have with Washington, D.C. and the decisions made there. The average American taxpayer knows something is wrong, but because they are working to make ends meet (several working two or more jobs) they don’t know all of the specifics when it comes to legislation being considered or passed. This disconnect is also partly due to the fact that so much goes wrong in Washington, D.C. The inside baseball discussion of legislation takes place every day and many taxpayers are not part of that conversation.

Such is not the case of the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im).

Created by executive order by FDR, the Ex-Im Bank’s charter was “to create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing sales of U.S. exports to international buyers.”

However, in recent years, the Ex-Im Bank has become a slush fund for corporations that don’t need the money, but would rather not shoulder the risk. The risk is, however, placed in the lap of the American taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of loans subsidized each year with taxpayer dollars.

Loans like the $126 million one to the China National Nuclear Power Corporation or the millions of dollars in loan guarantees to customers purchasing Boeing aircraft. It is the essence of corporate welfare and a slush fund used to manipulate the free market.

While defenders of the Ex-Im Bank will argue that the bank helps level the playing field for small businesses in America, the fact of the matter is that in 2012, 82% of the bank’s loan guarantees went to Boeing’s customers.

At the end of this month, the Ex-Im Bank is up for reauthorization and its future is in jeopardy. Why? Because the foundation on which its current iteration is built (Congress) is shifting underneath it. A new breed of conservatives have been elected to office the last few election cycles, many of whom are Madison Project endorsed. As proponents of the actual free market, not a manipulated one, they are fighting to let the authorization for the Ex-Im Bank lapse at the end of this month.

It’s as simple as that. But make no mistake – there will be a fight over the next few weeks as the GOP leadership attempts to ram it through Congress, potentially attempting to attach it to the Defense Reauthorization bill to create a conundrum for the Ex-Im Bank’s critics.

Stopping it could be a huge win for the conservative movement, but we’re going to need all hands on deck to stop it and begin rolling back the largesse of the big government/big business crowd that has become far too comfortable playing with the American taxpayers’ money.

How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes, Episode #7

Monday, June 1st, 2015 and is filed under Blog

In today’s episode of How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes, Drew Ryun of the Madison Project delves deeper into the value of local elections and the easier point of entry that these elections provide for first time conservative candidates.

How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes, Episode #6

Monday, May 18th, 2015 and is filed under Blog

In today’s podcast, episode #6 in our series How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes, Drew Ryun discusses local offices and why they are so important to conservatives.

 

How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes, Episode #5

Monday, May 11th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections

Today, in Episode #5 of our series, How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes, Drew Ryun finishes up his series within a series on precinct work, GOTV and how Mitt Romney narrowly lost the Presidential election in 2012.

The Madison Project Endorse Marlin Stutzman for Senate

Monday, May 11th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections

Back in 2010, Marlin Stutzman was a rising star in Indiana politics. After serving for six years in the Indiana House of Representatives, he ran for and won a seat in the Indiana State Senate in 2008. There he continued his strong conservative voting record, and then in 2010, answered the call when the conservative movement needed a candidate for the vacated senate seat left by Democrat Senator Evan Bayh. Losing to Dan Coates in the Republican Primary, Marlin was given another chance to run for federal office when then Congressman Mark Souder abruptly retired in 2010. Winning a special party caucus in June of that year, Marlin went on to win the general election by 30 points.

Marlin has a 93% on the Heritage Action scorecard this past Congress, and a 93% lifetime on the Club for Growth scorecard and he outpaces the rest of the Indiana delegation by a wide margin on the Madison Project’s Performance Index.

With over 4 years in Washington, Marlin has proven his conservative bona fides by casting many tough votes like voting against John Boehner for Speaker, and by opposing executive amnesty and fighting to repeal Obamacare. Because of this, we are excited to endorse him (again) in his run for the United States Senate.

Madison Project: GOTV And Why We Do It

Friday, May 8th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections

This past election cycle the Madison Project endorsed and worked in many races from Idaho to Pennsylvania, California to Georgia, and states in between. From direct candidate support to bundling money for our endorsed candidates to radio ads and GOTV work, our support runs the spectrum of what it takes to get good conservatives elected to office.

During the 2014 election we had the opportunity we were pleased to work with Peter Baergen, a young homeschooler who loves politics, in Kentucky and Mississippi some of the GOTV Campaigns that Madison Project funded in 2014. We believe that training the youth of today in effective procedure and planning will produce better leaders for tomorrow.

Below is his recounting of his experience with us (thanks for doing this, Peter!).

 

“5 days. 42 students. Over 18,000 voters contacted and an initial victory of less than 1,400 votes.

Those are the numbers that resulted from a Madison Project student get-out-the-vote effort that I helped organize in Mississippi in early June of 2014, supporting constitutional conservative Chris McDaniel for U.S. Senate in his primary election race against 36-year incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran.  In less then a week, we worked with 42 middle and high school students to knock on doors in the Jackson, MS area, contacting nearly twenty thousand voters in an election that Chris McDaniel would initially win by less than 1,400 votes.

With Madison Project staffers and voter contact software Campaign Sidekick we connected with the Republican primary voters most likely to support Chris McDaniel.  Each morning, we gathered for breakfast and an update about the day’s plans before dividing into smaller teams and climbing into minivans, ready to hit the road.

Armed with walk lists, literature, and plenty of bottled water, we spent the majority of our time knocking on doors and talking to voters about why Chris McDaniel was the best candidate for the United States Senate.  Each evening, we’d gather together again to hear any updates on the race and tell stories from the day — like the time that one of our guys knocked on a door that, unknown to him, had already been knocked on by a different team.  A man answered the door and, referring to the team that had been there earlier, commented, “If you see them, tell them I’m sorry… but I had such fun giving them a hard time!”

He was, he added, a strong supporter of Chris McDaniel.

McDaniel, a state senator, faced an uphill battle against an entrenched incumbent and the Republican establishment in Mississippi.  However, with the help of the Madison Project and other groups, he overcame the political establishment in Mississippi and across the nation to force a six-term incumbent U.S. Senator into a runoff — a feat that gained nationwide attention and the chagrin and dismay of the liberal GOP Establishment.  It is generally acknowledged that had Democrats not been recruited to vote in the “open primary” run-off election by the Haley Barbour and his nephews, Chris McDaniel would have won the run-off as well.

The students that we worked with for this campaign, as well as other get-out-the-vote efforts funded by the Madison Project, were young conservatives concerned about the direction our nation is headed and willing to work hard to change it.  After our work in Mississippi, they are still eager (many of them even more eager!) to make a difference — but now, they have valuable knowledge on how they can most effectively use their time and energy to make a difference.  They have experienced what it takes to make a Get-Out-The-Vote operation work — from the phone calls and walk lists to the yard signs and Facebook posts.  They have seen the attacks and manipulative tactics, and learned how to effectively combat them.  Many of them returned to put their new-found knowledge to work within a few weeks of the primary campaign, joining us for our efforts in the run-off election on June 24.

This is how elections are won — by informed and engaged citizens interacting one-on-one with voters on doorsteps across America, answering their questions and asking for their vote.  The Madison Project is doing great work across the country, building a strong ground game for the conservative movement — a ground game that is vital if we want to elect principled, constitutional conservatives to public office.”

If you would like to help fund our GOTV efforts with great kids like Peter, click here to make a donation today. Early money means we can hit the ground earlier in key races and states!

The Madison Project Endorses Ron DeSantis for Senate

Wednesday, May 6th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections

It’s not many times that we see candidates elected on campaign promises that then go to Washington, DC and keep them.

Modern politics seems to be more about who regresses less than who advances.

This is not the case of Ron DeSantis.

In 2012, we were one of the first conservative PACs to endorse Ron in his run for the United States Congress based on his sterling credentials. A Yale and Harvard Law graduate, Ron distinguished himself as a Navy JAG lawyer during his time in the military. As a candidate, he checked all the boxes, giving all the right answers to our difficult questions during our candidate interview.

However, you never really know how good a candidate is going to be until they are put to the test.

As a freshman Congressman, Ron scored 95% on the Club for Growth’s scorecard and 100% on the Heritage Action scorecard. Often times, he took hard votes, standing with his constituents and against GOP leadership.

This is the kind of leadership that we want to see in Washington, D.C. and during his short time in the House, Ron DeSantis has only confirmed our 2012 endorsement of him.

This is why we are happy to endorse him for his run for the United States Senate and look forward to helping him win in 2016!

How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes, Episode #4

Monday, May 4th, 2015 and is filed under Blog

In this week’s episode of How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes, Drew Ryun of the Madison Project delves further into precinct level strategies for grassroots activists and candidates at all levels.

 

What’s Really At Stake With SCOTUS’s Marriage Decision?

Monday, April 27th, 2015 and is filed under Blog

This is editorial by Daniel Horowitz is cross-posted from The Conservative Review.

 

What’s Really at Stake with SCOTUS’s Marriage Decision?

By: Daniel Horowitz | April 27th, 2015

One of the more destructive behaviors of those engaged in politics is the willful conflation of political or moral arguments with constitutional and legal arguments.  Nowhere is this more evident than with debate over coercing states to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages.

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear two and a half hours of oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, and three other cases in which district and appellate courts were split, on whether to toss out state marriage laws or not.  Two months ago, the 6th Circuit upheld Ohio’s right to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, thereby establishing a split with other federal circuits and creating the need for intervention of the Supreme Court.

What is before the Court?

In order to understand what is at stake this week, and eventually in June when the court renders a decision, we must first discern what is not before the court.

The court is not rendering an opinion, nor should it, on the morality or prudence of same-sex relationships.  That is a question for society to answer.

The court is not rendering an opinion on whether two consenting adults have the liberty to live together in all ways.  They certainly have that right and have been doing so for quite some time.

The issue before the court is whether there is a federal constitutional right for same-sex partners to obtain a marriage license, thereby preventing the people or legislators of sovereign states from defining marriage as it always has been since the nation’s founding.

This is not a question of religiosity or a debate over culture.  That is a societal conflict that will be settled outside of court.  Even the strongest supporter of homosexuality or the idea of a same sex marriage cannot deny the fact that there is no mention of any form of marriage in the Constitution.  States have plenary authority over marriage.  Justice Kennedy’s primary argument for overturning DOMA was that it represented federal encroachment on a state’s “broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relationships” (even though DOMA only defined marriage for federal purposes); certainly it would be hypocritical of him to now create a federal mandate barring states from defining marriage.

Corrupting the 14th Amendment

Supporters of federal coercion contend that their aspirations are mandated by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.  But that is a prima facie absurdity because everyone in this country, including homosexuals, indeed have the right to marry.  If they don’t desire or feel unable to marry the way the term has been defined since creation, that is not a denial of their due process.  Remember, every homosexual couple also has the right to live together without a marriage, much like many heterosexual couples do in our generation.

What plaintiffs are asking is for the federal court system to simultaneously change the definition of marriage (which is not mentioned in the Constitution) while precluding states from maintaining their own definition through their democratic processes.  It is simply beyond reason to believe that the 14th Amendment was drafted to prevent states from denying a status that nobody would have conjured up at the time, especially a status that runs counter to Natural Law and Common Law.  In the very least, proponents of same-sex marriage need to use the democratic process to change the definition of marriage in order to achieve their goals.  And judging by their bravado about recent polls, what do they have to fear from letting the people decide?

In order to assert a new fundamental right, the Supreme Court has laid out a constitutional test in Washington v Glucksberg (1997) when the court ruled unanimously that assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest.  The asserted right has to be so “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.”  To prove a substantive due process violation of that right the court has ruled in Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales (2006) that the aggrieved person must show how this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

How can anyone assert such a claim of a concept that was not even conceived until this generation, thereby bypassing the political process to create that right?

Where is this headed?

Furthermore, what plaintiffs in the marriage cases can never answer is this: if marriage – as dictated by federal courts – is no longer defined as a special union between one man and one woman, what is the definition of marriage? They would have to define marriage, in the course of redefining it. They would have to draw parameters but it seems there is absolutely no legal jurisprudence one can employ to include homosexual relationships in the definition of marriage and not polygamist or incestual relationships.

If anything, there is more of a Natural Law argument to include those relationships before homosexual ones because they can procreate. Unless of course, the court here is more interested in solving a political matter, than a legal one.

Accordingly, there is no rational basis for any one of the Justices to decide in favor of coercing states to adopt homosexual marriages but not all other relationships.  Yet, four and possibly five Justice are so driven by personal beliefs that rational basis and legal jurisprudence will never sway their decision.  So what is this really about?

The only way the Court can arrive at the conclusion so many in the media are supporting is for them to create a new protected class carved out exclusively for homosexuals.  By using the court to create a new fundamental right and protected class instead of the political process to resolve a societal question, the Court will codify the anti-religious bigotry we’ve witnessed over the past few years into law.  An Oregon baker, for example, is facing a $135,000 fine for not engaging in involuntary servitude to provide a specific service for a homosexual wedding.

Perforce, what is really before the court tomorrow has nothing to do with liberty, love, and equality for homosexual relationships; it is all about corrupting the Constitution and using the boot of government to violate the individual and religious rights of the other 97% of the population.

Daniel Horowitz is the Senior Editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.

 

How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes, Episode #3

Monday, April 27th, 2015 and is filed under Blog, Elections

In this week’s episode of How To Save Your Country In 5 Minutes, Drew Ryun discusses the initial steps in your roadmap to victory: winning in the precincts.