Specter Works to Hinder Free Speech

By Bart Jansen, CQ Staff

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn part of the federal campaign finance law could threaten some state laws and spur two senators to revive their push for a constitutional amendment.

The high court on Thursday threw out the so-called millionaires’ amendment, a portion of the law (PL 107-155) that raised the per-donor limits on contributions for congressional candidates facing wealthy, self-funded opponents.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. , writing for the 5-4 majority, said the provision was “at war” with rulings such as the 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which equated money with political speech.
Some in Congress were already disenchanted with Buckley v. Valeo. Sens. Charles E. Schumer , D-N.Y., and Arlen Specter , R-Pa., want to overturn it with a constitutional amendment (S J Res 21).

“It is clear the only way to preserve meaningful campaign finance reform is to repeal the Buckley v. Valeo ruling, one of the court’s worst decisions of the last 50 years,” Schumer said.
Their resolution, introduced in October, had not picked up steam, but Thursday’s court decision could help Schumer and Specter renew their efforts.

For Old Times Sake...

By: John J. Miller

EDITOR'S NOTE: Pennyslvania's senior senator, Arlen Specter, faces Congressman Pat Toomey in their state's Rpeublican primary next month. The race is closer than many predicted it would be (see here); although the White House and party are behind Specter, Pennsylvanians appear to be open for a change. John J. Miller wrote about "The Worst Republican Senator," in a September 1, 2003, cover story for National Review. It is reprinted here.

“I'll go straight to the point," said Arlen Specter, shortly after sitting down to dinner with Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation in March. "I've got a primary and I'm being hit from the right. I want your support."

The Republican senator from Pennsylvania wasn't going to get it merely by breaking bread. Says Weyrich: "I told him I was disgusted with how he comes around just before his elections and asks for conservative endorsements, when we all know he won't give us the time of day later on." In years past, Weyrich has traveled to Specter's home turf and urged conservatives to stick with one of the GOP's most liberal members. "I'm not sure what I'm going to do this time."

The choice for Weyrich — and the whole conservative movement — is whether to make another uneasy peace with Specter in the prudential belief that no party holding a one-seat majority in the Senate should dump an incumbent who has won four previous elections in a swing state. The alternative is to rally behind Pat Toomey, an impressive congressman from Allentown who has launched an energetic primary bid against the man who has done more to frustrate conservative goals over the years than perhaps any other member of his caucus. Specter may not be the most unreliable GOP senator — he faces strong competition in that category from Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — but he is almost certainly the most harmful, because he is smart, ruthless, and influential.

Weyrich's complaint is a common one: Specter votes like a Democrat until late in his term, when he remembers that he will need at least some conservatives on his side if he's going to win another six years. "Arlen is not a team player, but we're getting a little more cooperation out of him this year," says one GOP senator. In 2001, for instance, Specter was in his usual form, helping slash the Bush administration's tax cuts by $250 billion. This year, however, he embraced the president's tax-relief proposals early on. "There's more reason for an economic stimulus now," he says. Skeptics think it's not the economy he's trying to jump-start as much as it is his Republican base — which he'll need in next April's primary.

The 73-year-old Specter is one of the Senate's best-known but least-liked members. His notoriety dates back to 1964, when, as a young lawyer serving on the Warren Commission, he invented the "single-bullet theory" to explain how Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. Ever since, conspiracy groupies have blamed him for a major cover-up. In Oliver Stone's movie JFK, Kevin Costner's character labels Specter "an ambitious junior counselor" behind "one of the grossest lies ever forced on the American people."

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have much better reasons for disliking him: They regard Specter as one of the prickliest pols in Congress — a humorless man who is cold to colleagues and cruel to staff. Late one night several years ago, Senate majority leader Trent Lott needed Specter to sign off on an appropriations bill. Specter agreed to do it, for a price: Lott would have to attend two fundraisers in Pennsylvania. Lott made the deal, but this sort of legislative hostage-taking doesn't win fans. "There are two kinds of senators: Republicans who don't like Specter and Democrats who don't like Specter," says a former leadership aide. In a Washingtonian magazine survey, Hill staffers rated him the Senate's meanest member. This has given rise to one of Specter's nicknames: Snarlin' Arlen.

Being "mean" isn't necessarily a bad quality in a politician. When Weyrich stumped for Specter in 1992, he made a simple point to his conservative listeners: "Arlen Specter is a jerk, but he's our jerk." A former Senate staffer puts it this way: "If there's a tough debate going on, you definitely want Specter on your side."

The problem for conservatives is that Specter isn't their jerk nearly enough. He is an abortion-rights absolutist, a dogged advocate of racial preferences, a bitter foe of tort reform, a firm friend of the International Criminal Court — the list is long. When Citizens Against Government Waste recently listed Specter in its "Pig Book" as one of the Senate's most profligate spenders, he shot back: "If they left me out, I'd be worried." In 1995, Specter briefly ran for president and pursued the unique strategy of attacking the base of his own party: His announcement speech lobbed a grenade at "the intolerant Right." After pressing this theme for several months, one poll showed him attracting support from a grand total of 1 percent of Republicans. The senator's lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union is 42 percent (Pat Toomey's is 97).

In July, Specter disappointed conservatives yet again when he blocked a school-choice proposal that would have granted vouchers to 2,000 poor students in the District of Columbia. Prominent Democrats, including D.C. mayor Anthony Williams and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, support the plan. So did Specter six years ago, when he voted in favor of a similar measure. "I've regretted it ever since," he now says. "I believe school choice violates the separation of church and state. It's unconstitutional." But didn't the Supreme Court rule otherwise last year? "It was a 5-4 decision. The court may change its mind." Specter's own children attended private school in Philadelphia. "They didn't have access to a good public school," he explains. So what would he say to a mother in D.C. who insists that her kids don't have access to a good public school either? "There are charter schools available. I've led the way to improve the quality of education in America."

Specter's biggest impact probably has come on the Judiciary Committee. That makes sense, because he was a prominent lawyer before arriving in Washington. In addition to his work on the Warren Commission, he was twice elected district attorney in Philadelphia, where he earned a tough-on-crime reputation. On the Judiciary Committee, he has been tough on Republican judicial nominees. In 1986, Ronald Reagan selected Jeff Sessions of Alabama for the federal bench, but Specter joined his Democratic colleagues in defeating the nomination — it was only the second time the Judiciary Committee had turned down a nominee since the FDR era.

Attorney general Ed Meese called it "an appalling surrender to the politics of ideology." Sessions didn't vanish from public life; in 1996, he was elected to the Senate. Now he sits with Specter on the Judiciary Committee. The two men don't talk about what passed between them 17 years ago, but Specter admits he made a mistake: "I've gotten to know him. I regret my vote."

Specter doesn't regret a more famous vote that took place the following year, on the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. This was a watershed moment in Washington politics, when left-wing histrionics began to play a leading role in judicial confirmations — and the term "borking" was born. Bork had an impeccable record as a law professor and judge, but the debate over his nomination was dominated by the fevered rhetoric of his enemies, who said that confirming him would condemn women to back-alley abortions and blacks to segregated lunch counters. Fresh from his first re-election a few months earlier, Specter couldn't make up his mind about what to do. He questioned Bork for hours in his private chambers and at public hearings. In the end, he decided to vote against confirmation. "He called and said that he couldn't be sure about me," says Bork.

"I've never known what he meant by that." Specter's announcement doomed the nomination. As Bork lobbyist Tom Korologos put it at the time: "Specter hit the game-winning RBI." Conservatives, of course, resent that he was batting for the wrong team.

Specter likes to think that he redeemed himself in the eyes of the Right four years later, when he was a strong defender of embattled nominee Clarence Thomas. With his next election a year away, he was indeed looking to win points with the Right. His strong prosecutorial skills became an important asset to Thomas, in hearings that polarized the country even more than Bork's had. It is possible to believe that without Specter's aggressive interrogation of Anita Hill, including his accusation that she may have committed perjury, Thomas would not have been confirmed.

Yet Specter wasted little time in distancing himself from the man he helped elevate. He has described the Thomas-Hill episode as a kind of sensitivity seminar on sexual harassment: "The hearings were a learning experience for me and, for that matter, for America, too." He has also expressed his "disappointment" in Thomas's performance on the Supreme Court. Specter refuses to use the same word today, though he's clearly not comfortable with Thomas's conservative record. "He's grown a lot in the last twelve years," says the senator. But Specter still won't commit to voting for Thomas if he were nominated as Chief Justice. "I'd want to think about that," he says. What about Antonin Scalia for chief justice? "I'd want to think about that, too."

The impeachment trial of Bill Clinton occurred before the full Senate rather than the Judiciary Committee, but many people believed Specter again would play a memorable role. And in fact he did, though his performance was most noteworthy for its weirdness. Senators were supposed to determine whether Clinton was "guilty" or "not guilty" of impeachable crimes. Specter, however, wanted a third option: "Under Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts: 'guilty,' 'not guilty,' and 'not proven.'" He said that the president had not received a proper trial, in the sense that no witnesses were called — and therefore senators didn't have enough information to convict. When Specter announced "not proven" during the roll call, Chief Justice William Rehnquist ordered his verdict to be recorded as "not guilty." Specter continued to claim that the distinction was meaningful, and suggested that perhaps Clinton should face a criminal trial in an actual court after leaving office. Yet he clearly doesn't have a low opinion of the former president; two pictures of Clinton decorate the foyer of Specter's Senate office.

During the George W. Bush administration, Specter has supported most of the president's picks for the federal bench. In May, however, he forced the Judiciary Committee to send the nomination of Leon Holmes to the Senate floor without a recommendation — an embarrassing setback for the White House. (As of this writing, there still hasn't been a floor vote on Holmes.) In July, he voted to approve Bill Pryor's nomination, but not before announcing that he might change his mind and vote against Pryor on the Senate floor.

This behavior is no surprise, though it would take on added significance if Specter were to become the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as he is now in line to do. Orrin Hatch of Utah is the current chairman, but he's term-limited in that position. Next comes Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who isn't expected to give up his control of the powerful Finance Committee. After him sits Specter, who has wanted the top job at Judiciary for years. "There's a lot I would like to do," he says, citing violent crime, antitrust law, and privacy as leading concerns. Several of his colleagues on the committee, however, are worried about the prospect of a Chairman Specter in 2005. "He could take the committee in a more liberal direction," says one of them. "It would definitely be a challenge."

Perhaps this is the clinching argument against Specter: He may in fact be the GOP's best bet for holding Pennsylvania's Senate seat, but his re-election also represents the best shot liberals have for influencing an important committee in a Senate they don't otherwise control. What's more, if Specter wins a fifth term in 2004, he'll be 80 years old in 2010 and perhaps ready to retire. If he knows he doesn't have to face voters again, conservatives may not even get the one or two years of leverage over him they've come to expect.

Specter's Pennsylvania colleague Rick Santorum, a committed conservative, supports Specter over Pat Toomey. "There's no question that Arlen's an independent guy, but he also understands the concept of team," says Santorum. "This race could draw resources away from other states, where there's a big difference between a Democrat and a Republican rather than a small one between Specter and Toomey." This party-line loyalty is remarkable, because Specter tried to complicate Santorum's first Senate primary by recruiting a pro-abortion woman to run against him. His first choice was Teresa Heinz, widow of the late Republican senator John Heinz (and now the wife of John Kerry). When she said no, Specter turned to state auditor Barbara Hafer, who looked like a candidate for a few weeks but didn't get in. Specter was forced to abandon his efforts. Santorum captured the GOP nod and won the general election — showing that true-blue conservatives can prevail in Pennsylvania if they invigorate conservatives and run respectably among the state's many Reagan Democrats.

Anybody launching a primary challenge against an incumbent faces long odds, but Toomey is optimistic. "I wouldn't be doing this if I weren't convinced I could win," he says. Specter is taking the primary seriously, which is good news and bad news for Toomey: good because it suggests that Specter really does feel vulnerable, bad because Specter won't fall victim to Lazy Incumbent Syndrome. At the end of June, Specter had nearly $9 million in the bank, compared to about $1.5 million for Toomey. "I won't be out-hustled," says the senator.

Yet the 41-year-old congressman remains confident. "I never thought I was going to raise more money than Arlen Specter," he says. "But I am going to raise enough to get out my message." Most experts think he'll need at least $4 million to have a real chance to win. He may yet succeed: In 1998, Specter faced two nameless primary opponents who spent next to nothing on their campaigns, and they attracted a combined 33 percent of the vote. This suggests that Toomey — not an unknown, but a conservative standout in the House who has won three elections in a Democratic-leaning district — begins with one-third of Republicans already in his pocket. He will only go up from there. And nobody should regard Specter as invincible in the general election: In 1992, Lynn Yeakel came out of nowhere and almost beat him, holding Specter to 49 percent of the electorate and drawing 46 percent for herself.

Much of the GOP establishment nevertheless is getting behind Specter, including the White House. But Toomey is making gains. Two dozen members of the state legislature support his insurgency, as do Pennsylvania right-to-life groups and national organizations such as the Club for Growth. Steve Forbes and Grover Norquist also back him. The Pennsylvania primary is closed, meaning that only Republicans can vote in it; conservatives therefore will have a lot to say about who wins the nomination. Specter believes there's a conservative case to be made on behalf of his re-election. On primary day, though, conservatives might well make a different declaration: "Not proven."

Specter Gears Up for Baseball Confrontation

This article was written by CAP News, a comical news site. They certainly understand Senator Arlen Specter well to have produced such a comical piece on Specter's recent involvement in sports.

PORTLAND, MAINE (CAP) - "Slugger," the mascot for the Double-A baseball team the Portland Sea Dogs, will be the first of many baseball mascots called before a Congressional committee investigating possible wrongdoing at Minor League ballgames, sources say.

"We have credible evidence that, in racing young fans around the bases between innings, Slugger may have, on numerous occasions, let the fan win, thus shattering expectations of fair, above-board play at our sporting contests," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) wrote in a letter to Commissioner of Baseball Bud Selig. "Frankly, I'm appalled. Even more appalled than usual, I mean."

Specter is apparently basing his concerns on a recent study showing that, out of more than 1,000 such races that Slugger has participated in since 1994, he has never won a single one, despite being clearly larger and more skilled at running than most of his young opponents.

"Listen, Slugger is a large, capable half-seal/half-dog with the stamina to lead a crowd of 7,000 through a boisterous version of the Village People's YMCA," noted Specter when contacted by CAP News. "You're telling me he can't beat a 7-year-old around a baseball diamond? Something stinks here."

Specter also claimed that Slugger and other members of his mascot brethren, including Ribbee of the West Tennessee Diamond Jaxx and Homer the Polecat of the Huntsville Stars, have attempted to unduly influence fans by offering them free merchandise, such as shirts and towels, usually fired at them at high rates of speed through so-called "T-shirt cannons" that may have been smuggled in from Iran.

"What these characters are going to find out is that baseball fans can't be bought or intimidated, even Minor League baseball fans," said Specter. "They see Homer the Polecat for the skunk he really is. Or weasel. We have it narrowed down to one of those two."

Slugger, who is mute, had no comment. But a spokesman for the Portland Sea Dogs insisted that the races are legitimate, as are the contest to throw fake groceries into giant supermarket carts and the one where a blindfolded man runs around the outfield trying to knock down a gigantic inflated Chick-Fil-A cow.

"We take great pride in our professionalism and our integrity," said Bob Reynolds of the Portland Sea Dogs front office. "Just ask the Sea Dog Trash Monsters when you're throwing away your hot dog wrappers and soda cups in their mouth."

Selig has yet to comment on the scandal, but insiders fear it could have serious repercussions in the mascot community.

"Remember what happened with Mr. Met?" asked one mascot who declined to be named, referring to the 1989 incident where a player hit the New York Mets mascot in the head with a baseball bat. "It took years to get beyond that."

In that case, after a lengthy trial, the player was cleared on the grounds that Mr. Met's head is a giant baseball.

Specter Slaps Bush Administration; Supports ACLU

Senator Arlen Specter joined liberals George Soros, Arianna Huffington, and Helen Thomas to address the ACLU's 2008 Membership Conference. During this conference, Senator Specter slammed the Bush Administration and reiterated his support for current legislation favored by the radical liberal fringe group: the ACLU.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) continued his sharp criticism of the Bush administration’s record on protecting civil liberties in remarks before the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on Monday.

Specter said that the Justice Department has established procedures that dampen legal rights; that Bush has used signing statements to evade congressional directives; and that administration officials have shut Congress out of federal intelligence decisions. The administration has also erred by pushing for retroactive legal immunity for telephone companies for turning over Americans' private data, Specter said. An impasse over that issue is the chief reason Congress has rejected renewing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"Seems to me it's very difficult to give retroactive immunity when you don't even know for sure what you're giving retroactive immunity for," he said. "It's very uncertain what will happen."

Specter, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and a former eight-year district attorney in Philadelphia, addressed the ACLU's 2008 membership conference at the Washington Convention Center.

The senator on Monday also promoted two pieces of legislation that he is pushing in the Senate: one that would create a legal privilege for reporters to withhold information in some cases, and another that would extend free-speech protections to reporters who face libel suits in foreign courts. He said he is "proud to be on the same side" as the ACLU in favoring both initiatives, noting that he visited former New York Times reporter Judith Miller during her 85-day prison sentence in 2005 for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame case.

Legal Bills Continue to Mount on Specter

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter's legal bills keep piling up. The Pennsylvania Republican spent another $18,027 in fees to Blank Rome during the first quarter of the year in connection with a Federal Election Commission audit of his 2004 campaign.

That adds to $58,000 that Specter's campaign paid to the firm last year.

The FEC completed its audit of Specter late last year. It found that Specter's '04 campaign collected more than $1 million in excessive contributions, failed to properly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in receipts from political party committees and political action committees and missed a key reporting deadline before the primary.

Specter's treasurer Stephen Harmelin said at the time that the campaign has "proactively taken steps to try and prevent any recurrences." Harmelin was the campaign's treasurer during the

'04 campaign.

A hefty fine could be on the horizon for Specter's campaign, although the FEC can't do anything until the Senate confirms new commissioners. With just two sitting commissioners, the six-member panel has been without a quorum for months amid a Senate battle over President Bush's nominees.

Any eventual fine wouldn't do much damage to Specter's coffers. The five-term lawmaker is raising money at a brisk pace this cycle, having already amassed $4.6 million.

Specter's Real Reason for Investigating NFL

It seems these days that Congress is getting more and more involved in the realm of professional sports. Almost everywhere you turn, it's something else: first it was George Mitchell and the MLB steroids report, then the Congressional hearings of Mark McGwire, Palmeiro, etc., and, more recently, Arlen Specter and the NFL.

I've heard thousands of voices asking the same question: "Why the heck would Congress get involved in professional sports?"

And the answer, my good friends? It was done for you. And your money.

The NFL and MLB consist, in the minds of Congress, as the owners of the respective franchises. Let's lump them all together, the owners of the NFL and MLB. The 32 NFL franchises plus the 30 MLB franchises is 62 teams. That's a lot of teams, right? And a lot of teams translates into a lot of owners.

Let's talk a moment about these owners. Who are they? They are 62 wealthy individuals, worth millions of dollars. They did not amass this wealth through their ownership of their respective teams, either; all 62 were extremely wealthy long before they owned these franchises.

In my experience, the filthy rich people of the world did not get that way (and do not stay that way) by being foolish with their money. So why would a shrewd business-minded person gamble millions on a sports franchise?

Because it's not gambling at all. Even a lousy team can make money (see: Cincinnati Bengals). It is, in fact, easy money; you're usually guaranteed a TV contract, and you get a portion of the shared revenue from the league.

Fans, for the most part, are loyal, and, if you do achieve success within your league, you can count on a large number of bandwagon fans to boost your income. And should you overextend yourself, just sell or relocate your team. Not one owner has been sent to the poorhouse via football or baseball. Period.

Which brings us back to Congress. I understand that we were all taught in grade school that Congress enacts laws to help the good, decent, hardworking people of America, which may or may not be true. But I hope we can all agree that Congress also routinely passes laws to protect wealthy Americans' ability to make money via the preservation of the status quo—in other words, Congress doesn't rock the boat if the boat is full of rich people. (I guess that makes the boat a yacht.)

Which brings us back to the baseball hearings and steroid report. Congress investigated steroids because, just like our sports teams' owners, Congress is made up of extremely wealthy people who rely on contributions from other wealthy people to stay in office. It's a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" relationship. And if I've scratched your back to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, you're going to scratch mine whenever and wherever it itches.

So if we assume that MLB's handling of the steroids issue caused quite a few 'itchy backs' in the circle of MLB owners, we begin to see the picture. The thought amongst the owners seemed to be that MLB's front office, particularly Bud Selig, were handling the issue poorly.

Phone calls were made, reports were filed, and hearings were had on national television coast to coast...all to protect the image of the game. Had baseball been perceived as "soft" on steroids, or, even worse, discovered itself to be a bunch of juiced up 'roid heads mindlessly swinging for the fences while breaking legitimate record after legitimate record, the game would've been ruined in the minds of the fans.

And that's you.

And had you walked away from the game, you'd have taken your wallet with you.

And that would've been a sad day for MLB.

So they called in Congress, the governing body of the land, to slap a few wrists and ask some questions. Some folks may go to jail at some point, and some folks may not go to jail ever. But, today, all is well in baseball.

Arlen Specter and the NFL is a slightly different story with the same ending: Show me the money!

Specter used Spygate to try and ruffle feathers in the minds of league ownership by casting Roger Goodell as an incompetent stooge (which he may or may not be). Specter was calling for a full, formal investigation of the NFL, which, for no apparent reason at the time, he felt should include a re-working of the NFL's anti-trust exemption.

I thought this was a little odd at the time. The anti-trust exemption deals with the relocation of teams, right?

Yes, I found out. But among other things, it also covers broadcasting. That's when things added up. Comcast, the cable giant, is in a legal dispute with the NFL, claiming it's unfair for the NFL Network to put games solely on its own NFL Network, which is offered only on DirecTV. They also disagree with the NFL's decision to offer NFL Sunday ticket only on DitrecTV. They would like them moved to (surprise!) Comcast.

Google "Arlen Specter Comcast" and you'll find that Specter had taken $153,600 in campaign contributions from Comcast, or those affiliated with Comcast as employees, or through its PAC. The only firm that gave more money to Specter's campaign was the law firm of Blank Rome LLP, which represents Comcast and which has given Specter $358,453.

Hmmmmm...$512,053 is a lot of bread. It seems to me that Specter is just protecting his own money on this one. It turns out that this makes the fourth time since 2005 that Specter has tried to have the NFL investigated in some form or another regarding its antitrust laws.

What else happened in 2005? The NFL announced it would show certain NFL games exclusively on the NFL Network starting in '06. The latest allegations of impropriety regarding the Spygate tapes is simply another example of Specter yelling that the house is on fire so that he may loot it in the chaos.

So, there you have it. Sports need to have the appearance of being a level playing field to keep us watching, and we need to keep watching (and buying) to keep the owners in business.
And Congress? Congress is simply doing what Congress has been doing since it was founded: protecting the interests of the rich.

Cheers!

Specter Speaks on Investigation Into NFL

Specter Sticks Nose Further into NFL

Sen. Arlen Specter reiterated his call for the NFL to initiate an independent investigation into Spygate.

The Pennsylvania Republican entered a statement Thursday into the Congressional Record concerning the New England Patriots' videotaping scandal.

The statement repeats many of the points Specter made in at a news conference May 14, including a push for an investigation similar to the high-profile Mitchell Report that examined performance enhancing drugs in baseball.

"My strong preference is for the NFL to activate a Mitchell-type investigation," Specter's statement said. "I have been careful not to call for a Congressional hearing because I believe the NFL should step forward and embrace an independent inquiry and Congress is extraordinarily busy on other matters If the NFL continues to leave a vacuum, Congress may be tempted to fill it."

Specter has been proactive in seeking greater NFL accountability into the Spygate affair, which centers on Patriots' taping of opposing teams' defensive signals over a span of several years. Specter has met with — and been highly critical of — NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. The Senator also met with former New England video assistant Matt Walsh, a central figure in the scandal.

"The commissioner's investigation has been fatally flawed," the statement said. "The lack of candor, the piecemeal disclosures, the changes in position on material matters, the failure to be proactive in seeking out other key witnesses, and responding only when unavoidable when evidence is thrust upon the NFL leads to the judgment that an impartial investigation is mandatory."

Goodell essentially declared an end to Spygate after meeting with Walsh last month, saying there was no new information that would warrant a further penalty against the Patriots. The commissioner docked New England a 2008 first-round draft pick and fined coach Bill Belichick $500,000 and the team $250,000 last fall.

GOP Needs to Wakeup

Over the last couple of days, I have gotten many emails from longtime Republicans upset with my blog that is working to ensure that a conservative Republican challenges Senator Arlen Specter in the 2010 GOP Primary. They have repeatedly told me the actions that I am taking are unhealthy for the party and goes against the "party discipline" required to be involved in politics.

To begin with, here lies the GOP's greatest problem: we have begun putting cronyism before values and forgotten the major beliefs that have made us a majority party in the past. It is unacceptable for a party to support somebody simply because they have an "R" next to their name. The Republican Party establishment should view our party's platform before coming out in full force to support a liberal Republican who has blatantly opposed many of the positions that our party highlights in its platform.

The Republican Party establishment must also realize that elections are decided by the voters, not the party establishment. The party has begun to forget that grassroots organization wins elections, not party bosses in Harrisburg or Washington, DC.

Many of those who have criticized me tell me the main reason we need to support Senator Specter is because he is the only one that can win a statewide election in Pennsylvania. Therefore, according to many of these people, we should negate values in a simple attempt to win an election for a Republican who does little to enhance the values we use to so proudly stand for. The party can win a statewide election with a conservative Republican as long as the party realizes the importance of grassroots organization over party cronyism.

The Republican Party lost in 2006 for one single reason: they forgot what it was they believed in. If our party does not reflect upon its victorious years, it will lose its way and vanish into the annals of history. Our party has been able to claim itself to be the party that stands up for American values for so many years, yet that trademark has significantly diminished because of the actions taken by the party establishment.

I am sure that criticism will continue, and more and more party establishment members will become disgruntled with the fact that there is a group of Republicans unwilling to rollover to partisan Republican politics that does little to reach out to the average conservative voter who seeks to find candidates and representatives that fight for smaller government, a strong national defense, states' rights, and strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. It is time for these conservative voters to stand up and let the State and National Republican Committees realize they are out of touch and to return our efforts to grassroots, value-driven elections.