Voter Fraud Bias

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at New York University Law School, 

Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare. Most citizens who take the time to vote offer their legitimate signatures and sworn oaths with the gravitas that this hard-won civic right deserves....Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud epidemic. There is no documented wave or trend of individuals voting multiple times, voting as someone else, or voting despite knowing that they are ineligible.

 So, if this is so, then as the Riddler would say, "Riddle me this,"

In February, the Pew Center on the States released a study called Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient showing that about 24 million U.S. voter registrations were no longer valid or had significant inaccuracies.

The research found: more than 1.8 million dead people listed as voters; about 2.75 million with voter registrations in more than one state; and about 12 million voter records with incorrect addresses, meaning either the voters moved or errors in the information make it unlikely any mailings can reach them. 

The Brennan Center for Justice calls itself 

...a non-partisan public policy and law institute that focuses on the fundamental issues of democracy and justice.

The Pew Center on the States says,

The Pew Center on the States provides nonpartisan reporting and research, advocacy, and technical assistance to help states deliver better results and achieve long-term fiscal health by investing in programs that provide the strongest returns.

And yet they have reached disparate conclusions regarding voter fraud.

From the September 16th, 2012, Columbus Dispatch, 

More than one out of every five registered Ohio voters is probably ineligible to vote. In two counties, the number of registered voters actually exceeds the voting-age population: Northwestern Ohio’s Wood County shows 109 registered voters for every 100 eligible, while in Lawrence County along the Ohio River it’s a mere 104 registered per 100 eligible. 

And yet we hear over and over again that voter fraud is not an issue. It has no impact on elections.

Ohio is crucial to the 2012 Presidential elections, and yet time and time again we are told that it would be unfair to require proper identification in order to vote.

We require a photo ID to buy a beer. Is that more important that voting?



http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/ 
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/09/16/voter-rolls-in-ohio-are-bloated-experts-say.html
http://www.pewstates.org/about/mission-85899372169
http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=85899370677

Oh So Special Interests

Time and time again, we read of "special interest groups" lobbying Congress. President Obama derided special interest groups during his election campaign, declaring they would have no place in his administration. The political left, and I would include the President in this category, are particularly vociferous in their condemnation of special interest groups. Over and over again, the print media and the major television broadcast networks fret over the meddling influence of "big business" over Capitol Hill.

What goes unspoken through the vast majority of these outlets is the influence of left leaning organizations.

The latest salvo in the influence peddling and meddling wars comes from the Service Employees International Union, a 2.1 million member strong organization that spent $85 million in support of the current president's election, and plans to spend an equal amount on his re-election.

The union hopes to field 100,000 workers in eight key battleground states to push our sitting president into another term.

For his part, President Obama has reached out to plenty of special interests during his administration. After deriding Mitt Romney for dealing with private equity firms, the president sidled up to the head of the Blackstone Group, garnering a fundraising dinner.

ABC News' Political Punch commented,

The Obama campaign has framed its about-face decision to support a pro-Democratic super PAC as an effort to counteract “unlimited money from special interests,” particularly corporations, allowed in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision.

So in framing the argument, the president sees all interests other than those supporting his agenda as special interests. His comments are disingenuous at best. In February of 2011, he banned contributions from

"corporations, political action committees and federally-registered lobbyists offering to help pay for the event. (referring to the 2012 Democratic National Convention)."

It was good PR. But the ban on PAC money only referred to the convention, and in that regard, the president has been true to his word.

http://votesmart.org/interest-groups

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/19/labor-union-limits-focus-to-8-battleground-states/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-courts-private-equity-cash-at-new-york-fundraiser/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obama-to-benefit-from-special-interests-via-super-pac/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/04/obama-ban-2012-convention_n_818992.html