Cruz: Obama Action Same as ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Papers’

Josh Siegel /

Sen. Ted Cruz today described President Obama’s move to shield 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation as essentially the same as counterfeiting.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” the Texas Republican said:

For 4 to 5 million people here illegally, he’s promising to print out and give out work authorizations — essentially, he’s gotten in the job of counterfeiting immigration papers, because there’s no legal authority to do what he’s doing.

Cruz, a vocal critic of Obama’s executive action to grant legal status to millions and make other changes to the immigration system, said the unilateral move tells future presidents they can write their own laws — “whether it’s immigration, whether it’s tax, whether it’s labor, whether it’s environmental.”

>>> What You Need to Know About Obama’s Executive Move on Immigration

In an interview aired today on ABC’s “This Week” that was taped Friday, Obama again countered that Republicans in Congress should pass their own immigration bill that would supersede his plan.

The president didn’t appear fazed by Cruz and other Republicans who have vowed to use a must-pass spending bill to withhold funding needed to carry out Obama’s immigration initiatives.

“There’s often a lot of rhetoric coming out of Congress and in Washington,” Obama said. “But it doesn’t match up to what I think the American people expect.”

The president charged that when House Republicans try to get their way, they prevent other issues from being addressed. He used Obamacare as an example:

What the American people expect is that if we disagree on one thing, then we disagree on that thing. And then we work on everything else. One of the habits that we’ve seen in Congress over the last four years since the House Republicans took over, is that everything becomes hostage to one disagreement.

When “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos mentioned that Republicans have said they don’t want a government shutdown, Obama replied: “Then we shouldn’t have a problem.”

 

House Panel’s Benghazi Report ‘Full of Crap,’ Senator Says - Daily Signal

House Panel’s Benghazi Report ‘Full of Crap,’ Senator Says

Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel /

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., today said a new House committee report on the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi is “full of crap.”

The report by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, two years in the making and released Friday evening, asserts that intelligence and military officials responded appropriately during the attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the House intelligence panel is “doing a lousy job policing their own.”

The bipartisan report by the Republican-led panel also found no cover-ups and no deliberate misconduct by Obama administration officials following the attacks.

>>> No Cover-Up, Intelligence Failure or Military Inaction in Benghazi Attacks,  House Panel Finds

When host Gloria Borger noted that the report found no one lied, Graham replied:

That’s a bunch of garbage. This report puts all the blame on the State Department and absolves the intelligence community.

Graham last week called for creation of a Senate Select Committee on Benghazi, an upper chamber version of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, formed in May and led by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

On the same program, Graham commented on President Obama’s executive action on illegal immigrants and the immigration system. The South Carolina Republican blamed the House for not acting sooner and giving Obama an opening to go it alone.

Graham, who last year helped pass the “Gang of Eight” comprehensive bill in the Senate, criticized the House for not considering that legislation — which many fellow Republicans said was based on amnesty for lawbreakers:

Shame on us as Republicans. Shame on us as Republicans for having a body that cannot generate a solution to an issue that is national security, that’s cultural and it’s economic.

‘Obama’ Rolls Immigration Bill in ‘SNL’ Riff on ‘Schoolhouse Rock!’ - Daily Signal

‘Obama’ Rolls Immigration Bill in ‘SNL’ Riff on ‘Schoolhouse Rock!’

Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel /

“Saturday Night Live” last night mocked President Obama’s executive action to grant legal status to 5 million illegal immigrants by twisting a staple of the TV classic “Schoolhouse Rock!”

In a spoof of that children’s show’s popular “I’m Just a Bill” segment set on Capitol Hill, “SNL” cast member Kenan Thompson explains in song that he’s an immigration bill that hopes to “be a law one day.” But then Jay Pharoah as Obama appears along with a surly, cigarette-smoking character called “executive order” and … well, watch the video.

The clip might be humorous, but the executive overreach of the administration is not,” said Andrew Kloster, a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. “In a Heritage paper,  we outlined many such examples.  But the list of abusive White House actions continues to grow, including most recently, the action on immigration.”

Can the House’s Obamacare Lawsuit Succeed? - Daily Signal

Can the House’s Obamacare Lawsuit Succeed?

Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Elizabeth Slattery /

Last week, the House of Representatives filed a lawsuit in a federal district court in Washington challenging the Obama administration’s unilateral actions that have effectively amended the Affordable Care Act.

Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other Republicans had threatened for several months to sue in an attempt to rein in the Obama administration. From illegal “recess” appointments to the more than 30 waivers of the ACA to the recent executive amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, the administration has given Congress plenty of questionable actions from which to choose.

The House lawsuit targets two actions related to the administration’s failure to comply with the ACA. First, the administration paid an estimated $3 billion in fiscal year 2014 in subsidies to insurance providers for providing cost-sharing reductions to certain policyholders, even though Congress never appropriated funds for these subsidies. Second, the ACA requires that businesses with 50 or more full-time employees provide health insurance or pay a fine for each uncovered employee “beginning after December 31, 2013.” The administration delayed enforcement of this employer mandate until 2015 despite the statutory language.

While the substance of the House’s claims may be meritorious, the district court may rule against the House on procedural grounds if it finds that the House lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. There are three constitutional requirements for standing: an injury-in-fact; that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct; and that is capable of being redressed by a court. The existence of other remedies, such as the power of the purse, censure or impeachment, may make the court hesitant to become involved in this battle between the administration and the House.

The injury is the hardest part for members of Congress to prove, and for that reason, courts often prefer suits brought by private parties because they can show a demonstrable (often economic) injury. For example, it was a bottling company, rather than the Senate, that successfully challenged President Obama’s illegal “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board because the board was adjudicating an unfair labor practice claim made against the bottling company. While courts have ruled against members of Congress who brought “sore loser” suits, such as when six members sued to stop the Line Item Veto Act or when 31 members challenged President Clinton’s involvement of U.S. forces in a NATO airstrike against Yugoslavia, that tide may be turning.

A federal appellate court ruled that Colorado legislators had standing to challenge the state’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights constitutional amendment last April, although the Colorado governor has asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review this decision. The Supreme Court will also hear a case later this term that deals with whether Arizona state legislators have standing to challenge the state’s redistricting commission. Thus, the Supreme Court could issue a decision that has an impact on the House’s standing in its suit.

Although the Obama administration’s rather creative execution of the ACA raises serious constitutional issues, it is too soon to tell if the House’s lawsuit will be dismissed on standing grounds or if a court will reach the merits of the case. In the meantime, both houses of Congress should pursue alternative means to curb the abuses of the administration and repair the damage that is being done to the separation of powers embodied in the Constitution.

Krauthammer Calls Obama’s Executive Action a ‘Gigantic Neon Sign’ Welcoming Illegal Immigrants - Daily Signal

Krauthammer Calls Obama’s Executive Action a ‘Gigantic Neon Sign’ Welcoming Illegal Immigrants

Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Elizabeth Slattery / Video Team /

Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer didn’t mince words when asked about President Obama’s decision to defer deportation of an estimated 5 million illegal immigrants. Watch the minute-long clip, especially the part at 16 seconds when he talks about the “gigantic neon sign on the Rio Grande.”

>>> Read More: Congress Must Check the Power of a President Who Thinks He’s a King

Obama Just Got Punked by the Chinese: They Won’t Honor New Climate Change Deal - Daily Signal

Obama Just Got Punked by the Chinese: They Won’t Honor New Climate Change Deal

Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Elizabeth Slattery / Video Team / Stephen Moore /

That sound you’re hearing from across the Pacific is the Chinese rulers and Beijing laughing at us.

President Obama and the “green” lobby actually think China is going to honor the new U.S.-China climate-change agreement that pushes both nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions over the next 15 years.

China agreed to a “target” of deriving 20 percent of its energy needs from renewable resources “around” 2030. In exchange, Obama agreed that American families and businesses will aim to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025 from 2005 levels.

This is not a planet-saving climate-change pact. Rather, this plan represents unilateral economic disarmament by the United States as Beijing continues its quest to replace America as the globe’s economic superpower.

Raising China’s energy prices by transitioning to highly inefficient forms of electricity production conflicts with Beijing’s strategic mission of economic pre-eminence, and adherence to the agreement is doubly unlikely to happen at a time when the Chinese economy has shown signs of slowing down.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration and the Environmental Protection Agency are deadly serious about strangling U.S. energy security and production with new anti-carbon-dioxide mandates.

That’s what has the Chinese — and most of our other international competitors — dancing a little jig this week.

Thanks to the shale-oil and gas-drilling revolution, the United States is now once again the world’s top petroleum producer. America also has nearly 300 years’ worth of coal. The economy harmed the most by taxing and regulating these energy sources eventually out of existence is that of the United States.

Obama is vowing to advance policies estimated to put hundreds of thousands of blue-collar, mostly unionized American workers out of business. Coal regulations alone could render more than 150,000 coal miners, truck drivers and coal-power plant workers unemployed, Congratulations, Mr. President. What a victory.

The irony of all this is that the United States has already reduced its carbon-dioxide emissions more than any other industrial nation (from 2003 to 2011), thanks to cheap and abundant natural gas. Meanwhile, China’s emissions have skyrocketed.

China is building one coal-burning energy plant nearly every month. The Chinese are trying to figure out how to do fracking so they can get at their oil and gas resources — launching a five-year, $275 billion plan toward the efforts last year. They are importing huge amounts of coal from the United States. They just signed a pipeline deal presently valued at $300 billion with Russian President Vladimir Putin to transport billions of barrels of oil and gas to China.

Does any of this sound like the agenda of a nation that is ready to swear off fossil fuels?

It’s all a ruse, of course. Chinese President Xi Jinping tipped his true intentions with his solemn joint declaration with Obama that China hereby “targets to peak CO2 emissions around 2030, with the intention to try to peak early.” Intends to. Gee, that’s an ironclad promise you can take to the bank.

The greens at groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund are spinning this agreement as a victory for the U.S. economy. Their pitch is that America will now lead the world in renewable energy in the 21st century as we led the world in fossil-fuels development in the first half of the 20th century.

Do they really think we will power a soon-to-be $20 trillion industrial economy with windmills and solar power? Even if solar becomes price-competitive within the next 15 or 20 years, we still need our homegrown fossil fuels.

Europe — in particular, Germany — bought into the renewable energy-green jobs charade a decade ago. Now their economies are cratering because their energy costs have skyrocketed.

That’s the path Obama’s climate-change pact would take us down. It will cripple U.S. industries by force-feeding them expensive electric power. We will displace millions of highly paid U.S. workers in the oil, gas and coal industries. We will increase the cost of electric utilities as well as home-heating costs.

We are ceding our natural competitive advantages to China — in effect transferring millions of jobs outside the United States. That is why the Chinese and the rest of the world are laughing at us.

Originally appeared in the Washington Times.

How Conservatives Can Attack Obama’s Immigration Plan Without Alienating Hispanics - Daily Signal

How Conservatives Can Attack Obama’s Immigration Plan Without Alienating Hispanics

Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Elizabeth Slattery / Video Team / Stephen Moore / Mike Gonzalez /

At stake in the fight over President Obama’s executive action on immigration could be the future voting patterns of Hispanics—not just of the 5 million or so illegal immigrants he expects to legalize, but also the 46 million or so potential voters who are here legally.

If Obama can assimilate all of them into his vision of a new America that accepts greater reliance on public assistance and government interference, then it’s game over for the conservative cause.

This is why it’s crucial for conservatives to do two things that may seem contradictory but are in fact complementary. The first is to fight executive amnesty through all means available. The second is to not allow the issue of illegal immigration to control the Right’s message to Hispanic Americans.

Rhetorically, it should not be hard to fight executive action. There are upward of five videos of the president himself telling crowds (mostly Hispanic, in fact) that it would be illegal for him to act on his own. That Obama has the impudence to do it now and risk putting the country through a damaging constitutional crisis shows he knows how high the stakes are.

Conservatives of all parties must remain united and single-minded in action and message. They should not fall for the Obama trap of passing “a bill that I can sign.” Everyone knows that means a “comprehensive” immigration package—which would suit the president, but not the country.

Appeal to Hispanics Who Immigrated Legally

As conservatives fight adding these 5 million future voters, they must court the other 46 million Hispanics.

Enlisting these Hispanics in the fight for an America of traditional values, intact families and communities, a strong military and a government that’s off our backs and not lying to us is key. It’s also easier than people think.

Consider Kansas as Exhibit A. The Hispanic vote there is certainly not negligible, and growing at 6 percent annually. A tax-cutting Gov. Sam Brownback won this Hispanic vote outright. The president is no doubt aware that the GOP did very well with Hispanics two weeks ago, and doubling down on illegal immigration may be his response.

The GOP improved vastly on Mitt Romney’s 2012 performance among Hispanics, winning 36 percent of the vote against 62 percent for Democrats, according to exit polls. But the numbers are even better than that. If you exclude the non-competitive states of California (where Brown got 76 percent of the Hispanic vote) and New York (where 69 percent voted for Cuomo), the numbers get far better.

In the battleground states of Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada—the states that do count—the GOP did very well. Florida Gov. Rick Scott took a respectable 38 percent of his state’s Hispanic vote, winning Cuban-Americans by a huge margin. In the Cuban districts of Hialeah, Westchester, and Tamiami, he won between 65 percent and 73 percent.

In Nevada, Brian Sandoval won 47 percent of the Hispanic vote. In New Mexico, Susana Martinez seems to have done well. In Colorado, Hispanics constitute 20 percent of the population, and Cory Gardner made a point of reaching out to them. While statewide numbers are not in yet, he pulled about even in heavily Hispanic Pueblo County. Bear in mind that President Obama took 75 percent of the Hispanic vote in Colorado in 2012.

Texas is not exactly a battleground, but the Hispanic vote there is huge. The GOP’s Greg Abbott took 44 percent of the overall Hispanic vote and won Hispanic men outright in the gubernatorial race. And Republican Sen. John Cornyn won the Hispanic vote. Period.

Hispanics Are Not Single-Issue Illegal Immigration Voters

While some of the Democrats’ most ardent Hispanic supporters may have stayed home to punish the president for not using executive action earlier, it is unlikely that such retribution accounts for all these results. In fact, in a Pew survey two weeks ago, illegal immigration ranked only fourth (barely ahead of the Middle East) among issues of concern to Hispanic voters. The three top-ranked issues—education, the economy, and healthcare—are perennial issues that concern all Americans.

Even as they fight the president’s illegal action, conservatives must assiduously communicate with Hispanics, presenting their solutions to all these traditional issues. For example, surveys show that Hispanics love school choice, making it the ultimate wedge issue because leftist teachers unions stand in the way. It’d be a great mistake to limit the conversation to illegal immigration.

Above all, conservatives must not confuse “Hispanics” with “illegal.” Any off-tone comment will be seized upon by the White House and played on Univision all night. Then the president will pose as the champion of all Hispanic Americans and try to ensure that for generations they will vote for policies that will make our country all but unrecognizable.

This is the transformation of our country that conservatives must fight. We are a country of shared experiences, experiences we must share with Hispanics. Those who adhere to traditional values will not be used as shock troops to help Obama “fundamentally transform the United States of America,” as the president promised to do when he was a candidate in 2008.

The stakes are high.

Originally appeared on TheFederalist.com.

You’ve Never Heard of This Legislation. But If Passed, It Would Increase the Welfare State. - Daily Signal

You’ve Never Heard of This Legislation. But If Passed, It Would Increase the Welfare State.

Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Elizabeth Slattery / Video Team / Stephen Moore / Mike Gonzalez / Robert Rector / Romina Boccia /

Before Congress recessed for the midterm elections, lawmakers announced plans to use the current lame-duck session to work on passing a bill called “The Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act.” Supporters describe the bill as a way to eliminate “barriers to work and saving by preventing dollars saved through ABLE accounts from counting against an individual’s eligibility for any federal benefits program.” But what, exactly does that mean?

The ABLE Act (H.R. 647) would effectively eliminate the asset test for many families that receive means-tested welfare assistance. Consequently, it would expand the welfare state.

The purpose of asset tests is to ensure that individuals use their own resources before turning to taxpayers for support. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will cost taxpayers $2.1 billion in just 10 years. Increased eligibility for means-tested welfare assistance accounts for more than half of that cost.

While the upfront cost of the Able Act is not enormous by Washington standards, the precedent of weakened asset limits in multiple welfare programs may well lead to huge costs in the future. Welfare spending did not balloon to nearly $1 trillion dollars annually overnight. It slowly grew via small, incremental expansions of benefits and eligibility like those contained in the ABLE Act.

The ABLE Act targets families with children who qualify for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). It would let them accrue up to $100,000 in savings or gifts, tax-free, while still receiving benefits. It would also eliminate all asset tests for Medicaid, food stamps (SNAP) and other means-tested benefits for disabled children once they become adults.

Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth report notes that Americans in the middle of the wealth distribution own assets worth $45,000. For individuals with more than twice the median wealth to retain eligibility for programs that are intended to relieve poverty seems excessive by comparison.

Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images

Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images

The core problem with the ABLE Act is that it would expand eligibility — and increases the incentives — for families to join a fast-growing and highly problematic cash welfare program: SSI. According to a 2011 Office of the Inspector General report, SSI payments totaling $1.4 billion were issued to 513,300 children who were ineligible.

For years, SSI payments have flowed to families who no longer qualify because the SSA has failed to conduct timely so-called “continuing disability reviews” (CDRs). More than one-third of childhood CDRs are overdue — some by more than 13 years!

Additionally, according to the Government Accountability Office’s Daniel Bertoni: “Accurately diagnosing some types of mental impairments is a complex and often subjective process for (the Social Security Administration), which can sometimes be vulnerable to fraud and abuse.” Around half of SSI child recipients are disabled because of “developmental disorders,” “childhood and adolescent disorders not elsewhere classified,” or “mood disorders.”

The SSI program provides a high level of benefits and is generally combined with aid from several other programs. The typical single unemployed mother with a child on SSI receives a means-tested welfare packet from various programs worth about $25,000 per year. If the mother works at a low-wage job, earning $10,000 per year, the combined value of welfare benefits and post-tax earnings can reach $43,000 per year.

Families with children on SSI are not subject to work requirements. And depending on the state of residency, these families can receive cash benefits that are twice as generous as those offered under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The ABLE Act makes it easier to accrue cash from informal and unreported sources of income, facilitating SSI fraud by enabling welfare recipients to openly accumulate savings from hidden employment.

By restricting ABLE Act eligibility to children with clear clinical conditions like Down syndrome or blindness, and easing the asset test only when children become adults, Congress can mitigate some of the negative consequences of the bill.

Originally appeared in The Washington Times.

Obama’s Next Step: Government Task Force for ‘New Americans’ - Daily Signal

Obama’s Next Step: Government Task Force for ‘New Americans’

Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Elizabeth Slattery / Video Team / Stephen Moore / Mike Gonzalez / Robert Rector / Romina Boccia / Mike Gonzalez /

Fears that President Obama would attempt to assimilate immigrant communities into a new America that entrenches multiculturalism and acceptance of large government—in other words, an America that differs in important ways from the country we once knew—are being sadly confirmed.

The White House on Friday quickly followed the president’s controversial executive order by announcing the formation of a task force that in fact attempts to do just that.

The presidential memorandum states:

Our success as a Nation of immigrants is rooted in our ongoing commitment to welcoming and integrating newcomers into the fabric of our country. It is important that we develop a Federal immigrant integration strategy that is innovative and competitive with those of other industrialized nations and supports mechanisms to ensure that our Nation’s diverse people are contributing to society to their fullest potential.

Therefore, I am establishing a White House Task Force on New Americans, an interagency effort to identify and support State and local efforts at integration that are working and to consider how to expand and replicate successful models. The Task Force, which will engage with community, business, and faith leaders, as well as State and local elected officials, will help determine additional steps the Federal Government can take to ensure its programs and policies are serving diverse communities that include new Americans.

The insistence on diversity is not happenstance. The president clearly does not seek E Pluribus Unum, but to entrench the balkanized America and the “minority vs. majority” discourse that has governed the nation’s thinking since the 1970s.

Prior to that, and for 300 years, America had taken in multiple waves of immigrants and molded them into one nation. They persevered, proved they were as good–if not better–than the previous waves, and found successful balances between honoring the countries of their ancestry and loving their new nation.

This tradition was abandoned when the federal bureaucracy in the late 1970s crammed immigrants of disparate cultures, races and profiles into two “ethnic” groups—Hispanics and Asians. They were added to African-Americans and Native Americans to form four official “minority” groups that would benefit from affirmative action and other benefits, being conditioned from the moment they set foot in this country to view government as a benevolent provider. Prior to that and for 300 years, immigrants did not need the federal government to apportion their degree of participation in society.

A national effort to figure out how to return to our tradition of assimilation is a worthy endeavor. It will have to be part of the policy of a future president who respects (and likes) both the Constitution and our traditions. There are no chances this can happen under Barack Obama. The mention in the memorandum of diversity and tracking what other industrialized countries are doing makes clear that remaking America is what’s in store.

I predicted in a piece in The Federalist only three days before the executive action announcement that these were President Obama’s aims, when I wrote,

At stake in the fight over President Obama’s executive action on immigration could be the future voting patterns of Hispanics—not just of the five million or so illegal immigrants he expects to legalize, but also the 46 million or so potential voters who are here legally. If he can assimilate all of them into his vision of a new America that accepts greater reliance on public assistance and government interference, then it’s game over for the conservative cause.

I take, however, little comfort in being proven right. The time now is for action. Conservatives have to be of one mind as they fight these actions because the stakes are high. The steps for them to take are clear:

Obama himself said as a candidate in 2008 that his intention was to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” It’s time we take him at his word.

Net Neutrality Advocate Al Franken Rakes in Cash From Cable Giant - Daily Signal

Net Neutrality Advocate Al Franken Rakes in Cash From Cable Giant

Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Josh Siegel / Elizabeth Slattery / Video Team / Stephen Moore / Mike Gonzalez / Robert Rector / Romina Boccia / Mike Gonzalez / Yaël Ossowski /

U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has made his name in the latter part of his first term as a crusader for net neutrality and a critic of billion-dollar mergers of multimedia companies.

And while his ire has been focused on Comcast, the nation’s second-largest media conglomerate, he’s been raking in cash from competitor Time Warner Cable, the third largest, according to profits.

Since 2009, Franken has received $33,450 from lobbyists for Time-Warner, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit dedicated to tracking political spending.

In his many speeches on the Senate floor and in committee hearings on the issue of regulating the Internet and barring mergers between large media firms, Franken has consistently criticized Comcast’s proposed merger with Time Warner.

>>> Obama’s Plan for a Backdoor Internet Tax

Franken’s press office denied such donations influenced his decisions on the Senate floor.

“Senator Franken is grateful for the support he receives, but when making policy decisions, he always does what he thinks is best for Minnesotans regardless of who has donated,” said Franken spokesman Michael Dale-Stein.

Franken has been an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama’s statements advocating a plan to introduce net neutrality and reclassify Internet broadband as a public utility.

“I welcome today’s news that President Obama is pressing the FCC to maintain a free and open Internet. He joins a chorus of more than 3.5 million Americans who have told the FCC that killing net neutrality is a terrible idea and who strongly believe a very simple principle: There shouldn’t be one Internet for deep-pocketed corporations and a separate Internet for everyone else,” he said in a recent statement on his website.

Franken’s biggest donor is Susman Godfrey, one of the largest antitrust law firms in the country. It has given Frank nearly $80,000 since he was sworn in after a tough election battle in 2008 with former Sen. Norm Coleman.

Read more at Watchdog.org.