With respect to the federal Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015, S 1685/HR 1301 (HAM operators), the national lobbying organization, Community Association Institute (CAI), seeks to assert that the private contractual HOA CC&Rs are constitutionally protected from government contract infringement. CAI CEO Skiba argues that there is no compelling government interest to allow contract infringement and that the province for HOA regulation lies at the state level. This is a first for CAI!
It shows that it understands what I’ve been writing about: that the surrender and waiver of constitutional rights in HOA-Land must pass judicial scrutiny although the courts have gotten around this legal requirement. Here, for the first time that I’m aware, CAI argues that the Amateur Radio Act fails to pass judicial scrutiny because there is no compelling and necessary government interest for the law.
As I wrote the sponsors of these bills,
State laws are pro-HOA, and the states have abdicated their obligations to protect the individual rights of citizens. State legislatures are strongly influenced by the special interest lobbyists headed by CAI.
I explained that the attitudes, views, and conduct of CAI demonstrate the dual façade, the two-faced voice of CAI, that now shouts for constitutional protections against the bill.
CAI gives the false impression that HOAs are democratic and offer the same protections of individual rights as found in the public domain. This is grossly untrue. You will not find fair election laws in HOAs, nor effective due process hearings for violations, nor penalties against the HOA officers and directors for violations of the law and contractual obligations as found in the public domain, nor the right to member initiatives, nor the conditions for a valid surrender of one’s rights and freedoms. All of which would be necessary for a just and fair legitimate democratic government.
CAI would also have you believe that HOA CC&Rs, which are binding sight unseen by means of constructive notice, are sufficient for the surrender of fundamental rights.
I further wrote that “protecting an invalid contract would make a mockery of the Constitution.”
With respect to CAI itself, I informed the sponsors that,
“CAI comes with unclean hands. . . . Operating as a monopoly, CAI indoctrinates the public at large, public officials, the media, and homebuyers into its view of the HOA industry. This indoctrination creates a common core of beliefs and attitudes, and establishes CAI as a national shadow government, a private entity, that has not been delegated such powers and authority by Congress.”
I explained that CAI’s opposition to the bill is based in its argument “that private entity HOAs need not be subject to the Constitution or the laws of the land. [And that] the 14th Amendment does not apply to these private governments.”
I added that, “Furthermore, CAI resists the intrusion of government into its shadow government arena and dominance of HOA-Land.”
 See, Statement For the Record H.R. 1301 The Amateur Radio Parity Act 2015 , House Energy and Commerce Committee, Jan. 12, 2016, Thomas M. Skiba, CAI CEO; see also, Will the real CAI standup: its contradictory beliefs, pronouncements and goals.
 The courts have upheld free speech surrenders and other implicit surrender of rights on the basis of a general government interest, and not applying strict scrutiny review. The courts presumed genuine consent to be bound was present, or the application of constructive notice – no need to see or sign the CC&Rs to be bound – as controlling. The question of violations of the 14th Amendment “due process” and “equal protection of the law” requirements were not considered.
 “Are the means [the statute] narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling governmental objective? (narrowly tailored – the means are necessary and there are no equally effective less restrictive alternative means available to accomplish the objective) (sometimes the word necessary is used instead of narrowly tailored, but in the context of strict scrutiny they mean the same thing).”
Standards of Review web page, (http://www.wneclaw.com/conlaw/standardsofreview.html).
 This one-sided, personal agenda becomes obvious when CAI has failed to adopt a poll based on the Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement, and in general, does not include in its education programs the topics contained in HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government.