Above: John Gregg meets with the Indianapolis Star Editorial Board to answer questions. As governor, how would you prioritize social issues such as abortion and same-sex marraige?
Click to Enlarge
Having failed for now to eliminate breast exams, cancer screenings and birth control that millions of American women count on, Representative Mike Pence continues his misleading and outrageous attacks on Planned Parenthood and the preventive health care our doctors and nurses provide. Representative Pence well knows that for over 30 years not a dollar of federal funding that Planned Parenthood has received to provide preventive and basic health care has paid for abortion, but he continues to mislead everyone he talks to. Thankfully the media is beginning to hold Mr. Pence accountable for his intentionally misleading words.
“We should end the day when the largest abortion provider is the largest recipient of [Title X] federal funding,” [Rep. Mike Pence]
Congressman Mike Pence is part of the problem in a Washington bitterly divided by partisanship and outrageous talking points.The campaign to become Indiana's next Governor is about values, and we know that Hoosiers -- above all else -- value hard work. That's why we launched this website: to make sure you know the real Mike Pence and what he's been doing with his time in Washington.We don't need Mike Pence's brand of out-of-touch, Washington-style politics, but we do need your help to make sure he's not successful in November. Join us today in our fight for good-paying jobs, quality education and a state that works for working Hoosiers.
![]() |
| Indianapolis Star/ John Severson |
![]() |
| PHOTO/Frank Espich |
![]() |
| Click to Enlarge |
The End of Campaign Finance Reform?
CAPITOL HILL BRIEFING
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Noon
Featuring Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute.B-354 Rayburn House Office BuildingThe recent Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life marks a change in direction in judicial doctrines concerning campaign finance. As recently as 2003, a majority of the Court upheld the strictures on free speech enacted in McCain-Feingold. In Wisconsin Right to Life, the Court forcefully stated that the benefit of the doubt lies with freedom of speech and not with the government. What will this decision mean for the 2008 campaign? How has the Court limited the power of Congress to regulate campaign finance and freedom of speech? Will we see a general deregulation of campaign finance compelled by judicial decisions over the next few years? Please join us to hear a leading congressional critic of restrictions on campaign spending and to discuss this vital judicial decision and its implications for Congress and national politics.
![]() |
Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana
(Credit: Getty Images/Alex Wong)
|
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, striking down those provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] McCain–Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office. SOURCE

Israel says its raid on the so-called Freedom Flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, which left nine activists dead, was a justified defense of its economic blockade of Gaza. Legal scholars aren't so sure. SOURCE
Therefore, the solution is to setup a system that will encourage illegal aliens to self-deport and come back legally as guest workers. This may sound outside of the box, and it is. It may sound far-fetched and unrealistic, but it isn’t. It is based on sound, proven conservative principles. It places reliance on American enterprise and puts government back into its traditional role of protecting its citizens. Let me explain to you how it will work.Private worker placement agencies that we could call “Ellis Island Centers” will be licensed by the federal government to match willing guest workers with jobs in America that employers cannot fill with American workers. U.S. employers will engage the private agencies and request guest workers. In a matter of days, the private agencies will match guest workers with jobs, perform a health screening, fingerprint them and provide the appropriate information to the FBI and Homeland Security so that a background check can be performed, and provide the guest worker with a visa granted by the State Department. The visa will be issued only outside of the United States.Outside of the United States. That is a key point because it is the provision that will require the twelve million illegal aliens to leave. Now, some of you are thinking to yourselves that twelve million people aren’t going to pack up and leave just to get a visa to come back legally. But, I believe most will. SOURCE
Pence: David [Stockman] believes that every tax increase equals a revenue increase, but that’s not true. Anybody who is familiar with the historical data from the IRS knows that raising income tax rates will likely actually reduce federal revenues. … So if we raise taxes, the American people are very likely going to — the top 1 percent are going to send less money to Washington, D.C., and that will never get us out of this …Stockman: I just have to respectfully disagree. … [I]t’s just common sense fact that, when you raise the rates, you get more revenue.Pence: Raising income tax rates on the top 1 percent will not increase revenues to the federal treasury.
HALPERIN: If your leaders came to you and said, "We have a deal with the White House. We're going to extend unemployment benefits, but the tax cuts for the people making over a million dollars a year will not be extended, but that helps to pay for it," would you take deal? Would you vote for that package?PENCE: Look, I think the worst thing you could do for people that are struggling in this economy and looking for a job is raising taxes on any American. We don't wanna help with one hand and take away with another.HALPERIN: Would you rather extend the tax cuts for every American, including those making over a million, or have the unemployment benefits extended if that's the choice?PENCE: [Laughs] Yeah, good. This isn't a corner, but I feel the paint. You know? I'm good, nice move. I played chess with my son the other day and I lost, so, you know, I'm not good at this chess thing. [Laughs] Let me tell you, I think the minimum that we have to do right now for Americans that are struggling in unemployment in this economy is make sure that no American sees a tax increase.