UPDATE
A deal was worked out on Wednesday which selected 17 Amendments to the FDA bill to be voted on on Thursday. Sen. Paul’s amendment was included among the 17 so we now have until some time Thursday get people to email their Senators to to encourage them to support the Paul amendment.

On Thursday the Senate is expected to vote on the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act which contains authorization for the continued operation of the Food and Drug Administration. Senator Rand Paul has offered an amendment to this bill which addresses key problems with the FDA (S.3187).

This amendment targets two key areas of abuse of power by the FDA, regulatory overreach and abusive enforcement powers.

The first goal of the Paul Amendment is to reign in FDA overreach in regulating dietary supplements and deliberately misclassifying foods, vitamins and natural medicines as drugs, placing them under inappropriate restrictions or removing them from the market entirely. This addresses an ongoing problem with the FDA attempting to expand its authority to interfere more and more with the health food and natural medicine market to reduce competition with commercial pharmaceuticals. Paul’s proposal does not limit reasonable regulation of dangerous substances, but does target opportunistic overregulation.

The second target of the amendment is the excessive expansion of enforcement power in the FDA. This has become a problem with a number of federal agencies which have decided they need their own police forces. In the case of the FDA they have developed a cadre of armed enforcement officers and are sending them out to conduct forced inspections of manufacturing facilities and farms, often carrying out searches and making arrests without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment. It is questionable that the FDA should ever have been given the power to arrest people and they certainly shouldn’t have their own armed enforcement units. The Paul amendment would disarm the FDA and require them to follow due process in going after violators.

This amendment addresses a serious problem with one of many federal agencies which have gone far beyond their legitimately authorized power. FDA regulation should be strictly restricted to keep the market in health supplements and foods as free as possible and enforcement of their regulations should be handled as a civil process or by local law enforcement or existing federal enforcement agencies.

Please write your Senators to encourage them to vote with Rand Paul to limit the power of the FDA and end regulatory abuse and overenforcement. Make sure to modify the wording of the standard letter to cover the points, but be in your own voice.

What the heck is going on in Montana?

Montana Republicans have a huge majority in the State House and a small majority in the State Senate, so they should be moving productive legislation along without trouble. Unfortunately, two recent examples show that they are not committed to common sense government at all, but are instead beholden to special interests, corporate socialism, and the nanny state.

You’re not even going to believe the legislation being courted by Montana Republicans! Check it out:

Montana Republicans Try to Gut Medical Marijuana Law

With the exception of Republican Liberty Caucus-endorsed State Representatives Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller and several moderate Republicans, the rest of the Republican elected officials in Montana voted to gut the voter-approved medical marijuana law last week.

Because Governor Brian Schweitzer (Democrat) vetoed the Republican attempts to kill the law, BusinessWeek reports that “Many lawmakers from both parties say something needs to be done to rein in medical marijuana in Montana now that it has reached beyond those with severe illnesses for whom voters in 2004 meant the law to apply.”

According to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, there are 29,948 registered users in the state. As we reported earlier, last month the federal government decided they needed to step in by raiding medical marijuana businesses in the state under the guise of investigating “drug trafficking and tax evasion.” This despite a promise from the Obama Administration claimed it would not override state law.

According to BusinessWeek,

“Three lawmakers from each chamber will begin meeting this week in a conference committee to figure out the final form of the overhaul measure, Senate Bill 423, before it lands on the governor’s desk. Since the beginning of the session House Bill 161, a repeal of the voter-approved marijuana law, has been the favored measure of Republican leadership. House Speaker Mike Milburn, R-Cascade, carried the bill through the Legislature but the possibility of a governor veto forced Republicans to work up a contingency plan.

Last month, Republican lawmakers made a last-minute introduction of a bill to overhaul of Montana’s medical marijuana industry. After Republican fears of a governor veto became a reality Wednesday, the overhaul measure carried by Senate Majority Leader Jeff Essmann, R-Billings, has become what is likely the last chance the Legislature has to restrict medical marijuana. But the measure has not had an easy passage and it still has key hurdles left to clear with just a few days left in the session to do it.”

The only common sense on this issue, aside from Governor Brian Schweitzer, is from RLC-endorsed legislators like Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller. According to Representative Miller, “If the federal laws (related to the Montana state medical marijuana law) were gone, it could be just another prescription filled by a pharmacist. The bottom line is that the legislature did not do its job and put the appropriate rules/laws in place once the initiative passed in 2004. I believe it is up to the legislature to fix the mess it created. And it is a huge mess and it is being grossly abused by some,” Miller said.

Miller took what apparently is an unpopular position, concluding at his website, “While many people disagree with my vote to not repeal, I hope this helps them to understand it a little better.”

RLC-endorsed Reps. Jerry O’Neill and Mike Miller voted to protect the Montana medical marijuana law.

Renewable Energy, Curbing Property Rights via “Corporate Socialism”

According to LibertarianRepublican.net, “Sounding like something straight out of an Ayn Rand novel, a renewable energy corporation out of Canada is pushing legislation to allow for seizure of private property rights in Eastern Montana. The Bill pits small landowners such as ranchers in Eastern Montana, against government-backed corporate interests and many environmental groups in support of renewable energy.”

From the Great Falls Tribune, “Montana Senate revives eminent domain bill”:

“HB 198 would grant private developers — including Canadian developer Tonbridge Power — the ability to use eminent domain authority to condemn private property so that transmission lines can be built.

The company wants to build a 214-mile international Tie Line through Montana and Alberta. The bill would [give] Tonbridge the authority it needs to condemn private property along the proposed MATL route in Montana.”

After nearly three hours of debate, 16 Democrats sided with 12 Republicans to pass the measure.

Republican proponents of the measure said if the legislature failed to enact HB 198, it could doom the state’s economy.

“We need an export economy in this state,” Senator Alan Olson said. “We make money to fund our education system, and we make money to fund our senior services on an export economy. If a minority interest is going to shut down an export economy, if we continue to circulate that same stale dollar around the state, we’re done.”

Opponents of the measure, including Sen. Art Wittich, R-Bozeman, said the bill would give private corporations unprecedented power, while sacrificing the rights of private property owners.

“It’s corporate socialism at its best,” Wittich said.

“To me, good government is limited government that respects everyone’s rights and properties,” Wittich says. “I support accountability in government spending and promoting private sector prosperity by adding value to our resources.”

The bill goes for a final vote on Thursday. Then, it heads to Democrat Governor Brian Schweitzer for his signature.

It is not known if Schweizter would sign the legislation, but it appears likely that he would.

RLC member Eric Dondero worked to get a property rights initiative on the ballot in Montana in 2006. Here, he is collecting a signature from a resident.

AUGUSTA (March 29, 2011) — A bill which would uphold the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing Maine farmers, fishermen, tradesmen and other individuals to ply their trades without interference from unfair federal mandates has been endorsed by the Maine Republican Liberty Caucus.

An Act to Prohibit Enforcement of Federal Laws in Violation of the Constitution of the United States (LD 1172) was introduced in the 125th Legislature by Rep. Melvin Newendyke (R-Litchfield). The bill prohibits federal or state officials or government employees from enforcing any federal act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation that attempts to regulate goods grown, manufactured or made within the state for consumption within Maine.

“The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution is valid for regulation of interstate commerce but nowhere does the federal government have constitutional authority to regulate intrastate commerce,” said Maine RLC Chair Ken Lindell, a former state legislator.

Lindell said the federal government consistently oversteps its authority when Congress or regulatory agencies promulgate rulings which have an impact on commerce within Maine borders.

“Organic dairy farmers, for instance, who produce milk products for local consumption, are handcuffed by federal directives which prevent them from doing business. Fishermen who land fish for local consumers face expensive and unnecessary restrictions on their livelihoods because of draconian federal rules. Small businesspeople throughout Maine suffer because of unconstitutional intrusion by federal agencies,” Lindell explained.

“I even had a tradesman tell me that he would have to charge an extra $3,000 for a kitchen renovation simply to comply with federal regulations because our house was built before 1978. With all of the wonderful old homes and family farms in our state, that is evidence of how these federal actions have had an unfair impact on Maine people.”

The bill, which is before the Judiciary Committee, notes that the power to regulate intrastate commerce is reserved to the states or the people under the Ninth and Tenth amendments.

LD 1172 reads in part, “A person may not enforce or attempt to enforce or attempt to enforce a federal law that regulates or attempts to regulate goods grown, manufactured or made in this State or services performed in this State when those goods or services are sold, maintained, retained or performed exclusively in this State.”

A federal official who tries to enforce an unconstitutional federal mandate could be charged with a Class C crime, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. A state official could be charged with a Class D crime, punishable by less than one year in prison and a fine of up to $2,000.

“It’s sad that it has to come to a bill like this,” Lindell said, “but government has grown so large and overreaching that it is necessary to reinforce the constitutional separation of powers between the federal and state governments. It also protects the many conscientious government employees by giving them legal protection from being forced to follow unconstitutional directives.”

Lindell said the Republican Liberty Caucus is guided by a statement of principles for smaller government and individual liberty. He will testify at the Committee hearing on behalf of the organization.

“We have endorsed LD 1172 because it is consistent with our principles and it protects the hardworking people of Maine who are producers and contributors to society from undue harassment by bureaucrats who flaunt government power over their lives,” he said.

Maine RLC previously endorsed a Resolution sponsored by Rep. Richard Cebra (R-Naples) which reasserts states rights and would nullify unconstitutional federal mandates imposed on Maine.

The Maine RLC is part of the national Republican Liberty Caucus, a grassroots organization of libertarian-leaning Republicans who work within the party for policies which promote smaller government and individual liberty.

Media note: Ken Lindell can be reached at (207) 466-0966.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin, which supported Governor Scott Walker’s budget proposal and efforts to limit collective bargaining rights for some state employees, is tackling recall and legislative efforts this spring. Specifically:

• RLC-WI members are working to collect signatures to recall eight of the 14 Democrat Senators who fled the state to Illinois for 3 weeks throughout February and early March; and

• RLC-WI members are rallying support for the legislation being introduced by Washington County legislators Glenn Grothman and Don Pridemore to legalize raw milk sales in the state.

Recall the Wisconsin 14!

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin encourages its members to get involved in the recall efforts of eight Democrat Senators who chose to represent Illinois voters rather than Wisconsin voters. If you live in the Stevens Point/Wausau, Green Bay, North Woods, Kenosha, Madison, or Milwaukee areas, it is important to get involved in the recall efforts of the following State Senators. Click the link to be taken to the websites where you can download petitions to circulate.

• Recall Jim Holperin
• Recall Dave Hansen
• Recall Bob Wirch
• Recall Julie Lassa
• Recall Mark Miller
• Recall Spencer Coggs
• Recall Lena Taylor
• Recall Fred Risser

The goal of the recall efforts is to let the voters weigh in on the decision of the Senators to leave Wisconsin during a critical time in state history.

Legalize Raw Milk

Wisconsin RLC members are also working on a legislative initiative, as it did in 2010, to legalize raw milk in the dairy state. The proposal introduced earlier this week would allow for a licensed dairy farmer to register with the state to sell raw milk and its byproducts directly to consumers. Under current law, only incidental sales of raw milk are allowed. Nine states allow retail sales of raw milk.

Last spring, former Governor Jim Doyle vetoed a proposal that would have allowed farmers to sell their raw milk if there were certain safeguards in place to protect the public. But Governor Scott Walker said in January that he would likely sign a similar bill if it were to come across his desk.

Last May, the Wisconsin RLC sent out a press release supporting the legislation. “Imagine what a positive impact raw milk can have on the economy in our Dairy State,” said state RLC Chairman Michael S. Murphy of Milwaukee.

The Republican Liberty Caucus of Wisconsin was founded in 2009 to promote individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise within the Republican Party. Learn more about the RLC-WI at http://wi.rlc.org/.

Despite the fact that over 70 Representatives were not present in Congress to vote, December 21 was a terrible day for advocates of individual liberty and limited government.

First, the Federal Communications Commission’s 3 Democrat majority voted to approve proposed rules that amount to a hostile takeover of the Internet by a government agency. The proposal — misleadingly described by proponents as an attempt to insure “net neutrality” by guaranteeing equal access to the Internet — was introduced a year ago by Obama’s appointed FCC chairman Julius Genachowski.

A federal court has ruled that the commission has no authority to regulate the Internet, and a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives warned Genechowski not to attempt to impose a regulatory regime on the Internet earlier this year. The FCC, an unelected bureaucracy, still has not released the full text of its net neutrality rules yet.

You better believe that this unconstitutional power grab to secure “net neutrality” by the FCC is just a small sign of whats to come in the realm of federal regulation of private citizen behavior.

And, on that note, the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate both passed the so-called Food Safety and Modernization Act — the largest government power grab as it relates to food since 1938 (when Congress gave the FDA the authority to oversee the safety of food, drugs and cosmetics).

But, have no fear, it will only cost $1.4 billion to implement the new “safety” regulations.

The law will give the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the FDA tremendous control over the U.S. food supply. It also puts all food and all U.S. farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. The bill includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. And it will allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs.

Not only did 74 members of Congress fail to vote on the measure, but the bill also passed the Senate without a single dissenter. Fortunately, the new Congress will be in session soon, where I have no doubt there would have been someone with the courage to hold up this anti-liberty legislation.

California has drawn a lot of attention in the past because of its initiative and referendum system, which gets controversial issues on the ballot so that the voters of the state can make decisions their elected representatives are often afraid to take a position on. We’re going to see more fireworks this fall when Californians get to vote on Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.

There are some rules and restrictions, but basically the proposed bill does exactly what the title says. It would legalize marijuana, regulate its sale, and tax it heavily to help out with California’s near-terminal deficit situation. It would make California the first state in the nation to move beyond just permitting some access to medical marijuana to full-scale and potentially profitable legalization. The other obvious consequences, like a decline in organized crime and moving billions from the underground economy to the public economy, would naturally follow.

Polls in California are tracking the issue closely and show a gathering momentum for legalization, though support is currently trailing opposition 48% to 50% in the latest Reuters poll. That’s within the margin of error and up substantially from where support was only a few weeks ago.

Because it’s not an electoral slam-dunk, politicians are not exactly lining up to endorse Proposition 19. In fact, once and (possibly) future Governor Jerry Brown has gone out of his way to distance himself from the issue, not only not endorsing it, but making some ridiculous statements in opposition to it which have earned him some hostile coverage from the left. It seems likely that in the upcoming meeting of the California Democratic Party they will follow his lead and decide as a party not to endorse legalization as well. They’ll lose voters to the Greens and the Libertarians and Meg Whitman will benefit as a result, and maybe having a businesswoman in charge will help out the financially troubled state.

Of course, this situation does create an opportunity for anyone smart enough to take advantage of it. The proposition is growing in popularity and just hanging out there with no formal backing outside of the legalization activist community. Wouldn’t it be amazing if the California Republican Party—which has occasionally made some very radical and unexpected decisions—were to take a serious look at the state’s dire financial need and the potential benefits of legalization and decide to endorse Proposition 19?

This scenario was laid out in a recent diary on DailyKos, which more than a few Republicans I talked to read and took seriously. Some were shocked and others were excited. The article is sarcastic and intended to make fun of various Republican concerns, but it accidentally reads rather like a believable account of real events. It’s fashionable among Republicans to butt heads with the federal government right now, and going against the drug war and declaring a sovereign right to regulate marijuana and profit from taxes on it would be a brilliant example of the kind of independence which a lot of Republican activists are pushing for.

Republicans are supposed to be fiscal conservatives and in favor of individual liberty, entrepreneurs, and businesses. A measure like this, which would raise billions in tax revenue and create a huge new business sector and lots of legitimate jobs, is exactly what California needs desperately, and no one is offering them a better solution. Rationally, Republicans ought to jump at the idea. All they need to do is put aside the archaic idea that marijuana is somehow more immoral than other sins we currently tolerate — a stance which looks pretty hypocritical at a political fundraiser while you’re chugging martinis.

As it stands right now the issue is up to the fickle voters and how much interest groups on both sides can influence the public (I wonder if the drug cartels have a PAC?). But if the Republican party stepped in with even a lukewarm endorsement it would shake California politics up and probably give them an unprecedented sweep in the general election. Voters from the left would cross over in droves and all the Republican party would have to do is make sure the also held on to their core constituents.

All they have to do to keep Republicans on board is make the argument on the grounds of states’ rights, individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility. I’ve made that argument with some of the most traditional Republicans I know and won over more than a few converts. If your mind is at all open it’s hard to reject the logic behind legalizing marijuana as an alternative to raising taxes. If it also means thumbing your noses at the feds then in the current environment it’s a real winner.

The California GOP doesn’t have to be this creative. They can stay in their safe little box and probably do respectably in the fall. It won’t be all that hard to beat Governor Moonbeam again. But in other states Republicans are anticipating extraordinary victories. A cautious strategy will leave California far behind other state Republican parties in the gains they rack up. Seizing the initiative and endorsing Proposition 19 would drive them to such a dominant victory over the Democrats that they would make history and leave every other state party green with envy.

Desperate times call for desperate measures and setting timidity aside. Why not be bold? Why not be defiant? Why not strike a blow for liberty?

Why in the world does the federal government have to involve itself in America’s farm industry?

The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is a federal program that monitors farm animals. Under the NAIS, small farmers and families will have to register and pay a registration fee for every head of livestock or poultry, tag each animal when it leaves its birthplace, and report a long list of movements to a database within 24 hours. Animals that must be tagged include chickens, horses, cows, sheep, goats, pigs, llamas, alpacas, elk, deer, bison, and turkeys.

Thus, NAIS establishes total control over the private property of individual small farmers and puts them at risk to go broke via regulation.

The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance outlines many concerns with the federal program. Most importantly, the system will not protect animals against disease, improve the safety of food supply, or stop bioterrorism. So why are so many of our “leaders” behind the program?

The Alliance discovered that federal and state governments, microchip manufacturers, database software and management companies, and database development companies all stand to benefit from NAIS.

In 2006, Ron Paul introduced an Amendment to defund NAIS. Thirty-four Representatives voted for his Amendment. A list of those Representatives can be found HERE. Members of Congress endorsed by the RLC, such as Jeff Flake, Roscoe Bartlett, Jimmy Duncan, Trent Franks, and John Shadegg, were among those who voted to defund the federal boondoggle.

A lawsuit was filed this week against the Michigan and U.S. Departments of Agriculture. According to a spokesman for the group who filed the lawsuit, “We are asking the court to immediately halt implementation of the program nationwide before more farmers and ranchers are strong-armed into participating in a program that the USDA has called voluntary.”