HassanSullivanSpeech - more on the NH Suppression / chilling of Political Speech - Granite Grok

HassanSullivanSpeech – more on the NH Suppression / chilling of Political Speech

So what is this bill and why is this such a big deal?  The text is located here.  For the most part, and simply put, it has been about how banks ("trust companies") are to be structured. It also is setting up this:

This bill also requires the filing of a statement with the secretary of state before a corporation, limited liability company, or limited partnership engages in political advertising or advocacy advertising in this state

In essence, this is nothing more than a politically oriented change to the RSA that will suppress Political Speech.  In essence, this is the Democrat response to the US Supreme Court, in their decision in "Citizen United", that decided the words of the First Amendment of the US Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances  

I’m not a lawyer and make no claim to be one. To me, the language is plain spoken and clear:

"Congress shall make no law respecting….abridging the freedom of speech"

Seems plain to me – leave anyone’s speech alone.  Especially political speech.  In my mind, if the Unions (like I listed here) have the ability to speak and advocate for their interests – why NOT companies?  They are legal entities in our law – just like unions, just like non-profits, just like law companies.  

Sullivan is a lawyer, and laws are made by Legislators (who are often lawyers as well); fine.  That said, like any specialists in any area, those specialists often wrap themselves up into minutia that drives the rest of us crazy (and some, even in my industry) with just nutty explanations of why the "right" answer seems to be the exact opposite of what the words say, or give example after example of why seemingly they are right when a commonsense review of the words.

Now, add that a lot of lawyers are weaselly, and when you add in bare knuckle politics, words matter. 

My take on this all?  Sure, the Progressives wish to keep companies (whom they are beating on six ways to Sunday, by the way) silent, calling them out and labeling them as "special interests with money" that many believe will help the Republicans / the Right.  Well guess what – Democrats have a powerful ally in the Unions (SEIU spent up to $80 Million getting Obama elected – THAT’S NOT A SPECIAL INTEREST????).  From the Washington Examiner:

Just last week, The Hill reported that at least two major unions will spend close to $100 million to re-elect the present majority in which three-fourths of Americans have so little confidence. The two unions were the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFCSME) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The AFSCME has pledged to spend up to $50 million, while SEIU is designating $44 million for Democratic incumbency protection. A third labor group, the AFL-CIO, says it will spend heavily to help Democrats in 60 to 70 House races, but won’t say how much it will devote to the campaign.

Gerald McEntee, AFSCME’s president, candidly told The Hill that his union’s big spending campaign will go to "protect incumbency in the House. We’ve got to protect the incumbency in the Senate." He admitted that "it’s going to be hard, those tea-baggers are out there. There is an anti-incumbency mood out there." McEntee is just doing what Big Labor bosses have been doing for decades — spending their members’ dues to elect and re-elect Democrats. Campaign finance data going back to 1989 reveal that six of the top 10 groups designated as "heavy hitters" by the Center for Responsive Politics are labor unions. AFSCME ranks second on the list, with SEIU 10th. More than 90 percent of their contributions went to Democrats.

Schumer and Van Hollen’s bill — the DISCLOSE Act of 2010 — would reverse the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision upholding the right of individual citizens, acting in concert with each other in corporations, labor unions, trade associations and independent citizens groups, to pay for TV ads critical of incumbent congressmen during the often-decisive final months of a campaign. As U.S. Chamber of Commerce head Thomas J. Donohue said, the bill "is an unconstitutional attempt to silence free speech. … It’s un-American and it must be stopped."

That’s a LOT of scratch. And what the NH Democrats are doing is Plan B – if the DISCLOSE Act fails, they’ll have this.  Multiply it by 50 and that a lot of cases to have to win at the Supreme Court level – it is Political Warfare turned Legalfare

Sullivan’s writing the amendment, in my opinion, is nothing short of stopping free speech.  No, not by itself – but realizing that "Money is the Mother’s milk of politics", if you shut off the money but tangling out the possibility that donors would be "outed" (what an appropriate phrase, given that the gay activists in California first started to do this against those in favor of Prop 8 that repealed homosexual marriage in CA).

And now, Sullivan wants to codify this practice, of outing donors, here in NH – once again, the Progressives bringing in the Liberal California philosophy to NH.

She can complain all she wants about companies and outside $$; but is she going to give back all of the Advocacy and UNION $$ that has flowed INTO NH over the last few years?

The last thing that NH Dems want is to lose their money advantage – and if they can’t win in the arena of ideas, they have no problem in figuratively spiking the watercooler to keep the advantage or make it even bigger.

Shame on you, Kathy Sullivan – and all of your Democrat cohorts (Norelli, Buckley, Larson, et al) for trying yet another dirty trick.

No public hearing, no Republican attendance, no advertising of today’s meeting that I could fine, and certainly seems like a blocking of Right centered groups.

Free Speech is that – Free to say what you want, when you want, and spending what you want to in order to get your message out.  

This is yet more example that the Left / Progressives / Democrats are NOT friends of the classic liberal idea of Free Speech.  Just think – who else today (and in history) has always tried to take Free Speech away from the folks?

>