The Bill Wouldn't Cover Bloggers, He Said.

Jeb Bradley is a primary sponsor of New Hampshire Senate Bill 120.

Senate Republican Leader Jeb Bradley is proposing changes to New Hampshire’s election laws so voters will know who is paying for negative television campaign ads and material mailed to their homes.

That's the sell for the low information voter, but the Boston.com article even had a bone for the blogosphere.

Bradley said he set the $5,000 threshold for the independent groups to protect the free speech rights of those spending a small amount. The bill wouldn't cover bloggers, he said.

‘‘They are not intended to be caught in the net,’’ he said.

I wonder why he felt it necessary to add that point?

Was it because of all the electrons I've employed in the course of exposing the risk SB 120 presents to the general public?  I can only hope someone is listening, and not just to reassure me, though I confess that I am less worried about the affect of SB 120 on my hobby; given that I have logged somewhere between three and four thousand posts over a number of years, my presence is clearly more opinion based journalism.   I could probably argue for the same exclusion afforded the print and television media.  No, my concern is for small business owners and more casual practitioners of political punditry.    I am also weary of professional politicians exercising legislative authority over speech.

Regarding the former, small business owners in this state are the people who pay the bulk of the taxes.  They deserve to be able to exercise their free speech rights without having to dodge bureaucratic hurdles or worrying about being accused of violating the 'Law.'  Despite any number of so-called 'protections, this bill will still suppress political speech.

While that is more than enough in my mind to kill it, there is one other thing it will likely do.  Business owners will still be on the hook fiscally.  The bureaucracy will not stop driving up the cost of doing business.   It will still be in their interest to have their voices heard so they will have to find a way to do so that limits their chances of accidentally violating the new law.  They will need to limit their legal exposure to lawsuits and fines.  And how do businesses communicate with the governments that tax them when other avenues become difficult or are closed?  They hire lobbyists.

If they cannot afford a lobbyist on their own they will form associations and pool their resources to hire speech-professionals.  These costs will be significantly less than the risk of failing to dot an 'I' or cross a 'T.'   And a lobbyist will inoculate them from the infection of legal challenges from professional activist groups who will be trolling the public discourse for any opportunity to make an example of someone with the new law in force.

SB 120 will institutionalize the act of engaging with the legislature by placing more of it in the hands of paid professionals acting in the interests of their 'employers,'  That means more full time lobbyists competing for the attention of lawmakers--with expense accounts.

So SB 120 does not just run the risk of inadvertently silencing people who are fearful of stumbling over the law.  It increases the odds of more free lunches for state Senators being wooed by lobbyists, while making it more likely that your voice will not be heard as clearly or as loudly.

They'll deny it, but reality sings a different tune.

The growing mass of lobbyists representing special interests in DC over the decades is a direct result of the Federal government accumulating more power and influence over everything that happens.   As long as you have to travel to the nations capital to control how you will be taxed and regulated, those being taxed and regulated the most will find a way to be heard.   It is no different at the state level.   So SB 120 not only creates a potential risks for speech amateurs--effectively silencing some of them in the process, it shifts influence away from those less connected or able to afford to get connected and into the hands of paid professionals and the interests they represent.

And once more and more of those  paid professionals are in Concord, plenty of people with the resources will find plenty of other things for them to lobby.

Lobbyists and special interests also provide avenues and opportunities for more and larger sums of money--all documented sweet as you please--to find their way into the campaign coffers of the best listeners in the legislature.

SB 120 may sound like some docile effort at transparency, but what it really does is open a door that only benefits the well connected and those already elected.

Go ahead and deny it now, but do not deny that you were warned.  Speech is not the only thing at risk here.

You are reading  "The Bill Wouldn’t Cover Bloggers, He Said."   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

SB 0120 - Bride of HB 1704 (2012) Political Speech For The Privelaged Few Makes A Come-Back

SB 0120, sponsored by three New Hampshire Senate Republicans, a House Republican and a House Democrat, is nothing more than the free speech killing bride of the amendment to HB1704 proposed last year.

It is the same language, placing the same similarly complex, overly demanding, ambiguous bureaucratic horse collar on political speech, which last May prompted me to ask...

How does one define the “value” of the ‘distribution’ of the speech for the purpose of determining the need for compliance, and therefore registration; and then jumping through hoops to exercise your right to free speech? 

(and) Using the internet as an example, how do we prevent lawsuit-filing opponents from manufacturing complaints of violations–simply to intimidate or stifle speech by ensuring it (that speech) never happens...

That was just the beginning of the problems with HB1704, all of which have been reincarnated in SB0120. So let's get this out of the way right now.    I don't care what 'good' you think you will be doing by sponsoring, supporting, or passing this bill.  It will, intentionally or not, silence political speech and I can't believe you can think yourselves Republicans while doing it.

We should call it "Clueless in Concord 3."   The Sullivan/Hassan effort was episode one HB1459- 2010 was it?  The amendment to HB1704 was episode two.  And we're back again with SB 0120.

Are you people so disconnected from the real world that you would willingly stifle free speech just so you can pretend that it will make your next campaign journey just a tiny bit easier?   All you are doing is using the police state to intimidate people from engaging in free speech.  Free and Speech, will be hardest hit.

A large number of citizens will not risk engaging in political speech for fear of the legal or financial repercussions--because most of us cannot afford the cost or time needed to go to court just to defend our innocence.  It will be easier to stay silent than risk it.

And who does that help?  It could muzzle all but the most well financed or politically adept, limiting speech to an elite class of organizations and professional aristocrats who can hire lawyers or experts to help them navigate either side of participating in what used to be called free speech.

Professional political machines and well-connected politicians will use the law to silence any and all political dissent if they think they can, and will do so when it matters most--when people are actually paying attention.

The left leaning press will continue to get a free pass while the predominantly right wing "new media" will likely shrink or suffer in silence.

And has it occurred to you "republicans" that the left in New Hampshire consistently has more money and more groups to fund with it, who will still freely engage in speech (against you) while using ample  resources to find potential violators to sacrifice as fresh lambs for the intimidation slaughter?

Now you might want to pretend that I am overstating the problem, but am I?  Who among you seriously believes that the Democrat party won't use this law, in all its bureaucratic wonder, to their maximum advantage?  Who believes that Republicans won't do the same thing?  And who cares who uses what against who?

If this legislation prevents even one person from engaging in their constitutional right to free political speech because they are not sure if they can speak without running afoul of it, regardless of their message, that is one person too many.  It is too much to risk.

If that doesn't matter to you, then you are an enemy of free speech and a tyrant.

You are reading  "SB 0120 – Bride of HB 1704 (2012) Political Speech For The Privelaged Few Makes A Come-Back"   by  Steve Mac Donald originally posted at GraniteGrok.com (Home)

Steve has been recognized as the Americans For Prosperity Blogger of the month for December 2012

Video Taping Cops Protected Free Speech

In a Union leader front page story a 1st circuit court has ruled that you cannot arrest someone for videotaping a police officer in public.  The court stated that the use of such footage is a critical part of our first amendment rights.  The Boston PD has appealed the ruling.

New Hampshire has had several videographers arrested for filming the police in the course of their duties so I am interested to see how this case proceeds.

I'm also interested in how the New Hampshire Socialist party (DBA- NHDP) feels about this?  A majority of their members and most if not all of like the threat of arrest, fine, or imprisonment for recording officers of the law performing their duties in public.  The Democrats must be siding with the intimidator.

The lefts motivations are obvious.  They can't win if any opinion other than their own gets equal treatment, but why what are the police trying to hide?

While we wait to see how the appeal of the first circuit ruling proceeds, there are a few bills floating around the current legislature to address the issue.  One suggestion would require you to notify the officer that you will be recording them.  Bad idea for reasons discussed here. I'm thinking, "hello obstruction," but the problem could be as simple as logistics.  Then there is the conflict with simple common sense.  If it is acceptable to record in public spaces, or to be recorded by the public or private entities in same, why the cone of privacy over the very people with whom we should be paying the most attention?

John And Terry Try To Try To Suppress Free Speech?

Someone sent me a picture of a campaign sign with a sombrero on it.  It was a Mahoney for Congress sign.  It was, well...kind of funny, given that Mr. Mahoney stated on video that he was basically supporting the Grahamnesty path to amnesty.  He has flip flopped since then, and insists he's for a border fence first, but it's a campaign thing...who really knows.   But that didn't make the sign any less amusing.  So I posted it.

As with most things a blogger posts, not everyone agrees.  And that’s kind of the point. We encourage that, but somtimes the comments are not well thought out. For the record I posted the photo in question with no supporting text.

Comment number one on the jump

Comment number one.

I didn't know granite grok supported vandalism? Good to know!
Posted by: John Fortune | August 13, 2010 7:00 PM

John has established for us that by merely posting a picture of a Mahoney for Congress sign with a sombrero on it, that Granite Grok supports vandalism.  I'm actually relieved.  What if he had actually accused us of supporting Sean Mahoney, or amnesty?! Close call, that.

I suppose John thinks himself the swaggering provocatuer here but he's not.  Based on John’s 49 letter thesis, if the Grok posted a picture of looters and people burning cars, the Grok must by default support rioting.  If we post a picture of the twin towers burning on 9-11, we would be supporting terrorism and murder.  How about a picture of Carol Shea Porter or Nancy Pelosi?  Oh, we must be progressives now. Make your own examples at home, it's fun! Posting a picture of any criminal could be construed using the John Fortune complicty filter as support for them or their crime.

"I didn't know the grok supported vandalism? Good to know?"  Good indeed.

The obvious result of accepting John’s brilliant observation would mean that the Grok could no longer use pictures or video of anything lest they be misinterpreted as advocacy.  But it's not a total loss.  By using the same methodology we can say that John supports the willful suppression of photographic political speech--Good to know.

Comment number two.

wow Skip way to send the message that the tea party isn't racist, this is deplorable. It's tea partiers that do and support things like this that give us all a bad name. I resent this disservice to our cause.
Posted by: Terry Bellageron | August 13, 2010 7:04 PM

Terry posits the idea that this picture makes the tea party look racist. By my thinking it says that Mahoney signs increase sombrero sales.   Way to stimulate the eoconomy!  We actually can't tell either.   But it might be instructive to note that after being posted for over 20 hours, and thousands of site visits later, none of the liberal trolls or lurkers made that connection. I guess it must have been a busy day over at the F*ck Tea Jihadi headquarters because we had to wait for Tea Party Terry to tell us that this is not just racist, but clearly the Tea Party was involved.

Well how does he know that from the picture?  I thought Sean Mahoney was all about the Tea Party, having been at ‘several’ or was it ‘many’ events.  Why would the Tea Party—let’s use John’s word here—vandalize a Mahoney for congress sign with a sombrero?  And if that’s not it, how does he comport with the idea that a political web site can’t or should not report that using pictures, video, or commentary of a political nature?

Does it sound to you like Tea Party Terry is manufacturing racism?  I think it does.  Does he want people to think we at the grok are hate mongers?  Why would Tea Party Terry do that?  To intimidate the Grok?  To persuade us to take down the photo? To scare off visitors?  To supress future posts....? It really does sound like an effort to suppress “political speech” he objects to.

So is it a coincidence that two comments with undertones of speech supperession were posted 4 minutes apart--probably not, but we can only speculate. 

For the record, we did not stage this photo, it was sent to me by someone who saw it and thought it was amusing.  I never realized it had legs. 

And, no we are not remotely concerned with your claims of our complicity to either vandalism or racism.  But don’t let that stop you from trying again.  We support free political speech in all its forms and invite the open debate.  Just don't use vulgar language and you can accuse us of whatever you like. But next time try to do a better job of it. 

Cross Posted at Granite Grok

Hodes Monkeys With The First Amendment

Reading Paul Hodes blog at the daily KoS is the literary-equivalent of watching monkeys throw poo. What is perhaps more disgusting is that the KoS Kids roll in it like heather and serve it to each other as if it were pâté de foie gras , encouraging their own sheer ignorance as they dance nine times widdershins about the burning remnants of the US constitution.

This week’s poo fling comes after Chuck Schumer’s evil plot to water-board the first amendment failed to properly rise in the oven Schumer usually cooks his constitution in. He’d helped craft something called the DISCLOSE act, which disclosed to us just how brazen power hungry incumbents can be when their brazen power-hungriness gets the best of them. They write laws to silence the speech they don’t like while ignoring speech they do. So when the soufflé dropped after Paul Hodes already voted for it he did what any cry-baby liberal does. He grabbed his talking points and hid in the skirt of the moon-bat mother ship.

I’d offer you a link, but I’m not that cruel. But if your curiosity has gotten the best of you, or you are simplly smitten with seeing the literary equivalent of simian patty pitching, there’s a cross-post over at that pot- hole Boo Hoo Hampshire; still a liberal dive but a slightly more tolerable pond to stick your virtual toe in if you must.

As to what Hodes has done by supporting the Act, that is worth far more time and attention than his posturing on influence and money in politics and anyone who has ever looked at his funding knows that the poo isn’t just air born; a large portion of it remains under confinement. Because wail as he might, what Mr. Hodes has tried to do by supporting the DISCLOSE act is attempt to protect his incumbency by stifling speech using the power of the federal government and nothing he says can change that.

Enough exposition; let’s get to the charges.

Mr. Hodes voted for a bill that would allow the federal government to define paid political speech differently for different kinds of group’s organizations. Oddly enough groups that favor Mr. Hodes and his party have an easier time of it than those who do not. That's Mr. Ethics for you.

"The DISCLOSE Act should really be renamed the New　Sedition Act—it is clearly intended to intimidate and deter organizations, including nonprofits, from engaging in any　political criticism　of incumbents like its main sponsors,　Chuck Schumer　and　Chris Van Hollen," said　Hans A. von Spakovsky.

The eight former FEC commissioners describe how the bill would introduce asymmetrical rules for unions and companies for the first time since the early twentieth century. Unions, for example, would not be subject to the bill's ban on political spending for government contractors or companies with a small percentage of foreign ownership.

Mr. Hodes voted for a bill that would encumber the effort of engaging in political speech such that groups and small business owners, many of them LLC’s right here in New Hampshire, could neither afford, nor take the time to understand and meet the government’s requirements for exercising their first amendment rights.

This bill has been promoted as ‘mere disclosure,' but through the expanded definition of electioneering communications combined with the ban on electioneering communications by even the smallest of contractors, it actually prohibits a tremendous amount of political speech that was legal before Citizens United," said Bradley A. Smith. "Congress can't respond to a decision striking down speech prohibitions by outlawing still more speech, yet that is what this bill would do."

…

"The ‘DISCLOSE Act' contains a bevy of burdensome, unnecessary and constitutionally suspect provisions," said　Michael E. Toner. "If the First Amendment's clarion call for Congress to ‘make no law... abridging the freedom of speech' is to have any force, this legislation must be summarily rejected."

Mr. Hodes voted for a bill that will make it almost impossible for grass roots groups to exercise free speech without fear of violating the law—it is therefore a deliberate effort to silence opposition through intimidation and regulation of the current government and to Mr. Hodes himself in the midst of an election he and they happen to be losing.

The commissioners' analysis, though, explains how the bill adds a complicated scheme of arduous and vague rules-with no hope for clarification through the rulemaking process-designed to confuse and intimidate grassroots groups while midterm campaigns are underway.

"In America, good-faith errors by those attempting to comply with our complicated maze of campaign finance regulations should not result in jail time or eye-popping fines," said　Lee Ann Elliott. "These regulatory burdens fall hardest not on large-scale players in the political world but on grass-roots movements, low-budget campaigns, and unwitting volunteers. Congress would worsen this situation by passing ‘DISCLOSE' without giving the FEC time to implement regulations for it.".

Mr. Hodes greatest crime should be thinking that he has the right to regulate political speech at all. But he takes it further by signing on to a law that would rig the rules to favor speech destined to benefit him while complicating matters for his opposition. If he were a store clerk or even just a dopey liberal lawyer he would be dismissed as naieve or ignorant, but as a congressman with designs on the US Senate it violates common sense, our god given rights, equal protection under the law, his oath of office, and borders on treason.

Cross posted at Granite Grok