Proposed new law: Disclosure of Sources of Funding for Political and Advocacy Advertising
= Intimidation summed up in ten little words.
But then again, in New Hampshire, when it comes to words and the law - anything goes. We all CHERISH that new, progressive concept.
For the currently uninformed on this subject, here is a primer:
Governor Lynch isn’t used to being hacked at as though he is a mere mortal by television ads pointing out his failed leadership in the corner office. His liberal minions in the legislature are trying to intimidate non-profits into not aligning with other organizations to pay for television ads that expose his flip-flopping, and fence sitting over the last six years. Lynch’s poll numbers are stunningly low for a "super popular" incumbent since those ads aired.
You see, hard hitting attack ads are supposed to be the sole stomping grounds of the Democrat Party to stomp with and turnabout doesn’t feel good so let's change the rules for conservatives.
But this attempt to squelch opposition does raise some interesting questions.
As of January 1, 2011 non-profits will have to jump through, made to be complex, legal reporting hurdles before they can send out ads that rub the shine off tax and borrow and spend and borrow to pay for loans, then wind up $600 million in the hole, Governor Lynch.
The stunningly unconstitutional new RSA 292: 32 - 52 Political Advertising and Advocacy Advertising proposal by Senator Maggie Hassan is a deliberate effort to prevent any new ads opposing Governor Lynch – or any other liberal wanna-be governor candidate (wink, wink, wink).
My sources (emails) say former Democrat Party Chair and now Democrat bigmouth piece Cathy Sullivan is credited with writing this new amendment seeking detailed information as to membership and dollar amounts non-profits spend on campaign ads, with hefty “SHALL PAY $1000” fines for any slight slip-up slipped in for good measure.
I think we should ask more of non-profits campaign activity when Ms. Sullivan can tell us how Sen. John Kerry campaign operative and South Dakota resident Geoff Wetrosky used her home on 192 Mammoth Rd as a residence with which to steal a vote in Manchester in 2005 when he was also stealing campaign signs all over Manchester.
We can amend some statute to include the following:
Amend RSA___ by inserting: Non-resident voting from the Democrat Party Chairman’s Home
(a) All non-resident campaign operatives paid for by prospective presidential candidates looking for favors by supplying help to “Mayor for Life” Bob Baines shall report how they used a single family residence as their “apartment” while voting in NH from another state.
(b) Each low life vote stealer shall submit a statement that no money was paid by the prospective well-heeled millionaire Senator to anyone for any “apartment” used to steal a vote from a legitimate taxpaying, jury serving, driver licensed, NH citizen.
(c) If any bagged cash, payoff, job offer, quid pro quo, or other thing of slimy value changed hands during the vote and sign stealing from the “apartment” a record must be clearly created then redacted in the same fashion we now, thanks to the Democrat Legislature, redact all relevant information from New Hampshire voter registration cards.
(d) Anyone challenging non-resident voting from the home of any Democrat Party Chair will be guilty of a misdemeanor as soon as they are accused.
Now there is a new law for ya.
Come to think of it, shouldn’t the Democrats and Lynch be busy with something more positive than censuring opponents, like trying to steal the NH doctor’s insurance money again?
Welcome to New Hampshire – November awaits.