Purity vs Practicality Issue on Ballot Measures

What if a ballot measure accomplishes something that you believe, but in the process reaffirms an existing regulation that you find odious, but at least doesn't make it worse? Do you support it? This is my quandary with the proposed ballot initiative I regretted signing in yesterday's post regarding Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deductions initiative. Here is what Richard Rider, taxfighter extraordinaire, had to say on my cross-post in the sdrostra comments:

In particular I disagree on the “payroll deduction” prop’s analysis. B-Daddy is concerned about 1st Amendment issues hobbling corporations and unions funding favored candidates. But in reality — if the measure passes – both unions and corporations are still free to give money to IE (Independent Expenditure) campaigns to support or oppose candidates — as long as these funds are not run or influenced by the candidates.

I’m no expert in this area, but I believe unions are CURRENTLY denied the ability to DIRECTLY give money to candidates. I think that currently corporations can directly fund state candidates, but are often prohibited from funding local candidates for office.

Richard makes some great points. At least I have fewer regrets signing the petition. The purist in me wants to say, tough, I don't support any of these limits and believe that sunshine is the best anticeptic. Unions and corporations should be allowed to contribute but it should be made public. But the realist looks for advancing our goals, without betraying core principles. The question is does support for such an initiative betray core principles. I look forward to reading your opinion in the comments.

Obamacare - Some Religions are More Equal Than Others

So, how's that Executive Order to prevent federal funds from being applied to abortion under Obamacare coming along? From John Boehner's blog:

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), in a meeting with President Obama and Congressional leaders at the White House today, asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Leader Boehner noted that in her recent “progress report” to Congress on the implementation of ObamaCare, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius did not make any mention of efforts by the administration to implement the president’s Executive Order (EO).

Oh the joy of having one's name turned into a verb, and not one with pleasant connotations at that, as in boy did we get Stupaked on that deal. The legislation, as written, allows for the use of public subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion. Further, the only thing preventing that outcome is an executive order that has not been implemented. So you might think that if you had a religious belief that abortion is evil, you wouldn't have to participate in Obamacare, and of course you would be wrong. After all, how can we let people use mere religious belief to be a pretext for evading the greatest medical benefit since the Socratic oath? If we let certain religious groups opt out, there would be chaos.

So far, so evil. However, certain religious groups have been allowed to opt out:

From the Watertown DailyTimes:

The Amish, as well as some other religious sects, are covered by a "religious conscience" exemption, which allows people with religious objections to insurance to opt out of the mandate. It is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, making its appearance in the final version routine unless there are last-minute objections.

Although the Amish consist of several branches, some more conservative than others, they generally rely upon a community ethic that disdains government assistance. Families rely upon one another, and communities pitch in to help neighbors pay health care expenses.

Turns out that Muslims, Christian Scientists and Scientologists (no relation) may also be up for exemptions.

Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute alerted me to this anomaly in a recent letter. PJI is challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. Unfortunately, I did not see the specific remedy he was requesting, so it is hard to judge chances for success. Personally, I would hope for a wide open opt out option.

Other suits are also pending over the individual mandate and the manner in which the federal government is directing the states medicaid spending and requiring state employees to join exchanges. I am not certain any of those challenges have much of a chance except the individual mandate. The individual mandate would be easy for Congress to overcome if it rephrased the requirement that a tax rebate is not available unless one enrolls in a qualified plan. However, since the legislation is not worded that way, and because the Democrats may not get a chance to amend the legislation, the individual mandate is in a precarious position.