Author name: Chad Banghart

Hate Map

Thomas M. Crooks

On July 13, 2024, Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, opened fire during a campaign rally for former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, in an attack the FBI has investigated as an assassination attempt and potential domestic terrorism. Crooks fired eight rounds from an AR-15-style rifle from a rooftop overlooking the rally before he was killed by a U.S. Secret Service counter-sniper. Trump was struck by a bullet, while rally attendee Corey Comperatore was killed, and attendees David Dutch and James Copenhaver were wounded. The FBI’s investigation found evidence that Crooks engaged in significant preparation before the attack. After the rally was announced, Crooks registered to attend and searched online for the distance between Lee Harvey Oswald and President John F. Kennedy during Kennedy’s assassination. He subsequently traveled to the rally site in what investigators described as apparent early surveillance and practiced at a shooting range with what the FBI believed was the same rifle used in the attack. Investigators also determined that Crooks had purchased firearms-related items under an alias and materials used to construct explosive devices. Two potentially functional explosive devices were later recovered from his vehicle near the rally. Despite the extensive investigation, the FBI has not established a definitive motive for Crooks’ attack. The Bureau reported that it had found no credible evidence that he conspired with another person and said its investigation indicated that he acted alone. Investigators examined his electronic devices, accounts, search history and other records in an effort to understand what motivated the assassination attempt. The FBI also disclosed that investigators identified a social-media account believed to have been associated with Crooks in 2019–2020 containing more than 700 comments. FBI Deputy Director Paul Abbate testified that some of the comments, if ultimately attributable to Crooks, appeared to contain antisemitic and anti-immigration themes, support political violence, and express extreme views.

OP-EDs

Trump’s Conviction Is an Absurd Double Standard

As Donald Trump’s sentencing lurches ever closer, his conviction is no less absurd. Democrats may celebrate, but this represents one of the darkest moments in U.S. electoral history. For a former president and current presidential candidate to be convicted as a felon, any reasonable person would expect — demand, in fact — the evidence be undeniably strong and the law crystal clear. Neither is true in this case, and those who support Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s lawfare should be ashamed. Bragg has disgraced himself. Even the media are questioning the conviction, with CNN legal analyst Elie Honig calling the Trump trial an “unjustified mess” and claiming it “blew his mind.” In his words: “No state prosecutor … has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything.” Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney, has also blasted prosecutors for “pushing the boundaries of due process.” The lawfare is so dubious that even CNN is now crying foul and defending Trump. That’s a low point. First and foremost, the Trump conviction is a blatant double standard. In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign was fined $8,000 for violating federal campaign finance laws. Why? The Clinton machine falsely reported the funding of the infamous Steele dossier as “legal services” and “legal and compliance consulting,” although it was an attempt to smear Trump with salacious allegations that were untrue. Through the Steele dossier, Clinton’s team did indeed seek to influence the 2016 election to her benefit. (Shocker: It still failed to make her popular.) And where was the Clinton campaign headquartered? In Brooklyn, New York, which would make the Steele dossier case fall under the jurisdiction of New York Penal Law §175.10. This is the state law that makes it a felony to falsify business records with the intent to conceal the commission of a crime. That jurisdiction seems relevant, right? Wrong: Clinton was slapped on the wrist with a Federal Election Commission fine, whereas her former political opponent is now a felon. There is no meaningful legal difference between the two cases except that Bragg was intent on weaponizing every possible legal statute — real or imagined — to destroy Trump. That’s not supposition — he openly campaigned on it. The only difference is the left’s obsession with its favorite non-legal theory: “Orange Man Bad.”  Partisanship is no justification to upend our legal system to “criminalize Trump,” and it’s just the left’s latest attempt to steal the 2024 election. Democrats aren’t shy about acknowledging it — they gloat openly about their success twisting the law to steal the 2020 election before the first ballots were counted and have been every bit as open about destroying everything America about America if it gets them their goal (power and control). It is absurd to use an alleged federal law violation (which it is not, in this case) as the basis for a state law claim. Yes, it is illegal to pay off an adult film star from campaign funds. Still, Trump did not use campaign funds, and the state of New York ended up prosecuting him for not using campaign funds — based on a bizarre legal theory about “corrupting” the 2016 election. You mean how the Bidens helped get rid of the New York Post story in 2020? That sort of corruption? The double standards never cease to amaze me. Even if Trump were actually guilty, it would (at most) amount to a trivial FEC reporting fine like Clinton received, and that has nothing to do with state law. There’s no other way to put it: The Trump conviction is a joke. What Democrats deserve now is for it to backfire at the polls. Fingers crossed. Dan Backer is a veteran political campaign counsel who serves as of-counsel for Chalmers & Adams, a political law and litigation firm. He has served as counsel for more than 100 candidates, PACs, and political organizations. Editors Note: This op-ed was originally published in the DC Journal. You can read this op-ed and explore their other news content by clicking here.

2024 Victories, Amicus Briefs, Defending the Trump Administration

Amicus Brief in Support of President Trump in Overreaching Indictment

Our amicus brief in Trump v. United States urged the Supreme Court to affirm that a President cannot be criminally prosecuted for official acts performed while in office. The brief highlighted how the overreaching indictment in this case burdened the fundamental values underlying the First Amendment and infringed upon the President’s constitutionally protected right to engage in political speech. The President’s communications and actions related to the 2020 election were part of his official duties and political speech—both protected under Article II and the First Amendment. As a result, we urged the Court to apply the doctrine of constitutional avoidance by interpreting the criminal statutes narrowly to exclude the President’s official conduct, warning that failure to do so would chill future presidents from faithfully executing their duties and set a dangerous precedent for partisan prosecutions. We were pleased that in the end, the Supreme Court reached a 6-3 decision for Trump, stating that a former U.S. President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority, at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. [ AMICUS BRIEF ]

OP-EDs

BACKER: Cori Bush Is Being Held Accountable Because Conservatives Are Fighting Back

The walls are closing in on Democratic Missouri Rep. Cori Bush, the infamous “Squad” member and one of America’s most divisive “leaders.” We can officially call her #CrookedCori now. As we speak, the Justice Department is investigating Bush for a wide range of campaign finance violations that stem from her congressional campaign’s spending on fake security services from her definitely-not-licensed “security guard” lover and now-husband Cortney Merritts. Bush claims she needs security after all the death threats made against her, but having produced not a single shred of proof, it sounds more like she’s pulling a Jussie Smollett. Thankfully, the American people aren’t stupid, and neither are federal regulators. Bush’s illegal behavior was first exposed in a Committee to Defeat the President complaint I proudly filed with the Federal Election Commission, accusing Bush of embezzlement and fraud. Under the guise of “security,” Bush repeatedly lined her family’s pockets at the expense of her donors, breaking federal and local laws in the process. She either paid her ex-lover and now-husband to perform work he could not legally provide — a violation of federal law by her and local laws by him — or just paid him meretriciously. (It turns out you can’t just pay your boo to watch your booty.) Either way, Bush broke the law, and then she fumbled the cover-up. Bush’s team changed FEC descriptions of the continuing payments, which spurred our follow-up complaints to the FEC and DOJ. But they still didn’t get her husband licensed (why not?), never produced a shred of evidence of so-called threats (why not?), and couldn’t prove his “extensive security experience” (again, why not?). What Bush did was send her lawyer after us in a desperate attempt to stop the bleeding, and we sure as heck didn’t back down. We fought back. Accountability was a long time coming. But the DOJ’s current investigation didn’t just come out of nowhere. Bush is being held accountable now because of months and months of due diligence from conservative fighters who refused to look the other way. It takes bare-knuckle groups, like the Committee to Defeat the President, to regularly fight for “small” causes, but we’re seeing big results. Yes, it requires campaign finance expertise. Yes, it requires an intimate understanding of federal, state, and local laws, knowing where to look — at “what” and “who.” And yes, it requires time, effort, and money, combing through research, identifying the relevant legal statutes, and packaging it all in a way that will resonate with regulators. In this case, we alerted the FEC; the Office of Congressional Ethics; the St. Louis Police Department; Washington, D.C., city regulators; and the DOJ in particular (twice!) — that sort of due diligence isn’t easy to execute and sustain. Above all else, it requires persistence and resilience. Holding the culprits accountable takes thick skin. Staying the course matters, no matter how long it takes. Over the years, I became known for taking on Democrats who deserve it — time and time again, regardless of the consequences. Hillary Clinton was held accountable and fined — for the first and only time in her career— because of the persistent efforts I led at the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, as was socialist Bernie Sanders. I have worked with other tough-as-nails clients to take on AOC, Michael Bloomberg, and Joe Biden, among other bad actors inside the Beltway, while defending our right to free speech — even when it wasn’t popular, easy, or cheap. As Americans, it is our collective duty to hold the powerful accountable, no matter their level of power. And so, I urge Americans to stay the course in 2024, acting on principle and calling out the wrongdoers. Now more than ever, we need outside groups that will continue to hold bad actors to account, especially the leftist politicians who are relentless in their quest to undo American greatness. All of us can do the work or support the work being done — because it’s the work that matters. The radical Left won’t like it. Even now, Bush is blaming “right-wing” watchdogs for doing their duty, rather than finding a mirror. But that won’t stop us. We are all the watchdogs now, and we aren’t staying on any leash. Dan Backer is a veteran political campaign counsel who serves as of-counsel for Chalmers & Adams, a political law and litigation firm. He has served as counsel for more than 100 candidates, PACs, and political organizations. Editors Note: This op-ed was originally published in the Daily Caller. You can read this op-ed and explore their other news content by clicking here.

Congressional & Candidate Complaints, Election Integrity & Accountability

Complaints Against Democrat Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib of Michigan

Our team believes those serving in public office must be held accountable for spreading hate and misinformation. That’s why we filed a formal complaint with the State Bar of Michigan calling for an investigation and disciplinary action against Rep. Rashida Tlaib for antisemitic and discriminatory statements made in the wake of the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. The complaint outlined how Tlaib’s public remarks, including her use of rhetoric long recognized as a call for the eradication of Israel, violate the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct and call into question her character and fitness to practice law. The filing noted Tlaib’s censure by the U.S. House of Representatives for her repeated antisemitic statements and false accusations against Israel and the Biden administration, arguing that her behavior undermines the integrity of the legal profession. [ Michigan Bar Complaint ]

Congressional & Candidate Complaints, Election Integrity & Accountability

FEC Complaint Against New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Cite Misuse of House

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez allegedly obtained a congressional email address for her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, even though he was not employed by her office. Our complaint made the case that this constitutes misuse of official House resources, violating ethics rules that restrict personal use of government services. This followed a previous complaint the foundation filed with the FEC, which alleged that Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign and an affiliated PAC funneled thousands of dollars in payments to Riley Roberts during the early stages of her campaign, potentially violating campaign finance laws prohibiting personal use of campaign funds. Together, the filings add to ongoing scrutiny of Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign and office operations, including separate allegations that her former chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, used PACs and private companies to obscure nearly $1 million in campaign-related transfers. [ FEC Complaint ]

OP-EDs

BACKER: DeSantis Made An Example Of Disney. Now The Rest Of The Left Isn’t So Bold Anymore

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis just can’t stop winning against the “woke” mob. In his latest victory, DeSantis is backing anti-woke banking legislation, clamping down on the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) anti-business agenda that does nothing to serve consumers. Sick and tired of the woke business, the governor understands ESG is just a codeword for radical leftism, which most Americans don’t want anywhere near their retirement accounts or personal finances. If they did, they could certainly find it on their own. Woke banking is compulsive, bad for business, and even worse for America. And its about time people like DeSantis spoke this truth to powers who have never received any meaningful pushback so far. Corporate elites who have marched Vichy-esque to the woke mob’s tune are reeling as a result. The biggest loser of DeSantis’ pro-America platform is Disney, a company actively betraying its customers—parents and children alike—by pushing a woke ideology that plays politics with entertainment. For years now, Disney has broken its nearly 100-year deal with consumers. Generations of parents have given Disney their hard-earned dollars and their children’s eyeballs in exchange for non-problematic, wholesome entertainment. But now, Disney has decided that it doesn’t have to earn our money. The company is apparently entitled to it, pushing whatever Hollywood radicalism it wants—from blatant racism and open transgenderism to anti-Americanism that has no business reaching kids. Too often, Disney executives failed to hold up their end of the deal, leaving parents and children in the lurch. Millions of customers in Florida and across America had nowhere to turn for accountability, until DeSantis stood up and fought back. Stripped of special perks through legislative action, Disney has resigned itself to defeat, with Bob Iger back as CEO and retreating from his company’s divisive culture war. Gone is Disney’s bravado that it could play the woke game unencumbered and even emboldened by elected officials in Tallahassee and Washington, D.C. Gone is the company’s unchecked autonomy, with even the likes of The New York Times and The Guardian acknowledging Disney’s drubbing. Thanks to the Florida governor, the pendulum has swung back against the woke crowd that has infiltrated our national institutions for too long. And in the process, it has sent a warning shot to other woke institutions that they might want to think twice. The College Board is now on notice, rejecting the “Critical Race Theory” brainwashing and indoctrinating that goes on across America. Any form of “education” that makes young kids feel like they are racists just because of their skin color needs to be exposed and roundly condemned. It is racist and un-American. DeSantis’ major achievement is not just talking the talk to speak out against it, but actually delivering results in a pushback that for far too long Republicans have been shy to carry out. Unless the radical Left is checked, there will be no end to the madness and chaos. From Hollywood to finance and academia, liberal elites have hijacked institution after cherished American institution, simply to impose their will on the rest of us. Their endgame is power by any means necessary — from cancellation to shaming and propagandizing. Radical leftists are trying to destroy the social contract that binds our nation together in the name of money and greed for more, and it cannot be allowed to stand. The melting pot works, but only if those who believe in our unifying American culture stand up against the forces of division. Unity works when Americans believe in the constitutional set of ideals that has stood the test of time—individual liberty in a free market of commerce and ideas. America means freedom from the compulsive power of a limited, restrained state. But that vision of America is not inevitable. It is not a foregone conclusion. The identity-hustlers balkanizing our nation for their own self-enrichment are destroying our nation. Making America great again — uniting our nation as a melting pot — is the opportunity we still have. And as Ron DeSantis has shown, it cannot be accomplished without fighters. In a game of power, playing nice isn’t going to work. We need those willing to eschew nice, stand up for their constituents and win. Republicans best pay attention, because Florida is showing how it’s done. Not with platitudes, but with action. Dan Backer is a veteran political campaign counsel who serves as of-counsel for Chalmers & Adams, a political law and litigation firm. He has served as counsel for more than 100 candidates, PACs, and political organizations. Editors Note: This op-ed was originally published in the Daily Caller. You can read this op-ed and explore their other news content by clicking here.

2022 Victories

Bernie Sanders for President Fined $15,000

ISSUE In both his 2016 and 2020 campaigns, Senator Bernie Sanders employed multiple staffers who were not U.S. citizens, including Maria Belén Sisa, his deputy national press secretary and a recipient of DACA protections. FEC regulations strictly prohibit foreign nationals from participating (directly or indirectly) in the decision-making process of any U.S. political campaign. ACTION The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed a formal complaint with the FEC alleging that Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaigns violated federal election law by employing foreign nationals in key advisory roles. The complaint noted that these hires represented a direct violation of statutes designed to prevent foreign influence in American elections. [ READ OUR COMPLAINT ] OUTCOME The FEC found that Sanders’ 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns had in fact violated federal election law by employing foreign nationals in campaign advisory roles. As a result, the campaigns were fined $15,000 for the violations—reinforcing a critical principle: the integrity of our democracy depends on Americans shaping our political future.

OP-EDs

Six years later, the Clinton machine is finally busted for violating campaign law

For decades, Hillary Clinton has been a self-serving, corrupt politician desperate for power above all else. And she was never held accountable from a legal standpoint — not for Benghazi, not for her flouting laws on government secrecy and transparency, and not for any of the Clinton scandals from the 1990s. Until now. For what appears to be the first time in history, Clinton has been held responsible. The Federal Election Commission recently fined Hillary for America, Clinton’s 2016 campaign committee, and the Democratic National Committee over the now-infamous Steele dossier. Levying a total of $113,000 in fines, the FEC determined that Clinton and her co-conspirators used their law firm, Perkins Coie, to secretly fund research by British national Christopher Steele, who generated and disseminated the salacious and discredited dossier. In the process, the Clinton machine failed to report publicly the true recipient and purpose of more than $1 million, which was spent on the scheme. Democrats illegally used Perkins Coie as a ”cut out” to hide their dirty tricks — a blatant violation of federal campaign finance laws. For context, in 2015, political operatives Jesse Benton, Dimitrios Kesari, and John Tate were criminally convicted for a similar scheme that involved only a fraction of the total dollar amount. According to the FEC, Hillary for America and the DNC “misreported the purpose of certain disbursements,” ducking transparency rules for political gain. It should also be noted that the dossier’s allegations came straight from, of all places, the Kremlin. Stemming from current and former Russian government officials, the lies contained in the dossier were designed to sway the 2016 election, all the more ironic given the nothing-burger of a “Russian collusion” story that soon followed former President Donald Trump’s victory. Democrats peddled the collusion narrative for years, only to be exposed as the ones leveraging the Russian government in a desperate bid to win the White House. Despite her best efforts, Clinton failed without a shred of compunction about the permanent damage done to our nation’s faith in democracy. Fortunately, the FEC proved the fight to hold our corrupt elites accountable is a worthy one. At a time when most people don’t trust the federal government, it is often up to individuals to force action when officials fail to act. A loss for Clinton corruption, the FEC’s recent ruling is inherently a win for the “little man.” Clinton and other Democrats were ultimately liable because of a 2018 FEC complaint filed by the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, where I serve as counsel. Operating on a shoestring budget, Coolidge Reagan is anything but a household name, but we spent months investigating the Clintons and hammering down on the violations that came back to haunt them. In this case, let’s hope the FEC’s action is only the beginning and not the end. Let’s hope that, next time, it doesn’t take years for the FEC to act. And let’s hope the next Clinton thinks twice before abusing power. Dan Backer is a veteran political campaign counsel who serves as of-counsel for Chalmers & Adams, a political law and litigation firm. Editors Note: This op-ed was originally published in the Washington Examiner. You can read this op-ed and explore their other news content by clicking here. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore (11/4/2026)

News

Federal campaign watchdog fines DNC, Clinton campaign over dossier spending disclosure

The Federal Election Commission has agreed to a fine of over $100,000 against the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign over an investigation into alleged misreporting of spending related to the now-infamous Steele dossier. The FEC fined both organizations after a pair of now years-old complaints — one from the Campaign Legal Center and another from the conservative Coolidge Reagan Foundation — alleged that the party and campaign reported payments to the powerhouse Democratic law firm Perkins Coie as legal expenses, when in actuality some of the money was earmarked for “paying Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump,” as the Campaign Legal Center’s original complaint read. The DNC and the Clinton campaign collectively agreed to pay $113,000 in fines, according to separate conciliation agreements the agency made with both parties. The DNC will pay $105,000 and the Clinton campaign $8,000. The FEC conciliation agreements were made public Wednesday after the Coolidge Reagan Foundation first shared a response letter from the agency with the Washington Examiner. POLITICO independently obtained a second, and similar, letter the agency sent to the CLC. The Steele dossier, which was first made public when BuzzFeed News published it in January 2017, contained a variety of accurate, inaccurate, unproven and sometimes salacious allegations about ties between Russia and Donald Trump, as well as others in his orbit. The conciliation agreements found “probable cause to believe” that both the campaign and national party “misreport[ed] the purpose of certain disbursements” when they said certain payments to Perkins Coie were for legal fees. The pair of agreements were signed for the Democratic groups on Feb. 16 by Graham Wilson, an attorney who was formerly at Perkins Coie and is now at the Elias Law Group. In the agreements, the DNC and Clinton campaign contend that they believed they properly disclosed the spending. The agreements read that the party and campaign do “not concede, but will not further contest the Commission’s finding,” in order to settle the matters and not incur more legal costs. Click here to read the full news story.

News

Scoop: FEC fines DNC and Clinton for Trump dossier hoax

The Federal Election Commission has fined the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign for lying about the funding of the infamous, and discredited, Russian “dossier” used in a smear attempt against Donald Trump weeks before he shocked the world with his 2016 presidential victory. The election agency said that Clinton and the DNC violated strict rules on describing expenditures of payments funneled to the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through their law firm. Click here to read the full news story.

2022 Victories

Hillary for America and the DNC Fined $113,000

ISSUE In 2018, the Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee violated federal law by misreporting payments tied to the now-debunked Steele Dossier. What they labeled as “legal advice and services” was really a Democratic machine that conspired with foreigners to manipulate the election—and our team of legal experts knew it. They recognized Clinton and the DNC’s illegal attempt to route campaign money through a law firm to Fusion GPS—the firm behind the discredited dossier on then-candidate Donald Trump. Compiled from lies, innuendo, and fabrications from foreign nationals, the dossier itself was a vehicle through which current and former agents of the Russian government were able to attempt to undermine Donald Trump’s candidacy. ACTION The Foundation petitioned the FEC to investigate and enforce the law, demanding transparency and accountability in campaign finance. This was one of several actions by the Foundation to ensure political elites play by the same rules as everyone else. [ READ OUR COMPLAINT ] OUTCOME After reviewing our complaint, the FEC fined Hillary for America and the Democratic National Committee $113,000. The fines confirmed what the Coolidge Reagan Foundation argued all along: these misreported payments were a violation of the law. This case wasn’t about one campaign, rather it was about defending the integrity of our elections. Our persistence helped expose how Democrats financed foreign-influenced misinformation, and in the end, they were held accountable.

OP-EDs

Campus free speech is a bipartisan issue

When millions of college students return to campus in the fall (barring more anti-scientific roadblocks), they better be prepared for a more hostile environment than they left in 2020. Just last week, conservative students at Skidmore College were the targets of a “cancel culture campaign,” as the Skidmore Student Government Association prohibited them from starting a Young Americans for Liberty chapter at the school. Why? Due to “concerns of hate speech and making students on campus feel unsafe.” It doesn’t help that President Joe Biden now aims to strip college students of their due-process rights, reversing Trump-era rules that “afforded greater protections to students accused of assault.” In Biden’s worldview, college students are guilty until proven innocent, whether they’re faced with sexual misconduct allegations (fairly or unfairly) or if they simply wish to exercise their free-speech rights. For years now, conservative speech has been stifled in American academia, which is dominated by left-wing administrators and professors who cannot tolerate dissent. Since 2011, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has identified more than 70 academic institutions in 31 states that have “shut down student and faculty speech rights.” Even centrist liberals are being targeted. Jodi Shaw, a Smith College graduate and longtime student support coordinator, was recently forced to resign after daring to question the school’s teachings on critical race theory. After advocating for color blindness, Shaw was essentially harassed into quitting by her peers. In Shaw’s words: “It is an environment in which dissenting from the new critical race orthodoxy — or even failing to swear fealty to it like some kind of McCarthy-era loyalty oath — is grounds for public humiliation and professional retaliation.” Academic institutions have also embraced speech codes, which are campus policies or regulations that prohibit free expression protected by the First Amendment. According to recent research from FIRE, nearly two-thirds of academic institutions now implement “yellow light” rules that restrict expression and invite administrative abuse. More than 20% of schools impose “red light” rules that clearly and substantially undermine freedom of speech, such as Boston College’s restriction of content that “may be considered objectionable by some.” Another popular idea is the “free-speech zone,” whereby academic institutions limit free speech to clearly marked, often inconvenient locations on campus. Nearly 10% of colleges and universities maintain free-speech zones, forcing students to assemble in small or out-of-the-way areas on campus (if not both). This is un-American. Free-speech codes and zones are nothing short of McCarthyism, targeting students on the basis of their political persuasions. Who elected the college professor or the university administrator to police us? In America, the First Amendment is universal, protecting speech that we may support or oppose. As long as speech does not directly call for violence, there is no justification for an academic institution to restrict free expression, given that the First Amendment makes education and learning possible in the first place. Similarly, there is no “zone” for the First Amendment. It applies everywhere — no exceptions. When free speech is confined to one place, it is no longer free. Academia is in a state of crisis that predated the COVID-19 pandemic and will, unfortunately, survive it. The only way to fight back against the anti-speech Left is for reasonable people on both sides to defend free expression. In Montana, Republican state Rep. Mike Hopkins has introduced a bill that would ban free-speech zones at public universities, preventing those schools from “taking all the free speech and moving it to a little area.” No one is immune from the anti-speech Left, which is determined to stifle dissent and cancel the dissenters — from college campuses to forums on Reddit. Although on opposite ends of the spectrum, good-faith Americans such as Hopkins and Shaw are proving that we can find consensus on the fundamental issue of free speech. Wherever we may stand on other issues, we need to stand together against censorship and cancellation. Dan Backer is a veteran political campaign counsel who serves as of-counsel for Chalmers & Adams, a political law and litigation firm. He has served as counsel for more than 100 candidates, PACs, and political organizations. Editors Note: This op-ed was originally published in the Washington Examiner. You can read this op-ed and explore their other news content by clicking here.

News

FEC Complaint: Bernie Breaking Federal Law by Employing Foreign National

The Bernie Sanders presidential campaign is violating federal election law by employing foreign nationals in advisory campaign positions, according to a newly filed complaint to the Federal Election Commission obtained exclusively by the Free Beacon. The complaint points to the employment of three individuals, including Maria Belén Sisa, an illegal immigrant from Argentina who is in the United States under the protections of DACA and has been named deputy national press secretary for Bernie 2020. Sisa, who collected a salary from the Bernie 2016 campaign and also made financial contributions to it, recently made headlines when she questioned whether American Jews, including her own boss Sanders, were loyal to the United States. Both the work for the campaign and contributions are “direct and serious violations” of federal election law, the complaint argues. Foreign nationals are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in the decision-making process of any person with regard to election-related activities, according to the FEC. Included in this group of foreign nationals are all immigrants not lawfully admitted as permanent residents. The complaint, filed on Thursday afternoon by the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, argues that Sisa’s current position on the campaign, due to its strategic nature, is a clear violation of this prohibition. “Senator Sanders and Bernie 2020 is permitting a foreign national, Ms. Sisa, to serve in an advisory position which allows her to directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of persons with regard to election-related activities in violation of FEC regulations,” it argues. The complaint also points to the 2016 campaign, which employed Sisa as well as two other foreign nationals, Erika Andiola and Cesar Vargas, in advisory campaign positions, it says. Like Sisa, both Vargas, the campaign’s national Latino outreach strategist, and Andiola, its press secretary for Latino outreach, were salaried employees of Bernie 2016. They were also both well-known immigration activists open about their status as Mexican immigrants and DACA recipients. “Due to the high profile of Cesar Vargas, Erika Andiola, and Maria Belén Sisa as leading activists in the undocumented community, there is reason to believe that respondents are ‘foreign nationals’ within the meaning of 52 U.S.C. § 301219b)(2), and in violation of 11 C.F.R. § 110.20 (i) and A.O. 2004-26, directly or indirectly participated in the decision-making process of persons with regard to the election-related activities of Bernie 2016,” the complaint says. “There is reason to believe, having previously employed Ms. Sisa, that Bernie 2020 is currently, and knowingly, permitting a ‘foreign national’ … to directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of persons with regard to the election-related activities of Bernie 2020.” The complaint calls for an “immediate investigation” of both campaigns and for action to be taken to halt the violations. “The Commission should determine and impose appropriate sanctions for any and all violations,” it says. “Further, the Commission should enjoin respondents from any future violations and impose any necessary and appropriate remedies to ensure respondents’ future compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act.” Shaun McCutcheon, who filed the complaint for the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, said he expects any foreign nationals employed by the campaign to lose their job if the FEC finds it was in violation of the law. “The involvement of foreigners, especially with all that went on during the 2016 election, can’t be allowed in our elections,” McCutcheon said. The Sanders campaign paid a $14,500 fine to the FEC last year after it was caught accepting foreign contributions from the Australian Labor Party during the 2016 Democratic primary. Former president Barack Obama’s actions on DACA did not give recipients a path to obtaining permanent residence in the United States. The Sanders campaign did not respond to request for comment on Sisa’s immigration status. Click here to read the full news story.

Scroll to Top