Right now Congress is considering two bills—the Protect IP Act, and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)—that would be laughable if they weren’t in fact real. Honestly, if a friend wrote these into a piece of fiction about government oversight gone amok, I’d have to tell them that they were too one-dimensional, too obviously anticonstitutional.

Make no mistake: These bills aren’t simply unconstitutional, they are anticonstitutional. They would allow for the wholesale elimination of entire websites, domain names, and chunks of the DNS (the underlying structure of the whole Internet), based on nothing more than the “good faith” assertion by a single party that the website is infringing on a copyright of the complainant. The accused doesn’t even have to be aware that the complaint has been made.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz has stated that Congress hasn’t done its due diligence is sending up red flags. Despite the entertainment industry’s lobbying campaign, even Ashton Kutcher realizes this is bad medicine. Is your Congressman smarter than Ashton Kutcher? Mine isn’t.

In a response to a constituent, “Simpson” writes :

Dear Phil:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act. I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced H.R. 3261 on October 26, 2011. This legislation aims to promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property. Currently H.R. 3261 is under consideration by the House Committee on the Judiciary.

While I do not sit on the committee with jurisdiction over this piece of legislation, I will continue to monitor its progress as it makes its way through the committee process. You can be confident that I will keep your thoughts in mind should it come before me on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Phil was annoyed because, “This is supposedly a “personal response.”  This of course is an obvious form letter with constituent name, bill name, sponsor, and other information merely inserted.

In addition, this is not some minor issue. This is an issue that is about our fundamental liberty and freedom of speech. Perhaps, Mike Simpson has been too busy trying to raise taxes to pay attention when a bunch of Hollywood lobbyists are trying to undermine our liberty in order to bolster their profits.

Isn’t it time that we had a Congressman who, I don’t know, provided a level of service and respect to his constituents that is at least on par with what fast food restaurants near BSU? Isn’t it time we had a Congressman whose business was defending our liberties rather than trying to find more ways to squeeze money out of us?

Hopefully, an election in the new year will at last bring us a new Congressman.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0[/youtube]

He’s shocked, shocked that overspending is going on. He says we need to quit spending money. This is like late Dom DeLuise telling you to stop eating pasta.

Simpson doesn’t just dole out pork to Idaho’s second district but every district in America, and Simpson likes pork whether its the development of a microbial paint shield the pentagon didn’t ask for, Simpson rarely meets pork he didn’t like.

And he apparently didn’t think he was spending too much when he voted for TARP or if he did, he just couldn’t help himself. The same thing happened with the SCHIP extension. Maybe, he’s trying to send a secret message to the people of Idaho. Stop me before I spend again.

Simpson is talking tough because this year his position is probably more precarious than any year since it’s been since 1998. He’s being challenged by conservatives.

Simpson is a member of the House Appropriations Committee and when the NTU lists friends of taxpayers, he’s not on the list. His grade last year “C” ranked #166 in the U.S. House. He’s a big spending greaser of hogs who is slowly spending my generation into bankruptcy.

If Simpson is serious, he should bring forth genuine fruits of change: Agree to refuse earmarks and stop apologizing for Congressional overspending by his chums on the Appropriations Committee. Act as if he swore to uphold the Constitution, rather than swearing to fill the pockets of the special interests that finance his re-election. And fight for the values of freedom and limited government that beat within the heart of Idahoans. It’s time to demand actions, not words. Simpson’s talk is cheap, but his actions are bringing out the economic ruination of a generation.

It is only when Simpson starts acting like a servant of the people rather than a drone for special interests. When his actions show true dedication to fiscal responsibility that he can hope to start a beautiful friendship with Idaho conservatives.

Well, Simpson is so confident, he’s done the political equivalent of walking out on the battlefield in t-shirt and gym shorts. When he’s back in his district, he doesn’t hold town hall meetings where his constituents can ask him questions. He doesn’t have representatives show up at Central Committee meetings, which is a good thing as his staff makes the downtown DMV look like the Missionaries of Charity. I’ve gotten more polite service at a Subway near BSU. That says something.”

“Simpson has taken his position for granted. Even Simpson’s fundraising numbers are weak. They’re the numbers of a man whose political career has become a never-ending victory lap. Now, he faces a challenge. Not two unknown challengers throwing in their hats at the last minute before the filing deadline, but one challenger who is raising money and building an organization in a year when incumbency will offer less advantage than any year since 1994.”

Simpson answered my charges, sorta:

Simpson: Adam is entitled to his own opinion. I have never taken any race in my life for granted and will not take this one for granted either. I believe competition is a good thing and that voters deserve choices in elections, which they will certainly have in the primary next year. I am proud of my record of service to my constituents and of my voting record in Congress, which is one of a pragmatic conservative who has opposed over $4.5 TRILLION in spending this year alone as well as efforts to expand the definition of hate crimes, the Democrats’ Health Care Entitlement Plan, the Democrats’ Cap-and-Trade proposal, and myriad other cornerstones of the liberal agenda. In addition, I am strongly supporting a number of other fiscally-conservative bills this Congress including the Balanced Budget Amendment, legislation to sunset all federal agencies and require their reauthorization, and legislation to repeal the Obama-Pelosi stimulus bill. I am proudly pro-life, and I strongly oppose illegal immigration, gun control and the efforts of Democrats to institute a secret ballot in union elections. As I said, I am proud of my conservative record and confident that I have voted in the best interests of Idaho throughout my nearly 11 years in Congress.

Other than claiming to be conservative, by opposing bills that nearly every other Republican in Congress opposes, Simpson does little to answer the charges that he’s complacent other than insisting that he’s not. He doesn’t hold townhall meetings and he doesn’t challenge the assertion that his staff is surly and unresponsive to the public. Nor other than stating he wasn’t taking the election granted did he actually refute my evidence that suggested he was.

In addition, does Simpson really deserve plaudits for opposing legislation that most Republicans opposed. Simpson voted against Health Care, the Stimulus, and Cap and Trade.  That means that Simpson voted with 99.43%, 100%, and 95.48% of the Republican Caucus. When does Mr. Simpson want us to schedule the ticker tape parade?

As for the Balanced Budget Amendment, given Mr. Simpson’s deplorable record of supporting government waste, this paints the picture of an alcoholic supporting prohibition. It’s as if Simpson is saying, “Stop me before I spend again!” Never mind that in this congress, the Balanced Budget Amendment has as much chance of being approved as a Constitutional Amendment banning music videos praising politicians.

Simpson does deliver a reasonable answer to why he supported an expansion of Cash for Clunkers:

Simpson: I did NOT support the Cash for Clunkers program. I voted against the creation of the program and would do so again today if another vote occurred. I will be the first to acknowledge that I did vote for the release of an additional $2 billion for the program, but it was not a vote in support of the program. Please let me explain. The release of the additional $2 billion for the program was offset by a reduction of $2 billion from the Obama Stimulus Bill. If that $2 billion would have remained in the stimulus bill, it would have been spent, like most of the other $785 billion in the stimulus bill, to grow government agencies and government programs that will live on for decades into the future. By voting to move that $2 billion out of stimulus and into Cash for Clunkers, I felt the money at least would be sent back to the American people where they would spend it far more wisely than the government would. As I said, I did NOT support the Cash for Clunkers program and do NOT support it now. In fact, I oppose it. My vote on the additional $2 billion was not a choice of supporting or not supporting the program. It was a choice between $2 billion for Clunkers or $2 billion for stimulus and I made the decision that $2 billion for clunkers was the lesser of two evils.

Fair enough, I thing Congressman Simpson gave a reasonable explanation. In fact, I think he gave one twice.  However, Simpson’s response to his opponent Chick  Heileson’s more mild criticism was worthy of consideration:

“”I want to see the Constitution followed, I think Mike Simpson believes he is a Constitutionalist, but if you look at the document and compare it with his voting record, he’s not following it the way he should.”

Simpson responds:

Like Adam Graham, Mr. Heileson is entitled to his own opinion. However, I am a strong supporter of the Constitution and look to its guidance often in the efforts I undertake as a Congressman.

Really?  Perhaps this calls for a letter:

Dear Congressman Simpson,

I was overjoyed and surprised to hear that you look to the Constitution for guidance on your votes.

I did have a couple question, though. What specific clause in the Constitution led you to vote to send $700 billion in tax dollars to private corporations with your vote for the TARP bill? Secondly, what section did you find that led you to vote for the expansion of SCHIP while our country faces a deficit more than a trillion? Please send the appropriate section of the Constitution where Congress’ action was justified.

Also, if you just couldn’t find your copy of the Constitution on the day the vote occurred and just winged it, please let me know as well.

Your Constituent,
Adam Graham

I’ll let you know when I get a response.

*For those who don’t know me, I have a beard, and I couldn’t be a jockey because I’m too-uh-tall.

Well Congressman Simpson seems to have run into a little bit of a problem as he received a Disavowal notice from the FEC for not filing a statement of candidacy, which is legally required. Of course, everyone makes mistakes, so having this issue happen in 2009 wouldn’t be a big deal.

Except it also happened in 2005 for the 2006 election, 2003 for the 2004 election. and 2001 for the 2002 cycle.  So, in the last five campaigns, Mike Simpson has had the same avoidable issue happen four times.

This isn’t the biggest reason not to vote to re-elect Mike Simpson. But it’s part of a patterns for a Congressman who holds no townhalls, whose office sends out curt responses to constituent requests, and who makes little effort to raise funds inside of Idaho. Simpson has been a victory lap for at least the last nine years, with his Congressional being viewed as his by divine right. It’s up to Idahoans to diabuse him of that notion.