YouTube just approved my application for a Politician Channel:
“Thanks for your interest in starting a YouTube Politician Channel for your candidate. Congratulations, your application for a branded channel has been accepted!”
Check out the beginning of our customizations by clicking on the image below:
The benefits of a “Politician” account include:
• Listing as an official political channel on youtube.com
• Enhanced branding capabilities
• Increased video functionality, including longer uploads and custom thumbnail selection
To be granted “Politician” status on YouTube, you must:
• Meet all qualifications and complete all requirements (as specified by the Board of Elections for your state) for getting onto the ballot as a candidate for the political office you intend to run for. If you are a candidate for federal office, your campaign must be registered with the Federal Election Commission.
• Have a measurable level of public support for your campaign. This requirement will vary depending on the office you are running for, but YouTube will consider such things as the existence of volunteer staff, traction in the polls, and media coverage.
• Demonstrate an active campaign effort, including the existence of a campaign office, a staff, and a phone number; a credible fundraising operation with active outreach; the existence of campaign literature; and holding speeches and campaign events. In addition, your campaign must demonstrate an active YouTube presence – in particular, the existence of video content already uploaded to the campaign’s YouTube channel.
• In addition, all national and state-level official political party committees will be granted one “Politician” channel on a one-time-only basis.
Steve Deace sent me the following email last week:
Gentlemen:
Thank you very much for giving our audience two hours of your time recently to learn more about your race. I’ve been asked by several listeners, and one of you, my thoughts on how it went and I am still formulating my own opinion. I thought all three of you demonstrated a knowledge and passion for the job. That’s why I would like to offer each of you one final chance to address our audience between now and the June 8th primary via our blog by answering a question.
As Secretary of State, you are a member of the executive branch of Iowa government. You are a civil magistrate, charged with enforcing/administering the law. Attached is an audio clip of one of the gubernatorial candidates answering a question about the law, who decides what it is, and where it comes from. I’d like to give each of you an opportunity to listen to that clip and simply answer the question “do you agree” in as many words or as much detail as you would like. I will publish your answers on my blog as I receive them, if I receive any of them at all.
My Response:
Short Answer: The Law of the Land is determined by the People, not the Court.
Long Answer: I do not consider myself a Constitutional Scholar, but in my humble opinion, our Founding Fathers established a republic with three separate branches of government; the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial Branches. They established a Constitution that separated powers between these three branches of government. Article I of the Constitution granted all legislative powers to the Congress and gives the President the power to sign a bill passed by the Congress into law, or veto the bill, which can only be overturned by 2/3 vote of the Congress. This is how laws are made.
The Court has the power to review a bill passed by the Legislature and signed by the Executive to ensure that it does not violate the Iowa Constitution or the United States Constitution. LET ME BE CLEAR… This DOES NOT give the Court the authority to rule a law unconstitutional and then unilaterally amend that law to create a new law. ONLY a bill passed by the Legislature and signed by the Executive is a law. If the Court exercises its judicial review and determines that a law is unconstitutional, then it is up to the Legislature to bring forward a new law or re-write the existing law or do nothing. The Court cannot unilaterally make a law.
Example of Judicial Activism, Varnum v. Brien: Recently the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that limiting civil marriage to be between one man and one woman, as was written in Iowa Code Section 595.2, violated equal protection under the Iowa Constitution and then proceeded to make their own law by stating:
Consequently, the language in Iowa Code Section 595.2, limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.
In this case an activist judiciary attempted to make law by striking a portion of Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act and then applying the language left in the act to create a Judge-made right for gays and lesbians. This is wrong. The Court has no authority to create a law. At most the Court could rule this law unconstitutional, that does not mean that it can create a right. The Court instead took its power of judicial review and twisted it to give homosexuals the right to have a civil marriage.
Why does this matter in the Secretary of State race: When I am elected Secretary of State I am going to fight for a photo ID when you go to vote at the polls. This same law was passed by the State of Indiana and was challenged by liberal groups in Court trying to argue that the law was unconstitutional because it could disenfranchise voters. In the case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Indiana photo ID law was constitutional. This means that a photo ID law, crafted like the Indiana law, is tried and true and cannot be tied up in lengthy litigation.
Learn more at www.VoteMattSchultz.com about how we can stop voter fraud in Iowa with (1) a photo ID, (2) reforming Same-day voter registration, and (3) instituting a crime stoppers hotline for voter fraud in the Secretary of State’s office.
My new video is a thirty second spot meant to explain why I’m running for Secretary of State and highlight the fact that Iowa needs to protect itself from voter fraud. We need to recognize that we are not insulated from Chicago political strategies and organizations like ACORN. Iowa needs a Secretary of State who will fight for honest elections.
Watch this panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) talk about voter fraud:
John Fund, Wall Street Journal Anita Moncrief, former ACORN employee David Norcross, Republican National Lawyers Association
Moderator: Cleta Mitchell, American Conservative Union Foundation
