National Review
| National Review | |
 | |
| Basic facts | |
| Location: | New York, N.Y. |
| Type: | Publication |
| Founder(s): | William F. Buckley Jr. |
| Year founded: | 1955 |
| Website: | Official website |
History
National Review was founded in 1955 by conservative journalist William F. Buckley Jr. In the journal's initial issue, Buckley wrote that a conservative weekly opinion magazine was needed because "literate America rejected conservatism in favor of radical social experimentation." He saw the journal's mission as a counterpoint to such experimentation: "It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it."[1]
As an exclusively print journal, National Review maintained a "reputation as the cradle for conservative intellectuals and home for erudite and well-mannered debate," according to The New York Times.[2] The paper further noted that, although National Review was openly conservative, it did not act as a "megaphone for Republican Party orthodoxy." Rather, its editorial stance largely followed that of Buckley, who was known for the "surprise twists in his views."[2]
As a print journal, National Review was a consistently conservative voice in the national political landscape. The conservative blog Town Hall praised the journal as having "writers and thinkers uniquely unafraid to follow in Buckley's giant footsteps and tell it like it is."[3]
In early 2015, National Review officially became a nonprofit organization. Commenting to Politico, editor Rich Lowry said: "Publishing a serious opinion magazine has never been a profitable business, and never will be."[4]
Current online work for National Review Online is centered on breaking Washington, D.C., based news and six major blogs—"The Corner," "The Campaign Spot," "Bench Memos," "Phi Beta Cons," "Postmodern Conservative" and "Human Exceptionalism."[5] Of these, "The Corner" is the longest-running and most widely read. It is the site's featured blog with the tagline "The One and Only."[6] In 2009, Politico noted that National Review "stands out as the only 20th century conservative institution—a 54-year-old magazine—that has made such a leap into the 21st."[7]
Readership
The following table details the annual circulation of National Review from 2011 to 2014, according to the Pew Research Center:[8]
| Annual circulation for National Review, 2011–2014 | |
|---|---|
| Year | Total Circulation |
| 2011 | 170,390 |
| 2012 | 164,034 |
| 2013 | 157,686 |
| 2014 | 147,808 |
For National Review Online, the organization says it receives 4.5 million unique visitors per month and 25 million page views per month.[9]
John Doe investigations
Background
Two John Doe investigations were launched by Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm (D) into the activities of staff and associates of Gov. Scott Walker (R). These investigations and the events surrounding them have been described as "the most tumultuous political events in Wisconsin in generations—perhaps in history."[10]
The first investigation, John Doe I, was launched after Walker aide Darlene Wink noticed funds were missing from the money raised by Operation Freedom, a charitable event for veterans that Walker hosted annually. Walker's office turned the case over to the Milwaukee County DA's office to investigate the missing funds.[11][10][12]
Over a year passed before the DA's office began investigating the case. By this time, Walker had announced his candidacy for Governor of Wisconsin. On May 5, 2010, Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf asked for the authority to launch a John Doe investigation into the missing funds. He asked for the John Doe on the premise of determining where the funds had originated (i.e., sponsors and donors of the Operation Freedom Event). His request was granted by Judge Neal Nettesheim, who had been appointed the John Doe I judge.[10][13]
During the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, the John Doe investigation was expanded multiple times to include a Walker donor and members of Walker's county executive staff. The homes, offices and cars of these people were raided and searched, and property, such as computers and cell phones, was seized. The investigation lasted three years and resulted in the convictions of six people, four of whom weren’t related to the missing funds on which the investigation was predicated. The announcement of the charges against the six were made in January 2012, in the midst of an effort to recall Gov. Walker due to his support for Act 10.[14][15][16]
On June 5, 2012, the recall election attempting to remove Gov. Walker (R) from office was held. Walker won re-election by a wider margin than he had when originally securing the office in 2010. In August 2012, the first John Doe investigation was rolled into a second investigation, John Doe II. This investigation was based on a theory that Governor Walker’s campaign had illegally coordinated with conservative social welfare groups that had engaged in issue advocacy during the recall elections.[17][18]
The second John Doe investigation spanned multiple counties but was consolidated into one investigation, overseen by an appointed judge and one special prosecutor, Francis Schmitz. During the early morning hours of October 3, 2013, investigators served search warrants on several homes and subpoenaed records from 29 conservative organizations. Several weeks later, on October 25, 2013, three targets of the subpoenas filed a motion to have the subpoenas quashed. The judge overseeing the investigation, Judge Gregory Peterson, granted that motion in January 2014, stating that the prosecutor's theory of criminal activity was not, in fact, criminal under Wisconsin statutes. Although Schmitz filed an appeal to a higher court, the investigation was effectively stalled.[19][20][21][22][23]
A series of lawsuits were filed, one against the John Doe prosecutors for a violation of free speech and several others against the agency that oversees campaign finance law, the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB), for trying to enforce unconstitutional regulations of issue advocacy groups, the regulations on which the prosecutor's theory was based.[24][25][21][26][27][28]
The legality of the investigation eventually went before the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On July 16, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in a 4-2 decision to officially halt the John Doe II investigation. The court combined three cases into one, thereby simultaneously ruling on all three. In its ruling, the Supreme Court criticized Schmitz's handling of the case and declared the actions of Chisholm and Schmitz were violations of the targets' First Amendment rights to political speech.[29][30]
The Supreme Court, in interpreting Wisconsin's campaign finance law, ruled "that the definition of 'political purposes' [...] is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution because its language 'is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the state is not permitted to regulate.'"[29]
The court noted that since issue advocacy is "beyond the reach of Ch. 11," Schmitz's theory of illegal coordination between Walker's campaign and social welfare groups was invalid. The court further declared "the special prosecutor's legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law," thereby declaring an official end to the John Doe II investigation.[29]
Regarding the other two cases addressed in the ruling, the court denied Schmitz's supervisory writ and affirmed Peterson's original motion to quash the subpoenas. It also ruled that the John Doe II judges, Peterson and Barbara Kluka before him, had not "violated a plain legal duty" by allowing the appointment of one judge and one special prosecutor to preside over a multi-county John Doe, though the court did concede "the circumstances surrounding the formation of the John Doe investigation raise serious concerns."[29]
In its ruling, the court ordered that "everything gathered as potential evidence—including thousands of pages of emails and other documents—be returned and all copies be destroyed." Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel (R) said the court's decision "closes a divisive chapter in Wisconsin history."[31][32]
NR's involvement
- See also: David A. French
National Review writer David A. French covered the John Doe investigations, writing a series of articles exploring the players and events surrounding the investigations. In April 2015, he wrote his first piece entitled "Wisconsin’s Shame: 'I Thought It Was a Home Invasion,'" which, coupled with the fact Walker launched a presidential bid, catapulted the story onto the national media stage. By interviewing the targets of the raids and describing their version of events in detail, French's article humanized a story that had previously played out in the media as a politically-fueled campaign finance skirmish. As a result, many national conservative media outlets, including Fox News and TheBlaze, picked up the story.[33]
Presidential endorsements
2016 presidential endorsement
✓ National Review endorsed Ted Cruz for the Republican primary in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[34]
- See also: Endorsements for Ted Cruz
Recent news
This section displays the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms National Review.
- Some of the stories below may not be relevant to this page due to the nature of Google's news search engine. Read about Ballotpedia's inclusion of these search results here.
See also
External link
Footnotes
- ↑ National Review, "Our Mission Statement," November 19, 1955
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 The New York Times, "At National Review, a Threat to Its Reputation for Erudition," November 17, 2008
- ↑ Town Hall, "The Self-Immolation of National Review," May 23, 2015
- ↑ Politico, "National Review goes nonprofit," March 31, 2015
- ↑ National Review, "National Review Online," accessed August 14, 2015
- ↑ National Review, "The Corner," accessed August 14, 2015
- ↑ Politico, "Fight's on to be right's TPM, HuffPo," December 12, 2009
- ↑ Pew Research Center, "News Magazines: Fact Sheet," April 29, 2015
- ↑ National Review, "National Review & National Review Online," accessed August 13, 2015
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Milwaukee Division, "Eric O’Keefe, and Wisconsin Club for Growth, Inc.," accessed February 23, 2015
- ↑ Free Republic, "Operation Freedom: Milwaukee County Zoo," July 1, 2005
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Authorities seize computer of Walker aide," August 23, 2010
- ↑ Wisconsin Reporter, "John Doe I judge says he’s not responsible for John Doe II," June 10, 2014
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Walker appointees charged in John Doe investigation," January 6, 2012
- ↑ Wisconsin State Journal, "New charges in John Doe investigation allege pattern of illegal fundraising among Walker aides," January 27, 2012
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Walker recall effort kicks off," November 15, 2011
- ↑ Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, "Canvass Results for 2012 JUNE 5 RECALL ELECTION," accessed July 2, 2015
- ↑ United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee), "O'Keefe et al v. Schmitz et al," February 10, 2014
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, "ERIC O’KEEFE, et al., v. JOHN T. CHISHOLM, et al.," accessed July 19, 2015
- ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Wisconsin Political Speech Raid," November 18, 2013
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 State of Wisconsin Circuit Court Waukesha County, "ERIC O’KEEFE, and WISCONSIN CLUB FOR GROWTH, INC. v. WISCONSIN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD, and KEVIN J. KENNEDY," accessed July 19, 2015
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, "ERIC O'KEEFE and WISCONSIN CLUB FOR GROWTH INCORPORATED, v. JOHN T. CHISHOLM, BRUCE J. LANDGRAF and DAVID ROBLES," accessed July 19, 2015
- ↑ Wall Street Journal, "Wisconsin Political Speech Victory," January 10, 2014
- ↑ United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Milwaukee Division, "ERIC O’KEEFE, and WISCONSIN CLUB FOR GROWTH, INC., v. FRANCIS SCHMITZ, et. al.," accessed July 19, 2015
- ↑ Watchdog.org, "Target files civil rights lawsuit against Wisconsin’s John Doe prosecutors," February 10, 2014
- ↑ STATE OF WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT, "Citizens for Responsible Government Advocates, Inc., v. Thomas Barland, et. al.," accessed July 19, 2015
- ↑ Watchdog.org, "GAB, Milwaukee County DA bail on key provision behind war on conservatives," November 6, 2014
- ↑ Watchdog.org, "Federal judge’s judgment takes John Doe probe off life support," February 1, 2015
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 Supreme Court of Wisconsin, "Case No. 2013AP296-OA & 2014AP417-W through 2014AP421-W & 2013AP2504-W through 2013AP2508-W," accessed July 17, 2015
- ↑ Watchdog.org, "Wisconsin Supreme Court shuts down John Doe investigation, affirms First Amendment," July 16, 2015
- ↑ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "4-2 ruling halts inquiry focusing on campaign finance laws," July 16, 2015
- ↑ Wisconsin State Journal, "Supreme Court ends John Doe probe that threatened Scott Walker's presidential bid," July 16, 2015
- ↑ National Review, "Wisconsin’s Shame: ‘I Thought It Was a Home Invasion,'" April 20, 2015
- ↑ National Review, "Ted Cruz for President," March 11, 2016
| |||||||||||||
