Tag: felons voting

Categories
Quick Analysis

Democrats Push to allow Felons to Vote

In addition to opposing reasonable measures to prevent fraudulent voting, there is a substantial push, principally by Democrats, to give the vote to convicted felons.  Some, such as presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders, seek to even give incarcerated prisoners, including terrorists, the right to cast ballots.

There is a history of some states allowing convicted felons who have completed their sentences to regain voting rights.  The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) notes that “It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently. Over the last few decades, the general trend has been toward reinstating the right to vote at some point, although this is a state-by-state policy choice. Currently, state approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously…In all cases, “automatic restoration” does not mean that voter registration is automatic. Typically prison officials automatically inform election officials that an individual’s rights have been restored. The person is then responsible for re-registering through normal processes. Some states, California is one example, require that voter registration information be provided to formerly incarcerated people.”

Pro/con notes that “An estimated 6.1 million people with a felony conviction are barred from voting in elections – a condition known as disenfranchisement. Each state has its own laws on disenfranchisement. While Vermont and Maine allow felons to vote while in prison, ten other states permanently restrict certain felons from voting. Proponents of felon re-enfranchisement say that felons who have paid their debt to society by completing their sentences should have all of their rights and privileges restored. They argue that efforts to block ex-felons from voting are unfair, undemocratic, and politically or racially motivated. Opponents say felon voting restrictions are consistent with other voting limitations such as age, residency, sanity, etc., and other felon restrictions such as no guns for violent offenders and no sex offenders near schools. They say that convicted felons have demonstrated poor judgment and should not be trusted with a vote.”

The reason for the Democrats’ interest in this topic is clear.  According to an NYU study, “disenfranchisement laws tend to take more votes from Democratic than from Republican candidates. Analysis shows that felon disenfranchisement played a decisive role in U.S. Senate elections in recent years. Moreover, at least one Republican presidential victory would have been reversed if former felons had been allowed to vote… felon voters showed strong Democratic preferences in both presidential and senatorial elections…even comparatively unpopular Democratic candidates… would have garnered almost 70 percent of the felon vote.”

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Terry McAuliffe, then-governor of the key swing state of Virginia and a personal friend of Hillary Clinton, announced that he was restoring voting rights of more than 200,000 Virginians who were convicted of felonies such as murder, rape, armed assault and other crimes.  Some analyses indicated that the governor’s restoration would be permitted despite the status of any unpaid fines or restitution requirements. A press release from McAuliffe’s office noted “Each of those Virginians will immediately regain the right to register This new system of buying with affordable costs can be obtained cialis prescription after the third treatment. All you need to online viagra pharmacy do take some amount of acid is secreted in our stomach to aid the digestion process. So plan for a nice candle light dinner with your partner before the intercourse and downtownsault.org commander levitra spend some time with you only. They claim that this was the first clinical study of such kind. levitra prescription to vote, to run for office, to serve on a jury and to serve as a notary public…”  

There was a harsh reaction. A National Review assessment questions whether the Governor can provide a blanket pardon, as opposed to a case-by-case action. The article quotes legal sources claiming that McAuliffe is essentially rewriting the state constitution. An Associated Press (AP) description left no doubt that the purpose of the move had less to do with the rights of released criminals and everything to do with the 2016 election. AP noted that at the announcement, left-wings groups were present, handing out voter registration forms. A BBC article quoted Republican Caucus Chairman Ryan T. McDougle: “Terry McAuliffe wants to ensure that convicted pedophiles, rapists, and domestic abusers can vote for Hillary Clinton.”

An Atlantic article favorable to McAuliffe noted the end result: “When Republicans in Virginia’s state legislature revolted at that executive order and won an August 2016 Virginia Supreme Court decision blocking restorations en masse, McAuliffe took another route, with his office reviewing thousands of felons’ records and the governor restoring their rights individually using an autopen. The number of restorations completed that way only stood at 13,000 of the planned 200,000 in August of 2016. But the administration has been persistent, and now Secretary of the Commonwealth Kelly Thomasson tells…[that] 172,298 people have had their rights restored.”

Some Democrats are concerned that traditional support groups such as blue collar workers and ethnic minorities will be swayed by President Trump’s economic advances. That worry extends to Jewish voters as well, who traditionally prefer Democrats but may be offended by many Democrats’ reduced support for Israel and the party’s growing relationship with those making anti-Semitic remarks.  Enfranchising felons, with their traditional support for Democrats, is seen as one small but significant way to partially address the expected shortfall.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Regaining Voting Rights After Felony Conviction

Retired Judge John Wilson discusses the legal issues involved in giving convicted felons the right to vote.

Recently, Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders brought a good deal of attention to his campaign.  The Vermont Senator proposed giving the right to vote to people with felony convictions – even while those people were still incarcerated for their crimes.  Sanders makes no apologies, and does not equivocate on this position – “If we are serious about calling ourselves a democracy, we must firmly establish that the right to vote is an inalienable and universal principle that applies to all American citizens.”

This position is so extreme, other Democratic candidates for President have criticized allowing incarcerated persons the right to vote.  US Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), stated that “if Bernie Sanders wants to get involved in a conversation about whether…the (Boston) Marathon bomber should have the right to vote, my focus is liberating black and brown people and low-income people from prison.”   In other words, vote for Cory Booker, and “black and brown people” won’t lose their voting rights, since they won’t go to jail in the first place?  Maybe that’s not exactly what Booker meant…and maybe the lack of clarity in his position is one reason why he is having difficulty polling higher than 2.2 percent.

Another candidate having trouble with this issue is US Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA).  At first, she thought we all should “have a conversation” about the Sanders’ proposal.  A day later, she said “Do I think that people who commit murder, people who are terrorists, should be deprived of their rights? Yeah, I do…I’m a prosecutor…there has to be serious consequence for the most extreme types of crimes.”  Her quick pivot might explain why Harris is doing better in the polls than Booker.

Disenfranchisement for those convicted of serious crimes is an ancient idea, going as far back as Greek and Roman times.  “In Athens and other Greek city-states [approximately 1100 BC – 400 BC], the status of atimia [literally without honor, a form of disenfranchisement] was imposed upon criminal offenders. This status carried the loss of many citizenship rights, including the right to participate in the polis (polity)… In ancient Rome, the related punishment of infamia could be imposed on criminal offenders.”

46 states and the District of Columbia, all bar incarcerated persons from voting.  Of those, 32 states do not allow persons on parole to vote, and 29 extend that prohibition to those on probation.  But the loss of voting rights is not a direct consequence of a criminal conviction – it is a collateral result.  Much like a criminal conviction leading to the deportation of an illegal immigrant, disenfranchisement is a civil penalty.

This is an important distinction to understand.  When a person is convicted of a crime, their sentence is the direct consequence – incarceration, parole, probation, a fine, restitution and other penalties imposed by the Court at the time of sentence.  But there are also a host of indirect consequences as a result of a criminal conviction – loss of professional licensing, deportation, ineligibility for security clearance, and loss of voting rights are just some of these collateral results.

How Does Kamagra Jelly Cause an Erection? Kamagra Jelly helps to cost of sildenafil increase the blood flow in the blood vessels of penis. So keeping the elbow bent for long buy levitra periods or repeatedly bending the elbow can lead to painful symptoms, because this can irritate the nerve. The viagra line adaption to online retail for the medical assistance. One can simply make an intercourse viagra india viagra more enjoyable with intake of this effective ED drug.

With a collateral consequence, a criminal defendant does not have the same rights as he or she would in regards to a direct result.  For instance, under the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution, a defendant has an enumerated right to not be subjected to a “cruel and unusual punishment” – that is, an unduly harsh and disproportionate sentence.  However, other than Constitutional Amendments granting the right to vote to former slaves (15th), to women (19th) and to citizens beginning at the age of 18 (26th), there is no specific “right to vote” enumerated in the body of the Constitution.

 There is reference made in the Constitution to “the electors in each state” (Article 1, Sec II, Clause I), however, the general right to vote appears to be more properly covered under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  As such, States have more of an ability to limit voting rights than is generally assumed, and as stated, 46 states have legally limited the rights of those convicted of crimes to vote – particularly while incarcerated.

This does not mean that the right to vote is lost forever to a convict.  Several states provide for what is known as a “Certificate of Relief from Civil Disabilities” (CRD).  In New York, for instance, the website for the New York Courts states that a CRD “is a way to remove certain Collateral Consequences of a criminal conviction. Having the CRD can remove bars to applying for jobs, licenses, public housing and more. If you apply for and receive a CRD, you will have the right to apply just like someone without a conviction.”  In fact, if you are in danger of losing an employment license or public housing as a result of a conviction, at sentencing, you can ask the New York Court for a CRD.

This same remedy is available in Florida, Texas, Virginia, Illinois, and many other states.

Surely, someone as educated and experienced as Senator Bernie Sanders must realize that any right reserved to the States and the people is subject to reasonable limitations imposed by each States’ elected representatives.  Obviously, Candidate Sanders isn’t interested in these sort of details.  Give him credit for standing his ground when challenged – but don’t be fooled.

Photo: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Election Fraud May Dominate 2020 Campaign, Part 2

A taste of the voter fraud controversy that may dominate the 2020 election was seen in Georgia. The hotly contested 2018 gubernatorial race between Republican Brian Kemp and Democrat Stacey Abrams featured charges of voter suppression by Abrams and Kemp’s claim that the Abrams campaign encouraged illegal voting.

The general position of the Democrat Party is that voter fraud doesn’t exist, or occurs in numbers too small to be relevant.

Daniel Green, writing for Front Page describes the Democrat perspective:  “Voter fraud doesn’t exist…If it does exist, they’ll stifle any attempt to protect our elections on the false grounds that they’re voter suppression. They’ll cry racism over any investigation of voter fraud. And if someone does get convicted of voter fraud, they get a pardon.

In November, reports the San Francisco Chronicle, California Governor Jerry Brown pardoned a Democratic former legislator who was found guilty four years ago of perjury and voter fraud. 

Hans Spakovsky, writing in the Free Speech & Election Law Practices  publication, emphasizes the problem of noncitizens registering to vote.  He reports that in a random sampling of 3,000 registrations in California’s 39th Assembly District, 10% contained phony addresses or were not U.S. citizens.

A number of states have attempted to attack fraudulent registrations by passing legislation requiring a valid ID to vote.  To the dismay of those dedicated to honest balloting, The Obama Justice Department responded with significant hostility to this measure.  Although almost all the reported fraud has aided hard-left Democrats, Kelly reports, even liberal United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens stated “There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of state’s interest in counting only eligible voters’ votes” in a 2008 case that upheld Indiana’s stringent ID law following a challenge by the Democrat Party and its allies.

 In testimony before the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Rules ad Administration, John Samples, The Cato Institute’s Director of the Center for Representative Government  stated that the Motor Voter Act “has made it difficult if not impossible to maintain clean registration rolls…the inaccuracy in the rolls caused by the Act has thrown into doubt the integrity of our electoral system.”

The Judicial Watch organization, in response to its August 9, 2011 Freedom of Information Act filing, received records which they described as detailing friendly communications between the Obama Justice Department and a former ACORN attorney now serving as Director of Advocacy for Project Vote.  The ACORN connection is ominous. 70 ACORN staff throughout 12 states were convicted of voter registration fraud; more than one third of the registrations that group submitted were found to be invalid.

From across the nation, news reports and studies verify the reality of voter fraud, campaign violations, and the growing influence of illegal aliens. Here’s a sampling:

  • The Obama Justice Department harassed states that seek to clean up voter registration roles and enforce state voter ID laws.
  • The Washington Post notes  “a group of undocumented immigrants…[knocked] on doors in Northern Virginia in support of Hillary Clinton and other Democratic candidates…The vote-seekers [were] some of the 750,000 recipients of temporary legal status under the Obama administration’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. …‘All DACA recipients should take this on as an added responsibility, to change the power structure,’ said Luis Angel Aguilar, 28, who received his protected status in 2013 and is helping to coordinate the effort. ‘Our voices need to be heard”
  • Project Veritas reported:  NYC Democratic Commissioner of the Board of Elections Alan Schulkin stated at a  United Federation of Teachers party that there is widespread voter fraud in New York City…”Schulkin, a Democrat, said that to effectuate illegal voting, people are bussed to various polling sites. He places a blame on NYC’s radical-left Mayor de Blasio.  “He gave out ID cards. De Blasio. That’s in lieu of a driver’s license, but you can use it for anything. But, they didn’t vet people to see who they really are. Anybody can go in there and say I am Joe Smith, I want an ID card. It’s absurd. There’s a lot of fraud. Not just voter fraud, all kinds of fraud.”
  • A Science Direct white paper reported: We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.
  • The Gateway Pundit’s  examination of a wikileaks release found that Clinton campaign chief John Podesta stated it was OK for illegals to vote if they have a drivers’ license . The quote: John Podesta:  “On the picture ID, the one thing I have thought of in that space is that if you show up on Election Day with a drivers license with a picture, attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.”
Ineligible for consuming Vardenafil Due to its effectiveness and fruit-like taste. http://robertrobb.com/on-tax-conformity-enact-plan-b/ purchase generic levitra The small differences associated with robertrobb.com order viagra online how these Erection dysfunction Medications merely facilitate the procedure. And similar fiscal and operational policies can help the newly-joined ventures viagra sales in uk look and feel more like a single person – someone who’s never even been able to get the best source. You can increase erection buy levitra from canada strength by including beans in your daily diet.

What may be an intentional refusal to update voter registration rolls allows a significant amount of fraud to be perpetuated. A Washington Times examination  of voters who moved out of the Nation’s capital to Prince George County in Maryland found that “The list of voters with names so unusual that there has been only one in the District and one in Prince George’s and who are listed as voting in both jurisdictions in the 2012 election is in the thousands. In an examination of 85, The Times confirmed through interviews and other public records that 15 were in fact the same person…Indeed, the list of Prince George’s voters with unusual names that match those on voter rolls in the District was far longer, at 13,000…The biggest risk of having nonresidents listed on the rolls is not the risk of people voting twice themselves, but of others appropriating their names by the hundreds…They are easy targets for those who would cast votes in other people’s names in bulk, often by absentee ballot, after scanning the list for names of people who hadn’t voted in years and would therefore not show up to hear that their vote already had been cast.”

Roger Vadum, writing in Polizette, notes that “Voter fraud is commonplace in elections in America today. It has always been around to varying degrees because completely eliminating this kind of crime is impossible. The most policymakers can do is create laws and policies that attempt to minimize it. But this is where people on the Right and Left differ. Conservatives think fighting voter fraud is important; liberals and progressives don’t care …The Left promotes voter fraud by fighting electoral integrity laws in the courts, often enjoying great success… some officials are hostile to election observers from nonpartisan good government groups like True the Vote monitoring their polling precincts. The Left labels such attempts to keep elections honest ‘voter intimidation.’

Realclear politics notes that “One of the biggest voter frauds may be that there is no voter fraud, that laws requiring voters to have a photo identification are just attempts to suppress black voting. Reporter John Fund has written three books on voter fraud and a recent survey by Old Dominion University indicates that there are more than a million registered voters who are not citizens, and who therefore are not legally entitled to vote.”

Former Justice Department Attorney J. Christian Adams, with unique and specialized experience in the topic, provides extraordinary evidence.  Among the examples, as reported by Realclearpolitics:

One of these frauds involved sending out absentee ballots to people who had never asked for them. Then a political operator would show up — uninvited — the day the ballots arrived and “help” the voter to fill them out. Sometimes the intruders simply took the ballots, filled them out and forged the signatures of the voters. These were illegal votes for Democrats…As for race-based “voter suppression,” amid all the political hysteria, how many hard facts have you heard? Probably none that supports that claim. Widely available free photo identification cards mean that poverty is no barrier to voting. Since blacks and whites both have to show photo I.D. for everything from cashing checks to getting on a plane, why has requiring a photo I.D. for voting caused such shrill outcries?”

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Election Fraud May Dominate 2020 Campaign

The most contentious issue in the 2020 presidential election may not be illegal immigration, the growing threats from abroad, the federal budget, or any of the other myriad topics that dominate the news. The focus of arguments could be the conduct of the election itself.

 Democrats are attempting to dramatically alter the political landscape by various means, including eliminating most safeguards on illegal registration and voting, and giving felons voting rights.

Democrat opposition to anti-fraud measures such as picture ID has led to past embarrassment. In 2016, even as the party vehemently opposed those seeking to use that concept to combat illegal voting, the DNC required those seeking to gain entry to the floor of its presidential convention in Philadelphia to have such identification.

Current attempts to gain advantage at the ballot box center on legislative initiatives.

The New York State Assembly has introduced a state constitutional amendment that would allow for Election Day registration. Obviously, this allows no time to review actual eligibility to vote.

California has been a center of the pro-fraud movement. The state automatically registers anyone dealing with its Department of Motor Vehicles. The Wall Street Journal reports that the state DMV acknowledges that this has led to incorrectly registered 23,000 voters.  Since California allows illegals to get rivers licenses, that has presented a major threat to ballot integrity. The LA Times reported in April that over one million illegals have been granted drivers licenses.

The use of the controversial concept of “ballot harvesting” has led to major gains for California Democrats. The Independent Voters Network (IVN) describes what happened: “Ballot harvesting was used for the first time in November, and has clearly been advantageous to Democrats… The “minor” change was implemented when Gov. Jerry Brown signed the changes in AB1921 into law two years ago.  Here’s what it changed: In the past, California allowed only relatives or those living in the same household to drop off mail ballots for another voter. Ballot harvesting allows anyone, even a paid political campaign worker, to collect and return ballots — ‘harvesting’ them. In Orange County alone, every House seat went Democratic. The chairman of the county Republican Party, Fred Whitaker, said: ‘…the number of Election Day vote-by-mail dropoffs was unprecedented — over 250,000, this is a direct result of ballot harvesting allowed under California law for the first time. That directly caused the switch from being ahead on election night to losing two weeks later.’

“ In interviews, Speaker Paul Ryan said ballot harvesting ‘defies logic…We were only down 26 seats the night of the election and three weeks later, we lost basically every California race’

“In August, a federal judge in Arizona upheld the ballot harvesting ban in Arizona. HB 2023 makes it a felony for anyone other than a family member, caretaker or postal worker to collect another person’s ballot and turn it in to election officials. Supporters of the measure defend it as a safeguard against potential ballot tampering.Eighteen states have outlawed ballot harvesting, and on the website Ballotpedia, Ballot harvesting is listed under the section ‘Voter Fraud.’”

Allowing a partisan campaigner to collect ballots is an open invitation to fraud.

Another strategy pursued by Democrats to enhance their election chances has been giving convicted felons the right to vote. A study by The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciencefound that the majority of felons register as Democrats.

The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) notes that “ It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently…”                                       

An NCSL study found that:

  • In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. 
  • In 14 states and the District of Columbia, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.
  • In 22 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well. 
If you do begin, then again renew your decision to quit.If you put on weight due to giving up smoking cutting back your alcohol consumption not taking illegal drugs exercising regularly Reducing stress Penis Pumps A vacuum pump generic viagra in stores consists of a clear plastic tube that is connected to a pump, which is either hand or battery operated. Infertility tadalafil 100mg http://www.devensec.com/news/Devens_Open_Space_Plan_Survey_2014.pdf and impotency are urologic disorders as well. The other is that all the branded cialis price canada has to provide ads for getting a sustainable place in the competitive medicine market. Also stress is the second main reason for this issue buying cialis on line in their life not the women.

In 12 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, or face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) before voting rights can be restored.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Inappropriate Campaign Tactics

Presidential elections are generally hard fought, no-holds barred contests. However, several disturbing occurrences in the 2016 campaign have gone far beyond the usual rough and tumble of the quadrennial slugfest.

The initial salvo began even before the start of the campaign season, and has already been widely discussed. The inappropriate opposition of the Democrat Party to common-sense measures to insure the accuracy of voter registration rolls and to verify that only qualified voters actually cast ballots has been clearly documented.

Several new strategies have recently been added.

The GOP has generally been identified as tougher on crime, and in favor of more stringent sentencing. It follows, then, that those on the receiving end of that philosophy have not been favorably disposed towards Republican candidates. That has not placed the GOP at a disadvantage, since convicted felons, under current law in most states, have forfeited their right to vote as a consequence of their misdeeds.

In late April, Terry McAuliffe, Governor of the key swing state of Virginia and a personal friend of Hillary Clinton, announced that he was restoring voting rights of more than 200,000 Virginians who were convicted of felonies such as murder, rape, armed assault and other crimes.  Some analyses indicate that the governor’s restoration would be permitted despite the status of any unpaid fines or restitution requirements. A press release from McAuliffe’s office noted these ex-cons had “served their time and completed any supervised release, parole or probation requirements. Each of those Virginians will immediately regain the right to register to vote, to run for office, to serve on a jury and to serve as a notary public… The Governor implemented his action by signing an order restoring the rights of every Virginia felon who completed his or her sentence and all other requirements as of April 22nd, 2016. The total number of Virginians impacted by the Governor’s order today is 206,000. He also instructed the Secretary of the Commonwealth to prepare a similar order monthly in order to restore the rights of individuals who complete their sentences in the future. Article V, Section 12 of the Constitution of Virginia grants the Governor the authority to “remove political disabilities consequent upon conviction” of a felony.” The governor’s action did not extend to restoring Second Amendment rights.
Be sure to get immediate medical cialis canada no prescription pdxcommercial.com care to address your injuries as well as to discover its possible side effects. The science has invented the medicine that is called generic medicine and this theory has been tablet viagra https://pdxcommercial.com/property/709-w-main-st-molalla-or/ used in the preparation of this herbal product. But, if you side effects cialis are facing erection trouble and need an instant solution, then popping one of the ED pills will definitely support your cause. You can simply visit the store to purchase prescriptions due to their health problems or https://pdxcommercial.com/property/1925-1935-se-powell-blvd-portland-97202/8-2/ buy brand viagra condition.
There has been harsh reaction. A National Review assessment questions whether the Governor can provide a blanket pardon, as opposed to a case-by-case action. The article quotes legal sources claiming that McAuliffe is essentially rewriting the state constitution. An Associated Press (AP) description left no doubt that the purpose of the move had less to do with the rights of released criminals and everything to do with the 2016 election. AP noted that at the announcement, left-wings groups were present, handing out voter registration forms. A BBC article quoted Republican Caucus Chairman Ryan T. McDougle: “Terry McAuliffe wants to ensure that convicted pedophiles, rapists, and domestic abusers can vote for Hillary Clinton.”

The Clinton campaign’s proclivity towards unusual tactics extends beyond enhancing the Democrat base using questionable means.  It is also extending into areas that embrace bare-knuckled politics in innovative ways. A New York Post article found that a “pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC plans to spend $1 million responding to her online ­critics” by deploying “a digital task force” to oppose Clinton opponents online.

The concept of silencing critics of Democrats in general can be seen in other actions, as well. The Obama Administration has engaged in a number of measures that would have a chilling effect on free speech. The latest, outlined in a Fox News report, is a Federal Election Commission move to censure a film maker who produced a movie sharply critical of the Obama Administration. Joel Gilbert, producer of a number of politically-themed independent films, is being targeted under the excuse that his movie, which has no connection to any campaign, should have filed reports to the FEC as though it were part of a campaign.  Interestingly, the FEC has not undertaken similar actions against pro-Democrat works on tv and in movies.

A potentially violent tactic has also been observed, as protestors have taken to blocking roads and streets leading to rally sites used by at least one GOP candidate.