WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Hispanic Leadership Fund today released the following statement from its President Mario H. Lopez, in response to the most recent attacks on Senator Marco Rubio (FL) coming from Senator Harry Reid (NV):

“It is hard to decide where to begin with Reid and the administration’s smear campaign against Hispanic leaders who disagree with their radical Leftist agenda.  Let’s not forget that internal memos showed that Senator Reid and Democrats were guilty of backroom schemes against the judicial appointment of Miguel Estrada, specifically because he was a Hispanic appointee.  This latest coordinated smear campaign is comes at a time when Reid and his cohorts are attacking First Amendment rights of religious freedom, increasing government dependency, and obstructing every effort at job creation.  Hispanics are the hardest hit victims of President Obama’s and Harry Reid’s destruction of the American economy, so it is no wonder why they are eager to change the subject.”

Federal Court Set to Take Up Landmark Election Law Case

HLF Defends First Amendment Freedoms in Van Hollen v. Federal Election Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C.–Following the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s decision permitting the Hispanic Leadership Fund to intervene as a defendant in U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollen’s (D-MD) lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission challenging the Federal Election Commission’s donor disclosure rules, the federal court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday, January 11, 2012.

Hispanic Leadership Fund President Mario H. Lopez said, “We are glad that the Hispanic Leadership Fund can be at the forefront of protecting the First Amendment rights of our members and all who seek to inform the American public about political candidates and their positions on issues.  We will continue to oppose liberal attempts to force federal courts to impose rules restricting free speech. ”

In April of last year, after Congress failed to pass the DISCLOSE Act, which aimed to counter the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which determined that corporations, including non-profits like the Hispanic Leadership Fund, have a constitutional right to engage in independent expenditures.  The FEC declined to impose similar free speech restrictions through additional regulations.  Van Hollen then filed this lawsuit as a last resort attempt to push courts to impose DISCLOSE Act-style regulations on groups that exercise their First Amendment rights.

“This case exposes the Left’s version of government: they want to force the FEC to unilaterally impose rules that the Supreme Court has already rejected and that twice failed in Congress,” said Lopez.  “Because we spread the message of free enterprise, economic opportunity, and prosperity, the Hispanic Leadership Fund and our rapidly growing number of supporters represent a threat to those in power who want to impose Big Government controls on Americans’ liberties, increase damaging government dependency, and severely hinder our ability to communicate our message.”

In the fall of 2010, the Hispanic Leadership Fund paid for an electioneering communication mentioning a candidate for Congress in a Florida congressional district.  Had the rules that Van Hollen advocates been in place at the time, HLF’s speech could have been chilled due to concerns about the disclosure of donors.  In the filings in this case, Van Hollen makes clear that he wants the ability to attack donors to groups funding ads, saying in a sworn declaration that he suffered injury, “because I cannot draw attention to the person or persons who finance electioneering communications about me. . . .”    It is very clear that Van Hollen seeks these disclosures so that he can discourage outside speakers from exercising their constitutionally protected rights.

As a result of tomorrow’s hearing, the district court decision could be issued just as the 2012 election cycle heats up.  the decision will have a major impact on the rights of groups’ to speak under the First Amendment.

Jason Torchinsky, partner at Holtzman Vogel PLLC and counsel to Hispanic Leadership Fund, said, “This is a very important case because it could impact the donor disclosure rules for any organizations looking to spend money during the 2012 election cycle.  In a post-Citizens United world, liberals continue to try to undermine existing rules regarding donor disclosure.”

###

But is that what really happens in practice?  The reality is that a lot of regulation is confusing, messy, unpredictable, hurts consumers, and can ead to costly litigation against both private-sector companies and the regulating agencies.

A classic case of this is the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) impenetrably complicated rules for how phone calls are switched between telephone networks and the vast array of telecommunications service providers, known as “inter-carrier compensation” regulations.  The FCC recently attempted to “reform” these regulations, but the resulting “rules of the road” are far from clear.

In October, we submitted a joint letter (with a prominent consumer organization) to the Federal Communication Commission making a simple request: to clarify regulations dealing with the fees on pre-paid calling cards, which had never been properly articulated, and which have resulted in costly and unnecessary litigation between phone companies and long-distance calling card companies.

Specifically, since 2006, it had been unclear whether access charges, fees charged to cards that feature a non-local number users must dial in order to then make their call, could also apply to locally-dialed access numbers.  This is an issue that affects millions of consumers of these cards, which are extremely popular with Latino consumers.

From our letter:

The outcome of this issue will have an immediate and significant impact on calling card consumers, many of whom are amongst our nation’s most economically-challenged consumers.  The cost of calls originating when a consumer calls a local access number and lower than they would be otherwise.  Collectively, these savings add up to billions of minutes.  Applying access charges to prepaid calling cards with locally-dialed access numbers will mean that consumers will have to pay tens of millions of dollars more in additional costs.

Unfortunately, the FCC failed to clarify this and other matters, which a variety of companies and other parties see as forcing them into litigation in order to gain clarity into these old and byzantine regulations (particularly true in the telecommunications industry).

Instead of rules of the road, we get litigation between rival firms, and between businesses and the government.  And instead of consumer benefits, consumers of calling card users are likely to face unnecessary higher costs.

The FCC has two incoming commissioners, and we hope that they will help move the commission to take these matters more seriously, helping consumers avoid the costs of both needless regulation and needless litigation.

The Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce recently broke with the state chamber and announced its public support, while National Federation of Independent Business released a poll showing plurality of small business owners support the plan.  Penny Shafer, chair of the Miami Chamber, underscored the collateral benefits and increasing tourism that would result from the enactment of the resorts.   The Chamber clearly understands that a potential $6 billion investment in the area and enticing millions of new visitors to Florida will stimulate the private sector, revitalize the job market, and bring relief to hard-hit areas of the state.

In addition, the Associated Builders and Contractors, Florida Carpenters Regional Council, Florida Concrete & Products Association, Hollywood Limousine, and the Florida Retired Workers Association have expressed their support for the benefits that the resorts may bring, addressing the economic needs of the state.

The growing support for the resorts by these business groups stands in contrast to others who have expressed opposition:  Disney (which we’ve written about before), the Florida Chamber of Commerce, the Florida Retail Federation (FRF) and the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association (FRLA).

Three years ago, both the FRF and FRLA praised the economic benefits the Seminole compact.  More recently, however, they each strongly denounced destination resorts.  Hard Rock International sits on the FRF board of directors and is owned by the Seminole tribe, which presides over a monopoly on the state’s gaming.  In addition, the Seminole Hard Rock has seats on the boards of the Broward and Hillsborough FRLA.

While there may be reasons to their opposition beyond board involvement, none of the opposing groups have put forward any proposal that holds as much promise for growing employment and the economy as the destination resorts.   As taxpayers and policymakers across the state dig more into the issue, they would be wise to focus on concrete measures that focus on creating jobs and economic growth in the region.

Outdated existing regulations have restricted new capital from entering the market and curtailed the implementation of cutting-edge technologies.

Read the piece here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Hispanic Leadership Fund today released a letter from its President Mario H. Lopez, to Walgreens CEO Gregory Wasson, expressing concern over the ongoing dispute.

At a critical time in our nation’s history, millions of patients, including many in underserved communities, are in danger of having health care choices severely affected by the dispute, which has also negatively impacted Walgreens itself.

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Mr. Wasson,

I am writing to respectfully request that you weigh the negative consequences of severing your relationship with Express Scripts and that you reconsider the decision to end Walgreens low cost prescription drug program.

As the largest drug store chain in America, Walgreens is in a unique position to affect significantly a wide variety of communities.  Walgreens position has served its customers well, providing convenient access to important medications for millions of Americans in both affluent and struggling communities. That access is especially important in Hispanic areas, which are traditionally underserved.

Severing your relationship with Express Scripts and their customers would needlessly disenfranchise a large segment of the public from critical health care options.  If you follow-through with your plan to stop accepting Express Scripts prescription drug coverage, there may be significant harm to underserved individuals and families across the country.

From our perspective, it would seem that Walgreens, and its customers and shareholders, all have much to gain from negotiating a mutually beneficial agreement with Express Scripts.

I thank you in advance for your consideration of these concerns.

 

Sincerely,

/s/

Mario H. Lopez

As the debate heats up, both sides are making claims about the impact of casinos.  It is important to take into account who is making the claims. Despite the existing gaming options in Florida, some opponents have been making pleas against new destination casinos based on a supposed interest in maintaining Florida’s “family friendly” brand.

The problem is that some of those who have been shouting the loudest have been less truthful about their motivation.

For instance, a group backed by Disney called “No Casinos” has been running television ads opposing gaming expansion. While No Casinos and Disney would have you believe they oppose gaming on moral grounds, the truth is somewhat murkier.

As a multinational company, Disney has a wide range of subsidiaries, including Marvel Entertainment.  In addition to its better-known comic book and movie picture franchise, Marvel sells the rights to its characters–including Hulk and the X-Men–to be used for games on online gambling websites likeCasino.com and EuropaCasino.

Marvel gets paid by the developers of the internet games for the use of their famous characters by companies like CrytpoLogic and Playtech.

Marvel, and by extension Disney, are engaged in the business of online slot machine gaming.

These types of comic book slot machines available online would not even be allowed in Las Vegas or other gaming locations in the United States because they are aimed at kids.

Therefore, despite their claims, ‘No Casinos’ is clearly taking money from gaming interests.

As Floridians continue to debate this issue, they deserve some transparency in regard to who is opposing new developments and why.  Clearly, claims coming from No Casinos and Disney that they are morally opposed to gaming ring false.

That is why it is especially disappointing that President Obama has chosen to turn the payroll tax cut into a campaign issue: not only is it likely to continue his record of implementing policies that have failed to stimulate the economy, but it gives Americans false hope that businesses will create desperately needed jobs.

President Obama’s focus on the payroll tax focuses attention away from the real issue: government overspending.

Read the piece.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Hispanic Leadership Fund today applauded Congressional action intended to delay recently revised school lunch standards developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, especially in regards to a proposed reduction in salt consumption.

“Once again, federal regulators have abandoned sound science in favor of political correctness and a flawed agenda,” said Hispanic Leadership Fund President Mario H. Lopez.  “The scientific and medical evidence clearly shows not only that salt is essential to good health, but also that there is a lack of evidence of health benefits from reduced-salt diets.”

Lopez also expressed concern over the unintended consequences of government-mandated reductions of salt in food.  Human beings have an innate physiological appetite for salt, and the human body moderates its behavior to replenish the blood’s ionic balance.  So individuals who are faced with food mandated to be low in salt may, even unconsciously, be driven to eat considerably more to satisfy the natural appetite for salt.  “The irony is that, despite good intentions, federal regulators may be contributing to an increase in obesity, which is a problem for the Americans of all background, and especially for Latinos.  Calling for further study on the effects of the USDA’s sodium reduction guidelines is the right thing to do,” said Lopez.

Last week, the Hispanic Leadership Fund wrote to the Food and Drug Administration prior to a public hearing they hosted with other government agencies on sodium reduction to express these same concerns.

After President Obama’s broken promises, historic number of deportations, and an economic record that includes an 11% Hispanic unemployment rate, two points higher than the already sky-high number for the general population, Biaggi committed a huge disservice to El Zol’s listeners by abandoning any pretense of impartiality and ignoring the disastrous effects on Hispanic families caused by President Obama’s failed policies.

Sadly, many in the media seem hell-bent on cheerleading for President Obama, rather than report on reality.