Andy's Angle

Some months ago, I shared that I've returned to The Ohio State University to complete my undergraduate studies. Two quarters into the process, I'm thoroughly enjoying myself, even as the extra work provides many new challenges in balancing my personal, professional, and now educational responsibilities. This summer quarter, far from reveling in a slower academic term, I decided to take four courses, or 20 hours of classroom work. Two of my four subjects are Biology, and I've learned many things. Perhaps most frustrating and enlightening however, is an inconvenient truth about college life: students are indeed exposed to political propaganda on issues ranging from climate change to health care.

Case in point: Biology. As part of the undergraduate course of study, students take a number of natural science courses to fulfill what are known as "GEC's," or General Education Curriculum requirements. These classes include Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc. In scheduling my summer, I enrolled in both Bio 101 and Bio 102 to fulfill a portion of these GEC's. Bio 101, which I finished last week, was a very enjoyable course (I earned an A, thank you very much), with which I have little complaint.

The single issue raising a red flag for me this quarter in Bio 101 was the film "An Inconvenient Truth" featuring climate change profiteer Al Gore. Students were forced to watch an hour of the film in the final lab session of the class, and to answer a series of fourteen questions based on the "facts" presented by Mr. Gore in his infamous "documentary." The film, of course, presents a number of statements, statistical references, and other allegations to "prove" that the United States must revert to some 1950s Third World version of our society in order to "save the planet." While several of my colleagues are bright and well read enough to capably discern the real truths from the "inconvenient" versions promulgated by Mr. Gore, it was nonetheless disheartening to discover that even a department as objective and unbiased as biological science would sneak political propaganda into the course under the guise of scientific education.

While students' exposure to "An Inconvenient Truth" was mildly disconcerting, I wasn't nearly as shocked then as I was just a week later when I got the syllabus for Bio 102. In the first two class meetings alone, three hours were earmarked for viewing films on the health care debate. You heard me correctly: a class ostensibly on human biology spent the first two lectures of the term subjecting students to political propaganda on health care policy.

The first lecture featured a PBS special with correspondent T.R. Reid of the Washington Post sharing why the health care systems of England, Japan, Taiwan, Germany and Switzerland are ALL better than the United States, and why our nation has the worst health care system known to man. Now, before you begin debating the merits of that argument, stop to ask the most pressing question: what in the name of St. Francis of Assisi does health care policy in the United States have to do with a college biology course?

Still trying to answer that last question? Well, then you'll really flip your lid when I tell you that lecture number two was spent watching the Michael Moore mockumentary "Sicko" ... in its entirety. While I was able to keep from hanging myself by my shoelaces during the presentation, I was left with a feeling that this class may not actually teach me anything about human biology. I'm even more convinced as I look to the week on "human nutrition" and see that we'll be watching BOTH "Food, Inc.," AND "Supersize Me," two instant classics on the anti-farm, anti-American food best sellers list.

After watching "Sicko," however, I was encouraged by two things: first, that a student was willing to challenge the professor on her choice to show the film, and second, that at least some students in the class understood that "free health care" is only possible through extremely confiscatory tax policies. The first realization came as the prof called on one lovely young lady in the back row for looking "shifty eyed" after the announcement of the Moore film. The young lady responded that she assumed the professor was simply trying to push her own liberal views on the students in the class. The professor deftly dodged the question, obeying the first commandment of political debate: Never accept the premise of the question.

The second realization came in class discussion following the film, as one student shared that France, a nation highly praised by Moore in the film for its universal healthcare system, has a nearly 90 percent tax rate. The lecturer shared that she highly doubted the stat to be true, so I provided the actual statistic: according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), France's tax burden is 73 percent of Gross Domestic Product, in and 2007, the French paid over 47 percent in taxes, not including their "social contributions," AKA Social Security. A number or students agreed the tradeoff was un-American.

Four weeks of liberal indoctrination await me. I'm trying to mind my P's and Q's because I'm going to make the Dean's List this quarter come hell or high water ... It's going to be tough, especially when "Food, Inc." rolls around later this quarter.

Not every rural state is a "red state," and vice-versa. Even so, there is a strong correlation between red state sensibilities and America's Heartland; in other words, those rural states know as "fly-over country." As Real Clear Politics reports, lefties are trying to alter the Electoral College to disenfranchise these very states.

To understand what I mean, you first must understand the purpose of the Electoral College, which unless you study electoral politics, you most likely do not. The purpose of the Electoral College is to strike a balance between the relative power any given area of the country has in electing our President.

Contrary to common belief, the President is not directly elected by the people, but rather by the electors selected by the voters on election day. Each state is allotted a number of electors based on its Representation in Congress. That Representation, of course, is based on population. More populous states, naturally, have more electors, but smaller states are still represented. For the same reason the Congress has two chambers (to give the states equal footing in the Senate, but to maintain a measure of the broader population in general via the House), the Electoral College exists to balance the needs of the several states against the concentration of citizens in a few large states like New York and California.

Following President George W. Bush's election in 2000, liberal academics starting seriously pushing concepts on how to be rid of the College and instead elect the President based purely on the popular vote (Bush won the Electoral College, but Gore narrowly won the popular vote). Gore's advantage in the popular vote was earned in a few highly populated states, while President Bush won a majority of votes in more states across the country.

As RCP notes, shortly after the 2000 election "a college professor proposed an intriguing end-run around the Electoral College: each state would simply pledge its electors to the winner of the popular vote. The law would take effect only after states with 270 electoral votes passed the law."

Now a half-dozen states have passed such laws, with a few more like New York likely to follow suit. RCP points out the clear fact that "all these states have something in common: They are deep blue states that likely feel as if they were disenfranchised by the 2000 outcome." These states are also fairly well populated, as blue states tend to be. By voting to more or less bypass the Electoral College, these states are potentially disenfranchising their own voters, but as importantly are lending credence to a national effort to torch the College.

These efforts are not in the best interests of the Republic, and are certainly bad for rural America, red state or not.

Today is the Grand Opening of one of my favorite events of the year, The Ohio State Fair. I LOVE State Fair, and have for many, many years. I remember coming to the Fair once as a kid with my folks, but I really didn't make the State Fair a tradition until I was in high school. Since my first fair as a young adult, I haven't missed a season in ten years.

ABN's coverage of the State Fair is one of our greatest undertakings as a broadcast team. Literally every member of our staff will play a role in covering the Fair, and we'll be on the grounds from this morning's opening ceremonies clear through to the Sale of Champions on the last day. One or more of us will be on the grounds each and every day of the fair, and I'm guessing I'll be there myself every day of the fair.

I'm in class each weekday except Friday, so I'll be running back and forth between campus and the fairgrounds, but stop by and see me when you make your visit to the "Fairtastic" Ohio State Fair!

Earlier in the month I shared my thoughts on the LeBron James situation. LeBron's move to Florida, as I noted, saves him several million dollars annually due to Florida's more favorable tax climate. State and local taxes in Florida are extremely taxpayer friendly in Florida, especially when compared to states like Ohio which are less friendly to entrepreneurs such as King James.

Counterproductive public policies like high state taxes are often shielded from public scrutiny because a single individual's decision to move to Florida is rarely news. In the case of a high profile individual like LeBron, however, the media attention is inescapable. Conservative pundits predicted James' move to Florida long before it occurred, citing specifically the boost to James' bottom line in so doing. This happens with businesses, too, by the way. Recall a few short years ago when Honda elected to build a new facility in Greensburg, Indiana rather than proposed sites in Ohio; Indiana has a much more favorable business climate.

Jim Prevor in The Weekly Standard draws a parallel between the poor public policies that led James to move South with the concept of "food desserts," or areas of the country where people live more than a mile from a supermarket. First Lady Michelle Obama adopted the issue of food desserts as a key priority in her efforts, noting that 23.5 million people are affected by this food access issue. Prevor wisely notes that Mrs. Obama's plan includes subsidizing businesses for opening groceries in the inner cities and other affected areas, rather than "facing up to the public policy problem," causing the food desserts in the first place, namely higher cost of doing business. "She is looking to spend money directly to de facto compensate individual retailers for these high costs of doing business – and doing nothing to resolve the root problem."

Read Prevor's article; it's one of the best economic policy articles I've read in a long time.

As we reported yesterday, Shirley Sherrod, the now former USDA State Director for Rural Development in Georgia, has created quite an odd news event involving the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the United States Department of Agriculture. Sherrod, an African-American, told a story of her own experience discriminating against a white farmer while employed with a non-profit organization 24 years ago.

The video of her relating this story to the NAACP Freedom Fund banquet last March was released by conservative documentarian Andrew Breitbart to demonstrate what he claimed to be rampant racism among NAACP members and leaders. While implicating Sherrod directly, the video depicted the crowd as quite enthusiastic about Sherrod's admission of discriminating against a white farmer.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack reacted swiftly, demanding Sherrod's resignation. He denounced Sherrod's admission, referencing USDA's own history of racial issues (i.e. the Pigford settlement). This morning, however, both Vilsack and the NAACP are singing a slightly different tune. Vilsack "will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner," he said in a written statement. Likewise, the NAACP backpedaled from its original condemnation.

Sherrod, for her part, blamed FoxNews and the Tea Party for the swift reaction of the Administration, claiming that the administration is "scared" by the Conservative movement and its alleged megaphone at Fox.

Following her interview with CNN pointing out that her story was used to illustrate her own growth and acceptance that racism is wrong and that she was mistaken in discriminating against the white farmer, pressure mounted for the Administration to reconsider its sacking of the embattled Sherrod.

The challenge I observed in this situation is that Sherrod's admitted incident of discrimination occurred 24 years ago. Is it reasonable to fire someone for an indiscretion that occurred a quarter-century ago? Furthermore, why didn't either the NAACP or USDA review the entire situation before throwing Sherrod under the bus?

Perhaps the bigger, and mostly unreported issue, however, was raised yesterday by Tom Blumer at the Washington Examiner: Shirley Sherrod is a major beneficiary of the aforementioned Pigford settlement. Blumer poses the question that Sherrod's selection as Rural Development Chief and her role in Pigford case may be more than coincidental.

And, as Glenn Reynolds points out, the bigger issue with the Breitbart video is the reaction of the NAACP members and leaders in the crowd to Sherrod's discussion of actively discriminating against a white farmer. Expect that issue to be quickly forgotten by almost everyone, by the way. Glenn has a roundup of other useful and interesting links on this issue.

I'll share more on this in my column this week, but I wanted to share some relevant links on President Obama's new "Food Czar" Sam Kass. I met Sam in Washington on a tour of the White House Garden while he was coordinating Mrs. Obama's "Let's Move" initiative. While I wish the White House had allowed Sam to be interviewed, I was appreciative of the off the record conversation nonetheless. Published reports indicate that while Kass' responsibilities have not changed, he's been titularly upgraded to "Senior Policy Adviser for Health Food Initiatives.

From Fox, the details. From Glenn, some context. From TownHall, some analysis.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann have a great piece over at TownHall on the downfall of British Parliamentary Democracy. Morris is one of my favorite pundits, and he and McGann's take on this is spot on. Great Britain is fascinating to me; besides being our country's ancestral progenitor, I've been watching the series Monarchy: The Royal Family At Work on WOSU-TV, and I find the British government particularly intriguing.

Read the Morris article; if you've not studied British politics, you may want to brush up on some background. At any rate, there are lessons to be learned in how politicians operate...

I got to my first class of the day WAY early, so here are some things I'm reading before lecture begins:

Steinbrenner Is Dead: The legendary Yankees owner George Steinbrenner passed yesterday at age 80. One of my favorite figures in sports, Steinbrenner shaped the American League, and by extension the entire Major League, perhaps more than any other figure of the last thirty years. Decried by his detractors as "overbearing and tempestuous," the Ohio native was nonetheless one of the most successful sports moguls of the modern era.

ESPN's Big Ten blogger notes Steinbrenner's numerous connections to the Conference, and especially to Ohio State: The Boss earned his Master's degree at Ohio State from 1954-55 and served as a grad assistant under Buckeyes legendary football coach Woody Hayes. Steinbrenner went on to serve as an assistant at both Northwestern (1955-56) and Purdue (1956-57) before entering the shipping business.

Because of his affinity for Ohio State, and because of his love to the marching band in particular, he became a significant benefactor of The Ohio State University Marching Band. The University named the Joan Zieg Steinbrenner Band Center at Ohio Stadium in his wife's honor following "The Boss'" contributions to its construction.

NCBA Blogs: The National Cattlemen's Beef Association launched its "Beltway Beef" blog this week. From its first post: NCBA is stepping up its efforts to not only keep you informed, but also engaged. "Beltway Beef" affords you the opportunity to learn and express your views. You can rest assured we'll be listening. This blog is intended to serve as a sounding board for the U.S. cattle industry. We will be covering mainly policy issues that impact U.S. cattle producers and rural communities. Mosey on over and check it out. Good luck to the blogging team!

Fisher Tals About "The Compromise:" We've covered extensively "The Ohio Compromise" between HSUS and Ohio agriculture. Ohio Farmer editor Tim White chats with one of the agreement's key architects Jack Fisher about his feelings about the deal after the fact. Fisher shares his thoughts on the public reaction to the compromise, and what it means for the future of Ohio agriculture.

Is College Overrated? An important read from my friend Ed Winkle. As a current and "non-traditional" student at Ohio State, I have my own very unique perspective on this question. I think two things of relevance to Ed's comments: First, college is as important today as ever before. And second, that there is a perception in this country that if you don't earn a traditional four-year degree, there's something wrong with you.

Speaking from experience, and from discussing this notion with other successful professionals who either didn't pursue or didn't complete an undergraduate education, there is a stigma. Why? My theory is that we've done such a good job of promoting the virtues of education that folks subconsciously assume that baccalaureate study is the only acceptable path to success in business and industry.

That being said, some very influential thinkers like TV personality Mike Rowe are working to reassert the importance of hard work and manual labor.

Okay, class is starting, so it's back to work for me!

Okay, so it's a sad day in Ohio. King James is packing up and heading to South Beach. Is he now the most hated sports figure in Ohio? Gary Jackson tells me that statistically speaking, Art Modell is still the most despised figure in Ohio sports history. He had some polling data to back him up.

I have a startling admission to make: I'm not all that disappointed. Here's why: while I feel for the true fans, and for the people in Cleveland in general, LeBron James leaving town may be the guy check the Cavaliers need to step up and seal the deal in the playoffs. If they couldn't do it last season (and one could argue that LeBron's performance left something to be desired), they need something intangible to put them over the top. That certain something might just be a little dose of reality: LeBron James is not, nor will he ever be, God brought to the basketball court.

Here's the second thing that most folks probably won't say today: sports fans need a nice tall glass of "wake up and get real." Sports figures, while exciting, energizing, potentially motivating, are just people. They are humans, and as Charles Barkley put it so infamously, not role models to be idolized. More to the point, LeBron should also be considered as "LeBron, Inc.," and one should assume that he will make rational decisions in his own self interest - NOT in the interests of any specific team, city, or state.

In this case, that means that LeBron's most rational move was moving to Miami. He's going to have a much nicer tax base in which to rake his multi-million dollar endorsement deals, and while reports indicate he's actually taking a pay cut on the court, his salary with the team is one of the smallest contracts he'll sign this year.

Likewise, it's in his best interest to actually win a championship, something he's been unable to do in seven seasons with the Cavs. For a player of his magnitude, there isn't much else to accomplish that doesn't involve winning a title somewhere. While I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he'd have preferred to win it in his home town, great players have almost always had to make big moves to win big. Michael Jordan didn't grow up in the Windy City.

My friend Scott McKain has a great business perspective on this situation, most importantly how the reality of the James debacle relates to your business and loyalty.

A final, somewhat related thought: I'm tired of hearing all the moaning about the "big money" in sports, both at the collegiate and professional levels. At the end of the day, players play to earn a living. While their salaries in a single game may eclipse the yearly income of many of their fans, that is irrelevant. The market will bear a fair price for a given set of talents and abilities, and in the case of professional athletes, that figure is often tens of millions of dollars.

With that in mind, how many of those fans have ever left a job, career, or employeer they really enjoyed or respected to take more money somewhere else? A WHOLE LOT of them!! If it's okay for you and me to consider improving our circumstances by accepting a "better" position somewhere else, why hold elite athletes to a less reasonable standard?

This is similar to my position on college athletes turning pro early. Take the example of Greg Oden: Oden could have potentially won a National Title for Ohio State with another year or two under his belt. OR, he could have blown his knees out and never played the first minute of professional ball. As stands now, he signed a good deal while he was healthy, got some endorsement deals of his own, and can now afford to support himself regardless of his future in the NBA.

People act in their own rational self-interest. Athletes are people, too.

"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - General George S. Patton, Jr.

Many of us made the mistake of thinking we were going to war, proudly carrying the battle standard for farm families, consumer rights, truth, justice, and the American way. Staring back across the mud and the blood were a group of idealists one Ohio farm leader popularly referred to as "radical anti-meat terrorists."

The problem is we weren't really fighting terrorists; we were fighting a sophisticated regime of well-funded mercenaries intent on destroying us from within. We thought we were fighting for General Patton across Western Europe, when really we were fighting the Cold War. The good guys blinked, and last week Ohio farm leaders brokered a compromise with the Humane Society of the United States.

General George Patton is one of my favorite historical figures. The greatest wartime General in modern history, Patton was as famous for his efficiency in defeating Nazis as for his inability to navigate politics. Patton's writings are particularly applicable to the feelings of many Ohio farmers following the "Ohio Compromise" between farm groups and animal rights activists.

"America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser," Patton said of the fighting American. That spirit may explain the disappointment and outrage expressed by many farmers following the Ohio Compromise. The Animal Agriculture Alliance stated flatly: "Ohio's agricultural leadership succumbed to pressures from a national animal rights group that has effectively undermined the authority of the newly-established (Livestock Care) Board."

While I agree with the Alliance position that "HSUS is an extremist animal rights group that does not deserve a seat at the discussion table on issues of farm animal welfare," I also appreciate the position from which Ohio's commodity executives agreed to HSUS' demands. Patton counseled "a good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later," suggesting the Compromise, while not the most popular decision in Ohio agriculture history, may indeed be in the long term best interests of Ohio. Governor Strickland agreed, noting, "Instead of expending tens of millions of dollars and unproductive energy fighting an acrimonious campaign through the fall, both sides will continue investing in our agricultural base and taking care of animals."

However, Ohio's farm groups spent two years warning voters against the evils of HSUS. In fact, as of this writing, the Ohioans for Livestock Care campaign website still cautions "A group of Washington D.C. lobbyists, lawyers and activists want to keep our Livestock Care Standards Board from doing its job with a petition drive to override the Board's authority." What changed?

Three things likely convinced Ohio's commodity and Farm Bureau executives to play "let's make a deal" with Wayne Pacelle. First, the compass of any political campaign is good polling. For the coalition of farm groups to deal, the numbers must have suggested we were fighting an uphill battle. Remember the "undercover video" released a few weeks ago from the Conklin dairy farm? Still think its release was a coincidence?

Secondly, the dollars and cents weren't making sense. "Ballot initiatives are expensive," Farm Bureau's Jack Fisher said when asked why his group agreed to compromise.

HSUS employed the Cold War strategy of spending its enemy into submission. Vowing to spend at least $10 million of its $200 million war chest to pass its ballot measure, HSUS effectively demonstrated their ability to buy the election.

Sources tell me the Ohioans for Livestock Care steering committee was extremely nervous about raising the funds necessary to win.

Perhaps most importantly, Gov. Ted Strickland needed this issue to go away. Strickland was instrumental in creating the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board and received high praise from the farm community for his stance against HSUS.

In February the governor told Farm Bureau members "If we want to eat, and if we want access to affordable and inexpensive food, it is important for the agricultural community not to be hamstrung and to have their hands tied behind their back by those who do not fully appreciate the value of what happens on our farms."

So why would Strickland suddenly become the key broker of a compromise with HSUS? Ask pollster Scott Rasmussen: "(Our) latest survey of the governor's race finds Republican John Kasich with a 47 percent to 40 percent lead over Strickland - for the second month in a row." Strickland won Ohio with 60 percent of the vote in 2006.

As The Columbus Dispatch reports, Ohio's rural counties are critical to winning the state. In the 2004 Presidential election John Kerry easily won the urban areas, but George W. Bush "more than made up the difference in the suburban and rural counties." President Bush carried 72 of 88 counties, and while "Kerry was racking up big margins in the big six urban counties...Bush more than matched that performance by winning 57 percent of the total votes in the other 82 counties, which accounted for 57.5 percent of the Ohio vote."

Rural voters would have turned out in force to defeat HSUS' proposed ballot initiative. Based on the historical data and Rasmussen numbers, high rural turnout could have been bad news for Strickland. Announcing the compromise, HSUS' Pacelle was quite clear that the governor made the first move in negotiating this deal. It seems plausible that the governor is much happier knowing he's taken a major rural get out the vote effort off the table, while freeing up $20 million of radio and television commercial inventory at the same time.

We won't know the true effects of the Ohio Compromise for months, probably years. I remain concerned that HSUS will redouble its efforts to force Ohioans into a radical vegan lifestyle, yet I have hope that the Livestock Care Standards Board will do the job it was created to do. As Farm Bureau's Fisher noted about the compromise, "One of animal agriculture's most vocal critics has agreed that the Livestock Care Standards Board is the proper authority to handle difficult questions about farm animal care." We may have to swallow the bitter pill of compromise for now, but we might stand at ease knowing the ball is in the board's hands now.

Editor's Note: I wrote this column last week prior to the announcement of a compromise between HSUS and Ohio farm groups. More on that in this week's column Thursday...

What do HSUS, labor unions, and the NRA have in common? If you said "not a whole lot," you're right on their principles, but wrong in one very key area: they all received a sweet deal from Congressional Democrats on a shadowy campaign finance bill known as the DISCLOSE Act.

Congressman John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Leader, is very concerned: "(This) misguided campaign finance bill would give the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) a special exemption to influence elections and spread its radical agenda." More on the NRA/union connection in a moment.

As Congressman Boehner points out, HSUS is not to be confused with your local animal shelter. "HSUS is a special interest group that has been waging war on our agriculture community in recent years in an effort to impose its extreme animal rights agenda," Boehner said.

Waging ballot battles in states ranging from Florida, Arizona, and California in recent years, and this year in both Ohio and Missouri, the organization spends the vast majority of its $120 million annual budget on lobbying and political coercion.

"Ohio's farmers and producers work hard each day to provide for their families, and care for their livestock," Boehner said in a recent email to his constituents. "The last thing they need while trying to fend off HSUS during difficult economic times is Washington stepping in and tilting the playing field against them." Boehner contends that's exactly what will happen as a result of the backroom deal Democratic leaders struck with several special interest groups, including HSUS, Labor Unions, and the NRA, to secure votes in Congress for H.R. 5175, known as the DISCLOSE Act.

Boehner argues that when it comes to campaign finance reform, sunshine is the best disinfectant. "Every dime spent on behalf of a candidate or an issue should be public, so the American people have a clear view of who is supporting what. Passing campaign finance reform granting special interest groups like HSUS special First Amendment rights not only raises serious constitutional concerns, it threatens to devastate our agriculture community and Ohio's economy."

While agriculture is typically a non-partisan sport, here is one of those murky times where politics gets in the way of common sense. What does the DISCLOSE Act do, exactly?

From the Alliance for Worker Freedom: "The DISCLOSE Act marks a stark departure from the traditional treatment of corporations and unions by applying punitive measures to associations in the corporate form, but not to labor unions, even though these groups have traditionally been treated similarly in campaign finance law."

Specifically:

• Companies that received federal money during the financial crisis face restrictions on speech, but not unions: General Motors cannot engage in express advocacy, urging voters to support a candidate by name for example, while the United Auto Workers union can.

• Corporations, unions, non-profits and 527 groups will be required to report donors who give more than $600 if they engage in express advocacy; Average union dues, the source of the majority of their funds, in 2004 were roughly $377.

• Businesses with government contracts worth more than $7 million are not allowed to engage in express advocacy while public sector unions that receive their dues from the taxpayers are exempt from such restrictions.

• Companies where a foreign entity owns 20 percent or more of a company's shares are not allowed to engage in express advocacy while international unions are free to tell Americans how to vote.

Groups like HSUS, the NRA, and Labor Unions received these types of special exemptions to buy their support, and in the case of the NRA, their silence. The NRA, the strongest and most effective traditional supporters of the 2nd Amendment, should be expressing concern this week over the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court due to her controversial positions on the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. However, by selling out on the Kagan nomination, the NRA was able to exempt itself from some of the most onerous campaign finance legislation in the nation's history.

In short, special interest groups are running Washington and this Congress more aggressively than they have at any point in history. While the House passed the DISCLOSE Act by a very narrow margin, time still exists for the Senate to apply common sense, and either kill a bill designed to restrict the free speech rights of millions of Americans, or to at least apply the bill fairly to activist organizations like Big Labor and the anti-meat terrorists at HSUS.