Search results for the tag, "American Conservative Union"

October 12th, 2006

Vote Yes on Amendment 39

A version of this blog post appeared as an action alert for the American Conservative Union.

Conservatives in Colorado haven’t had much to cheer about recently. Amendment 39 changes that prospect.

For too long, the only demand of education funding has been more money. Indeed, owing to Amendment 23, Colorado taxpayers have seen their public education costs rise to record levels every year.

Amendment 39 reverses this trend to “more education for more money” by implementing what columnist George Will calls the 65% solution. Simply put, this program will ensure that 65% of K-12 public school funding reaches Colorado’s classrooms, teachers and students, rather than lining the coffers of bloated bureaucracies.

Like all good legislation, Amendment 39 reprioritizes expenditures instead of raising taxes. Amendment 39 is also flexible, phased-in and allows a governor to grant a waiver if a school district has a legitimate reason why 65% cannot be reached, such as rural transportation costs.

While this reform should be implemented nationally, it’s particularly important in Colorado. For only 58 cents of every education dollar currently reaches the state’s classrooms, making them the 47th least-funded in the country.

No wonder fellow conservatives from around the country are promoting the 65% solution for their states. Texas Governor Rick Perry of Texas and Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue have implemented it, while gubernatorial candidates Dick Devos (MI), Ken Blackwell (OH), Mark Green (WI), Charlie Crist (FL) and your own Bob Beauprez have all endorsed it.

So do your part for Colorado taxpayers, parents and students. Make classroom instruction Colorado’s first priority in education by voting yes on Amendment 39 in November.

Learn more here.

October 1st, 2006

Securing Our Ballot Boxes Is As Important As Securing Our Borders

A version of this blog post appeared as an action alert for the American Conservative Union.

We all know the drill. In purchasing alcohol or tobacco, cashing a check or boarding a plane, you need a picture ID. No ID; no dice. The routine is uncontroversial and commonsensical.

But did you know that in order to vote in a national election—in order to exercise that most elemental aspect of democracy for which America’s founders waged a revolution—you need not show proof of identification?

And if you need not show proof of identification, you need not show proof of citizenship. Even Mexico recognizes the injustice, insecurity and fraud this system encourages, and so requires voters to—gasp!—present a picture of themselves when voting

Why, then, doesn’t the United States require the same?

As the editors of National Review have observed, as long as we rely on nothing more than the honor system, we are effectively inviting the 12 million illegals already here to influence the American political process. Does not the sanctity of the ballot box warrant as much protection as boarding a 747?

Thankfully, Congress has taken up this long-overdue cause, and earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 (HR 4844).

The bill proposes two modest requirements: (1) proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, and (2) photo identification when voting. By the November 2008 election, states must check for such IDs, and by November 2010, the only valid IDs will be those issued on the basis of citizenship.

A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that 81% of the American people favor an ID requirement for voting. In another poll by Rasmussen, 77% of likely voters agreed that a photo ID should be required to cast a vote. Indeed, 24 states already require voters to present some form of identification when voting, and seven require that ID to include a headshot.

Yet since the courts have overturned some of these regulations—in Georgia, for instance—the time has come for a uniform federal standard.

So, using the below form, please e-mail your senators and urge them to pass this eminently prudent, embarrassingly overdue, and admirably taut legislation.

Don’t let your vote be offset by someone who has no right to vote here in the first place. Tell your senators to pass HR 4844 today.

October 1st, 2006

Cable Companies Should Compete for Consumers, Not Politicians

A version of this blog post appeared as an action alert for the American Conservative Union.

E-mail Sent to Members

First they came for the Internet, which they wanted to smother with innovation-stifling regulations. Now they’re after your TV, which they want to keep in the clutch of a select few companies, rather than open the field to competition.

“They,” of course, are far-left groups like, and their goal is as predictable as it is destructive: replace the American system of free enterprise with a Washington maze of congressional committees, federal agencies, and unaccountable bureaucrats.

So far, groups like ACU have prevented a government takeover of the Internet. But we need your help to ensure that freedom also prevails with respect to your television.

Here’s the rub. For too long, cable companies have lobbied for and then hid behind arcane red tape that makes it prohibitive for start-ups to enter the market. ACU, however, believes that companies should rise or fall on the basis of their goods and services, not their connections to politicians. We trust the judgment of consumers, not regulators.

If we succeed, consumers will benefit from more channels, lower bills, improved customer service, and superior technology.

To make these dreams a reality, please e-mail your senators—using the form below—and ask them to support the Advanced Communications Act (HR 5252). Tell them that TV shouldn’t can’t be held hostage by those who think the best way to harness the genius of the American people is by yoking us to a governmental chain. We must not let those who believe in Big Government panaceas dictate what our elected officials hear on this issue.

E-mail Prepared for Members

Dear Senator,

I am writing to urge you to support HR 5252, the Advanced Communications Act, and to defeat any amendments that would open the Pandora’s box of government regulation of the Internet.

The Internet has and continues to flourish because it has been allowed to grow free of government control. For the same reason, cable service progresses at a snail’s pace because of government control.

For years, cable companies have hid behind arcane regulations that make it prohibitive for competitors to enter the market. While some (like seek to sustain this undemocratic status quo, I believe we should introduce the cable services market to the American system of free enterprise. It is time that TV watchers enjoy the manifold benefits of competition.

For instance, cable competition will foster more channels (01 will become 001); lower bills (in communities where competition exists, prices have fallen by at least 20 percent); better customer service (who hasn’t spent hours waiting at home for the repairman or on the phone with an operator?); and superior technology (think digital is cutting-edge? just wait).

History shows that free and open markets have made America’s markets the envy of the world. Let’s keep it that way.