More on HassanSullivanSpeech – why is Kathy Sullivan / Maggie Hassan’s amendment so Dangerous to Liberty and Freedom – Part 1

by Skip

I’m going to walk through some of Kathy Sullivan’s email to pull out the "gotchas" and the landmines that the Democrats are laying in for their opposition.  Certainly, these are my opinions, but I’m sure that ANY one that values one of our Ultimate Rights as bestowed by our Creator, recognized by the Framers, will be against this – it has NOTHING to do with being Left or Right!

This is crass politics – nothing less.  This is using the Law to seek an advantage over their opponent.  This is nothing less than using the Law, the force of Government, to support YOUR agenda; in doing so, you automatically signal that you cannot keep your current advantage without an artificial barrier.

More questions concerning the authoress of this changed Legislation:

  • In what role is Kathy Sullivan charged with drafting legislation?
  • Is Kathy Sullivan acting as a lobbyist, a volunteer or a paid government official?
  • If Kathy Sullivan is acting as a volunteer what are her responsibilities, who is she volunteering for and will she release other basic information on personal interests that the public deserves to know?
  • If Kathy Sullivan is acting in an official capacity as a volunteer or staff person for the State Senate will minutes and notes from her meeting earlier today be released before the legislation is voted on?

After all, Kathy DEMANDED the same questions of Craig Benson, why can’t we hold her accountable (yup, that word that all Hacks hate):

Benson Releases Volunteer Names – National Public Radio, Josh Rogers, April 13, 2004

Speaking outside the courthouse, Democratic Party chair Kathy Sullivan said that New Hampshire’s Constitution makes it clear that citizens have a right to know who is carrying out the public’s business.

"Craig Benson has tried to ignore that. He’s refused to tell us who these volunteers are. He’s refused to tell us their background. He refuses to tell us what their responsibilities are. And when you don’t do that, when you don’t disclose some very basic information about who is making decisions it undermines the public’s confidence in government — that’s just wrong."

Dems sue Benson over volunteers – The Associated Press, March 17, 2004

The New Hampshire Democratic Party has gone to court in an attempt to force Gov. Craig Benson to release information on the duties of two volunteers who worked for him.

The party filed suit in Merrimack County Superior Court on Monday, seeking information under the state’s right-to-know law. 

….

In the lawsuit, Democratic Party Chairwoman Kathy Sullivan said the state constitution’s guarantee of "open, accessible, accountable and responsive" government entitles her access to information about Blaisdell and Marshall’s activities.

N.H. governor’s use of volunteers riles critics

Sarah Schweitzer, Boston Globe,  April 29, 2004

"What they are doing is acting like wiseguys," said Kathy Sullivan, chairwoman of the state Democratic Party. "But at the end of the day, we will have the last laugh on Craig Benson because we’re going to beat him in November."

Must suck to have your own words turned against you, eh? I wonder if we’ll hear that "Hillary sound alike" cackle of her’s over this…. Sad…let’s get to it.   And I have REAL Concerns that this is merely a speed bump – that Sullivan and her cohorts probably understand that this is unConstitutional – and are counting on the impending backlog in the Courts to keep this in force for the mid terms.

A mere political trick.  Sad, so sad… Her changes are bolded and italicized.

48 New Subdivision:

Shareholder Approval for Political and Advocacy Advertising

Amend RSA 293-A by inserting after Section 7.47 the following new subdivision:

293-A:7.48 Political Advertising and Advocacy Advertising. In this subdivision:

(a)     “Advocacy advertising” shall mean any communication during an election cycle that clearly identifies by name, image or voice of, any candidate for elective office.

(b)     “Candidate” means any person who has filed a declaration of candidacy pursuant to RSA 655.

(c)     “Commencement of political advertising and/or advocacy advertising” means the first dissemination during an election cycle by an organization of a communication containing a political advertisement or advocacy advertisement by any means whatsoever.

During an election cycle – that pretty much means, in this era of the "endless campaign".  There will be no time that this will not be in force – you can bet on it! And ALL SPEECH is going to be covered – can you say "straightjacket hack job"?

(d)     “Communication” means “communication” as defined in RSA 664:2, VII. For purposes of this Chapter, With respect to advocacy advertising, however, “Communication” shall exclude:

     (1)     Any direct contact by a corporation, or an officer, shareholder, employee, registered lobbyist, or other authorized agent of a corporation to an elected official or candidate, or any public official acting in the public official’s official capacity, including, but not limited to, contact by telephone, letter, or email;

    (2)     Public testimony before a legislative committee or subcommittee, or before any entity subject to RSA 91-A, the right-to-know law, or a written document filed in the course of a public proceeding or any other communication that is made on the record in a public proceeding;

    (3)     Communication made in a speech or other public forum;

    (4)    Free communication by a corporation, including but not limited to letters to the editor, opinion columns, press releases, any internet communication (including e-mails and websites) except internet content placed for a fee on a website not owned by the corporation, or other forums available to the public at large at no charge;

    (5)    Communications by a corporation during an election cycle which, excluding salaries and benefits paid employees of the corporation, costs less than $10,000.00 in the aggregate; and

(d) actually has a few more clauses, but this is a decent start.

(1) Stops any conversation between someone who works and someone in the public sector.  Gee, why is there no mention of advocacy groups or Unions?  It certainly is clear that this is discriminatory in my mind.

Our entire system was founded to be "equal under the law" – it is a sad commentary on where we are now to see how disparately people are being treated – by the same Political Party that is so hellbent on creating equal outcomes for everyone else in every other situation.  This is NOT about protecting the "little people" – this is (and I would be saying this if the Republicans tried this stunt as well – you KNOW that if you have been reading the ‘Grok for any amount of time").

There, the "box in".  This is retaliation - THIS is hate speech against one’s opponent writ into law simply because they disagree with what YOU stand for.  This is simply more politicization of what the Founders conceived to be "regular speech".

 

    (6)     Any direct communication by a corporation made only to shareholders and/or current or former employees of the corporation, and/or their family members by direct mail, e?mail, telephone, print or electronic newsletter, or an internet site maintained by a corporation in the ordinary course of business:

    (7)    Print or electronic newsletters sent in the regular course of business to shareholders and/or current or former employees of the corporation, and/or their family members, or otherwise not distributed to the public at large or on the basis of voter status, such as, by way of example, registration, party affiliation or place of residence for voting purpose;  and

    (8)    Holding events at which an individual who is a candidate is honored (so long as the invitations for such an event are not distributed to the general public), the distribution of printed material at such an event, and the printing and distribution of invitations for such an event.

 

She takes what is already restricted and then walks around and tightens up ALL the straps to almost "cutting off the blood level".

OK, what can a company say (and remember, a company can be as few as a single person to that having millions)?  Makes no difference to Kathy Sullivan – this affects an entity that is a small family business that may be crying out for redress of grievances or a multinational that is being vilified by Alinsky’s Rules for simply being not being on the side of the Progressives. They will have NO avenue to voice their opinion at all -

how American is that?

Where is the fairness in this?  Hey, Kathy do you DARE apply this to the Unions?

Oh, where was my head – of COURSE not – they like you and you like THEIR money!

And that IS the nub of this political dirty trick – oppose us and we shut you up.  The Progressives are defining the terms – all by themselves.  There has been NO input by the Republicans – this is like Obama telling the Republicans "I won" with the hubris that goes with that.

More later in another part.

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: