Editor's Blog

Dear Senator Ruben: In your most recent mailing, you invite us to “Check the facts” about Jamie Raskin’s record on three issues you identify. I want to thank you for that invitation. As citizens, it is incumbent upon us to be informed voters and know about what each candidate stands for, their character and their record. I was so concerned with the points you raised about Mr. Raskin, I was motivated to do just as you suggested, to check the facts. I want to thank you for inspiring the voters to delve into who the candidates are.

So I checked out each of your three issues concerning Mr. Raskin. Here is what I found:

1. In the National Committee of the Reform Party of the USA et al v. Democratic National Committee, et al, Mr. Raskin challenged the practice of large corporations funneling “soft money” contributions into the political parties, a practice that was later banned in the McCain-Feingold legislation. Do you support McCain-Feingold, Senator Ruben? I also learned that in this case, Mr. Raskin challenged restrictions on President Clinton’s powers to freely appoint members to the Federal Election Commission, restrictions that forced him to name registered Republicans to the Commission. The position Mr. Raskin was defending was that Congress cannot interfere with the president’s “appointments power” to choose the best person for an executive branch position by imposing on him unlawful political party affiliation requirements.

Am I to conclude Senator Ruben that you do not support the McCain-Feingold legislation and encourage large corporations to funnel soft money contributions into political parties? Mr. Raskin not only supports the McCain-Feingold legislation but his victory in the courtroom helped create the legislation. Mr. Raskin, used this case to defend the right of a President to select his own appointments without interference by Congress. Am I further to conclude that you support Congress’ micromanagement of the office of the President’s appointment powers? What would happen if we have a Democratic president and a Republican-controlled Congress? You announce in your mailing of Mr. Raskin that “he’s not even a real Democrat”. In light of Mr. Raskin’s efforts to limit corporate contributions to political parties and his defense of the autonomy of the office of the President, who is the “real Democrat” now?

2. In the Perot et al v. FEC case, Mr. Raskin, an open Clinton supporter, was apparently approached by Ross Perot to defend his right to be included in national debates. Mr. Raskin, in his capacity as a constitutional lawyer, agreed to defend this right. Bill Clinton supported Mr. Perot’s right to be included in the debate but apparently Bob Dole didn’t. Thus, Mr. Raskin agreed to take the case on the grounds that since large corporations were funding the debate, excluding a bone fide candidate constituted illegal contributions by the corporations. The merits of the case are readily available.
Mr. Raskin, as you allege, did not “support” a third party candidate like conservative Ross Perot. You have grossly misrepresented and seemingly deliberately misused the word “support”. He was hired by Mr. Perot to defend his right to participate in the debates, he did not “support” Mr. Perot’s candidacy and therefore could not have, as you say, “work against Bill Clinton and Al Gore, helping put George W. Bush into office through his support of third party candidates like conservative Ross Perot.” My research uncovered that Mr. Perot hired Mr. Raskin because he had heard that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had hired Mr. Raskin to be General Counsel of the National Rainbow Coalition in the late 1980s to defend voting rights and democracy in the Democratic Party.

Do I conclude from your opposition to Mr. Raskin’s support of Mr. Perot’s right as a bone fide candidate to participate in debates, that you do not support every bone fide candidate’s right to participate in public debates?

3. In the Joseph Scheidler et al v. National Organization for Women et al case, it seems that Mr. Raskin was acting on behalf of our right to protest by blocking a building and not be prosecuted in the same way as mafia bosses and organized criminals are for extortion. The argument was that protesters are not “taking property” or extorting, and therefore should n ot be in the same category as described in the Hobbs Act of RICO ((Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).

It seems Mr. Raskin believed it critical to make sure there is a legal distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor. Even though Mr. Raskin might disagree or even abhor what may be protested, it is our right as Americans to do so and should not be faced with ten to twenty years in prison for civil disobedience.

Are you suggesting that as our representative, you support this punishment for let’s say, peaceful protesters of the ICC, peaceful picketers at the Dickerson generating plant, one of the major polluters in our area (where a farmer and a rabbi were arrested for civil disobedience). So, in opposition to Mr. Raskin and the 8-1 Supreme Court decision, you would advocate treating these protesters and picketers like felons and mobsters under the RICO law and have them spend most of their lives rotting in federal prison. So, do I ascertain from your opposition to Mr. Raskin, that you place organized union picketing and other acts of civil disobedience in the same category as organized crime and racketeers?

So now that I have done my research at your suggestion, I am confused. You say you are fighting for affordable health care and prescription drugs. You have been in office for 18 years, do we have it yet? You say you oppose the Iraq War, yet I understand you introduced pro-Iraq War legislation. You call yourself “The Original Maryland Progressive”. Have you ever described yourself in the last 19 years as a “progressive” in any of your literature?

And yet, you misrepresented Mr. Raskin’s efforts to protect all Americans’ right to the freedom of speech. This mailing is such a distortion of the cases Mr. Raskin represented, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. May I remind you of your offense at the carefully researched efforts of the students at Montgomery Blair, and your efforts to stifle their freedom of speech.

The examples you identified, seem to me to be efforts, successful ones at that, to protect American’s right to free speech. It seems to me that Mr. Raskin’s efforts are what enabled you to send out the mailing you did. Your right to free speech has been protected by Mr. Raskin.

I sincerely hope that more of your constituents choose to take your challenge and “check the facts”.

— Esther Siegel
Takoma Park, MD