Normally I either bypass her Op-Eds in the Union Leader completely or just glance through them. They generally are the usual drivel that would come from a former NH Democrat Party chair (and a DNC vice-chair). Don’t worry, I generally think JHo’s (former NH GOP chair) to be similar screeds. In this case, though, I found at least the premise of the Op-Ed to be both true and false at the same time concerning campaign finance report.
First off, I disagree with the whole nature of reporting – if all speech is protected against incursions by government (see below for the Constitutional standards for this stance), why should Government be able to restrict such speech (as “political speech” is not recognized or singled out – ditto for “hate” speech). After all, SCOTUS has ruled that money is speech (re: Buckley vs Valero, Citizens United vs. FEC). That said, Kathy Sullivan at least starts off on the right foot (again, IF you believe that Govt should regulate political speech; suitable for her as she’s of the Socialist Party that believes that noting in live SHOULDN’T be regulated by Govt at some level) (reformatted, emphasis mine):
In May, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office sent a letter to Secretary of State Bill Gardner and the chairmen of New Hampshire’s three political parties announcing that it planned to review the 2018 campaign financial disclosure statements filed by candidates and political committees for compliance with state law. This announcement is a good first step in cleaning up the abysmal state of finance disclosure in New Hampshire. Our disclosure laws are not complicated, and they are not onerous.
Again, I simply don’t believe we should have them – the First Amendment clause on Free Speech was premised on the activities of anonymous pamphleteers who published contrary to the existing government at the time – the British Monarchy – and helped foment the actions that led to our Independence. What would have the result of have been if they had had to “register their speech” and printing equipment and have bureaucrats vet those expenses?
But every cycle there are candidates and committees that do not follow the law or the instructions from the secretary of state. Despite the warning, a review shows that there still are those who just do not comply with the minimum requirements.
The Law is the law – we must strive to overturn it even as it protects the powerful, political insiders, and incumbents. True, too, is that Kathy Sullivan is protecting them as well as harming the uninitiated that have to navigate the “not onerous” byzantine rules and exclusions. As I’ve said before, I’ve talked to regular (i.e., people not normally involved in politics who chose to speak up). It does need to be deep sixed.
Back to the Democrat crap that don’t stink. At least Sullivan provides an example of this:
One example is the Log Cabin Republicans of New Hampshire. State law requires the names of donors contributing more than $25 to be disclosed. The LCRNH report shows 23 donations in excess of that amount coming from EventBrite, an online conduit for ticket sales. I am guessing that whoever filed the report just lumped contributions that came in through EventBrite, not bothering to list the individual donors and the amount each donated. The law also requires disclosure of the occupation and employer of every donor who gave more than $100. There are five individual donors to LCRNH listed by name who gave more than $100 plus category. No addresses, occupations, or employers are provided.
There also was a $699.98 in-kind donation listed, but there is no information as to who it came from.This report may seem like small potatoes, but LCRNH gave significant donations to two candidates. It should provide full and accurate information about the people or entities who underwrote those activities. The failure to provide employment and occupation information occurs over and over again. In fact, the New Hampshire Republican State Committee available on line at the Secretary of State’s website only provides occupation information for one donor — and that person is listed as retired. The statute also requires the report to give the total given by each donor during the reporting period. The Republican report does not do that either.
The innuendo is that ONLY the NH GOP and its candidates fail to follow the rules and regulations. Now, I haven’t looked up similar reports for the Democrats / Socialists but I’m pretty sure that someone, somewhere, at some time, has screwed up on her side of the aisle as well.
But then again, that’s the partisanship that’s fine for her but not for Conservatives.
*******************
Contemplate:
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.
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.
June 2, 1784
(H/T: Union Leader)
