You are viewing an old blog post! That means that links will be broken, and images may be missing.

March 21, 2013

Do You Want to Overturn the Incumbent Protection Laws?

Imagine the Supreme Court overturning the campaign finance laws because they violate your freedom of THE PRESS.

This could happen because…

  • We’ve been making this argument in case after case.
  • Our “press” argument has already influenced several dissenting opinions.

But now we’ve opened a new front. Imagine that the campaign finance laws die because…

We convince the Supreme Court to reject a cornerstone of the modern Leviathan State.

To understand what this means let’s review what we did in our last brief on this issue. We called it…

The most important brief we’ve ever proposed to you.

We told you we wanted want to attack the doctrine of “compelling state interest.”

We described how this doctrine has been used to justify multiple criminal actions by The State, starting with…

The Japanese-American Internment during World War II

The 1944 Court that endorsed this crime dared to assert that it could balance your rights against the “interests” of The State. In other words…

  • If The State claims to have a compelling reason to violate your rights
  • And the Court agrees that The State’s asserted reason really is compelling
  • Then the Court will endorse the criminality

This decision in the Japanese internment case started a statist crime wave that has lasted for decades. Your rights have been deluged by “balancing tests” ever since.

  • This is part of how the Court allows the campaign finance laws to violate your First Amendment rights.
  • And it's the basis for thousands of other crimes across the whole range of State activity.


  • Balancing tests have no Constitutional basis
  • They didn't exist for the first 155 years of the Constitution
  • They were only invented when the Court wanted to justify a monstrous crime

Funding from several supporters enabled us to make these arguments in a brief we submitted for Danielczyk v. United States.

Sadly, the Supreme Court declined to give that case further review, but our brief was read as part of that decision, and that marks the first challenge to these criminal balancing tests. Now the question is…

Will we continue to attack balancing tests and the doctrine of compelling state interest?

We have a new opportunity to do so, starting today.

  • The case is McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
  • McCutcheon challenges the limit that prevents an individual from contributing the maximum to as many federal candidates and committees as the donor chooses.

Here’s how our attorneys describe the stakes…

  • A loss could be a retreat from the Court’s Citizens United ruling.
  • Victory would be a big step toward freeing you to support any candidate you want, however you want.

Our attorneys want the chance to make the following arguments…

  • Your right to assemble and associate with others to promote candidates is not a second-class right that can be given less protection than the other First Amendment freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, or the press.
  • Citizens United established that your right to free speech cannot be limited based on your identity as a speaker. Therefore, your right to associate cannot be limited, either by your identity or the identities of those with whom you choose to join.  
  • First Amendment rights are NOT subject to judicial balancing tests.
  • Incumbent politicians cannot be trusted to make the rules governing their own re-election.

Do you want to empower our attorneys to make these arguments on your behalf?

Do you want to take another swing at overturning the campaign finance laws?

If so, we need your help to fund this new brief.

Remember our strategy…

  • If we win a good decision, then things improve.
  • But if we lose, the case for erecting new forms of government becomes stronger

Either way, our mission progresses. Only inaction can blunt that progress.

Because we’ve been fighting on these issues since before the launch of Downsize DC, including taking a freedom of the press case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, we have a special understanding of what needs to be done. That means…

Downsize DC must take a leadership role in publishing this amicus brief.

Board member Dan Fylstra has pledged $1,500 in matching funds, to get us started. We cannot miss out on matching every single dollar. We must not fail to get this amicus brief completed.

We’re seeking at least one person to give $1,000 or more, plus another to invest at least $500. We need at least ten new, monthly pledgers as well. And scores of donations for various other amounts.

Contributions to this project are tax-deductible, if you itemize. Everything you need to take action can be found on our secure web form.

Thank you for making this amicus brief possible,  

Jim Babka
Downsize DC Foundation

If your comment is off-topic for this post, please email us at


Post a Comment

Notice: Undefined variable: user_ID in /var/www/ on line 89

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

© 2008–2019