SB 120 - Speech Limited In NH By Those Most Threatened By It (Updated) - Granite Grok

SB 120 – Speech Limited In NH By Those Most Threatened By It (Updated)

Will Democrats defend Obama silencing the press?
SB 120 Advances the Ruling Class Monopoly on Political Speech

I have been following the New Hampshire Political ruling class efforts to stifle political speech for years.  It is a bipartisan effort to erect barriers to free speech.  So what do you call that?  Almost free speech?  Sort of Free speech?  Selective Free speech?  Speech that’s free but only during the calendar days defined by that which free speech exists to protect us from?  Inflation adjusted speech?

How about speech limited by those most threatened by it?  That is exactly what these efforts are, incumbent protection acts.  And there is another one working its way through the NH State Senate House this week (Subcommittee workgroup this Thursday at 10am LOB 308)

SB120 is a speech killing bill that originated in the NH Senate.  Before that is was HB 1704 (amended), and before that it was HB 1459.  There is also a movement from the left (SB 120 is of the left but comes from the so-called right) in HCR 10 to stifle speech as well.  The People’s pledge being embraced by Democrat Jeanne Shaheen (and now Carol Shea-Porter and Ann McLane Kuster) is no different.  They are all shades of the same tyranny.

It is about politicians and the government concocting schemes to secure a ruling class political monopoly on paid speech, which is to say all the speech they believe matters.   SB 120 is no different.

Now, you could follow all of the links above for a wealth of insight on who suffers from such legislation, and I encourage you to do just that.  There are tons of great arguments against all the bipartisan attacks on speech being waged in New Hampshire. But for our purposes today, let us simply ask what is accomplished and who benefits?

First, money is speech–period.   Even if you disagree with the Supreme Court, no one can deny that money is speech because every effort by the axe-grinders, chest-pounders, and rooftop shouters goes after what?  Money.  They go after how much, from whom, and when it is being spent.  But it is being spent on speech they object to, so money is speech.

Second, every one of these bills limits the use of money for political speech by everyone but who?  Politicians.

So who benefits from speech limiting legislation?

The ruling class elites are writing bills that would force people to invest their speech-dollars in candidates themselves or the political class organs that sustain them.  So SB 120, and the speech-stifling legislative ancestors that preceded it, do not secure speech of liberty or limit outside influence.  They institutionalize it for the benefit of the political class so that they may wield a monopoly on political messaging.

The bureaucratic hurdles and Rube-Golbergian definitions created by bills like SB 120 will not limit lawyers, lobbyists, corporations, special interest PACs, or any other large third-party entity from monopolizing the message.   Those groups have the lawyers, and the resources to not only work around or through the maze the political class erects to protect itself, they can afford to make intentional tactical violations of the law that advantage their messaging.

They just pay the fines after they have violated the system they created to win a race or an issue at the ballot box, because they can afford to–if they even get challenged and charged with a fine.

Everyone outside the political class is left wondering what political speech, if any, they can exercise, for fear of being challenged, charged, or fined.  And that is the point.   Anyone who manages to exercise influential political speech, be they bloggers like us, or others who scraped together enough cash to reach enough people to get the ruling class’ attention–should expect someone in the ruling class to send a letter to the AG challenging your political speech in the context of the laws they erected to secure their monopoly.

Most outside the ruling class will be unable to afford any challenge, a message meant for other perspective political speakers.

SB 120 and those that went before, are meant to build a wall of separation between free and speech, limiting access and securing the sandbox for the experts who will then ensure that the progressive growth of government can advance without fear from upstarts and near-do wells concerned with how the political class spends the taxpayers dollars.

To say it is unconstitutional is an understatement.   It is an incremental effort to monopolize political speech within the ruling class.  It is exactly what the first amendment was created to prevent.

Updated:  This garbage passed the Senate previously (which I actually knew) and is already in the House.  On Thursday it will be in a sub committee workgroup in LOB 308 at 10am, as noted above.  The article has been edited to properly reflect that.

 

H/T Michelle Levell for the links below
Protect Free Speech — Defeat SB 120
Thursday at 10:00am
NH Legislative Office Building in Concord, New Hampshire

 

Please Like, Link, and Share.  Thanks!

>