OP-EDs

There is a legitimate debate as to whether taxpayers should fund cultural institutions, such as the arts and music. For now, the broad consensus is yes. But there’s an implicit agreement: these institutions exist to serve the public and not a radical political agenda. That framework has been under assault around the country for years. In Tennessee in 2020, the woke mob quietly blacklisted an accomplished clarinetist, forcing residents to bankroll discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion practices. James Zimmermann was fired by the Nashville Symphony Orchestra after 12 years as its principal clarinetist. This wasn’t a blip on Zimmermann’s resumé. After more than a decade of leading his woodwind section and never having his reputation questioned, he was railroaded in a DEI-driven dispute to justify the firing of an outspoken conservative to appease liberal cancel culture. Zimmermann had dared to stand firm on the importance of fully screened, “blind” auditions. This long-standing practice of all but the five largest U.S. symphonies requires musicians to audition behind a screen, ensuring only the best performers are hired, regardless of gender, race, age, or the personal preferences of biased executives. Blind auditions let talent speak for itself. But like many organizations, the Nashville Symphony Orchestra became more inclined to cave to the demands of DEI ideologues. Before long, Zimmermann’s belief in fairness and preserving the meritocracy of the orchestra was twisted into something sinister. While his accuser painted a picture of racism, many of Zimmermann’s former colleagues tell a different story, describing the ordeal as a witch hunt. But what followed years later in Knoxville should really alarm most Tennessee taxpayers. In September 2025, Zimmermann was invited to audition for the full-time principal clarinet position with the Knoxville Symphony Orchestra. The audition was fully screened from start to finish, and he advanced through every round with excellence. He was told he had been selected as the top performer and would “be on the payroll” within two weeks. But when the screen came down, so did the job offer. As soon as Knoxville Symphony Orchestra executives realized a conservative had won — someone who refused to bow down to the DEI mob — the CEO called to inform him they were reversing the decision. They had suddenly determined he was not “adequately committed to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion anti-racist principles” based on the debacle at the Nashville Symphony Orchestra. To add insult to injury, instead of hiring Zimmerman, they hired a DEI candidate who didn’t perform as well but checked the other boxes that mattered more than talent behind the screen. In a profession that should hold meritocracy in the highest regard, the standard operating procedure was tossed because Zimmermann was unapologetic about his conservative views. Zimmermann is now fighting back, not only for his own compensation and relief, but to expose a system that openly discriminates against conservatives on the backs of taxpayers. Over half of Americans reject the idea of DEI programs in any workplace, and they have every right to know when it’s being imposed at taxpayer expense. If these institutions want to behave like activist organizations or PACs, they should fund themselves like activist organizations: through private donors who deem their out-of-place political advocacy important enough to pay for it. Our Constitution guarantees your First Amendment right to speak, even unpopular ideas, but it’s on your own dime or the dime of those who agree with you, not the taxpayers. The people of Tennessee shouldn’t be forced to subsidize music organizations that glorify woke garbage, discard merit, and punish those who disagree — especially a longtime Tennessee resident with an impressive resumé and extensive experience. Discrimination dressed up as social justice is still discrimination, and taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for the bill. Shaun McCutcheon is chairman of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation. An avid free speech advocate, he was also the successful plaintiff in the 2014 Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. 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. 

In the annals of history, free speech has always been a double-edged sword. It’s the lifeblood of our Constitution, the core mechanism by which ideas clash, truths emerge and society thrives. What happens when that sword turns lethal? When the cost of speaking out isn’t lost revenue or livelihood, but a bullet to the neck? That’s the grim reality we face with the murder of Charlie Kirk. Kirk paid the ultimate price for free speech, forcing America to confront a chilling question of how far we let the enemies of open discourse go before drawing the line, or even better, holding it. Kirk was no stranger to controversy. For years, he crisscrossed college campuses, debating progressive orthodoxy and challenging echo chambers that dominate higher education. He never shouted down opponents nor peddled hate, as revisionists are trying to claim. Instead, he directly proposed happiness. Kirk believed in the power of dialogue. He armed young minds with facts, encouraged critical thinking, and let the chips fall where they may. In an era where universities often serve as indoctrination mills, Kirk’s approach of presenting the evidence, exposing the inconsistencies, and trusting people to decide for themselves was revolutionary. It was free speech in its purest, messy, provocative and profoundly American form. Yet, for some, that purity was a threat. Kirk’s murder underscores a dangerous escalation. This was the inevitable outcome of years of inflammatory rhetoric that paints conservatives like Kirk as a danger. Kirk was called a fascist, a white supremacist, a threat to democracy. Never mind that his “crimes” were hosting panels on free markets, critiquing identity politics or questioning the efficacy of social policies. It is one thing to have cancel culture go after media companies, products and causes. Boycotts are the people’s prerogative in a free society. If you disagree with a viewpoint, you have every right to “vote with your feet,” to withhold your attention and your dollars. That’s how a healthy marketplace of ideas functions. Competition breeds excellence, and bad ideas wither away. When the cost of producing content starts to exceed the revenue it generates, the decision to cancel is no longer political; it is financial. Free speech, in those cases, becomes too expensive to sustain. Inciting violence? Crossing into threats, doxxing and, ultimately, murder? That’s not dissent; that’s domestic terrorism, and it has no place in our republic. Kirk’s killing has exposed the hypocrisy of those who claim to champion tolerance while practicing intolerance. Many on the left are still doubling down, even in the wake of this tragedy. Social media is ablaze with posts justifying the act, claiming Kirk “had it coming” for his “hate speech.” They’re being called out for it (rightfully so), but the lies persist. They twist his words, claiming he spewed points of view with which they disagree. All Kirk did was try to have thoughtful dialogues with those confined to limited ideas, surrounded by echo chambers that affirm only one narrative. When presented with different opinions, facts and perspectives, their eyes were opened. It’s like stepping out of a dark movie theater into blinding sunlight — the shock is real, the adjustment painful. That’s the point of free speech: to illuminate, not to indoctrinate. Kirk exposed truths that the establishment would rather not discuss. He highlighted our loss of values, the failures of globalist governments, the absurdities of woke ideology and the erosion of personal responsibility. He didn’t force conclusions; instead, he allowed others to reach them on their own, even while trying to prove him wrong. And for many, it was a revelation. Students who continuously regurgitated progressive talking points began questioning them. Debates turned into discussions, and minds expanded. Kirk performed a vital service; he was no threat (except to those in power). In a world where elites control the discourse, Kirk used free speech to empower individuals, to break the chains of conformity. He reminded us that ideas should be freely tested in the open, not censored in the shadows. The value of free speech is once again being thrust upon the American people and the world. Will we wake up to the indoctrination machine that’s churning out division and violence, or will we let it continue? The left’s political rhetoric has long advocated for “punching Nazis” and silencing “deplorables,” but now it has cost another life. In the end, Kirk’s legacy is one of courage. He paid the ultimate price not because he was wrong, but because he was right and was unafraid to say it. As we mourn him, let’s honor his memory by ensuring that free speech doesn’t become a luxury few can afford. Because if it does, America as we know it will be lost. Shaun McCutcheon is chairman of the Coolidge Reagan Foundation. An avid free speech advocate, he was also the successful plaintiff in the 2014 Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission. Editors Note: This op-ed was originally published in The Daily News Online. You can read this op-ed and explore their other news content by clicking here. 

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Hillary Clinton’s days of political relevance may be behind her, but her scandals are not. While Clinton’s years at the State Department were marred by scandal after scandal, they pale in comparison to her time running for higher office. In 2016, the Democratic presidential candidate may have presided over the largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history. A lawsuit based on federal records alleges the Clinton machine laundered $84 million in excessive six-figure contributions through the Hillary Victory Fund, to dozens of Democratic state parties, on to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and ultimately to Clinton’s campaign. Democrats and their media allies downplay the accusation as some partisan ploy, claiming the accusers are “fishing for publicity.” They chalk it up to a Donald Trump supporter’s anti-Clinton bias. That’s when Democrats mention it at all, otherwise staying stunningly silent in the face of growing information that boggles the mind. Yes, I’m a Trump supporter, but dodging the question doesn’t make it go away: Did Hillary Clinton, dozens of Democratic Party officials, and hundreds of liberal mega-donors break the law? The evidence—built entirely from Democrats’ own Federal Election Commission (FEC) reporters and public statements—clearly points to “yes.” The lawsuit is likely to result in many more public documents being aired about what really went on behind the scenes in 2016, which is already giving rise to negative news coverage. In recent weeks, news stories from around the country have implicated Democratic state parties in Delaware, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, and other states for their part in papering over excessive donations from mega-donors like fashion icon Calvin Klein and “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane to the Clinton campaign. Reports say the Virginia Democratic Party, for example, was used to funnel nearly $2.4 million from the Hillary Victory Fund to the DNC during the 2016 election, retaining not a single penny from six-figure contributors who almost certainly understood how their money would flow. The Nevada Democratic Party is on the hook for roughly $1.6 million. Kansas Democrats, meanwhile, “can’t account for $900,000” in excessive funds. Clinton’s campaign finance violations came to light last December, when the Committee to Defend the President filed a complaint with the FEC, documenting “an unprecedented, massive, nationwide multi-million dollar conspiracy.” The 101-page complaint is based entirely on FEC reports filed by Democrats, memos authored by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook, and public statements from former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile and others. After the FEC refused to act on the complaint within a statutory 120-day timeframe, the committee sued the FEC to force action, claiming its failure to act is “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, and an abuse of discretion.” On Friday, the FEC made its first court filing. Tellingly, the agency didn’t challenge the committee’s legal arguments, or claim to be engaged in a diligent inquiry. Instead, the FEC filed a procedural “motion to dismiss,” arguing the law should be ignored so they can prevent outside groups from filing lawsuits to shield complicit Democrats. Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub called for just such a suit when it involved a Republican. Don’t expect the pro-Clinton mainstream media to give this the coverage and investigative reporting it deserves, or call for the same accountability they have when liberal groups target Republicans. After all, the overwhelming majority of the scandal’s news coverage has come from Fox News and other conservative outlets, and from in-state newspapers tracing the money trail through local Democratic operations. The New York Times remains silent, refusing to cover the story. So do CNN and MSNBC. Where is their outrage? Last month, the liberal media predictably pilloried President Trump’s pardon of Dinesh D’Souza, who was prosecuted, convicted, and served eight months in a community confinement center and five years of probation for a similar campaign finance violation totaling $20,000 in straw man contributions. The Clinton machine stands accused of steering $84 million in straw man contributions to Hillary’s campaign—more than 4,000 times more! Democrats and their media allies should hold their own accountable, like they would any Republican. If I’m wrong, then I urge Democrats to present evidence to the contrary, starting with their reply to December’s FEC complaint, which they have refused to make public. National media also needs to drop the double standard and cover the story. Until the full truth comes out, Hillary Clinton and her enablers have plenty of reasons to be nervous—84 million of them. 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 The Federalist. You can read this op-ed and explore their other news content by clicking here.

The great thing about free speech is that it is, in fact, free. You don’t have to spend a single penny to speak your mind—just ask the local street-corner preacher or campus protester. Being heard is what costs money, and in the robust marketplace for political speech, it takes a whole lot of money to spread a convincing message that influences our politics. Conveying political ideas, whether for or against an issue or candidate, requires a compelling, persuasive message effectively delivered multiple times to the right audience. Most of us, even if we have good ideas, aren’t always effective at delivering the most persuasive version of our vision. If your goal is persuading others to support your views (and effective political speech often requires persuading a great many people), it helps to have on your side professionals who know how to craft political communications. Their job is to help you deliver the most persuasive message so you can be effective in building a movement to win the argument. It takes money to create those persuasive messages, particularly when that message must be delivered in multiple ways over time without losing its potency. Persuasive political communication that actually and consistently cuts through the noise of today’s political environment is uncommon. If you’re good at it, you’re pretty rare. With so many willing to pay for their message to be heard, the better the communicator, the greater the premium. Reaching Lots of People Costs Lots of Money Of course, no matter how persuasive a message is, if no one hears it, you’re only convincing yourself. Some might encourage confining your advocacy to random Facebook posts, as if adherents come to ideas like flies to honey. That sort of nonsense keeps good ideas unheard. You must keep your supporters engaged and interact with new supporters to build a movement. Whatever mechanism you use to engage—TV, radio, print, billboards, phones, mail, emails, websites, Facebook posts, tweets—at any real scale comes at a cost. For example, let’s say you wanted to communicate to a relatively modest 100,000 people. How would you? Email costs from $0.25 to $2.00 per thousand sent; a $1 average (one-tenth of a penny per email) is $100 to send a single message. Sending just once a week costs $5,200 per year. Keep The Promise Pac, a pro-Ted Cruz super PAC, spent $110,000 in spring 2016. Facebook likes can cost $0.05 to $0.10 each, and $0.50 or more per click to a website. The Republican National Committee paid Facebook more than $340,000 in March 2016 alone for “Advertising.” Robocalls average $0.03 per minute, so a one-minute call would cost $3,000. Rep. John Shimkus spent $29,000 this spring on robocalls. Live calls cost roughly $2 per phone call. Sen. Rand Paul spent more than $20,000 on live calls to voters in July 2015. Direct mail can range from $0.50 to $2.00 per piece. That’s at least $50,000 to send a single mailer. In the first half of this year, Priorities USA Action spent $1,420,704 on direct mail alone. Radio and TV costs can be stratospheric, and it’s exceedingly hard to measure their success. Pro-Jeb! super PAC Right To Rise spent nearly $100 million on its ultimately unsuccessful national media campaign. All this communication only comes after slowly building, expensively buying, or more commonly renting access to enough leads to produce those 100,000 contacts. Simply communicating to people once isn’t enough, and you will keep paying the cost of first contact every time unless those you reach opt-in to your message. Finding low-cost solutions to this problem is vital. While the finest of political insiders often deride petitions, for example, they serve the basic function of exposing recipients to a message they may agree with, letting them choose to engage and reducing the cost of continuing to communicate thereafter. When communicating those persuasive messages, at whom should you direct them? That’s the key to building a winning campaign, and why identifying the persuadable is a multibillion-dollar industry as relevant to politics as it is to selling soda, sports teams, or cars. It’s the professionals who understand how to acquire the data to reach the right people while maintaining a budget and crafting the kind of ongoing messages to sustain and grow a political audience. Before you know how to convey your ideas, you have to know where the audience is, and how to reach them. Campaign Finance Laws Require You To Pay Lawyers, Too Unfortunately, an incoherent, oft-unconstitutional mish-mosh of laws have made engaging in political speech stunningly complex and burdensome. You cannot meaningfully engage in any political activity or speech without paying for legal and compliance services to navigate the regulatory forest artificially placed between you and the public. If this strikes you as entirely unfair to new speakers and hugely beneficial to entrenched incumbents with near-limitless access to money to hire the few attorneys who practice in this arcane, esoteric field, you’re right. After paying to create a persuasive political message, the ability to communicate it through one or more means, access to the audiences you will deliver it to, and the lawyers to ensure you comply with the absurdity of ever-changing laws restraining free speech, you now have an interesting problem: All that free-speech suddenly costs a lot of money. This isn’t a terrible burden if you or your friends are rich enough to pay for any communications you want, famous and powerful enough to communicate for free via a receptive media, or the media itself with an embedded infrastructure to communicate its own political message whenever desired. None of this is a bad thing. Those who can speak and be heard have every right to do so, and it’s just as wrong to limit their speech as anyone else’s. But, if you’re not one of these political elites, just an ordinary person who wants to participate in political speech, you have no option but to ask for money from the very people you are communicating with. You have to band together