In the packet pages __ to __ I have included two sets of articles:
The first set of two articles concerns Obama using his executive authority to circumvent
the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case.
The second set of items examines the radicalization of the National Labor Relations Board.
The LA Times reported last October1 Obama was planning
to advance his agenda through executive rather than legislative action.
This is especially true now that he faces a Republican House.
You might remember in the 2010 State of the Union address Obama publicly scolded
the Supreme Court justices for their ruling in the Citizens United case.
He was upset that the Court held as unconstitutional, limits on the political spending of corporations.
In response the Democrat congress tried and failed to pass the DISCLOSE Act.2
[ This acronym stands for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections" ]
One of its provisions was to prohibit spending on political campaigns by any corporation that receives more than $10 million in government contracts.3
A draft executive order has been circulating that would require companies, seeking government contracts, to disclose political contributions. 4
Of course, this order would not apply to unions or to Democrat-allied groupsP
that receive grants from the federal government.
The reason for Obama's executive order is to muzzle his political critics.
Jennifer Rubin in her article "Obama defies the Supreme Court and chills speech"5
correctly describes all this as an attack on our First Admendment rights.
Similar efforts to compel disclosure are being made through the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the FCC, and the Federal Election Commission.
Obama likes to use regulatory agencies to do an end-around the legislative process.
The National Labor Relations Board is another one.
In April of last year I reported the recess appointment of the union-hack, Craig Becker,
to the NRLB.
Becker served as legal council for the SEIU and the AFL-CIO.
There was no way this guy's nomination was going to be confirmed over the opposition of the Republican Senators.
Senators Enzi and Hatch Were Right that Craig Becker would radicalize the NLRB.6
A case in point is the NLRB's recent complaint issued against the Boeing Company.7
A ruling in the Board'a favor would prevent Boeing from locating a second airplane production line in South Carolina.
A former NLRB member, John Raudabaugh, is shocked at this action.
It seems to him Boeing has done nothing wrong.
To quote Senator Graham of South Carolina,
"This is one of the worst examples of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I’ve ever seen. In this case, the NLRB is doing the bidding of the unions at great cost to South Carolina and our nation’s economy."
In another exercise of raw executive power, the NLRB is suing Arizona and South Dakota.8
The lawsuit seeks to overturn voter-approved amendments which guarantee secret ballots in union elections.
In Arizona, 61 percent of voters approved such an amendment to their constitution. In South Dakota, 79 percent.
Similar measures have also passed in South Carolina, 86 percent. And in Utah, 60 percent.
Under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, private-sector employees have two ways to choose a union - either voting in a secret-ballot election or signing authorization cards requesting a union.
The NLRB contends the amendments violate the second provision.
These voter initiatives at the state level were in response
to the federal Employee Free Choice Act - otherwise known as "card-check".9
This bill was backed by President Obama and was passed by the House Democrats
But it was not voted on in the Senate because of the threat of a filibuster.
"Card-check" would
have ended the secret-ballotsA short summary is in the packet on page ___ .
We have opposed "card check" since it empowers unionization through worker intimidation.
The NLRB does not want the states to guarantee the secret ballot. WHY?
Under present procedures the political hacks at the NLRB can falsely accuse an employer of preventing a fair election
Then, under present labor law it can order this employer to recognize a union if over 50% have signed cards - thereby bypassing the secret ballot.
In my opinion, this is an under-handed way to implement card-check without need for passing the Employee Free Choice Act.
We see here another scheme to bypass Congress and assume an unprecedented expansion of executive power.
For Obama the rights of the States under the 10th Amendment do not even exist.
Thank you.
-- Peter Cooper