FreedomWorks

Covered California, the state's Obamacare health insurance exchange, announced on May 14 that it had awarded $37 million to promote the implementation of the health insurance law.  Unsurprisingly, many of the groups selected to receive grants have a similar political bent -- or vested financial interest in selling health care services. Recipients of grants (pdf list) include labor unions, community organizations, universities, and organizations linked to big health care providers. Five non-profits representing community business groups received funding, as well.  The groups have various plans for ways to spend the money, including outreach at campus locations, health clinics, and door-to-door canvassing. Assuming the groups don't simply pocket the money while doing some photo-op work, they will have plenty of community organizing jobs for people in a state with high unemployment.  They'll need the extra cash, because Obamacare is going to make health care expensive. Planned Parenthood ($694,000), Catholic Charities ($859,000), and organizations for community health centers received funding, which they can use to advertise the services of the health care providers to which they are attached.  The LA Unified School District will get $990,000. The district listed as a primary outcome, "Teens trained to be messengers to family members". So the government education monopoly will be delivering propaganda via children. Will the kids be tasked with checking up on parents, too? Three labor unions, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO; SEIU Local 521; and SEIU Union of Long Term Care Workers (ULTCW) each were awarded $1 million for outreach to prospective members.  Covered California describes the LA Federation of Labor as (emphasis added) Los Angeles County Federation of Labor seeks to promote a voice for workers through organizing into unions, building strong coalitions of labor, community, faith, and responsible businesses, engaging in both organizing and political campaigns, electing pro-union and pro-worker candidates and advancing public policies that support workers, families and local communities. Its outreach plan includes door-to-door, one-on-one education and convention-site events. So a group that bills itself and that Covered California proudly recognizes as explicitly involved in politics will get $1 million to elect pro-Obamacare candidates. The SEIU ULTCW lists robocalls as part of its outreach plan, which ought to thrill Californians. Pro-freedom groups and Obamacare opponents are going to have to work even harder to educate Californians about the dangers of the law, which continues to be unpopular. 

This morning we learned that the National Security Administration (NSA) has been collecting the phone records of every domestic Verizon customer since at least late April of this year. Under the auspices of "national security" the Obama Administration has been monitoring "meta-data" from Verizon customers. This includes who you're calling, where you're calling from and how long those calls last. The legal authority the government is using to obtain these records stems from the Patriot Act, the now infamous post-9/11 legislation that gave Washington sweeping new powers as a means of combating terrorism. Civil liberty groups have argued for more than a decade that the authority granted by this law has massive potential for abuse. This morning those fears were proven true. Author of the Patriot Act, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin said today that he was "extremely troubled" by the news and said that a dragnet of phone records like this program by the NSA should not be legal. Sensenbrenner told The Hill, "Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.” On Coffee & Markets this morning we talked to Andrew Grossman a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation. Grossman said such data collection has, until now, only been used in national security investigations regarding foreign powers, counter-terrorism or espionage. He noted that the way this legal authority has been structured before, it is supposed to offer some protection because it must be tied to a specific case and potential threat. "If the government is going to come and get these kinds of records, they have to show that it's relevant to a national security investigation. Well it looks like what the Obama administration has done is say, 'We think all the data is relevant to national security.'" To perform these actions, the government must go before a judge and get a warrant that they then submit to the relevant parties. In this case, the FBI and NSA went before a Foreign Service Intelligence (FISA) court and argued that it was necessary to allow this dragnet of personal data from Verizon. FISA courts enjoy a special status. They are not public, in fact their deliberations are top secret, and there is no argument from the other side, no second opinion the court must consider. A government official goes before the court and makes an argument for why they need permission for a particular action. According to a report from the Department of Justice to members of Congress, the government went before the FISA court 1,789 times last year with requests for electronic eavesdropping on American citizens. Not once was a request rejected. The court rubber-stamped each and every petition from the Obama administration. Responding to these reports, and the subsequent uproar from its citizens, the White House brushed off concerns saying that this program has been a "critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats," and "allows counter-terrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States." If you think the government is going to stop at your phone, think again. With more and more of your daily activities attached to the internet, it has become easier for America's intelligence agencies to monitor each and every aspect of your life. CIA Director David Petraeus recently noted just how effortless spying on the American public has become with the advent of "smart home" technology. “‘Transformational’ is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies, particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft.” It's more than a little alarming to hear the head of our most pre-eminent spy agency filled with glee when talking about the future of his industry. Although I think each and every one of us wants to live in a safe country where you don't live in fe

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her to co-sponsor the Federal Repeal of Expensive Exchanges (FREE) Act, H.R. 1908.  Introduced by Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-5), this bill would repeal ObamaCare’s expensive insurance premium subsidies, as well as the unconstitutional employer and individual mandates. Health insurance exchanges are the heart of ObamaCare, the bureaucratic entities in each state which perform a multitude of functions essential to operating the law.  The foremost of these responsibilities is to distribute the insurance premium subsidies that are intended to lower the cost of the government-approved insurance plans individuals are required to buy.   These premium subsidies were always going to be a major cost within ObamaCare, but as the actual implementation date for the law approaches, the estimated price tag just keeps rising. Already, the amount budgeted for the subsidies has increased to over $600 billion dollars through 2021.  That price tag will continue to grow as more employers choose to drop their coverage and force their employees into the exchanges because of the enormous increases in health care costs ObamaCare is causing. The exchanges also determine whether individuals have a government-approved health insurance plan, and collect the insurance data that is used to determine whether individuals or businesses are complying with ObamaCare’s mandates.   Rep. Salmon’s FREE act would liberate taxpayers from the hundreds of billions in new spending from the premium subsidies, and would also release Americans from the government’s unconstitutional attempts to coerce them into buying insurance if they do not wish to purchase it – effectively blocking the exchanges.  To block the exchanges is effectively to stop ObamaCare’s government takeover of health care in its tracks. Blocking these crucial pieces of ObamaCare would also save individuals from the massive increase in the cost of health insurance that is being caused by the ironically-named “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”. Thus, I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her to support the FREE Act (H.R. 1908), and to co-sponsor the bill if they have not already done so. Sincerely,   Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments KVN_2013-06-03_Food_Stamp_Removal_from_Farm_Bill_Senate_-_YES.pdf373.38 KB

Monday was a bad day for the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in Maryland v. King, by a vote of 5-4, that it is constitutional for police to take DNA swabs of felony arrestees--who have not yet been convicted of anything--without a warrant. Yikes. All freedom lovers should be disappointed in the SCOTUS’ wrong decision: it’s a violation of our individual liberty and just downright creepy. The issue, at hand, is not whether the government can take DNA from people convicted of a crime. All states require DNA collection from individuals convicted of a felony. Instead, the issue is whether it’s constitutional to take DNA samples from people prior to their trial. The Supreme Court ruled: yes.  What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? That is supposed to be a foundation of the American judicial system. Innocent people are sometimes arrested and then later acquitted. Is it constitutional for the government to take an innocent people's DNA without their permission and hold it indefinitely? Absolutely not, that is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment’s ban against unreasonable search and seizure.  As Justice Scalia said from the bench, “Make no mistake about it: because of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.” The majority opinion, unfortunately, makes the false claim that DNA swabbing is necessary to identify the suspect. But as Justice Scalia notes in his dissent, “These DNA searches have nothing to do with identification.” By law, DNA testing only starts after arraignment and bail decisions are already made. At that time, the suspect has long been identified.  So what’s the difference between taking DNA and fingerprints? One is actually used for identification and one is not. Scalia says that DNA analysis can take months, while the “average response time for an electronic criminal fingerprint submission is about 27 minutes.” Clearly, it is unreasonable to wait several months before a suspect is identified. What if DNA evidence is needed to help solve the case? As Senator Ted Cruz who opposes the ruling writes, “If the government has good cause for needing the DNA sample—such as trying to match DNA at a crime scene to a particular person where there is other corroborating evidence—then the government can ask a judge for a search warrant. That’s what our Framers intended—judicial checks on extensive government power to invade our personal lives.” The government seems to think that it can search people without warrants, but the Fourth Amendment says otherwise. This is just one more horrendous example of the government trampling on our civil liberties. The Supreme Court made the wrong call and did not uphold the true intent of the Constitution. 

Dear FreedomWorks Member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your U.S. Senators and ask them to vote YES on Senator Ron Johnson’s Motion to Recommit on the Farm Bill, S. 954.  This motion would separate food stamps from the rest of the bill. Currently about 80% of the Farm Bill’s funding actually goes to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other food welfare programs such as WIC. These programs have massively ballooned in size since 2008, with SNAP (food stamp) enrollment increasing by more than 70%, to over $80 billion dollars a year.   These food welfare programs are desperately in need of structural reform, as they are beset by massive fraud and abuse.  But instead being considered in the open, food stamps are tucked into the farm bill in order to attract urban members of Congress to vote for the agricultural subsidies that rural members want.  It’s classic legislative vote-trading, with two terrible bills being passed every five years by sticking them together. Sen. Johnson’s Motion to Recommit would simply return the Farm Bill back to committee with instructions to take the SNAP title out of the bill.  A massive entitlement program like food stamps should be considered as a standalone bill and not used as an $80 billion dollar earmark.   Thus, I urge you to call your U.S. senators and ask them to vote YES on Sen. Johnson’s Motion to Recommit.  We may count the vote on this motion as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013. Our scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes Members of Congress with voting records that support economic freedom. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO, FreedomWorks File Attachments KVN_2013-06-03_Food_Stamp_Removal_from_Farm_Bill_Senate_-_YES.pdf373.38 KB

Dear FreedomWorks member,  As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Senators and urge them to cosponsor S. 1037, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act of 2013. Introduced by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the bill would extend Fourth Amendment guarantees to electronic communications. The Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act is needed to protect against the violations of our Fourth Amendment rights online. The Fourth Amendment reads as follows: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act would ensure that our constitutional rights are protected in all forms. The bill would require warrants to be granted by a judge in order for government officials to obtain electronic communications. With the government eroding our right to privacy daily, this common sense bill would clarify and affirm that the government has no right to search through our emails, our search history, our private social media accounts, and our other forms of online communications without a warrant. We must ensure that our online privacy is not infringed upon by the government. I urge you to contact your Senators and urge them to cosponsor S. 1037, the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act of 2013 today.  Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks [Click here for a PDF version of this letter.]  File Attachments 6-3-13_FourthAmendment.pdf193.69 KB

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your representative and urge him or her to co-sponsor H.R. 1892, the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013. Introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and a bipartisan group of lawmakers that includes Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), this bill would simply allow consumers to bypass digital manufacturer locks on devices that they already legally own. Currently, many popular cell phones and other digital devices, ranging from tablets to the computers in your car, are sold with digital “locks” that prevent users from switching services or otherwise modifying the device. Savvy technology users quickly figured out how to “unlock” these devices so that, for example, once your initial contract runs out on your cell phone, you could then switch service providers. However, under current law, this modification of a device you legally own is a crime.  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 law, makes all tampering with manufacturer hardware of software device locks illegal.  While this is theoretically to protect copyrights, it is clear that this law is outdated when it prevents people from making basic alterations to devices they have legally purchased. Under the DMCA, every three years the Librarian of Congress gets to decide whether unlocking should be allowed.  From 2006-2012, cell phone unlocking was made legal, allowing smaller service providers into the market for cell phone service, which had been dominated by the few large providers whose services were locked into the most popular brands of cell phones.  However, in 2013 the Library of Congress changed its mind, and cell phone unlocking became illegal once more. The Unlocking Technology Act would simply make permanent the ability to unlock legally owned cell phones and other electronic devices. The bill is careful to specify that using unlocked devices to violate copyright is still illegal, but otherwise consumers will once again be free to make lawful use of their own property as they see fit. The freedom to use and modify an item you have bought and paid for is just simple common sense, and it is time that outdated technology laws be changed to reflect that.  Thus, I urge you to call your representative and urge him or her to co-sponsor H.R. 1892, the Unlocking Technology Act of 2013. Sincerely,   Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments LoS_2013-05-31_-_Support_-_Unlocking_Technology_Act_H.R._1892.pdf195.39 KB

In the wake of the reports that the International Revenue Service inappropriately targeted groups based on their political views, do we really want the IRS in charge of our health care? That’s right… the IRS has a central role in implementing the massive ObamaCare law. The most obvious way that the agency is involved is through collecting the 18 new taxes in ObamaCare. Despite Obama’s promises not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 annually, most of these taxes will hit the middle class.  Here is a timeline from the Heritage Foundation on the taxes in ObamaCare: But that’s not all. The IRS has 47 new duties and enforcement powers under the law and has requested 2,000 more agents to help implement ObamaCare in 2013 alone. These duties include collecting information on health insurance plans by requiring employers to inform the IRS on whether an employee has insurance. You will be forced to send a health insurance verification form from the IRS with your federal tax return.  Why should the IRS be collecting our personal health information? Frankly, that is none of their business. Another IRS duty will be penalizing individuals that do not purchase health insurance. Starting in 2014, all individuals must purchase government approved health insurance or face a fine. The penalty for non-compliance is $95 (or 1 percent of income, whichever is higher) in 2014, $325 (or 2 percent of income) in 2015, and $695 (or 2.5 percent of income) in 2016.  Never before have individuals been forced by the government to buy a product. This is a clear violation of our individual liberty. Many people, especially young and healthy people, rationally chose to pay for their health care out of pocket instead of buying health insurance. They may only visit a doctor once or twice a year—and probably won’t need any expensive procedures.  As you may imagine, this doesn’t please insurance companies that want everyone to buy health insurance. Is it any wonder that major health insurance companies were the biggest supporters of a law that punishes people for not purchasing their product? ObamaCare isn’t about “compassion” or improving health care, it’s just a big payoff to the health insurance industry.  Also, the IRS will provide federal subsidies for people who buy insurance through government “exchanges.” In order to administer the subsidies, it will be the duty of the IRS to collect personal information to see if individuals are eligible for coverage on an exchange or Medicaid. The IRS will additionally use a massive new database called the Federal Data Services Hub to collect information from IRS, HHS, DHS, DOJ, and States for ObamaCare enforcement. The scandal-ridden IRS and DOJ working together to gather personal information is a recipe for disaster.  The IRS implementing ObamaCare should raise red flags. We should absolutely not give the IRS more control over our personal life.  Or better yet: ObamaCare should be repealed.  Click here to send a message to Congress: Keep the IRS Away From Your Healthcare.  

On May 21, Washington Rep. Liz Pike introduced House Bill 2063, which would open up educational opportunities for children in her state. This bill would establish educational tax credits allowing Washington’s children to have access to more educational choices. Washington currently has very few options for school choice, and if passed, this would be a huge boost for education reform there.  Under the proposed legislation, children of lower-income families will be able to fill the existing vacancies in Washington’s independent schools. Currently, only one-third who apply for need-based scholarships receive them. If this bill passes, it will expand equality in education across income levels throughout the state.  School choice programs, including scholarship tax credits, have a long track record of proven success. Studies show that students that take advantage of these opportunities achieve higher academic performance, are more likely to graduate high school and enroll in college, and are more civic-minded. Therefore, we know that students, families, and communities all benefit from choice.  Not only would this legislation open up new avenues for success, it would free up state resources for other projects. The state will save approximately $6,300 per student who transfers to an approved provider. In the 2013-2015 budget, that could be in the range of $20m-$60m in savings for the cash strapped state.  Better opportunities for children while saving money?  It sounds like a win-win proposition for the state of Washington. We hope Washingtonians will encourage their legislators to fight for school choice.   

At BlogCon in Dallas, many of us had the unique opportunity of being in the studio audience for two tapings of the Glenn Beck show at TheBlaze Studios. During a panel discussion on the harassment and intimidation faced by conservative bloggers, Glenn challenged us. First, he asked how many of us faced intimidation and threats or worried about our personal safety. Most of the hands went up, including mine. Then he asked us why we continue to do what we do. While I got an opportunity to describe the death threats I've received, I didn't get a chance to really answer the question. It can be really hard to do what we do. I've received many death threats over the years, and what I've faced pales in comparison to what some of my blogger friends have endured. And when you have the Eye of Sauron on you because you've done something to attract the attention of the leftist collective, you can be subjected to coordinated smear campaigns that you never dreamed possible. It can be intimidating, and it can scare you into quitting. So why go on? Why keep pressing forward, knowing that the more effective you can be at exposing the truth, the worse it will get? There are several reasons: A. I have a visceral reaction to someone who peddles BS as a way of life. I was completely uninvolved in politics until the Tea Party movement started in 2009. I can't stand politicians. And the more I get involved as county party chair, tea party organizer, blogger and new media consultant, the more I'm exposed to how sleazy they all are. But every time I discover someone who lies, cheats, harasses, or abuses their position, I feel like it's my duty to expose that. We citizens deserve to know who's worthy of our vote and trust, and who isn't. B. I have two kids who are going to grow up in a vastly different America than I did, if I don't do something. My heart weeps for what my children will face in their adulthood when attempting to access health care under Obamacare. I know based on historical precedent that their job prospects will be severely altered because of the immoral amount of debt being added every day, which will hamper the economy for decades. I can't imagine how few liberties they'll be able to enjoy because of a runaway government that is growing at an unchecked rate. I can't sit idly by and just let this happen. C. It can be a helluva lot of fun. Every single time they target you or you uncover yet another lie or sleazy backroom deal, you get the opportunity to use the controversy that it stirs up to make your point. We all know the legacy media isn't going to report our stories, even when we beat them over the head with them. So when you have that moment of opportunity where you're in the perfect point in time to make the news as you are reporting it, use it. When the media folks fail to notice, call them out. When they report it properly, give them kudos. And always, always, ALWAYS know that you have the truth and the facts on your side - armed thusly, you cannot fail. Even when you're targeted with an op/ed campaign, that's another opportunity. Your points will get across. Use their hatred of the truth against them. Always be willing to give a quote to reporters you know are against you, because whatever they may say about you in their column, they look like the petty little tyrants if they dare to misquote you. If they don't misquote you, you've done your job by getting the point across - not to the reporter, but to his or her audience. Every time they lash out, use the occasion to punch back with the truth. It always wins, eventually. So yes, I am strongly motivated to keep moving forward and to keep uncovering the truth that the statists constantly seek to bury.  Somebody has to... 

In my continuing series exploring the economic benefits of opening up coal export terminals in the Pacific Northwest, I've delved into many of the counter-arguments by environmentalists and found them lacking. It seems pretty clear that exporting coal to other Pacific Rim countries via rail terminals and shipping ports on the West Coast will create jobs and have minimal environmental impact in the process. New reports bolster this claim. However, this won't stop radical environmentalists from trying to turn the coal export fight into the latter day Spotted Owl controversy, all in an effort to block developing economies from using fossil fuels to create new wealth and opportunity for their citizens. Sean Hackbarth has a new article up at FreeEnterprise.com that touts the results of a new study on the impact of jobs created by the free trade of coal:  A new study by accounting firm Ernst and Young found that exports support tens of thousands of jobs and contribute billions of dollars to the economy. The report prepared for the National Mining Association found that in 2011 (the most-recent year with complete data available) 18% (25,130) of the jobs in the American coal mining industry were supported by coal exports. Coal exports produced $2.6 billion in labor income and $5.4 billion in economic activity. The report looks beyond the coal industry. By broadening the analysis to economic activity "generated by purchases from domestic suppliers" and spending from employees in the coal, transportation, exports, and supplier industries, Ernst and Young found that coal exports “contributed 141,270 total direct, indirect, and induced jobs to the U.S. economy” and $16.6 billion to the economy in 2011. Other highlights from the study include: Coal exports supported 8,850 transportation jobs. Most of these were due to moving coal from mines to ports.Coal exports supported 5,370 jobs at ports.Jobs directly supported by coal export-related industries (mining, transportation, port operations) earned almost 50% more in wages and benefits. As Hackbarth points out, however, the radical environmental lobby is just getting started. According to the Everett (WA) Daily Herald, A coalition of environmental groups is asking the federal government to step in and combine the environmental studies for three different coal export terminal proposals into one. In addition to the Gateway Pacific terminal proposed for Cherry Point near Bellingham, export terminals also are proposed for Longview in southwest Washington and Boardman, Ore., on the Columbia River. Earthjustice, a Seattle environmental law firm, sent a letter on Wednesday to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers offices in Seattle and Portland. The letter was signed by 11 environmental groups, including Climate Solutions, National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and the Washington Environmental Council. The Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports, a Seattle-based group of business organizations and others formed to support the export terminals, issued a counterstatement to the environmental groups' request Wednesday. "This is a stall tactic, pure and simple," said Lauri Hennessey, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports. The enviros went on to cite again the fear that surface street traffic will be disrupted or delayed - a claim that has been repeatedly debunked. In fact, BNSF has calculated that due to the Great Recession, they are still down from their peak capacity usage reached in 2006. In other words, rail traffic still has a long way to go before it's even going to reach its previous high water mark. So these coal terminals will create thousands of jobs, will have little environmental impact from coal dust or any other effect, and will not create burdens on surface traffic. This seems like a clear win for the energy industry and for global economic progress. No wonder the environmentalists hate the idea. Follow Jeff on Twitter @

The IRS has been in the news a lot lately, but with all the hubbub of corruption and scandal, it’s easy to forget that they are also the agency set to be put in charge of enforcing and implementing the Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as ObamaCare, when it goes into full effect later this year. Here, then, are the top ten reasons why this should not be allowed to happen. File Attachments Top_10_Reasons_IRS_Shouldnt_Run_Obamacare.pdf161.42 KB

A weak narrative pushed by administration allies that the IRS was merely doing its job in investigating Tea Party groups in 2010 through 2012 has been all but abandoned, now. Facts having intervened, and it looks like the Obama administration will throw some IRS staff under the bus and hope the scandal ends. It won't, because the problem is not that people were weak, but that government is too strong. Back in March of 2012, a New York Times editorial praised the IRS for challenging tea party groups, saying the same should be done for the larger national organizations that the Times saw as abusing the tax code to hide donors. Ezra Klein revived the narrative on May 10, after the scandal broke open and the IRS admitted its wrongdoing:  The problem wasn’t that the IRS was skeptical of tea party groups registering as 501(c)4s. It’s that it hasn’t been skeptical of Organizing for America, Crossroads GPS, Priorities USA and Heritage Action Fund registering as 501(c)4s. The IRS should be treating all these groups equally and appropriately — which would mean much more harshly. ... Now everyone from Moveon.org to the Heritage Foundation has a 501(c)4. The number of 501(c)4 applications the IRS is getting more than doubled in recent years, rising from 1,500 to more than 3,400. That, by the way, is their explanation for the added scrutiny of the tea party groups: They weren’t trying to look specifically at conservatives. They were just trying to separate out the organizations that seemed likely to be overly political.   Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo decided smugly that conservatives can be PC, too. No one would admit it, he said, but : The only real sin the IRS committed in its ostensible targeting of conservatives is the sin of political incorrectness—that is, of not pretending it needed to vet all the new groups that wanted tax-exempt status, even though it mostly just needed to vet right-wing groups. But that isn't what Tea Party groups were doing, and vetting isn't what the IRS was doing. The Tea party Groups were all essentially self-supported, with most donations from their members and literally passing the hat at rallies.  They -- OK, we -- were, and still are, engaged primarily in educating our communities about America's history and the danger of straying too far from our founding.  Tea party groups fit squarely in the description of "social welfare" organization as "a community movement designed to accomplish community ends."  As Ohio Liberty Coalition's  Tom Zawistowski told The Cato Institute,  Well, I think one thing I'd like to point out is that some of these media organizations have been saying that here's these Tea Party anti-tax people, and we were "filing for 501(c)(4) so we could avoid paying taxes." Nothing was further from the truth. We're farmers and business people, and we were having bus trips that cost money. And we needed insurance and things, so you had to form a company. We thought we were going to be companies. So in a pre-Citizens United world, you couldn't take a bus trip to Washington, because that's a political act, and we didn't know that. So the 501(c)(4) came from the IRS. We didn't ask for the 501(c)(4), we were told we must be a 501(c)(4). Liberal groups have not in fact been separated out for similar scrutiny, and the level and type scrutiny itself is as outrageous as the fact of being targeted based on political ideology.  As Zawistowski told Cato, the questions were "clearly politically motivated."  They did not ask us about our electioneering activities. You know, electioneering is a legal term, it means a very specific thing. Why didn't they ask us if we had given money to candidates or to parties? They never asked those questions. They want to know how many donors you have, how much they gave you, who are your members, how many members do you have, who spoke to you, what do you know. There's a word for

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to vote NO on the Senate’s version of the Farm Bill, S. 954. While it is entitled the “Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013”, this bill is a bloated microcosm of everything that is wrong with the federal government, containing corporate welfare, direct welfare, government subsidies and carve-outs for favored industries, and a brand new entitlement program to boot. To begin with, what is popularly known as the “farm bill” could more accurately be described as the Food Stamp Reauthorization Act, with agricultural provisions attached.  More than 80% of the nearly trillion dollars of spending in this bill go to the food stamp program, properly called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Enrollment in SNAP has increased by 70% just since 2008, in part because the eligibility requirements are so loose and fraud so rarely punished. Helping needy families acquire food would be best left to the states, instead of being concentrated in a wasteful federal program which is only incentivized to keep adding more people to the dole. On the actual agricultural side of the bill, the Senate did finally do away with direct payments to farmers, a program that was meant to be temporary, and which was largely paid to large farm corporations which are in no need of assistance. However, the Farm Bill continues to be a hot mess of corporate welfare, filled with special carve-outs for the industries whose lobbyists have succeeded in earning the favor of Congress. These favored industries include cotton, peanuts, corn, soy, and (most notoriously) sugar, which actually receives its very own section in the bill. Yet another poorly conceived part of farm policy is that way in which crop insurance is subsidized. It would be enough if the federal government merely paid for a portion of the crop insurance premiums for farmers who need the help.  Instead, the government pays for, on average, 60% of the premiums, with wealthy major corporations receiving the lion’s share of those subsidies.  On top of that, the government also gives generous subsidies to the insurance companies themselves.  The incentives are all wrong – farm companies are incentivized to take more risks because of their cheap insurance, while the insurance companies have no incentive to keep premium or administrative costs low because of all the free federal cash flowing into their coffers. If all of this were not bad enough, this year’s Farm Bill creates a brand new entitlement program called “shallow-loss” insurance. While ordinary crop insurance is designed to cover catastrophic crop loss, like from an early freeze or a severe drought, shallow-loss covers the difference when farmers see their revenues fall below an average of the previous five years. Not only is this an unnecessarily generous subsidy in the first place, current farm revenues are at near-record highs, meaning that if revenues fall to even their average levels, farmers will receive a massive payout anyway. And beyond (or as a result of) all of the bad policies contained within the bill, there is also the simple matter of its cost. A CBO estimate of the 2008 Farm Bill put its costs at $714 billion over ten years, and yet in 2012 the CBO’s ten-year estimate had already increased to close to $1 trillion. Yet the Senate Agriculture Committee is touting this bill’s “savings” of $24 billion, which still leaves taxpayers with a $950 billion bill.  And that’s before agricultural revenues inevitably fall to somewhere closer to average, in which case the shallow-loss program will add countless billions more to the total. This bill is sold to the American people as being for the small family farm, with 40 acres and a cow, which struggles to make a living every year.  In reality, the overwhelming majority of the agricultural provisions in this

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your representative and urge him or her to co-sponsor H.R. 2009, the “Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act”.  Introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), this bill would stop the Internal Revenue Service or any other Treasury department from enforcing any part of ObamaCare. Currently, the IRS will be the most crucial department for actually enacting and enforcing ObamaCare. The premium subsidies that are supposed to help individuals purchase health insurance through the exchanges are actually tax credits, distributed by the IRS.  And most significantly, the IRS is responsible for administering the “tax” upon individuals who refuse to purchase a government-approved insurance plan – the individual mandate. More ominously, ObamaCare requires the IRS to collect a vast amount of sensitive information about the kind of insurance coverage you have, and will store this information in a massive new database.   ObamaCare’s supporters, of course, claim that the IRS would never share the medical information they collect, and that the agency would only collect the exact data necessary to determine eligibility for premium subsidies.  And yet, a lawsuit filed in California alleges that the IRS illegally seized the medical records of 10 million individuals in that state. Having the same organization that is both targeting political opponents and stealing people’s medical records in charge of people’s health care seems like a recipe for disaster.  Rep. Price’s bill would stop the IRS in its tracks, completely erasing their role in ObamaCare. I urge you to contact your representative and urge him or her to co-sponsor H.R. 2009, the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act today. Sincerely,   Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments LoS_2013-05-17_-_Support_-_Keep_the_IRS_Off_Your_Health_Care_Act.pdf193.26 KB