SOURCE: OpEdNews

---

February 4, 2010, BlackBoxVoting's Bev Harris Tackles the Holt Bill, Part Two, By Joan Brunwasser

Welcome back for the second half of my interview with BlackBoxVoting's Bev Harris. If people in the EI Election Integrity movement have serious reservations about the Holt Bill, Bev, why don't you just talk with Rep. Holt and give him your input? Who knows more about this than the actual people who have been in the trenches all these years?

Mr. Holt doesn't have the slightest interest in anything I have to say -- or anyone else advocating for restoration of public right to see and authenticate all steps in our own elections. What we are looking for won't line the pockets of the e-voting industry (and all the related little support industries that have developed). In fact, the kinds of solutions that will move us towards restoration of public elections:

SOURCE: OpEdNews

February 3, 2010, BlackBoxVoting's Bev Harris Tackles the Holt Bill, By Joan Brunwasser

Bev Harris is an investigative journalist and founder of non-partisan, election watchdog BlackBoxVoting.org. Welcome back to OpEdNews, Bev. The Election Integrity (EI) community is once more abuzz regarding Rep. Holt's proposed election legislation, the "Voter Confidence Act." Why is this such a constant lightning rod for people who care about election integrity?

The Holt Bill has literally split the election reform community into two camps, and that may turn out to be a good thing. On the one side are those of us who see current US election processes as a violation of human rights. On the other side are advocates willing to forego the right to public elections if they can just tweak the way concealed election processes are administered. I say this could turn out to be a good thing, because it forces us to articulate the end goal.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

ebruary 1, 2010

Roger Shuler on Recent Supreme Court Decision

By Joan Brunwasser

Roger Shuler is an Alabama journalist and The Legal Schnauzer blogger. Welcome back to OpEdNews. The big news of late is the recent Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate campaign contributions. Everyone feels strongly about it. How about you, Roger?

My primary interest is how it possibly reflects on the apparent political prosecutions of the George W. Bush Justice Department. In the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, Minor's attorneys have already raised the Citizens United v. FEC ruling in their motion for reconsideration with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.All sidesseem to agree that a quid pro quo--something for something deal--remains illegal. But Minor's attorneys argue that there was no quid pro quo in his case, and the jury instruction did not require one. Therefore, based on Citizens United, the prosecution and conviction that Minor faced was aviolation of his First Amendment rights.

SOURCECare2.com

A Washington-based PR firm is running for Congress. Not supporting a candidate, but running as a candidate, to demonstrate the outrageous nature of last week's Supreme Court decision that treats political campaign spending by corporations as free speech.

In a satirical move by polished pros, PR firm Murray Hill has launched its election campaign with all the tools of a "regular' campaign, including a website and an "inspiring" election ad:

BY Paul Lehto

SOURCE: DU

"Citizens United" Attorney and Strategist Admits He's Almost Done with 10-Year Plan to Destroy Campaign Laws, The Final Step is Destroying Disclosure Rules Creating SECRET Contributions

James Bopp, Jr., the spearhead strategist for the group Citizens United as well as their lead attorney in the trial court for the Citizens United case just decided at the US Supreme Court, said the following about his several US Supreme Court successes in demolishing the idea that the government has the power to do ANYTHING in terms of regulation of campaign finance:

---

From Monday, January 25, 2010 New York Times, Page A11:

“We had a 10-year plan to take all this {campaign finance regulation} down,” he said in an interview. “And if we do it right, I think we can pretty well dismantle the entire regulatory regime that is called campaign finance law.”

How The American People Can Defeat Unlimited Corporate Money and Influence in Elections

By Kathleen Wynne

(With Contributions by Karen Renick)

“There is a dangerous, misguided movement out there that if we just let business rule the nation, all will be well -- markets will take care of themselves, health care, jobs, just let business handle it. You know who says that the loudest? Business.

And now, it can say it even louder. It can shout down any candidate who opposes it. What happened to ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’?”

Excerpt from “Big Biz Needed No Help InThe Election Game”, by Mitch Albom, columnist, Detroit Free Press

The country is rightfully reeling from the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s partisan 5/4 decision this past Thursday ruling that the “government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.” This decision, without question, continues the devastation of the power of the people in the elections process by ruling that corporations are “persons” who have a First Amendment Right to make campaign contributions without any kind of restriction.

SOURCE: RawStory.com

By Sahil Kapur
Friday, January 22nd, 2010 -- 3:28 pm

WASHINGTON -- Forty-one business leaders have co-signed letters sent to Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress voicing their opposition to Thursday's Supreme Court ruling that frees corporations to spend unlimited amounts on influencing elections.

"Is there a difference between campaign contributions and bribery?" said Alan Hassenfeld, chairman of Hasbro, Inc, who co-signed the letter.

"It is long past the time to stop requiring that our elected officials moonlight as telemarketers raising money for their re-election campaigns rather then devoting all their time to solving the problems before this nation," he said.

The letter read: "As business leaders, we believe the current political fundraising system is already broken. The Supreme Court decision further exacerbates this problem."

January 21, 2010 statement from Doris “Granny D” Haddock in response to the Supreme Court’s decision today to kill campaign finance reform. Ten years ago, I walked from California to Washington, D.C. to help gather support for campaign finance reform. I used the novelty of my age (I was 90), to garner attention to the fact that our democracy, for which so many people have given their lives, is being subverted to the needs of wealthy interests, and that we must do something about it. I talked to thousands of people and gave hundreds of speeches and interviews, and, in every section of the nation, I was deeply moved by how heartsick Americans are by the current state of our politics.

Well, we got some reform bills passed, but things seem worse now than ever. Our good government reform groups are trying to staunch the flow of special-interest money into our political campaigns, but they are mostly whistling in a wind that has become a gale force of corrupting cash. Conditions are so bad that people now assume that nothing useful can pass Congress due to the vote-buying power of powerful financial interests. The health care reform debacle is but the most recent example.

SOURCE: Paul Lehto

In Live blogging starting today at 10am EST, in what law.com called "a rare if not unprecedented Thursday session" of the US Supreme Court, the court issued a 5-4 decision in Citizens United totaling 176 pages in length for all opinions (the longest of this term and in a while...) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Scotusblog.com says this in live chat from the Supreme Court: "The Court's decision overturns the previously settled distinction between corporate and individual expenditures in American elections."

The five justice majority opinion, written by Kennedy, effectively declares that corporate treasury money has a constitutional right to be used in an unlimited fashion in campaign politics because it is proteceted by the First Amendment. This reverses approximately a century of congressional and state regulation of campaign finance.

Headlines are screaming "Kiss Democracy Goodbye!"

Here's the Supreme Court's latest affront:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

AND just like Dean-Kerry in 2004 Primary! Is it coincidence or is there a definite pattern emerging here? Only LHS-Diebold knows for sure....there is nobody else on earth who knows how voters cast their ballots!

SOURCE: Black Box Voting

This article is about our right to know, not about Martha Coakley or Scott Brown. And lest you think something here favors a Democrat, just you wait, I'm still working on anomalies in the NY-23 election that are just plain hard to 'splain. As Richard Hayes Phillips says when people tell him to forget it, "I'm a historian, I've got all the time in the world." NY-23 still has history to be written. My public records are starting to arrive. But that's another story.

Back to Massachusetts, I think you have a right to know that Coakley won the hand counts there.

You can discuss this here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/80830.html

That's right.

According to preliminary media results by municipality, Democrat Martha Coakley won Massachusetts overall in its hand counted locations,* with 51.12% of the vote (32,247 hand counted votes) to Brown's 30,136, which garnered him 47.77% of hand counted votes. Margin: 3.35% lead for Coakley.

Massachusetts has 71 hand count locations, 91 ES&S locations, and 187 Diebold locations, with two I call the mystery municipalities (Northbridge and Milton) apparently using optical scanners, not sure what kind.

When the public can not view the vote count, anyone can say anything about the outcome!


SOURCE: BlackBoxVoting.ORG

SHINING A BRIGHT LIGHT ON AN UNDEMOCRATIC TACTIC

For 10 years, I've been watching a trend to manipulate elections through premature "call" of the race by a media outlet. See below for predictions on what may follow a media call for either candidate in Massachusetts.

The media "call" can be manipulated because the public doesn't know that projected winners come from a system that is not even a governmental source! In fact, the media "calls" elections based on data from just one media outlet -- usually a quiet little division of the Associated Press that occupies a little corner somewhere and answers very few questions. Volunteers call in result reports to the corporation. The reports are often inaccurate (see below for examples). The names of these volunteers are not part of the public record. We will never get the list of names for those who will call in the 351 numbers which will result in "calling the election" for Tuesday's Massachusetts election.

For Immediate Release: January 18, 2010

Groups Urge Secretary of State Galvin to Take Action to Detect Election Tampering

Belmont, MA

Representatives of nonpartisan election watchdog groups around the nation issued a last-minute 'orange alert,' warning that tomorrow's Massachusetts special election to elect a successor to the late Senator Ted Kennedy is ripe for manipulation. The groups call on Secretary of State Galvin to take immediate extra security precautions for the Senate race, which has become a high-stakes national contest. Critical national initiatives such as health care reform and financial reform will be influenced by the results of this election.

Unprecedented amounts of out-of-state money has funded a media blitz, and recent seesawing polls —some highly questionable—show Republican Scott Brown and Democrat Martha Coakley now reported to be in a virtual toss-up.

Experts are concerned that with the electronic election system in use, its lack of transparency and ease of manipulation, the public has no basis for trust in the accuracy and integrity of the election results. Confidence in election outcome should be based on objective verification rather than government reassurance, particularly when voting systems with so many known vulnerabilities and so little ability for oversight are employed.

PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY

We are writing to invite you to help us watch the polls on Tuesday in the MA Senate race.

There are many things to watch, and furthermore, poll watchers help to prevent any kind of malfeasance at the polls and contribute a great deal to the honesty of our elections.

WE WOULD ESPECIALLY LIKE PEOPLE TO BE THERE AT THE CLOSING OF THE POLLS, TO SEE THE POLL TAPES and RECORD THE TALLY. 6-8PM (or shortly thereafter. Document if you can; cell phones with photo or video capability are great for this)

We are going to select a variety of jurisdictions all over MA - ones where they have had trouble in the past or where we think there might be trouble now.

I am sorry we cannot be more specific right now, but we shall be as soon as we can.

If you can help, please send an email to sheilaruthparks@comcast.net and please include:

- your cell and landline numbers
- how early and late you can be called
- what hours you are available on Tues
- how far you are willing to travel

SOURCE: OpEdNews

January 17, 2010

By Joan Brunwasser

Welcome to OpEdNews, Brad. There's a lot riding on Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts for Sen. Ted Kennedy's replacement. It should have been a cakewalk for Martha Coakley. What's going on?

I'll leave the politics of the matter to those more closely involved in them. It's gonna be a tough slog this year for all Democrats, particularly in light of their "play it safe" positions on well, just about everything.

That said, on the eve of the important special election where their "filibuster-proof" majority hangs in the balance, my top concern is to make sure that the candidate who receives the most votes actually gets to WIN this time, and that the citizens of both MA and the U.S., know for a fact that that person has actually won!

SOURCE: BlackBoxVoting

Black Box Voting : News Headlines: (MA) 1/10 - NO BASIS FOR TRUST IN MASS. SENATE RACE (THERE IS NEVER BASIS FOR 'TRUST'!) - ------------------------------

Posted by Bev Harris  on Sunday, January 17, 2010 - 2:07 pm:

Below you'll find suggestions for effective actions everyone can take, whether you live in Massachusetts or not, to help protect the truthfulness of Tuesday's Massachusetts senate special election.

Yes, the machines are hackable*, machines are programmed by a firm with a member of its key management team afflicted with a criminal record and a history of driving around the state with replacement memory cards and voting machines in his trunk. And this election is vehemently political, with the winner possibly holding a key vote on the controversial healthcare bill.

(* Did a program update eliminate hackability? Well, the point is that

SOURCE: http://www.gouverneurtimes.com...

Easily Hacked Voting Systems to be Used in MA Special Election for the U.S. Senate

Written by Nathan Barker and Brad Friedman

Since writing today's piece for Upstate New York's right-leaning Gouverneur Times, a new poll has come out this morning showing the Republican Scott Brown now leading the Democrat Martha Coakley by 4 points in the race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by a Democrat named Kennedy for nearly 60 years.

As of last night, when I filed the story with them, the latest survey from a Democratic-leaning pollster showed Coakley up by 8, though a day or two earlier, Republican Rasmussen had Brown down only by 2 points < .

Suffice to say it's now officially "a toss-up", at least according to the Rothenberg Political Report, and to all the Dems and Reps now sweating out what was previously thought to have been an easy Democratic win.

SOURCE: New York Post

Obama voting block

By JOSH KOSMAN, 6:17 PM, January 11, 2010, posted: 12:52 AM, January 11, 2010

The Department of Justice is expected to file a lawsuit at month's end to block the already-completed merger of the nation's two largest voting-machine makers, including one that will service the city, The Post has learned.

According to a person close to the situation, the Justice Department's lawsuit, if successful, would effectively undo the merger of Diebold's Premier Elections Solutions with Election Systems & Software, a $5 million deal completed in September.

The Post last month reported that antitrust officials at the Justice Department were examining the ES&S-Diebold marriage because the deal would give ES&S up to 75 percent of the voting-machine market, which has triggered worry among voting-rights activists and rivals who argue the deal gives ES&S too much power and little incentive to improve its products.