And this NH “political” story absolutely misses the REAL point entirely

Donkey ButtLet us first contemplate this from Ian Underwood (emphasis mine) – which was (in part):

But I urge the committee to consider a couple of deeper, less obvious consequences, not just of passing a bill like this, but of even bringing it up for consideration. The first is that a bill like this undermines respect for the very rule of law itself. After all, if the legislature isn’t going to respect the limits placed on it by the NH Constitution, then why should individuals respect the limits placed on them by that legislature — whether regarding guns, or schools, or traffic laws, or anything else?   If we’re going to disregard the big rules, why pay any attention to the smaller ones?

This story (reformatted, emphasis mine) isn’t about who didn’t fill out which form when.  While all three participants (JR Hoell, Shawn Jasper, and Dan Tuohy) focused in on that instead of the real reason.  Tree, forest – they failed to hone in on the actual root problem (heh!).

In this case, the law is an ass and the first two are both squabbling over the south end’s product.

Rep files complaint against NH House Speaker’s group

A legislator and critic of House Speaker Shawn Jasper claims Jasper’s political committee filed an incomplete report for independent expenditures on behalf of about 45 Republican candidates, a complaint that comes as the GOP prepares for a nominating caucus Wednesday in the race for speaker. Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, said he filed the election law complaint Monday with the attorney general’s office.

Jasper, speaking before seeing the complaint, said it lacks merit. “He’s just trying to stir something up,” he said. “This is a political play two days before the Republican caucus.” Hoell said the law requires a political committee to identify the candidate for whom the independent expenditure was made, whether it is for or against the candidate, and the amount of each expenditure.  “He can say what he wants. The reality is he violated the law and should be held in compliance,” Hoell said.

While I think that, philosophically, JR is on much firmer ground than Jasper (the former wants to “oppose candidates who support socialism and welfare” and Jasper, well, is for RINOs that approve of such), this isn’t about forms, it really IS about  who, what, and how one can talk about communicating their beliefs in the political realm.  Remember what Ian Underwood said above?  Add these words from the NH Constitution:

[Art.] 4. [Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.

[Art.] 22. [Free Speech; Liberty of the Press.] Free speech and liberty of the press are essential to the security of freedom in a state: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.

[Art.] 30. [Freedom of Speech.] The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any action, complaint, or prosecution, in any other court or place whatsoever.

Without the ability to speak or act, there is no Right of Conscience. And Article 22 specifically protects free speech and not just the technical capabilities of the Press (e.g, printing press; who today can’t a reporter with the technical capabilities and disruption of the Internet?).  And while Article 30 is specifically  indemnifying NH Representatives and Senator, would that mean that the Governor is disallowed from the same Right?  I doubt it.  And of course, the US Constitution:

Amendment I – 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.

So, do you see the single, obvious, IMPORTANT thread throughout them all?  Yeah: free speech.   Free, unencumbered, unrestricted, unchanneled, and unrepressed. Stripped away from all of the “clutter” and bloated / subsequent fustercluck of law, statute, or regulation that has buried its true meaning.  The ability to choose for ourselves what our message is and the the means by which to distribute it?

Taken in the whole, it means to everyone that anyone can say what they want, where they want, and to whom they want. Or it should – and did before politicians decided that they had the ability to contravene this plain simple idea and Right.  JR and Jasper are just playing the game that they have imposed on everyone else.

NEITHER of them stood up and said “This is unconstitutional” and bring it to court.  Nope, they’re using it as a club against each other – is that the real reason?  Pfft! IMHO, there are no adjectives in front of any of the descriptions of “speech”.  None of them say “free speech – except for political speech“. None of them say “if what you want to say costs money, impacts issues, raises up or tears down political hacks via print, audio, or video and there’s a group of you that want to do it together, you have to ask for permission of the Government, either before or after, you saying what you want”.

The original reason for the First’s Free Speech clause was to protect those “malcontents, ruffians, rabble-rousers, and curmudgeons” that wished to be anonymous as they spread their messages during the start of our country.  Yet, why have we allowed politicians to continue to create more convoluted, harder to understand, time-consuming (and let’s not forget about costly!) ways to restrict us from blowing them up (figuratively speaking, mind you) or the issues they prefer (over what we would prefer)?  Isn’t this the “soft despotism” that de Tocqueville warned us against?

*****

Rep files complaint against NH House Speaker’s group

A legislator and critic of House Speaker Shawn Jasper claims Jasper’s political committee filed an incomplete report for independent expenditures on behalf of about 45 Republican candidates, a complaint that comes as the GOP prepares for a nominating caucus Wednesday in the race for speaker.

Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, said he filed the election law complaint Monday with the attorney general’s office.

Jasper, speaking before seeing the complaint, said it lacks merit. “He’s just trying to stir something up,” he said. “This is a political play two days before the Republican caucus.”

Hoell said the law requires a political committee to identify the candidate for whom the independent expenditure was made, whether it is for or against the candidate, and the amount of each expenditure.

“He can say what he wants. The reality is he violated the law and should be held in compliance,” Hoell said.

Hoell has some history with the issue. The AG followed up on a complaint earlier this fall that Hoell’s political advocacy committee, “Citizens for Integrity,” filed an incomplete independent expenditure report. He said it was closed out and the committee is in compliance. At the time, he said, the AG’s office told him it would review other committees’ independent expenditure filings for compliance.

His committee’s stated purpose was to oppose candidates who support socialism and welfare. It listed about 125 candidates who support Medicaid expansion. Jasper made the list for casting the tie-breaking vote for Medicaid expansion to continue without a severability clause for a work requirement.

Hoell said his committee raised about $7,000 and ended up directing the independent expenditures against one person: Jasper. It spent $4,097 against Jasper in the primary season, according to reports on file at the Secretary of State’s office.

Jasper, who is entering his 12th term, faces three challengers in the GOP caucus: Rep. Carol McGuire, R-Epsom, Rep. Laurie Sanborn, R-Bedford, and Rep. Frank Sapareto, R-Derry.

Jasper’s committee reported spending $11,912.07 in support of about 45 Republicans. The list included three Republicans in Hoell’s district, a three-person district which represents Bow and Dunbarton. One of them, John Martin of Bow, appeared to be the third winner on Nov. 8, but he lost, and Hoell won re-election, in a recount.

Jasper said his committee filed its independent expenditures and followed the law to the best of its knowledge. He said the independent expenditures were for mailers in support of Republican candidates, as in a slate of candidates together, so that expenditures on behalf of any one individual were not easily itemized.
– See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/state-government/Dunbarton-rep-files-complaint-against-NH-House-Speakers-group-11282016#sthash.XCvExnLK.dpuf

And these words from the NH Constitution:

[Art.] 4. [Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.

[Art.] 22. [Free Speech; Liberty of the Press.] Free speech and liberty of the press are es

 

by Skip

Co-founder of GraniteGrok, my concern is around Individual Liberty and Freedom (and how Government is taking that away from us). My fight, from a Conservative (with small “L” libertarian leanings) and evangelical Christian perspective, is with the Progressives that are forcing a collectivized and secular humanistic future upon us. As TEA Party activist, citizen journalist (and pundit!), my goal is to use the New Media to advance the radical notions of America’s Founders back into our culture again.