Proof Voters Are Smarter Than Media and Washington Elite – Chuck Norris – Townhall Conservative

Proof Voters Are Smarter Than Media and Washington Elite – Chuck Norris – Townhall Conservative.

I think the mainstream media and Washington elite think the majority of voters just fell off the turnip truck. But the South Carolina primary and other current voting trends show otherwise.

The MSM are working double time to get us to forget about the unprecedented results of the South Carolina primary, but they are a sign of what could be in Florida, Nevada and beyond. They are also proof that American citizens will not be outwitted by the political shenanigans of the powers that be. Let me give you a few examples.

Despite the fact that ABC paraded Newt Gingrich‘s bitter ex-wife across its airwaves two nights before the South Carolina primary, Newt won women’s votes 36-30 percent over Mitt Romney. And married women and evangelical women both backed Gingrich with 40 percent support.

Despite (or maybe on account of) Mitt’s creation of Romneycare in Massachusetts and promises for Social Security’s perpetuity, Newt gained 47 percent of the vote (to Mitt’s 36 percent) among those 65 or older.

Despite the MSM’s attempt to convey Newt as old and outdated, he received 27 percent of votes from those between 18 and 29 years old, only being beaten by Ron Paul’s 32 percent.

Despite the MSM and Washington elite’s campaign to convey that Newt would be dangerous to the country and world, 39 percent of U.S. veterans voted for Newt, compared with 32 percent for Romney.

Despite Romney’s spending millions on ads in South Carolina to convince voters that Newt is an ethically compromised Washington insider, Newt won 45 percent of the votes from very conservative voters, while Rick Santorum and Romney trailed with 23 and 20 percent, respectively.

Despite the MSM’s pro-Romney coverage and six years of Romney’s campaigning, Newt stole 31 percent of moderates’ votes from the Massachusetts moderate.

Despite Romney’s often-flaunted business credentials, 8 in 10 voters who said they were very worried about the direction of the economy also voted for Newt.

Despite the fact that 120 evangelical leaders met recently in Texas and claimed to have come to a consensus backing Santorum, the initial vote of those leaders split almost evenly between Santorum and Newt, 57-48, according to CBN News’ chief political correspondent. I don’t think it’s coincidental that a similar amount, 45 percent, of evangelicals also voted for Newt in his landslide South Carolina victory. Forty-five percent of pro-lifers also voted for Newt, compared with just 21 percent for Romney.

Even in Florida, Newt’s popularity is evident by the sizes of his audiences. Despite the fact that Washington heavyweights John McCain and Bob Dole have come out to endorse Romney — in a drive that The Boston Globe described as “GOP insiders (rising) up to cut Gingrich down to size” — the Los Angeles Times reported this past week that “Newt Gingrich (is) winning the crowd contest in Florida.”

And despite the fact that Romney and his cronies have and will spend millions more dollars in Florida and Nevada to perforate Newt’s character and record again — according to Newsmax, in Florida 20 times more money has been spent for Romney than has been spent there in support of any other Republican candidate — I believe that voters will be neither bought by his money nor directed by his political spin and rhetoric, just as those in South Carolina didn’t fall for the fool’s gold.

More proof came this past week via the triple-gang of the MSM, Romney and Washington elite. They all pounced again on Newt, claiming he is not a Reagan conservative. But they were discounted again, as former President Ronald Reagan‘s eldest son, Mike, who also has endorsed Newt, joined radio talk show legend Rush Limbaugh by lambasting Newt’s critics. Mike said, “I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.” And Limbaugh added, “That kind of stuff is why people hate Romney so much.”

Newsmax reported that in a 1995 speech at a dinner honoring Reagan, former first lady Nancy Reagan said: “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.”

There’s a reason 34 percent of those who voted for Newt in South Carolina said they “strongly supported” the tea party, dispelling another MSM myth (or is that a wish?) that the tea party’s influence has dwindled. Thirty-one percent of independents also voted for Newt.

To the naysayers of Newt, these words from Theodore Roosevelt are appropriate: “It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause, who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”

I think it’s time again that “we the people” showed the media and Washington elite exactly who is in charge.

South Carolinians were not duped by the titans of political swing.

Floridian and Nevadan patriots, don’t you let them manipulate and muscle your votes, either.


An Open Letter to Rick Santorum supporters – Tea Party Nation


Česky: Oficiální portrét amerického prezidenta...

Image via Wikipedia

An Open Letter to Rick Santorum supporters – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

The time has come for hard decisions and now each of you needs to make that hard decision.


I understand why you like Santorum.   He’s a decent guy.  What he did in Iowa was nothing short of incredible.  Unfortunately for him the game is now over.


Right now, Rick Santorum is in a distant fourth place.  He will not be able to continue after South Carolina


His race is over.


If you support Santorum, it says something about you.  It says you are conservative.  If you are a conservative, you want to see the Republican Party nominate a conservative and if you are a conservative, you agree Mitt Romney is not a conservative.  He is a liberal.


Santorum can no longer win the race.  There are a number of states where he is not even on the ballot and even some states where he is on the ballot but has no slate of delegates.    In other words, no matter what, he cannot win.


By staying in the race, all Rick Santorum does at this point is to divide the conservative vote.   This has been the Mitt Romney strategy all along.  See the conservative vote divided and shattered so that by the time conservatives can unite behind one candidate, it is too late.


The question each and every Santorum supporter has to ask themselves today is, if I vote for Rick Santorum in South Carolina, what will that vote mean? 


The painful answer to that question is, all it will mean is a greater chance that Mitt Romney will be the nominee. 


Rick Santorum has run a good race.   Rick Santorum’s life in public service is not over, but he will not be President this year.  The only candidate left now, with any chance of becoming the Republican nominee are Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.


Mitt Romney is a northeastern liberal.  The Republican Party is the party of Reagan, not the party of socialism.  The Republican Party is the party of conservatism, not the party of tax, borrow and spend liberalism.   The Republican Party is the party of freedom and liberty and not the party of having the government run our lives. 


If you are a conservative, you must agree that Mitt Romney is not a conservative and must be stopped from getting the Republican nomination.


The only candidate left who can stop him is Newt Gingrich.  Do not let Mitt Romney continue to divide the conservative movement just so he can become President and destroy what Ronald Reagan and our founding fathers stood for.


Join me and support Newt Gingrich for President.  Join me in voting for Newt Gingrich in the Republican Primary for President. 


Join me and let’s stop a liberal from destroying the Party of Reagan.

Voter ID Prevents Election Fraud –

Voter ID Prevents Election Fraud –

Last night’s nail-biter in Iowa marked the beginning of election year 2012. And with Americans heading to the polls — next in New Hampshire, then South Carolina and beyond — they will hope to rely on the integrity of the election system to ensure that every legitimate vote counts and that fraud is not the deciding factor on the local, state or national level.

Unfortunately, despite all the technological advances in our modern democracy, voter fraud still occurs, and yet there is still resistance to one very simple tool that could help eradicate it — voter ID. Some, like The New York Times, say that voting fraud is a myth, that “there is almost no voting fraud in America.” But as Heritage senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky explains, voter fraud is all too common in America today:

The fraud denialists also must have missed the recent news coverage of the double voters in North Carolina and the fraudster in Tunica County, Miss. — a member of the NAACP’s local executive committee — who was sentenced in April to five years in prison for voting in the names of ten voters, including four who were deceased.

And the story of the former deputy chief of staff for Washington mayor Vincent Gray, who was forced to resign after news broke that she had voted illegally in the District of Columbia even though she was a Maryland resident. Perhaps they would like a copy of an order from a federal immigration court in Florida on a Cuban immigrant who came to the U.S. in April 2004 and promptly registered and voted in the November election.

Even former liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agrees. Stevens wrote in a 6-3 majority opinion upholding an Indiana voter ID law: “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Given the incidence of voter fraud — and the simplicity of requiring voters to present a valid ID in order to be able to vote — it’s not surprising that 70 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that voters “should be required to show photo identification such as a driver’s license before being allowed to cast their ballot,” according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Meanwhile, only 22 percent of Americans are opposed to the requirement.

Despite the fraud — and the support for voter ID measures — Attorney General Eric Holder intends to examine new state voter ID laws for potential racial bias. Von Spakovsky writes that the allegations of bias are baseless, and there is evidence to prove it. In Georgia, which enacted a photo ID law before the 2008 election, the number of African American voters increased after the new law went into effect. “According to Census Bureau surveys,” von Spakovsky writes, “65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.”

On top of all that, the number of people who don’t already have a photo ID is incredibly small. An American University survey in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID, and a 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only “23 people in the entire sample–less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters” were unable to vote because of an ID requirement. What about those who don’t have photo IDs? Von Spakovsky notes that “every state that has passed a voter ID law has also ensured that the very small percentage of individuals who do not have a photo ID can easily obtain one for free if they cannot afford one.”

The American people value the integrity of their elections, and they overwhelmingly support voter ID requirements to make sure that Election Day is as fair, honest, and legal as possible. Still, though, there is resistance and predictions of massive disenfranchisement if voter ID laws continue to be implemented. The evidence, however, proves otherwise.

Holder’s Race-Baiting is about Obama’s Re-Election, Not Voting Rights – Ken Blackwell – Townhall Conservative

Holder’s Race-Baiting is about Obama’s Re-Election, Not Voting Rights – Ken Blackwell – Townhall Conservative.

Editor’s Note: This column was co-authored by Ken Klukowski

Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an all-out war on voter-ID laws and other measures to safeguard to the electoral process. Although Holder’s actions are purportedly to prevent African-Americans from being disenfranchised, the reality is that they serve the crass political purpose of ensuring that Holder’s boss gets reelected next year.

In the past several years states have increasingly focused on measures to protect the vote. After years of the federal government loosening voting regulations, such as through the Motor Voter Act and HAVA (Help America Vote Act), the pendulum started swinging back at the state level.

The clearest example of this trend is through voter-ID laws. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s landmark law requiring citizens to show that they are the person they claim to be by showing government-issued ID before casting a ballot. But to ensure that those without driver’s licenses or passports are not disenfranchised, Indiana provides free ID’s to everyone who applies for one. The Court upheld this law, with the primary opinion written by no one less than liberal lion Justice John Paul Stevens.

Such laws combat voter fraud that we see on Election Day, especially in certain parts of the nation. In Washington State, King County suddenly “discovered” enough previously “unnoticed” votes for Democrat Christine Gregoire to edge out Republican Dino Rossi for Washington’s governorship in 2004. There are also examples from Wisconsin, Missouri, and other states.

Yet Holder has blocked South Carolina’s voter-ID law. DOJ argues that this law is different from Indiana’s because South Carolina is subject to additional federal oversight under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (This is especially important because there are several federal cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 5.)

But the reality is that DOJ’s actions are not focused on protecting voting rights. They are instead intended to make sure that Barack Obama wins reelection.

It’s not cynical to say this. The twelve or so battleground states that will decide the 2012 presidential election suggest Obama’s reelection strategy. These states include Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri. All these states have large African-American populations.

The African-American community has a staggeringly-high unemployment rate under President Obama. So Black Americans will not vote for this president because of any prosperity he’s brought to that community. Instead, he has to gin up their votes by painting a picture of racial conflict in which he—and the governmental agency dealsing with such things, DOJ—is their champion.

This is also seen in Holder’s incessant playing of the race card. First he says we’re a nation of cowards about race. Now that he’s on the ropes for DOJ’s scandalous Operation Fast and Furious gun-running scandal into Mexico, he has the audacity to say that he and President Obama are being attacked in part because they’re both African-Americans.

Voting is a fundamental right. It is the means by which “We the People” consent to be governed for a fixed period of time by certain individuals, by electing them as stewards of governmental power. They wield this power to secure our rights as set forth in the U.S. Constitution and (for state officials) the constitutions of the fifty states.

But there is another voting right. It is the right not to have your legal vote diluted by fraudulent votes. As we explain in our Yale Law & Policy Review article “The Other Voting Right,” every invalid vote cancels out one valid vote. Each such cancellation undermines our democratic republic and reduces the legitimacy of election results.

Voting is also unique in that it might be the only right that is also a duty. It’s not too much to ask for citizens to exert a minimal amount of effort to fulfill reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the electoral process.

Every eligible citizen has a duty to vote. But as we explain in our book Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America, it is a duty to cast an informed vote. Although there are only so many hours in the day, we each need to make an effort to gather enough information to understand the major issues facing our nation, state, and community, and to carefully vote for candidates who offer the best solutions for our long-term safety and prosperity.

Because voting is a duty, and also because every voter has the right to ensure their valid vote is not diluted by fraudulent votes, citizens can be expected to fulfill certain requirements that would not be justified when exercising other rights, such as free speech or the free exercise of religion. Measures such as showing up at the correct place on the correct day to cast a ballot under the watchful eyes of trained precinct personnel are examples of fulfilling our duty, as is showing valid ID to prove that you are the person listed on that precinct’s voter rolls.

These measures are essential to our self-governing republic. As examples the world over show, losing the integrity of the electoral process is a mistake a free people often get to make only once.

The party of voter fraud strikes again. – Tea Party Nation

The party of voter fraud strikes again. – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

The efforts of the Obama regime to steal the 2012 election have kicked into full swing.  Many states have passed laws to require ID to vote.  Of course, the Obama regime needs voter fraud in order to win, so they are fighting voter ID laws tooth and nail.

 From Fox News:

 The Justice Department on Friday rejected South Carolina’s law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, saying it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. It was the first voter ID law to be refused by the Obama administration.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said South Carolina’s law didn’t meet the burden under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which outlawed discriminatory practices preventing blacks from voting. Perez said tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina might not be able to cast ballots under South Carolina’s law because they don’t have the right photo ID.

 South Carolina’s new voter ID law requires people casting ballots to show poll workers a state-issued driver’s license or ID card; a U.S. military ID or a U.S. passport.

South Carolina is among five states that passed laws this year requiring some form of ID at the polls, while such laws were already on the books in Indiana and Georgia, whose law received approval from President George W. Bush’s Justice Department. Indiana’s law, passed in 2005, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008.

Those new laws also allow voters without the required photo ID to cast provisional ballots, but the voters must return to a specific location with that ID within a certain time limit for their ballots to count.

You cannot board an airplane, open a bank account, receive government benefits, even enter some government building, or buy alcohol without a proper ID.

Funny, the Obama regime and the party of voter fraud does not have a problem with any of those issues.  It is only when the party of voter fraud needs to steal elections is this idea that ID is required becomes suddenly onerous. 

If the Obama regime thinks it is discriminatory for people to be required to show ID’s to vote, how about we all go to the airport and claim discrimination when the TSA wants to see an ID before boarding an airplane.

KNIGHT: Left’s war on legal immigration and voter integrity – Washington Times

KNIGHT: Left’s war on legal immigration and voter integrity – Washington Times.

Democrats hope to make hay – and votes – from the mayhem


By Robert Knight – The Washington Times

On Oct. 14, a federal judge blocked key portions of Alabama’s new immigration law after several groups, including the Obama Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), asked for an injunction. The Justice Department claims that states that assist in enforcing federal immigration laws are violating the constitutional separation of powers.

Really? If that’s so, I wonder if state police in Alabama are barred from arresting someone trying to pass counterfeit $100 bills because our currency is federal. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.” It doesn’t say anything about state troopers.

Likewise, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” State police arresting illegal aliens have nothing to do with deciding who can be naturalized.

“Does it really cause harm to the United States when a state informs the federal government of persons who are in violation of federal law and then leaves it to the federal government to decide whether to initiate deportation proceedings?” Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange wrote in the state’s response.

The attitude of U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s Justice Department in suing Alabama and Arizona and threatening to sue Indiana, is, “We’re not going to enforce the law, and you can’t, either, no matter what impact this is having on your state. And, we’re going to pitch the idea to Hispanics that only racists would want immigration laws enforced. By the way, here are directions in Spanish to your local polling place.”

It should be noted that a great many Hispanic Americans want border enforcement.

Aiding and abetting, as usual, is the ACLU, which seems to develop a nervous tic at the very thought of American sovereignty and has sued several other states over their immigration laws, including Georgia and South Carolina.

The ACLU’s immigrants rights Web page declares: “No human being is illegal.”

Well, of course no human being is illegal. This is nonsense – a straw-man argument. People are not illegal, just their actions are, such as entering the country illegally or knowingly employing someone who is here illegally.

The page states: “For more than twenty years, the Project has been … focusing on challenging laws that deny immigrants’ access to the courts, impose indefinite and mandatory detention and discriminate on the basis of nationality.”

Well, it’s true that illegal immigrants are entitled to fair treatment and due process. As the Bible admonishes, “Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were once aliens in Egypt.” (Deuteronomy. 10:19) However, stretching this to justify mass illegal immigration is, well, a stretch. If Israel interpreted it that way, it would shortly no longer exist. Neither would the United States of America.

Think about that last phrase in the ACLU’s statement – “discriminate on the basis of nationality.” Every nation discriminates between its own citizens and other people. Abolishing this distinction would mean that U.S. citizenship would be dead.

This is the legal equivalent of open borders. It also would turn legal immigration into a cruel joke, in which people who play by the rules are last in line.

The ACLU also has declared war on states trying to ensure that the people pulling levers at the ballot box are qualified and are whom they claim to be. The ACLU has threatened to file a lawsuit against a proposed Ohio photo-ID voting law and is suing to block a Missouri ballot amendment that would tighten voter ID.

The recently defunct ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), prosecuted in multiple states on voter-fraud charges, is ramping up under new guises.

Against obvious voter fraud like Al Franken’s car-trunk ballots in Minnesota in 2008 as well as the typically vigorous turnout from cemeteries in Chicago and other large cities, Republican legislators are trying to even the playing field or at least keep it from resembling the Dawn of the Dead.

Leftists claim that photo-ID requirements are akin to poll taxes and Jim Crow. Why? Because voters will have to purchase a photo or have a valid driver’s license or other photo ID. Georgia authorized free photo IDs, but that has not stopped the overheated accusers, who have stopped just short of calling it a form of lynching.

Not all Democrats have fallen for the demagoguery. Former Rep. Artur Davis, Alabama Democrat, wrote in the Montgomery Advertiser on Oct. 17, “I’ve changed my mind on voter ID laws – I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one – and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office. When I was a congressman, I took the path of least resistance on this subject for an African-American politician. Without any evidence to back it up, I lapsed into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists who contend that requiring photo identification to vote is a suppression tactic aimed at thwarting black voter participation. … it is chilling to see the intimidation tactics brought to bear on African-American, Democratic legislators in Rhode Island who had the nerve to support a voter ID law in that very liberal state.”

The left thrives on voter fraud, illegal immigration, billions in taxpayer money to cronies (Solyndra, etc.) and a “mainstream media” that look the other way.

The good news is that independents have had about enough. And the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations are supposed to rally President Obama’s base, but their base behavior is alienating millions. The New York Times and CBS won’t show the vandalism and the obscenity-laced signs and banners, but they’re available on the Internet.

With Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other liberals egging them on, the drugged-up demonstrators are becoming poster children for the Democrats’ metastasizing lawlessness. Are they to become the face of that once great political party?

Make a mess in the public square? “Yes, we can!” Obey the law? “No, we won’t!”

Robert Knight is a senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times.

SCOTT: Pivoting to jobs, Mr. Obama? – Washington Times

SCOTT: Pivoting to jobs, Mr. Obama? – Washington Times.

Start by not killing them in my district

Rep. Tim Scott

Since the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided to sue the Boeing Co. for opening a new assembly line in my hometown of North Charleston, S.C., countless people have approached me regarding the situation. I want to share three numbers that go a long way toward showing what is threatening jobs – not just in South Carolina, but across our country.

c $60.7 million: The president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) stated in May 2009, “We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama – $60.7 million to be exact – and we’re proud of it.”

c 6.9 percent: The percentage of our nation’s private-sector work force that belonged to a union in 2010.

c 11,000: The number of direct and indirect jobs the presidentially appointed NLRB is threatening to kill by suing Boeing in a misguided attempt to protect Big Labor.

If you are like me, you look at the numbers above and shake your head. Despite dwindling numbers, Big Labor drives a significant portion of work-force politics and policy decisions in our nation. Labor leaders are able to do so through a well-honed system of influencing workers and requiring many workers to accept membership in a union as a condition of employment, with fees ranging up to $800 annually. This amounts to more than $8 billion in membership dues annually in the private sector alone. Yet only 10 percent of current union employees voted to unionize in their workplace.

Since the era characterized by union boss Johnny Friendly in the 1950s classic film “On the Waterfront,” unions have resorted to various pressure tactics to influence the work force. Today, union leaders continue to seek far-reaching changes in the law to help them keep up the pressure. In fact, union-sponsored card-check legislation sought to eliminate union elections altogether. If a couple of union members could obtain your signature on a piece of paper, it counted as a vote, eliminating the need to hold an actual election. Thankfully, this legislation failed before Congress.

Now, to level the playing field for all workers, I have introduced the Employee Rights Act. This is not anti-union legislation but a mechanism to ensure that all workers have the ability to make their voices and opinions heard.

First and most important, the Employee Rights Act would give employees the right to a federally supervised secret-ballot election when deciding whether or not to join a union, and it would require a majority of all employees represented by the union, regardless of union membership, to approve a collective-bargaining agreement or a strike via a secret-ballot election prior to union leaders ordering one. By mandating secret ballots for these two scenarios, we can protect workers from intimidation and threats, which so often taint the process.

The bill also would require unions to stand for re-election every three years, as opposed to the current system, which all but guarantees the union forever. As proof of how hard it is to remove a union, 593 attempts to do so were processed by the NLRB in 2009 with fewer than half even receiving a vote and many being abandoned because of intimidation by union leaders.

This issue has gained added importance following the NLRB’s recently proposed rule that would allow union elections to be certified in as little as 10 days. Employees deserve more than 10 days to have their future and the future of prospective employees decided. The Employee Rights Act addresses this by requiring at least 40 days for election certification, which is the current average processing time.

Finally, my legislation also would give employees more power over how their dues were spent in support of political parties and advocacy organizations. Despite polls in 2010 showing union membership is 42 percent Republican, 93 percent of union contributions go to Democrats. Employees who don’t want their dues spent on political contributions are forced to undergo an onerous process to receive a refund. The act would change this so employees would need to opt-in in order for their dues to be used in this way.

Every one of these measures has polled at higher than 60 percent favorable this year and would ensure all workers’ voices were heard. We cannot allow Big Labor to drive policy, and we cannot allow more situations like the current NLRB case in South Carolina to occur. This legislation would go a long way toward remedying both.

Rep. Tim Scott is a South Carolina Republican.