“Without [ObamaCare’s] premium support, premiums rise by nearly 45 percent, and enrollment falls…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Report: Without Subsidies, ObamaCare Enrollment in Death Spiral

“Without [ObamaCare’s] premium support, premiums rise by nearly 45 percent, and enrollment falls by nearly 70 percent,” says a report by RAND Health.

The analysis is part of an evaluation commissioned by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency in charge of ObamaCare implementation.

The report’s publication follows on news that a federal district judge in Oklahoma ruled ObamaCare’s premium support (i.e. subsidies) mechanism is not available in states that use Healthcare.gov, the federal ObamaCare exchange. According to the text of the law, eligibility for subsidies depends on a citizen’s state operating its own exchange. If the law’s plain meaning is followed, RAND’s analysis will apply to citizens in more than half of the states.

The RAND…[more]

October 21, 2014 • 01:50 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Press Releases
CFIF Files Federal Lawsuit to Vindicate Core First Amendment Rights in Louisiana Print E-mail
Monday, September 23 2013

ALEXANDRIA, VA – The Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) late last week filed a federal lawsuit in Louisiana seeking to vindicate its First Amendment rights – and those of similarly situated would-be speakers – against illicit enforcement of certain provisions of Louisiana’s Campaign Finance Disclosure Act (“CFDA”).

The lawsuit charges that Louisiana authorities responsible for enforcement of the CFDA have disregarded a decision CFIF secured in 2006 by the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Center for Individual Freedom, Inc. v. Carmouche).  In that case, the Fifth Circuit clarified and narrowly construed Louisiana’s campaign finance laws to apply only to communications that include the so-called “magic words” of express advocacy defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (e.g. “vote for,” “elect,” “defeat,” etc.).

On several occasions since Carmouche, the Louisiana Board of Ethics, without any legislative amendment to Louisiana’s campaign finance laws and in violation of the Fifth Circuit’s decision, has brought enforcement actions in cases where the challenged speech steered clear of such “magic words.”  Those enforcement actions have erased any bright line standard that is required by the First Amendment for what is and is not permitted speech under Louisiana’s campaign finance scheme without being subjected to broad and burdensome disclosure requirements.  As a result, CFIF is currently standing mute instead of communicating its views in Western Louisiana prior to the upcoming Caddo Parish District Court election on October 19, 2013.

CFIF also was forced to refrain from speaking in Louisiana in 2004 as it failed to secure a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the CFDA before its rights to speak were ultimately vindicated by the Fifth Circuit in Carmouche, and again in 2012 when it first discovered that state enforcement authorities had disregarded the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.

“The First Amendment demands that the rules of the road be clear and precise so speakers don’t unwittingly subject themselves to burdensome regulation and prosecution,” said CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella.  “The actions by the Louisiana Board of Ethics in direct violation of the Fifth Circuit’s Carmouche decision and the First Amendment have left us driving blind, leaving CFIF no other choice but to once again seek relief in the courts.”

CFIF’s lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, seeks: 1) a declaration that certain provisions of Louisiana’s campaign finance statute are unconstitutionally vague and void and/or that the statute has only the meaning given to it in Carmouche; 2) permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of the invalid law or forbidding any meaning other than that established in Carmouche; 3) an award of legal fees and expenses; and 4) such other relief as may be just. The lawsuit names each individual member of the Louisiana Board of Ethics and Charles R. Scott, the District Attorney for the 1st Judicial District, as defendants. 

CFIF is represented by Jan Witold Baran, Thomas W. Kirby, Caleb P. Burns and Andrew G. Woodson of the Washington, DC firm Wiley Rein LLP, and Christopher K. Ralston and Bryan Edward Bowdler of Phelps Dunbar, LLP in New Orleans.

Read CFIF's Complaint here (pdf).

Read CFIF President Jeffrey L. Mazzella's Declaration here (.pdf).

Read CFIF's Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction here (pdf).

Read CFIF's Memorandum In Support of its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction here (pdf).

###

 


Page 13 of 98
Question of the Week   
Which of the following Cold War events led to the establishment of the “Hotline,” a direct telephone link between the White House and the Kremlin?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"[I]t's up to Republicans to expose the bureaucracies and criticize the orthodoxies -- to ask why visas for travel to the United States are still being issued in West Africa and why American military forces are being deployed there without a workable plan or intelligible purpose, why CDC spending priorities are so skewed and CDC management so weak, and why here at home routine police powers aren't…[more]
 
 
—William Kristol, The Weekly Standard Editor
— William Kristol, The Weekly Standard Editor
 
Liberty Poll   

In dealing with deadly and difficult-to-curtail infectious diseases such as Ebola, should government-imposed travel bans and quarantines supersede civil liberty and other concerns?