We like to say “all politics is local” and “national change truly begins at the local level”.  If this is true and if we as conservatives deign to make a national impact to change the current course of this country, we must acknowledge that it is imperative to win locally.

I can’t emphasize enough that in addition to promoting good-government, we must establish it as well.  This is why it is extremely important for everyday conservatives to become politically active at their local and municipal levels of government.
City Councils and School Boards oversee and spend millions of American taxpayer dollars. Members of these governing bodies play a critical role in local governments, and it’s time we start treating them that way by ensuring there are viable conservative voices at the tables of local government.

As citizens, our local government is the level of government we have the closest contact with and over which we should have the most direct control.

Oftentimes, however, local governments are paid the least amount of attention by voters, are the least transparent, and therefore are the least fiscally responsible.  Sadly, this trend is not an exception, it has become the norm: funding at the local levels and in school districts continues to increase and yet government waste is at an all time high as we continue to see test scores drop.
Evidently, real change is needed. We need more people dedicated to seeing the system work, and American Majority is ready to help get those dedicated people elected.

American Majority seeks to provide professional political training to commonsense conservatives interested in running (and winning) elections for local/municipal office.

If you have ever considered running for School Board or City Council in order to bring some commonsense to your local government (or know someone who would make a great candidate) please CLICK HERE. Fill out the form so American Majority can help you in this important endeavor by giving you the political training you can use to win!

In our trainings we emphasize that “small steps go far!” … well, it’s high time we begin that political march to Washington, and there’s no better place to take our first steps than from home.

Oh Twitter, how I love thee. Let me count the ways…

I first became interested in Twitter a bit over a year ago while reading Seth Godin’s book, Tribes (for my full blog review of the book click here). Before I even finished the book I had to log online and get my account set up (@razshafer). Since then it’s been a non-stop ride on the twitter train for over a year. Here I sit, 6248 tweets and 3834 followers later, more fascinated by it than ever!

While I’ve been active with social media since the advent of Web 2.0 I had never aspired to use that medium for political ends. After reading Tribes and a few blog articles about the political uses of Twitter I began to see how powerful Twitter could be when used for a specific purpose.

Twitter.com was created in March of 2006 and went live for the world to use on July 13th, 2006. Since that time it’s membership has swelled to well over and its ranked among the most popular social media sites online. For in-depth information about Twitter’s history, check out the Twitter page on Wikipedia.com. You can even see The Story of Twitter in Picture Form if you so desire.

Because Twitter has released no official estimate of its membership, we are left to guess or estimate likely membership. In my own search of an estimate I took a few factors into account: 1, Twitter.com has received between 23 and 24 million unique visitors per month over the last several months. 2, Only 45% of Twitter users use the website. While many users no doubt visit the site at least once per month, a rough estimation, given these two statistics, is about 50 million users. Considering that 21% of twitter users have never actually tweeted, our estimate of active accounts comes to: 41 million. Regardless of the exact number of active members, Twitter has a huge audience which is heavily engaged. It’s an incredibly powerful venue for broadcasting information, digesting news, debating viewpoints and building relationships.

I believe that in the “David vs. Goliath” battle we are engaged in we must approach the fight much like asymmetric warfare. There was a phenomenal article written by Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker last May titled “How David Beats Goliath: When Underdogs Break the Rules.” The thesis of Gladwell’s article is that when Davids write their own rules, rather than fight by the conventions that their opponent tries to impose then they will win more often than not. He supports this with a study conducted by Political Scientist Ivan Arreguín-Toft. In the study Arreguín-Toft studied every war within two hundred years in which there was significant imbalance (10 to 1 based on military power and population) between combatants. He found that when the weaker power (David) fought by the rules and conventions imposed by the stronger power (Goliath) that David lost 71.5% of the time. This is still quite impressive considering the 10 to 1 power imbalance but when he focused on wars where David wrote his own rules, like in the Biblical account, David won an incredible 63.6% of the time.

Right now we are faced with a David vs. Goliath fight. Conservatism is riding a populist wave but the principles which we advocate and the policy proposals we promote are far from being understood by the majority of our elected officials. While conservatives are indeed a majority, we still fail to demonstrate our size and power at the ballot box. In this fight we need to look to unconventional tools, such as new media, to promote the principles we champion.

I’m convinced that, in this new era of political communication, discovering and utilizing tools like Twitter is not an option. It is a necessity. The question of where we fight the battle is not up to us but if we leave tools un-utilized or under-utilized then we set our movement up for failure. For those of us at American Majority, failure is not an option.

In support of your efforts to become more active online, our Staff has created a Guide to Twitter and Activism: The Twittivism Guide. It is a 40 page document (free to view or download) which will guide you from being a non-user to a Twitter Power-User. American Majority trainings also offer in-depth new media training as part of  our Activist and Candidate Political Training sessions.

If you remain unconvinced of the power of social media, check out this video. It was created by Erik Qualman (@equalman) and blows my mind every time I see it.

Newly elected school board member Joe Nolen of McLoud, OK, had never run for public office.  He had never directed a campaign.  He had never even volunteered for someone else’s campaign.   The term “political newcomer” would not even begin to describe him.

But Joe Nolen was tired of the school board in his town constantly spending more money than they had on hand and running up budget deficits.  So he decided to do something about it.  Joe Nolen decided to run for school board.

I met with Joe Nolan in the middle of January – a little over a month from election day.  I sat down in his living room with him and his wife, and we talked about what it meant to run for public office, the effort it was going to take, and the uphill climb it was going to be for him to be victorious.  Joe understood this because he confessed his fear in going against a 3 term, 15 year incumbent – one who had never been challenged before and who also had more money and more name recognition than Joe.  He told me this entire scenario made him quite nervous.

But that night we discussed various campaign strategies, practical and simple ideas to overcome his multiple deficiencies, and a clear path that he believed would win him his election.

In the end Joe was going to run on three ideas: transparency, accountability, and fiscal responsibility.  These were the elements he believed were missing from the McLoud School Board, and these are the words he would use with every single person he spoke with during the campaign.

By the end of that night, Joe was determined and motivated to out-work his opponent by running a smarter and more organized campaign.  He was also excited to use the tools and resources American Majority had provided him to help in his effort.  But he was on his own until election day, and I was curious about what the result would be.

Yesterday, after a month of putting out yard signs, developing and implementing a micro-targeting goal, walking his entire city, and in the end even employing a small army for his GOTV effort, Joe Nolen defeated his incumbent opponent by a margin of 65% to 35%.  Due in large part to Joe’s efforts, the voter turnout was higher than he, or anyone else, had expected.

In talking to Joe after his victory, he confessed he knew he had won his election the weekend before the vote because of the work he had done and the organized campaign he had put together.  He also told me that he was surprised that the margin of victory wasn’t higher.

As our conversation wound down Joe expressed his appreciation for me driving out to his house that night and helping him achieve his goal.  He sincerely and honestly thanked American Majority for the resources, ideas, and encouragement we offered him as a newcomer in the world of local politics.

But best of all, he was excited, motivated, and ready to get started as the newest member of the McLoud School Board.

WATCH THE TRAINING HIGHLIGHT REEL FROM THE RAZ ‘N REBA TOUR

One of the downsides to a widespread, national organization can be lack of “unit cohesion.” At American Majority we work to foster friendships and camaraderie among our staff through a variety of channels but my new favorite is the inter-state training tour.

Last week, Beka “Reba” Romm and I traveled from our respective states of Kansas and Texas to Charlotte, NC. There we teamed up with Douglas Price to begin “Raz & Reba’s Excellent Adventure.” This was no simple training tour, my friends...It was history in the making.

Through our five day, four training tour, we equipped nearly 140 conservative activists with the tools necessary to make a difference in their community. Our goal was to fan brushfires of freedom across the Carolinas and that’s exactly what we did.

Day 1: Douglas Price picked Reba and I up at the airport, uniting our cohort. After being served dinner by a waitress that looked remarkably like a taller Monica Lewinsky, we sallied on to Doug’s house to watch the State of The Union. This event resulted in voracious tweeting and severe heartburn for all involved.

Day 2: Summerville, SC was the location of our first training so after picking up the rental car and Reba from the hotel, our crew headed south. At Reba’s request we’d built enough time into our travel so that we could make it down to the shore for a few minutes before our training. It was absolutely beautiful and only my second time to the Atlantic shore.

That evening we kicked off the training portion of our tour with an energetic group of 45 Summerville conservatives. We couldn’t have asked for a better crowd to start the training. These folks were fired up and ready to learn. Reba and I hit our stride early and discovered that we work really well as a team!

Day 3: We awoke to dire weather reports forecasting freezing rain, snow and apocalypse on our trip to Greenville but refused to be cowed by such prognostication. We made record time during our trip for our Day Three training in Myrtle Beach, SC and lamented the fact that we didn’t bring our golf clubs along for the ride.

That afternoon we trained in a historic train depot which has been curated in Myrtle Beach as a type of community center. The crowd was dynamic and their passion for liberty was clear. I can’t wait to hear more great things about their accomplishments!

Following the training we headed up to Greenville, SC for the evening. Along the way we decided that considering the weather forecast that we would push back the start time of our training in order to allow people more time in transit, for safety. The evening rounded out with some hang-out time back at the hotel.

Day 4: We knew that the weather would have a negative impact on turnout for the training but had no idea how many people would stay at home. As it turned out, the Greenvillians surprised us with remarkable fortitude. We had a nice turnout and I think that it was personally my best training experience of the trip.

Following the training, Doug and I chipped an inch thick sheet of ice off of the rental car and we began the trek north to Charlotte. Somehow, Doug managed to keep us on the road and safe in spite of the obstacles which were presented.

Upon arrival in Charlotte it became apparent that the city shuts down when ice or snow are encountered. Reba and I tried to eat at several different restaurants only to find them closed down. We were, however, able to finally secure sustenance.

Day 5: All good things must come to an end and our tour was no exception. We wrapped things up with a bang at the training in Charlotte. Not only did we have a packed house but the local Fox TV affiliate came out to do interviews and record some of the training. You can see the clip they aired below! As it turned out, we were actually also covered on Fox & Friends the next morning as well!

Raz & Reba’s Excellent adventure was on the whole a huge success: We trained a fantastic corp of conservatives, braved storms, and tightened relationships between the three American Majority offices represented. I look forward to getting to train with Doug and Reba in the very near future. Watch out America, there’s no telling where we’ll go next!

Our nation was founded by ordinary citizen activists desiring a government that was accountable to the people.  Today, ordinary citizens across our nation are tired of the status quo and ready to engage for the betterment of their communities.

American Majority Texas is pleased to announce an Activist Training will be conducted on Saturday, February 20 in Austin, TX to provide citizens with the tools necessary to become effective activists

The training will take place at the Texas Capitol Extension Auditorium in room E1.004 from 10:00 am to 3:00 pm. Public parking is available. Registration opens at 9:30 am.  The cost is $10 per person if you pre-register online $20 per person at the door.  Space is limited.  Pre-registration is strongly encouraged.  Lunch will NOT be provided for this training.  Participants are encouraged to bring their own.

Topics* to be covered during the Training include:

• Building Coalitions and Reaching Your Community
• Utilizing New Media to Promote Freedom
• Hardwiring Your Precinct
• Building an Effective Candidacy.

Full training materials, samples and supplements will be provided to help you apply what you learn to your organization, candidate, cause or community.

If you have any questions or would like additional information, call Andrew Kerr at 512-771-2355 or e-mail akerr@americanmajority.org.

American Majority is a non-profit and non-partisan organization whose mission is to train and equip a national network of leaders committed to individual freedom through limited government and the free market.

* Topics are subject to change.

Two weeks ago, the nation witnessed the election of Scott Brown over Martha Coakley in the race for the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy for like 57 years.  With this result still fresh on my mind, over the last few days I have attempted an impossible undertaking.

My mission?  Figure out exactly why Scott Brown won, how he won, and the lessons normal Americans can learn from his monumental and historic victory.

In short, I was going to do what seemingly no other human being could (minus, amazingly enough, the MSNBC talking heads):  I was going to pin down the exact reasons that a state senator with a truck beat the pants off of a popular and established (and seemingly insurmountable) opponent in Martha Coakley, herself the current Attorney General of the state.

Yep, I was going to crack this code and find out exactly what went on in this bluest of blue states that led to this political Armageddon.

I began by scouring the internet, newspapers, cable news channels, and even Twitter for days on end.  I chewed up every bit of information I could find and tossed about in a sea of political theories as if I were a gung-ho poly-sci major during the first week of a new school year.

However, what I quickly figured out through all of this information was that theses simple questions of “how” and “why” were going to be a lot harder to answer than I had initially thought.  In stark reality, I found out is that that there is not a consensus on the reasons for Scott Brown’s victory – actually there was not even anything close to what anyone could consider a consensus.

What I did find was spin (oh, there was lots of spin), but there were also literally hundreds of theories and conjectures about what exactly had transpired to make his win possible.  Along these lines, I read the word “populism” a lot.  I saw the word “anger” a bunch. Likewise, there were multiple readings about “incumbent”, “excitement”, “bad candidate”, “momentum”, “establishment”, “Obama”, “healthcare”, and “gaffes”.

But still, it seems to me that literally no one agrees on the why or the how of Scott Brown’s victory.

So my next step was to cut through all of this garbage, look at the campaigns and candidates, and see what the glaring differences were.  In my continued search, one word kept popping off of the pages and into my head over and over and over.  The ads the candidates ran spelled this out, the gaffes that were made spelled this out, and the desperation toward the end of the campaign spelled this word out.

In one word, why and how did Scott Brown defeat Martha Coakley?

EFFORT… Six letters, one word, and the most damaging weapon in Scott Brown’s holster.

With that word in mind, rewind with me to just before the Massachusetts election.  I am sitting in the living room of a school board candidate of a small suburb of Oklahoma City.  This particular candidate has never been involved in politics, never ran for office, and has never even volunteered for a campaign.  He is the very definition of a green candidate, and no, I don’t mean the save-the-earth kind of green.

Anyway, this guy knew two things about being a candidate for public office: yard signs and election day. That’s it.   He didn’t have a clue about micro-targeting, GOTV, financial reporting, grassroots, or new media applications. He wasn’t aware he needed to do a little fundraising, knock on doors, use both earned and free media, or even simply announce his candidacy to the local press.

But you know what he wanted to do? Work.  He wanted to find folks to vote for him, speak wherever there was a microphone, explain to people what needed to be fixed in the school district, and tell them his ideas on how to fix it.  He burned with a desire to beat the 15 year incumbent who also happened to be the president of the school board…who was also rich…and who had never drawn an opponent.

So for three hours in his living room that night, we talked about effort, messaging, and overcoming the lack of name recognition.  By the end of the night, this completely overwhelmed challenger was convinced that if he could out-work, out-effort, and out-campaign the incumbent, he could win.  Would it take a lot of sacrifice and time?  Yes, but effort always demands those things.

Effort is an action but it is also an attitude; obviously there is always a physically active element that comes with effort but there is also a mentally active element as well.  In short, there must be the desire to put out effort before there can be the action of effort.

Scott Brown illustrates this point in a variety of ways.  He obviously wanted to win or he would not have run for the United State Senate in the first place.  But more than that, he showed how badly he wanted to win by the actions he undertook as he crisscrossed the state to meet voters in every corner of the state.  He even had television ads about how many miles his truck had accrued because of his travels.  Genius!  Couple that by the excitement he fostered in his vast army of volunteers, who then did their best to match his level of effort in their phone calls, canvassing , and GOTV efforts, and you have an atomic bomb of many people working as hard as they could to deliver victory to Scott Brown on election day.  Again, it is all about effort.

However, Martha Coakley’s lack of effort and seemingly dispassionate campaign can easily be seen in her now famous answer about how hard she was working in comparison to Scott Brown: “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park?  In the cold?  Shaking hands?”

By this quote we can see that Martha Coakley apparently didn’t put out enough of effort or perhaps even have the desire to do so.  In fact, even earlier in the campaign, this very telling quote was made by state Rep. Bill Bowles of Attleboro in the article Sluggish Coakley Effort Irks Dems in the Sun Chronicle of Attleboro, MA:  “I’m not happy with the level of campaign effort I’ve seen.”

Oh boy.

In a related quote, one voter in Massachusetts (and a Coakley supporter) said this in another local paper:  “The Democrats, specifically, expected it not to be close so they sat back.  I mean, I get three calls a day from Scott Brown’s daughters.”

Holy crap.

Notice the difference in the amounts of effort – in this case it relates to what one campaign expected to happen versus what the other campaign made happen.

It is because of these very stark contrasts in effort that I believe shows that you can strip away all of the issues, the anger, the voter turnout, and the memory of Ted Kennedy to very easily see that effort played perhaps the biggest role in Scott Brown’s win.

Furthermore, this is yet another example of a candidate’s willingness to work and put out the effort to win as a major reason for victory.  And granted, this is not always the case – effort is not always the determining factor, and there are probably thousands of examples of both national and local races where this was not true.

However, the flipside of that coin is that a lack of effort can be a major reason for insuring a loss.

In the end the greatest thing for a candidate is no matter how big or how small your election is, effort has a real chance to overcome any hurdles you may face on the campaign trail.

Along these lines, take a look at the school board candidate from earlier.  As we ended our conversation, a few of the tactics he said he was going to employ leading up to election day was to spend time every morning with the vast amount of folks at the coffee shop downtown, walk his town’s neighborhoods with his wife and a few volunteers on a nightly basis, and go to high school basketball games with campaign business cards he created at home with his message and election day information on them.  For him, this was a simple way to get his message out there and encouraged people to vote for him.

But the consistent thread in all of these activities?  Yep, effort.

This gentleman knows that he has a mighty hill to climb, but his plan is to work his tail off and use his effort to make up the ground of experience, name recognition, and money.  These are the lessons we talked about that night after we had briefly discussed the Massachusetts election.

In conclusion, the issue of effort makes complete sense in the context of running for public office.  Whatever office you desire, just be determined to go after it with all of your might.  And think about it: if effort can help a free market and limited government conservative win in Massachusetts, effort can definitely help you win, too.

I think it’s clear that what we’re seeing is something new in politics with the tea party movement, and especially with what took place last night in Massachusetts. It’s not about people choosing this party or that party, nor is it just about the anger of independents. It’s people looking for leadership that will actually do what it says, and that will look out for their interests, not the interests of the politicians or big business. They want government that is responsible, not invasive. People don’t like the fact that the absurd spending and bailouts are all taking place on their backs, out of their pockets. As a friend said, “People know the fix is in with big government and big business and they’re not going to take it anymore.”

But after last night, I want to throw something out as a topic of conversation: does the tea party movement need a central leader/and or leadership? I have been quoted as saying I believe local tea party and 9.12 organizers should stay independent, while remaining on the same page with like-minded leaders from across the country. Quite frankly, I’m not convinced about some of these so-called “national” tea party organizations. I either question the leaders’ motives, or their strategy (which is to suppose they even have a long term strategy beyond the next protest). If those reading find those words provocative, so be it. Regardless, the question remains: is leadership needed for the movement to be sustainable in the long term? And I’m not talking about an election cycle or two, but fifteen, twenty, even thirty years or more. 

The tea party movement began as an organic movement, literally exploding from the grassroots and taking the political stage by storm in 2009. However, the problem with organic movements is that they are highly de-centralized. There are positives to be gleaned thus far from the movement. For example, demonstrating the true grassroots nature, thousands of tea parties and 9.12 groups are in existence today, with many flourishing despite having existed for only a year’s time (stop and think about the amazing nature of that: January, 2009. No tea parties. No 9.12 groups. January, 2010. Thousands of local tea party and 9.12 groups). And  despite being de-centralized, the local tea parties are working well together, for the time being. In Massachusetts, tea parties from New Hampshire, Connecticut, and New York City were working jointly with the Massachusetts’ tea parties to get grassroots workers to help Brown.

The negative, however, is that history tells us that highly de-centralized movements do not succeed in the long run unless they give way to some sort of unified, and dare I say, centralized leadership. Before you write the idea off, think about the newly independent United States in the 1780s. Every one of the 13 states thought and acted like a sovereign nation. They’d all played nice with each other during the war with Great Britain (well, sort of). But once the threat of Great Britain was gone, and they were independent, things started to sour with the United States. Within a matter of years following the Treaty of Paris, the United States actually stood on the brink of total collapse, with fierce internal dissension and bickering, from thirteen different currencies to repressive trade policies between the states. And we shouldn’t forget, the states were also dealing with continuous external threats from the European superpowers: Britain, Spain and France, each circling like wolves, waiting to strike.

The miracle in Philadelphia saved the United States from disaster. The Constitutional Convention took the thirteen states, each like a thin reed, and bound them together, increasing the strength and stability of all. There was give and take, with compromises struck, deals reached, with ultimately a new national government put in place. Each of course remained its own independent state, but they were now in union with the others. It is my opinion that without this, the states would never have survived, ultimately falling prey to petty in-fighting and greed, and eventually to one of the European powers. 

Now, in 2010, we are again faced with a pivotal moment to ‘Unite or Die.’ What if the thousands of tea parties and 9.12 groups around the country decided to come together? What if they really formed a legitimate, national structure, not something arbitrarily attempted by those seeking personal glory, and certainly not by one individual, but rather a circle of principled leadership. I’m becoming more and more convinced that if we do not begin working together strategically, the movement will melt away; people will not continue to protest ad nauseam.

What the election in Massachusetts last night showed is that if the tea party movement works together, amazing things can happen. But the serious problems facing this country will not be solved, and the country fundamentally, changed unless the tea party movement becomes better organized and more long term in its vision.

I’m not entirely sure what that would look like, but that is why I am asking the question. It seems that I am constantly seeing new “characters” emerge as self-proclaimed leaders of an organic, de-centralized movement – which I find odd. Each appears more inclined to profit from the movement than the one before. Now is the time we invest in the movement, instead of profiting from it. 

My hope is that this year, and in the years to come, the tea party movement evolves into a legitimate, sustainable political force; not a party, but a force, that dictates the direction this country takes. How this happens or what this will look like remains to be determined and so I ask again: Is it time to start thinking about leadership within the movement?

Drew Ryun of American Majority provides a detailed podcast on how to micro-target your community.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Chris Faulkner, Vice-President of Faulkner Strategies, provides campaign tips on running successful campaign events.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Chris Faulkner, Vice-President of Faulkner Strategies (and direct-mail guru), provides campaign tips on best practices concerning campaign mail.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Chris Faulkner, Vice-President of Faulkner Strategies, provides campaign tips on running a successful voter contact program.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Chris Faulkner, Vice-President of Faulkner Strategies, provides campaign tips on best practices of campaign yard sign usage.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Ned Ryun, President of American Majority, provides campaign tips on how to conduct a successful door-to-door campaign operation.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Ned Ryun, President of American Majority, delivers the twenty-second episode of the series entitled, “Running for Office.”

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

I do not pretend to be a lawyer.  While many of my friends in undergrad chose to enter the legal arena, I chose the second least honorable field: politics.  If you think about it, law and politics are inseparably woven together.  Many lawyers become politicians and many politicians need lawyers.  I promise I’ll end the sarcasm here (maybe).

Among the myriad of legal issues in the United States today, there are few as politically charged as the subject of eminent domain.  In layman’s terms, eminent domain is the act of government seizing private property when efforts to purchase the property from the owner have failed.  There can be many reasons for eminent domain, usually for the purpose of public use (utilities, roads, national defense, “economic development,” etc.), often loosely defined.  This article gives a good overview of the process.

The issue of eminent domain made headlines in 2005 when the Supreme Court decided in the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London that it was acceptable for the city to seize private property (after negotiations to purchase the properties failed) for the purpose of selling that property to developers to redevelop an blighted (in the city’s eyes) part of town.

The case is particularly important to me because New London, CT is my hometown.  I remember as a teenager reading and watching the debates between private citizens and the unelected New London Development Corporation (a quasi-public entity who received the funds from the sale) and how the City of New London ignored the rights of property owners in favor of a dream of becoming “the next Baltimore.”  In case you were wondering, Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant who benefited the most from the eminent domain recently decided to vacate their New London complex after a merger with Wyeth.

This was not the only time New London ran after dollar signs.  In the mid 1990s, the New London Zoning Board told my parents who had founded a small Assemblies of God church in the downtown that they could not buy any property in the city because “there were enough churches in New London.”  Never mind that such a decision violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and probably the then recently passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993).  The city was in desperate need of tax revenues for its pet projects and they despised the fact that churches were tax-exempt (as they should be).  Today the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 specifically protects churches against the abuses of activist zoning boards and where there is still abuse, organizations like The Beckett Fund, Alliance Defense Fund and American Center for Law and Justice continue to win case after case in favor of religious assemblies.

Despite 43 states passing laws attempting to limit the effects of Kelo, local governments seem emboldened by the Supreme Court case.  In a January 4 column, George Will in the Washington Post wrote an op-ed about ongoing abuses in New York.  In one case, developers are trying to define condos worth close to $600,000 as blighted in effort to pave the way for a multi-billion dollar development project (including a new home for the New Jersey Nets – do not get me started on taxpayer subsidies for private stadiums).  The New York Supreme Court sided with the developers in a 6-1 decision.

Will also talks about a Columbia University attempt to expand, but was resisted by local businesses that did not want to close their doors.  The university tried to have to properties seized by the city of Manhattan by defining the properties as blighted.  Thankfully a state court held in favor of the taxpayers in this one.

The abuse isn’t just limited to New York.

• In Washington, property owners are fighting against Sea Tac who wants their land as part of a light rail line.  The owners paid over $10 million for the property, but are being offered only $8.6 million.  Now the city wants to claim the land via eminent domain.
• In Florida, a man is charging the government with deliberately lowering the value of his property in order to offer less to homeowners when the government wanted to expand the size of Everglades National Park.
• In St. Louis, the city is letting private developers clear out traditional African-American communities in order to redevelop the part of the city in the developer’s vision.
• In Corona, California the city has extended their eminent domain authority by twelve years in a move that could affect businesses across the city.

What does this mean for ordinary citizens like us?  Politicians that do not respect the Constitution rule of law and natural rights are going to be more likely to abuse the practice of eminent domain, if they decide to use it at all.  Conservatives and libertarians can hash out if there is such thing as a need for eminent domain.  My purpose is not to solve that debate.  What is clear, however, is that eminent domain abuses are on the rise and it is an issue that every voter should consider when electing local officials.

The need is great for public officials that do err on the side of the people and not special interests or bloated bureaucracies.  The stakes are high when you consider the kind of authority local governments exercise when it comes to eminent domain, but they become all the more high when you consider that many of these abusers of the public trust become candidates for higher office.  The same attitudes in Congress today are reflected in many City Councils and Town and County Commissions: the politician knows best and there’s nothing you can do to stop me.  Thankfully neither is true, particularly the latter.  All it takes is a few voters that care and a few good candidates to run.