We just beat the NRA!
The Florida Legislature killed the NRA’s campus carry bill, which would have forced public colleges and universities to let people carry loaded, hidden guns on campus.
CREDO activists, working together with our allies at Everytown for Gun Safety, made it clear to Florida legislators that bullets and backpacks don’t mix, and that we expect our lawmakers to stand up for student safety, not stand with the NRA.
And it worked. Florida is the 10th state to reject the NRA’s crazytown agenda. That’s a big deal. While the NRA is still pushing campus carry bills in seven states, they’ve lost in 10. It proves that the NRA is not an unstoppable political force, and chips away at the chokehold they have on many state legislatures (and the U.S. Congress).
Thanks for helping push back against the NRA. We’ll keep working hard to defeat campus carry laws across the country, and to block other NRA-backed bills that threaten the safety of Floridians. We hope you’ll stay in the fight.
Heidi Hess, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
Chief Justice Roberts Accidentally Reveals Everything That’s Wrong With Citizens United In Four Sentences
April 30, 2015 | Authors: Ian Millhiser | Think Progress
On Wednesday, a 5-4 Supreme Court held in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar that states may “prohibit judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their campaigns.” It was a small but symbolically important victory for supporters of campaign finance laws, as it showed that there was actually some limit on the Roberts Court’s willingness to strike down laws limiting the influence of money in politics.
Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the Court in Williams-Yulee is certainly better for campaign finance regulation than a decision striking down this limit on judicial candidates — had the case gone the other way, judges could have been given the right to solicit money from the very lawyers who practice before them. Yet Roberts also describes judges as if they are special snowflakes who must behave in a neutral and unbiased way that would simply be inappropriate for legislators, governors and presidents.
[You know – the way legislators are allowed to take contributions from corporations affected by regulation or taxation they’re about to vote on. Oh, and did I mention the way Justice Scalia went duck hunting with the Vice-President just before voting on a case being presented by the federal government? Or accepting expense-paid junkets arranged and financed by the Koch brothers?]
States may regulate judicial elections differently than they regulate political elections, because the role of judges differs from the role of politicians. Politicians are expected to be appropriately responsive to the preferences of their supporters. Indeed, such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials. The same is not true of judges. In deciding cases, a judge is not to follow the preferences of his supporters, or provide any special consideration to his campaign donors. A judge instead must “observe the utmost fairness,” striving to be “perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to influence or controul [sic] him but God and his conscience.” As in White, therefore, our precedents applying the First Amendment to political elections have little bearing on the issues here.
Most Americans would undoubtedly agree that judges should not “follow the preferences” of their political supporters, as they would agree that judges should not “provide any special consideration to his campaign donors.” But the implication of the passage quoted above is that members of Congress, state lawmakers, governors and presidents should provide such consideration to their supporters and to their donors. [Overstated, I think. He doesn’t say t should happen, just that it’s expected and appropriate.] The President of the United States is the president of the entire United States. A member of Congress represents their entire constituency. Yet Roberts appears to believe that they should “follow the preferences” of their supporters and give “special consideration” to the disproportionately wealthy individuals who fund their election.