Or so it seems…

(H/T: Liberal Logic)

James O’Keefe’s  Project Veritas has done another Voter Fraud video – this time in the State where the Democrat National Convention will be – North Carolina!  How fitting, as it always seems that Democrats are the one who could care less who is voting (or how often – it’s the Chicago way!).  I just keep wondering how long it will take before the illustrative theater of the absurd will finally start to sink in – and even with that, it IS absurd that the government workers can’t accept that if something is that absurd looking, they are being punked.  But, that’s the problem with “seams” or boundary conditions and folks who are “just doing the job” – both them and the “system” can easily be exploited.

Here is the supporting info for this North Carolina activities (entire video, the research paperwork).

Here in NH, the system got exploited – big time, and at the worst possible time (the day for voting for the First In The Nation Primary) for NH and the Democrats that have refused to take action by insisting “hey, it can’t happen here!”.  So, when you embarrass the High and Mighty, they get all onery on you.  That’s why the NH Attorney General issued a subpoena for a criminal grand jury when James O’Keefe was to return back to NH to speak at a Rye Republican event (which cause him to Skype into the event instead, which foiled that attempt).

And as I pointed out here, NH AG Dick Head is now doing “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” bit with Nadia Naffe in getting emails (et al) of James O’Keefe that she obtained under dubious circumstances.  Gov. John “Do Nuttin” Lynch is not going to let this go – nor ANY Democrat politician of merit standing in the State.  You know, this, to my eyes, starts to approach that line which demarcs what is right, and what is shady, and what is wrong.

Heh! Update before posting:  If you go down 1/3rd of the post to where I discuss lines 25-26, 28-29 you can see that even if the IRS codes would not require Donors / Contributors information, this amendment will require it.  Now add this info:

TUESDAY, MAY 15, UPDATE: CROSSROADS ON THE AIR. Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit self-described issues advocacy group that works in conjunction with the pro-Republican Super PAC American Crossroads, is planning political advertising in New Hampshire.

…The Granite Status has learned that Crossroads GPS will air at least two ads on WMUR television beginning later this week and at least into the middle of next week at a cost of at least $75,000.

 While American Crossroads, as a Super PAC, must disclose its donors, Crossroads GPS as a 501 (c)(4) nonprofit, does not.

This Amendment would force that.  What actually would happen is that they wouldn’t participate in NH.  That is chilling of “freedom of speech”.

**********

Part 1 and Part 2.  The premise of HB1704 is “We have to regulate Political Speech MORE because we don’t think people should be uncivil, so we will make sure who is talking so we can take retribution action if we don’t like it.  Or them.”  (Oh, that’s the Democrats….maybe just the Democrats?).  Again, I remind the Senators of the Founders’ simple words:

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…

Sidebar: WHY can’t lawyers, politicians, and marketeers just learn to love the simple things?  You know, the things that actually work?  Or given the fact that they tell us NO so often (as in “NO, we do not allow you to do that, or this, or that something else…NO!), why can’t they listen to that “make no law” bit?  We all would be better off.  But given that I’m writing this now means they STILL haven’t.

Just a short amount of time ago, it was the Political Parties and Candidates that had to endure limitations to what they could say and when and to whom.  The egregious part of this Amendment is that because ordinary citizens are now speaking up, often against those that represent them, politicians are deciding that these activities (mirroring the pamphleteers at the beginning of this country) just cannot be allowed to happen.  Tell me, Senators, did our Founding Fathers require registrations and fees in order to speak one’s mind on things political?  With this Amendment, NH State Senator Sharon Carson shows the belief that the ordinary person, or a collection of such, have to be kept on a tight tether.  Why?  Look at this redefinition (the PDF of this Amendment is here):

7 1 Definitions; Political Committee. Amend RSA 664:2, III to read as follows:
8 III. “Political committee” means any entity, group, or organization, incorporated or
9 nonincorporated, [of 2 or more persons to influence] that makes expenditures to influence
10 elections or measures, including the political committee of a political party as defined in paragraph
11 V.

There are statutes on the books that already defines what a Political Committee is – and generally has been around the idea of a Party or a Candidate.  This new definition basically so widens the definition so that the important part is “makes expenditures” rather than the organizational type (it becomes immaterial).  Make no mistake – when you look at that paragraph, if 2 ordinary people get together and wish to speak out, they are ensnared.  Most groups WILL incorporate under some type of for-profit or non-profit simply for IRS reasons and those are the types that are now of interest with the rise of advocacy groups and SuperPACs.  But this amendment makes no differentiation between a multi-million dollar PAC and a couple of neighborhood buddies.

Wait, there more badness…

13 IX. “Expenditure” shall mean the disbursement of money or thing of value or the making of
14 a legally binding commitment to make such a disbursement in the future for the purpose of
15 influencing the nomination for election or election of any candidate or the success or defeat of a
16 measure.

It is the “little people”, the ordinary person, that will be most affected by this.  We at GraniteGrok do not raise money for candidates (although we all have given money to candidates or groups as individuals), but I would like to believe that GraniteGrok is a “thing of value” when you look at our speech (both our writings as well as our actual speech – and make no mistake, there are costs to create such as we do, as others would in creating flyers, brochures, mailings, and the like).

So, one or more, do or say, this Amendment lays to ground such that you have to register.

18 3 Definitions; Independent Expenditures. Amend RSA 664:2, XI to read as follows:
19 XI. “Independent expenditures” means expenditures by a person, political committee, or
20 other entity expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or the
21 success or defeat of a measure which are made without cooperation or consultation with any
22 candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate, and which are not made in
23 concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent
24 of such candidate. As used in this paragraph, “clearly identified” means that the name of the
25 candidate involved appears; a photograph or drawing of the candidate appears; or the identity of the
26 candidate is apparent by unambiguous reference.

Boiling this down – if you say or do anything for or against a candidate or an issue and spend money, that money is now going to target you. Not the speech it enables, but the money.  If one always thought that money was always separate from actual speech (regardless of US Supreme Court decisions), here is NH based legislation that confirms the tight relationship between the two: Political Speech requires Money, and Money equals Speech (why else would Politicians always be asking for more?).

The very fact that you wish to exercise what you THOUGHT was your Freedom of Speech via a flyer (or a poster, a mailing, website, or an ad) shows that the State believes that there is a price to be paid to IT for you to speak.  This part of the Amendment is setting the stage for a expense floor by which if you do not report its costs to the Government, this part of the net will be used to capture your Speech – and you.  Combine this with the definition above of what a “speaker” is, Sharon Carson is making sure that ANY speech in the political realm is going to be regulated – and with a more expansive definition of “who”, almost anyone will be subject to this.

Lord help the ordinary schlub!

And as far as the BY HOW is concerned?

27 4 New Paragraph; Definitions; Electioneering Communication. Amend RSA 664:2 by inserting
28 after paragraph XVII the following new paragraph:
29 XVIII. “Electioneering communication” means any broadcast, publication, mailer, or cable or
30 satellite communication that fulfills each of the following conditions:
31 (a) The communication refers to a clearly identified candidate for state office or measure
32 without a call to action.

 I can’t believe that soapbox and bullhorn isn’t explicitly listed.  Electronic, wireless, dead tree – yup, covered. It seems that only if you are a telepath are you home free (hmm, I’d settle for being able to listen instead of projecting), but wait, once the technology is sufficiently advanced to “fake it”, they’ll want to account for it.

Back to the task; they have the WHEN covered (gee, especially when an election is approaching!)

(b) The communication is publicly distributed within 60 days prior 1 to a general election
2 or 30 days prior to a primary election for the office a candidate is seeking.

And the WHO:

3 (c) The communication is targeted to the relevant electorate.

 Can you say Political Lockdown?  sure you can, because here is where all of the above elements are mixed together for the benefit – of whom?  Not the ordinary citizen!

4 5 Registration of Political Committees. Amend RSA 664:3, I to read as follows:
5 I. Any political committee, except the political committee of a political party, shall register
6 with the secretary of state as provided in this section. The committee shall register with the
7 secretary of state not later than 24 hours after receiving any contribution in excess of [$500] $2,500
8 or before making any expenditure in excess of [$500] $2,500 in the aggregate, but in no event later
9 than 14 days after the formation of the committee.

 Again, with the new definition of what a Political Committee is, it can be you and me, you and your brother, GraniteGrok, Blue Hampshire, Karl Rove’s or Obama’s SuperPACs.  Now to be sure, Sharon Carson’s Amendment raises the trigger to $2500.  Better than $500, but $2500 doesn’t go very far – if someone wishes to do a wee bit of legal hijinks, we could be penalized and perhaps, shut down.  And other small blogs as well.  But Newspapers have editorials that try to influence the electorate for candidates and issues – and they are incorporated.  They certainly speak just before elections as well – why do they get a pass, Senators, and the ordinary person does not?  Why are they favored and the ordinary schlub no?  How about TV and Radio stations – do they get a pass simply because they are “media”?  Let’s be blunt, if you are reading ANYTHING in the Right side of the Blogosphere, Senate Republicans, you have already seen that media companies ARE biased and to a large degree, a Leftward slant.  While the UL used to be hard Right, I would consider it to be nominally Right nowadays – but others, say the Hippo and the Concord Monitor, are much harder Left

Why do they get Free Speech and Individuals do not?

 22 I. Any political committee whose receipts or expenditures in support of a candidate,
23 measure, or political party exceed [$500] $2,500 except, for the purposes of this paragraph only, the
24 political committee of a political party, [or] the political committee of a candidate, or a corporation
25 that is tax exempt under section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) of the United States
26 Internal Revenue Code,

As I wrote in an earlier post, this is just a furtherance of making sure that any organization that speaks up will now have opportunity to be written up for non-compliance.  In essence, the NH Senate wishes to create the widest corral possible to make sure they know who is saying what.  ANY non-profit is now fair game for simply speaking their minds (or the minds of those that ascribe to a group’s philosophy).  They are leaving no person untouched.

Frankly, there are those currently seated politicians that are tired of taking in the shorts by those that disagree with them – and by doing this, they are using the force of Government to get them to shut up.  The message is “You’re registered – we will know who you are” – and as we have seen the last few years under this President (and other of the same ilk regardless of Party), that information will be used to hurt you (remember what the State of Illinois bureaucrats did to Joe the Plumber after he questioned Obama about “spreading the wealth”?) later on.

Not only will the group be on file, but contributors will be as well:

shall file with the secretary of state an itemized statement, signed by its
27 chairman and treasurer showing each of its receipts exceeding $25 with the full name and home post
28 office address of the contributor in alphabetical order and the amount of the contribution, the date it
29 was received, and the aggregate total for each election for each contributor of over $100.

Those Illinois State Government employees immediately started to use State databases to dig up the dirt on Joe the Plumber to discredit him for dissing the Obamessiah.  We have seen what militant anti-Prop 8ers have done once that kind of information became known.

NH Senators, do you wish to be responsible for that here?

Full text of NH State Senator Sharon Carson’s Amendment 2012-1650s:

Sen. Carson, Dist. 14
April 13, 2012
2012-1650s
03/10

Draft Amendment to ________
Amend the title of the bill by replacing 1 it with the following:

2
3 AN ACT relative to expenditures by political committees.
4
5 Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:
6
7 1 Definitions; Political Committee. Amend RSA 664:2, III to read as follows:
8 III. “Political committee” means any entity, group, or organization, incorporated or
9 nonincorporated, [of 2 or more persons to influence] that makes expenditures to influence
10 elections or measures, including the political committee of a political party as defined in paragraph
11 V.
12 2 Definitions; Expenditure. Amend RSA 664:2, IX to read as follows:
13 IX. “Expenditure” shall mean the disbursement of money or thing of value or the making of
14 a legally binding commitment to make such a disbursement in the future for the purpose of
15 influencing the nomination for election or election of any candidate or the success or defeat of a
16 measure. It does not include the candidate’s filing fee or his or her expenses for personal travel and
17 subsistence.
18 3 Definitions; Independent Expenditures. Amend RSA 664:2, XI to read as follows:
19 XI. “Independent expenditures” means expenditures by a person, political committee, or
20 other entity expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or the
21 success or defeat of a measure which are made without cooperation or consultation with any
22 candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate, and which are not made in
23 concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent
24 of such candidate. As used in this paragraph, “clearly identified” means that the name of the
25 candidate involved appears; a photograph or drawing of the candidate appears; or the identity of the
26 candidate is apparent by unambiguous reference.
27 4 New Paragraph; Definitions; Electioneering Communication. Amend RSA 664:2 by inserting
28 after paragraph XVII the following new paragraph:
29 XVIII. “Electioneering communication” means any broadcast, publication, mailer, or cable or
30 satellite communication that fulfills each of the following conditions:
31 (a) The communication refers to a clearly identified candidate for state office or measure
32 without a call to action.

Draft Amendment to ________
- Page 2 -

(b) The communication is publicly distributed within 60 days prior 1 to a general election
2 or 30 days prior to a primary election for the office a candidate is seeking.
3 (c) The communication is targeted to the relevant electorate.
4 5 Registration of Political Committees. Amend RSA 664:3, I to read as follows:
5 I. Any political committee, except the political committee of a political party, shall register
6 with the secretary of state as provided in this section. The committee shall register with the
7 secretary of state not later than 24 hours after receiving any contribution in excess of [$500] $2,500
8 or before making any expenditure in excess of [$500] $2,500 in the aggregate, but in no event later
9 than 14 days after the formation of the committee. The registration shall be accompanied by a fee of
10 $50, which shall be deposited by the secretary of state into the general fund; provided, however, that
11 the political committee of a candidate which registers under this section shall not be required to pay
12 the $50 fee. Each political committee shall designate a treasurer or agent who is a citizen of this
13 state and who is authorized to receive all process and other legal documents on behalf of the political
14 committee, and through whom may be obtained access to all books and records of the political
15 committee. The political committee shall file with the secretary of state a statement of the purpose
16 of the committee and shall indicate whether the committee will be making independent expenditures
17 in support of or in opposition to any candidate including a statement of the name, address,
18 occupation, and principal place of business of its chairperson and treasurer or agent, and the names
19 and addresses of other officers. The committee shall file an amendment to its registration within 14
20 days of any change in the officers or purpose of the committee.
21 6 Reporting by Political Committee. Amend RSA 664:6, I to read as follows:
22 I. Any political committee whose receipts or expenditures in support of a candidate,
23 measure, or political party exceed [$500] $2,500 except, for the purposes of this paragraph only, the
24 political committee of a political party, [or] the political committee of a candidate, or a corporation
25 that is tax exempt under section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) of the United States
26 Internal Revenue Code, shall file with the secretary of state an itemized statement, signed by its
27 chairman and treasurer showing each of its receipts exceeding $25 with the full name and home post
28 office address of the contributor in alphabetical order and the amount of the contribution, the date it
29 was received, and the aggregate total for each election for each contributor of over $100. The
30 statement shall be filed not later than the Wednesday 12 weeks immediately preceding a primary
31 election, before 5 o’clock in the afternoon, and shall cover the period from the day of the committee
32 registration up to and including the Monday before the statement is due. All receipts of $25 or under
33 shall appear on the statements as unitemized receipts. Any listing which exceeds an individual’s
34 aggregate total of $100 for each election shall be accompanied by the contributor’s occupation
35 including official job title, the name of the contributor’s employer, and the city or town of the
36 contributor’s principal place of business, if any. The statement shall also show each committee
37 expenditure with the full name and city or town of persons, corporations, committees, or to

Draft Amendment to ________
- Page 3 -

whomever paid or to be paid, the date paid, and the election for which 1 the expenditure was made,
2 with the specific nature and amount of each expenditure since the date of the registration.
3 7 Reporting by Political Committee. Amend RSA 664:6, II-a to read as follows:
4 II-a. A political committee shall file a statement in the same form as in paragraph I with the
5 secretary of state not later than the Wednesday immediately preceding a primary and a general
6 election, before 5 o’clock in the afternoon. The statement shall summarize the statements under
7 paragraphs I and II if such statements are filed and itemize all receipts and expenditures since the
8 cutoff of the statement under paragraph II up until the Monday preceding the filing of the statement
9 under this paragraph. In addition to the reporting requirements contained in this section, the
10 secretary of state shall be notified by the fiscal agent within 24 hours of any contribution exceeding
11 [$500] $2,500 which is received after the statement under this paragraph is filed and prior to the day
12 of election.
13 8 Reporting by Political Committee. Amend RSA 664:6, IV-IV-a to read as follows:
14 IV. Any political committee whose receipts or expenditures do not exceed [$500] $2,500 for a
15 reporting period need not file. However, when a committee’s accumulated receipts or expenditures
16 for an election exceed [$500] $2,500 the committee shall file a statement at the next reporting
17 deadline, unless the committee is a corporation that is tax exempt under section 501(c)(4),
8. 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) of the United States Internal Revenue Code
19 IV-a. Any political committee whose independent expenditures or spending on
20 electioneering communications, in aggregate, exceed [$500] $2,500 shall file an itemized
21 statement with the secretary of state not later than 24 hours after such expenditures are made, and
22 thereafter each time a further [$500] $2,500 is expended. Such itemized statements shall cover the
23 period during which independent expenditures and spending on electioneering
24 communications totaling [$500] $2,500 were made. Each statement shall include a certification by
25 the political committee that the independent expenditure or electioneering communication meets
26 the definition in RSA 664:2, XI or RSA 664:2, XVIII. Each statement shall contain the date of each
27 independent expenditure or spending on electioneering communications; the name and address
28 of the person to whom the expenditure was made; the name of the candidate on whose behalf or
29 against whom each independent expenditure was made or referenced in each electioneering
30 communication; the amount of each expenditure; the purpose of each expenditure, and the
31 aggregate amount of all previous independent expenditures and spending on electioneering
32 communications. If [the independent expenditure is] expenditures are made in support of or to
33 oppose more than one candidate, the statement made under this paragraph shall allocate the way in
34 which the expenditure was made among the candidates on a reasonable basis. For the purposes of
35 this paragraph, “reasonable basis” means a statement which reflects the benefit or the burden
36 reasonably expected to be derived or suffered by each candidate. The filing requirements of this
37 paragraph shall be in addition to all other filing requirements under this section, and shall not be

Draft Amendment to ________
- Page 4 -

limited to the filing periods during which expenditures must 1 otherwise be reported.
2 9 New Paragraph; Penalties. Amend RSA 664:21 by inserting after paragraph VI the following
3 new paragraph:
4 VII.(a) A political committee that fails to register in accordance with RSA 664:3 shall be
5 subject to a fine equal to 25 percent of the electioneering communication and independent
6 expenditures made during the period from the date the political committee was required to register
7 to the date the political committee registered.
8 (b) A political committee that fails to report independent expenditures or spending on
9 electioneering communications in accordance with RSA 664:6, IV-a shall be subject to a fine equal to
10 25 percent of the electioneering communication and independent expenditures not reported or
11 reported late.
12 10 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2013.

Draft Amendment to ________
- Page 5 -

2012-1650s

AMENDED ANALYSIS

This bill modifies the definition of “political committee” and requires reporting by political
committees of spending on electioneering communications, as defined in the bill. This bill also raises
from $500 to $2,500 the amount of contributions or expenditures triggering registration and
reporting requirements for political committees.

The smartest man in any room can’t seem to put his name on a budget anyone will vote for.  This years nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue is worse than the last–it even has the distinction of being discarded with more no votes than last years budget nighmare.  99-0.

The Senate torpedoed his last budget 97-0 in May 2011, then the House dropped a goose egg on him in March with a robust 414-0tally. Now this.

616-0

With the Democrat run Executive branch incapable of writing a budget that other Democrats will dare vote for, you might think the serious House of the Legislature, that August body known as the US Senate, would have ridden to the rescue.  But writing a budget is far too much responsibility (or is that accountability), besides, debt ceiling (Republicans want to shut down the government) programming plays so much better on State run Media than taking a position on the debt and spending problem, in the midst of the worst recession in history™.

…word on Twitter is that Democrats voted unanimously against Paul Ryan’s, Rand Paul’s, Mike Lee’s and Pat Toomey’s budget proposals too. On the most momentous domestic issue of our time — fiscal sustainability — they’ve checked out.

Anyone have some Jeanne Shaheen fiscal accountability and irresponsible-debt rhetoric handy from 2008?  Now would be a nice time to roll that out.  Over 1100+ days (so far) without a budget from the Democrat controlled US Senate and almost doubling that irresponsible national debt, and all under the watchful eye of $enator $haheeeeen.   Those 2014 campaign ads just write themselves.

Makes you wonder how many Democrat US Senators are considering voting Republican this November.  It might be the only chance some of them have at getting re-elected.

H/T Hot air.

Doughnut courtesy of “ubuycoffee.com”

War on Women.  Let’s go to the video.

H/T Hot Air/ Susan B Anthony List

I just received this document a few minutes ago (PDF here):

Last time I looked, unless Dick Head has had a subpoena issued, wouldn’t this be against the law?

Is Nadia Naffe doing this in retribution for this, as Patterico outlines?  And here is a temp restraining order against Ms. Naffe, also at Patterico.  And where Ms. Naffe went after the RNC.  Busy lady, she is.  And Patterico has dogged her antics well, it seems.

So, NH AG Dick Head wants to touch her with a 10 foot pole……why?

Oh yeah, James O’Keefe showed how easy it is to commit voter fraud here in NH on the First-In-The-Nation-Primary Day (and he works for a Democrat Governor, John Lynch, who doesn’t believe such a thing exists.  They got embarrassed so this could be seen as State sponsored retribution.

Audio interview of that video with James O’Keefe here.  The video can be seen here.   You keep working on these, Project Veritas!

[Update at end of post]

You may already have your own lobbyist.  Maybe.  Oh, and this lobbyist might not be representing you or your legislative whims specifically.   But you are paying for them with your tax dollars, if that makes you feel any better.

The lobbyist you are paying for, if your School district participates, is the New Hampshire School board Association (NHSBA).  The NHSBA

“has provided member school boards with training, support, advice, information, and other essential services to help school board members perform your very important jobs.”

That sounds great.  Who wants a School Board that hasn’t been properly “trained” by professionals since 1916?  Is there a class on how to make taxpayers feel like morons who should sit down and keep quiet?  How to convince people that the budget divided by the number of students is never, ever, the actual cost per student.  I bet there is.  I’m sure they don’t call it that though.

And then there’ is that lobbying thing I mentioned.

According to the minutes of a February 7th meeting with the Merrimack School Board and School Budget Committee…

..the NHSBA is a great resource to School Board members and often lobbies in favor of as well as against legislation proposed by our legislators

…

the NHSBA provides school board training, collective bargaining information, policy development assistance, and population projection reports.  …NHSBA holds a delegate assembly to which each member district sends a delegate.  At this delegate assembly, the delegates vote on positions, for or against, various upcoming issues and it is those positions for which the NHSBA lobbies.  .. the NHSBA is available 12 months a year for assistance and advice.

Merrimack Taxpayers spent $6,092 dollars for these “services” the last time the check was due (cost is based on district size so membership fees will vary).  And this is ( I assume) just another line item on the School budget we all vote for; if anyone every dove down into it we’d find it there next to the other “minutiae.” (Someone did, that’s why we’re talking about it.)

So is this a potential problem?

I would contend that the resources and information portion, even the training, might have some merit.  Where I begin to see some soft focus is when it comes to lobbying the Legislature.  Your school district, in cooperation with a majority of all participating school districts in the state, are using taxpayer dollars to create a political block that will lobby and/or attempt to influence the General Court at your expense, for their interests.

Am I skeptical? Even under the best of intentions,this creates an authority with resources and connections superior to that of any average taxpayer, who may not even know they are funding the NHSBA, for purposes I think we can all agree will tend to be to the advantage of the NHSBA membership before anything else.  Did I mention it was taxpayer funded?

And while this is not specifically a bureaucracy, it exists to serve them.  It does not exist without them, or our money.  So it is not much different than the equivalent of a “School Board members Union,” funded by taxpayers, to lobby Concord for it’s own unified School board members agenda, whatever that happens to be in any given year.   And most of us probably have no idea it exists, or that we are paying for it.

(Does it matter that the Local Government Center (LGC) is their exclusive Web Site sponsor?  That’s not making me feel more comfortable.)

So am I justified in my interest–call it concern–over the nature of the NHSBA, it’s existence, method of funding, legislative agenda, and a possible collision of interests with the people funding it?  I think it is a bit suspicious but I am more than happy to consider other opinions.

[Update] Added link to Merrimack Meeting minutes.  Clarified (I hope)  the sentence about the NHSBA acting like it was the Union representation in Concord of ‘dues paying” New Hampshire school boards.  That wasn’t coming across the way I intended.  Fixed a few typos.

Also: Thanks to Doris Hohensee for this:

Title 1. The State and Its Government, Chapter 15, Lobbyists Section 15:5 Prohibited Activities.
I. Except as provided in paragraph II, no recipient of a grant or appropriation of state funds may use the state funds to lobby or attempt to influence legislation, participate in political activity, or

II. Any recipient of a grant or appropriation of state funds that wishes to engage in any of the activities prohibited in paragraph I, or contribute funds to any entity engaged in these activities, shall segregate the state funds in such a manner that such funds are physically and financially separate from any non-state funds that may be used for any of these purposes. Mere bookkeeping separation of the state funds from other moneys shall not be sufficient.

…and this:  HB 1342. Legislation to prohibit towns, cities and the state from using taxpayer money to hire lobbyists was defeated this year:

Mr. Obama has evolved his position on Gay Marriage.  Not surprising.  Most everything the candidate ran on “evolved” once elected to the office.  The lesson then, is not that Mr. Obama is seeing homosexual marriage in a new light, the lesson is that no matter what he says or does about anything, you should expect him to evolve those positions as well.  He has too.

It is a fatal flaw of pragmatism (the left’s safe word for their socialist/Marxist proclivities),which insists on ignoring what has worked in the past in favor of whatever the average room full of left wing intellectuals believes will work now.  Right now.  And what will always work for any room full of smarty-pants liberals is more government and more money to pay for more bureaucracy.  And they’ll tell you all about it.  But they wont tell you this.  When that fails, and fail it shall, they will continue to fund whatever it was, and simply imagine a new solution for a new “right now” problem, that would be the one they just made worse, and that “solution” will require even more government, and more money, to pay for more bureaucracy.  To quote Kyle Resse from the original Terminator Movie.  “You still don’t get it, do you? … That’s what he does! That’s ALL he does!” He, Democrats, don’t know anything else.

The impact of this reality is simple.  Nothing a Democrat says has any meaning past the moment in which they said it.  No matter how sincere they may seem, or even believe they themsleves to be when they said it, the second it leaves their mouths it becomes history; pragmatism defines it in the context of that wink of the eye.  It has no relevance beyond that still shot in time.   How else do you think they can say with a straight face that you are taking what they said “out of context?”  To them it is out of context.  But this is true of everything they every say or ever do.

There is no failure, only trying.  There is no government waste, just investment in the moment.  Followed by the next.  And the next.   History holds no lessons so failure can be repeated simply because at this moment, it looks like it just might work.  The constant, if there is one, is more government, and spending more money, no matter where that leads.  Change just is and you must fund it.

This means that Democrats are doomed to fail at your expense.  You also cannot trust or believe anything they say because they will not let you hold them responsible for anything they do.   Look at Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Buckley, Sullivan, Hassan.   They are pragmatists.  And this might not be an issue if they were private people trying things with their own money.  But they are “doing” with our money and  they will use the power of the police state to intimidate us into letting them, or if at all possible from stopping them.

They will waste your millions or  trillions and fail.  And then?  They will imagine the next new ‘right now” and spend more of your money again.  And the best part of all…when you hold them accountable, they will call you stupid, racist, bigoted, ignorant, rubes who are puppets of some higher temporal power.   But that’s a more apt description of themselves.

 Image Credit: Jim Margulies

JP Morgan earned a $5.4 billion profit in the first quarter of 2012.  It is on course for making a multibillion profit in 2Q2012 and a $20 plus  billion profit for the year despite its recent $2 billion loss.  Businesses  take risks, and some risks do not work out.  Businesses are at risk daily  as they must win enough willing and able customers so companies can pay employees, taxes, fees, and other expenses.

This JPMorgan loss has again kicked off liberal demands for even more regulations on an already highly regulated industry.  How are regulators  supposed to prevent losses from business risks?  Businesses like banks are in the business of risking money.  To keep banks from taking risks, you must stop them from making loans.

None of the current regulations and regulators, e.g., SEC, FED, FDIC, Sarbanes Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and many many others, didn’t stop this  loss.  They didn’t stop the MF Global loss.  Bernie Madoff was registered with the SEC which didn’t stop that fraud.  The FED had responsibility for the NY Banking system, but it didn’t warn of or prevent the housing credit crisis.

It is silly to think that a few more regulators or regulations will prevent losses.  The purpose of more banking regulations is to provide more high-paying, do nothing jobs and to provide political control over an essential industry allowing rewards for friends and punishments for political enemies.

The JPMorgan loss has no similarity to the MF Global loss.   The JP Morgan loss was in its own account, not a penny of client money was lost or at risk and JP Morgan has opened its books for investigation.  The MF Global loss was reported to be $1.6 billion of misappropriated client money.  Could the reason the slow investigation of the MF Global loss be because the head of MF Global was former Democrat Senator, Democrat Governor of New Jersey and multi-million dollar Obama fund-raiser John Corzine?

Business is risky.  No amount of regulation will prevent all business risks unless they end business.  But, regulations add costs which make US businesses less competitive compared to foreign companies.  Regulations give a false sense of security to investors who think regulators are eliminating risks.  And, the more regulations and regulators the more politicians seem to think that the public has an obligation to protect investors from losses.

What America needs is more competition, fewer regulations, more personal civil and criminal responsibility by executives for the success and losses of their businesses, and the end of all subsidies, loan guarantees, and bailouts for private companies and industries.

PS.  In January California estimated that its deficit was $9.2 billion.  Now the deficit turns out to be $16 billion.  Perhaps all the regulations created for business are just mis-applied, they should apply to government finances, not business.

LA Times in 2011:

“The White House said those changes alone would eliminate more than 1.9 million annual hours of “redundant reporting requirements” for employers, saving more than $40 million a year in costs.”

As if that really is a big solution.Most assuredly, the Leviathan (Government) has grown larger and larger; the 2012 version of “Ten Thousand Commandments” is now out.  From the post over at The Corner, a few “highlights”:

• Estimated regulatory costs, while “off budget,” are equivalent to over 48 percent of the level of federal spending itself.
• The 2011 Federal Register finished at 81,247 pages, just shy of 2010’s all-time record-high 81,405 pages.
• Regulatory compliance costs dwarf corporate-income taxes of $198 billion, and exceed individual income taxes and even pre-tax corporate profits.
• Agencies issued 3,807 final rules in 2011, a 6.5 percent increase over 3,573 in 2010.
• Of the 4,128 regulations in the works at year-end 2011, 212 were “economically significant,” meaning they generally wield at least $100 million in economic impact.
• 822 of those 4,128 regulations in the works would affect small businesses.
• The total number of economically significant rules finalized in 2011 was 79, down slightly from 2010 but up 92.7 percent over five years, and 108 percent over ten years.
• Recent costly federal agency initiatives include the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule and the Department of Transportation’s Fuel Economy Standards.

“are equivalent to over 48 percent of the level of federal spending” – that would be $1.8 Trillion / year; that’s how much it costs consumers in (often) unnecessary pricing.  That’s why I scoff at the $40 million at the top.

And you wonder why I always ask Politicians and Candidates what they are going to do about regulations?  Too many times, these are knee-jerk reactions in order to be seen as “doing something”, at best, it can be self-justification for a job as in “we’d better be seen doing something” or proposing solutions to problems that either really don’t exist, exist rather seldom, or can be handled in far different ways.

(H/T: The Corner)

I think this, by Rameriz, says it better than this earlier one; this requires no “evolvement”

I guess it is true, what they say about some politicians….

(H/T: Hot Air)

Especially with Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown now saying that only with higher taxes can California get out of their bind.

Umm, Jerry?  Your taxes are already among the highest in the nation…that’s not enough?

(H/T: John D)

Me in stern rebuke mode

So I got into a little contretemps online the other day about “neocons” when someone suggested that I was one, or at least a supporter of one in saying Rep. Allen West of Florida would make an interesting choice for GOP vice president. In response I went off on a bit of a historical rant, explaining who the neocons (more accurately “Neo-Conservatives,” as they were originally known) are, and where they came from (the moniker today is usually just used as an epithet, with no historical background; kind of a substitute for “war monger”). My rant apparently served some purpose, as some people have emailed me and said “thanks, I never was clear before on exactly who or what the neocons were.” Then Skip saw it and said “run it, run it!” So, okay, here’s a heavily edited version of what I said:

Actually, my interlocutors are both part right and part wrong about neocons (although both of them are nearly always totally right on the issues they address). There was no phenomenon known as “Neocons” in the way we speak of them today prior to the early 1970′s. The first Neocons—Daniel Bell, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, and Sen. Daniel Moynihan, to name a few—were old-line, post-WW II American “liberals” who were supportive of and active in building both the welfare state and the civil rights movement. They “kind of” supported a “mixed economy” because they believed that it generated the most money that could be skimmed off by the government to help people (Irving Kristol wrote a book named “Two Cheers for Capitalism”; not three, only two). They were all big supporters of John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier government expansion and spending, supported Lyndon Johnson’s war in Vietnam and so-called Great Society programs (“guns and butter,” as the spending on both Vietnam and welfare expansion was called), and supported Hubert Humphrey who ran against Richard Nixon in 1968. (Humphrey was in some ways the last of the great “welfare-warfare state” American liberals; I asked him at a gathering in front of several thousand students in the early 1970′s how he could justify the overspending the federal government was engaged in even then; he said there’s nothing wrong with spending when it’s for “housing and urban redevelopment and helping poor people”; the crowd roared its approval…and here we are today.) The neocons were also likely supporters even earlier of Adlai Stevenson, the supposedly brainy, great post-WW II liberal who ran as a Democrat against Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, losing both times.

The genesis of the modern neoconservative movement was a political development that began metastasizing in 1972 with Sen. George McGovern, the New Left, and the Vietnam anti-war movement. Remember, the neocons were and are internationalists (as befits people who harken back to the Internationalist communist movement of the 1920′s and ’30′s…while disapproving of the communists’ “regrettable excesses”). The New Left, after its pro-communist victory over America and the South Vietnamese people, turned into a very effective long-term political movement (Sen. John Kerry of Mass. came directly out of it, as did Obama’s great bomber-buddy, Bill Ayers). That movement was “internationalist,” but only to the extent that any overseas movement was also anti-American and anti-capitalist. Under Jimmy Carter our homegrown New Left anti-American movement had a victory in deposing the pro-America, secular, reformist Shah of Iran…and we have what we have today as a result in that country.

Since the neocons did not hate America and what it stood for, they started getting increasingly nervous in the way the Democrat Party was trending. In addition, many of the neocons were Jewish, with strongly held beliefs that Israel should be defended at any cost, as a beacon of civilization and democratic values in a part of the world where neither characteristic was or is welcomed. The New Left, in the meantime, turned anti-Israel (which was and is a pro-American country, remember) and pro-Palestinian, in part no doubt because Palestinians by and large hate America (for its historic support of Israel). In turning pro-Palestinian, the New Left movement also took on an anti-Semitic edge that has grown right up to this day.

So in the face of the beginning of that entire process, starting with the Vietnam anti-war movement in the late 1960′s and the emergence of the New Left, and moving on to George McGovern running for President in 1972 (which launched the takeover of the Democrat Party by the New Left)…the neocons realized that they had created a leftist monster right in the heart of America, and began abandoning it (as statist and collectivist “reformers” generally do when they see the real-world  results of their great ideas). Remember also that the neocons were very strongly pro-American, even though they wanted a “more fair” and thus quasi-socialist, welfare state country. Most fought in WW II, and they were all were quite patriotic. So when hatred of America (because it was individualitst, capitalist, and anti-statist) became increasingly popular as a polestar of the New Left—which the Old Left liberals had birthed—the neocons began renouncing the child of their old leftism, and came over to those who still were patriotically pro-American…the modern American Conservative movement, which was reborn out of the Old Right America-Firsters of the early and mid-20th century in the form of the Goldwater Movement of the 1960′s (which, not incidentally, was also internationalist because it was largely based upon anti-communism). The old leftists liked all of that, because they were not communists themselves, they were liberals! They were also patriotic, and also wanted to keep building the Welfare State. However, although the new-right conservatives opposed the welfare state (merely a family squabble among the conservatives and the neocons), they also wanted to defeat communism, support South Vietnam, support Israel, and support exporting America’s superior values and form of government, as did the neocons. All that was anathema to the New Left, as bathed in America-hatred as they were and are, and so the old progressive liberals were driven out of the Democrat party, to take up with the reborn New Right and conservative movement.

That is where the neocons that we talk about today have come from. Given the realities on the ground, including the imminent collapse of welfare states and socialist regimes all over the world, and including the fact that America is bankrupt, their internationalist nostrums aren’t viewed as such a great idea anymore. The left doesn’t believe in them because they think that America is fatally flawed and thus not suitable for emulation (think of leftist Supreme Court Justice Ginzburg, who advised against new nations adopting the U.S. Constitution and form of government), while the right realizes not only that we can’t afford to be internationalist anymore (with endless foreign wars associated with the exporting of American values), but that other peoples may fight to the death against our values of individualism, capitalism, and freedom, e.g. Afghanistan and other Islamic countries. (And let’s not forget our domestic hostility to those values from the Democrats; the local chairman of the Democrat party in my home town of Grafton was quoted as saying this about incoming libertarians and libertarian-conservative Freestaters: “They’re not going to be allowed to come here and cram freedom down our throats!” (LOL.)

I am not a neocon. (I sound like Richard Nixon thanks to you two, who said “I am not a crook.” Sheesh!) And I do not believe that Allen West is one. We shall see. He’s in favor of cutting the military budget, for which he got in trouble from the GOP chairman of the defense committee he sits on. Marco Rubio, unfortunately, seems to have had his head twisted around by the neocon internationalists in the Trilaterial Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, and appears to be in the process of morphing from a Tea Party Conservative to a neocon internationalist. Too bad, that. But it is not applicable to Col. West, who I think would make a most interesting vice presidential candidate because of his obvious courage, intelligence, historical knowledge, and willingess to fight. Not to mention that he would be a rebuke to both the race-hustler con-men like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, as well as to the liberal racists who have “helped” black Americans right into the permanent underclass that a large percentage of them are trapped in today. So don’t give me any of this “neocon” silliness, you two!

Starting in July of 2012, Mr. Irwin Sussman will begin his new job as the Superintendent of SAU#43 ( Croydon-Newport), a not so curious turn of events for a man who recently “retired” after 40 years working in public education in New York State.  (Last week, you may recall, we introduced you to Robert Sullivan.  He retired as the Super in Middleboro MA, and is collecting $70-80K from the State of Massachusetts, while currently running SAU#21 in New Hampshire.)

Mr. Sussman was a teacher, school principal, and finally a superintendent, working in Lake Luzerne NY, when he “felt it was time” to retire…

After two decades at the Hadley-Luzerne Central School District, and the last eight years as the superintendent, Irwin Sussman told the board last week he will retire at the end of the school year.

Sussman, who turns 64 next month, will work his last day on June 30. His career in education spans 40 years.

“I feel that it’s that time,” said Sussman, who was the high school principal for about 11 years before he became the superintendent in January 2003.

Silly me – and I thought taxes were need to actually pay for functions of actual Government (like salaries, office equipment, armies…)

(H/T: Business Insider)

(H/T: Mac)

This is why MSNBC sucks: The fascist-friendly network has a female talking head whose position is…only acceptable speech allowed! (And it’s important to note that leftists think it’s just great!)

OK, Part 1 is here – which simply pulled out a couple of nuggets from the proposed HB 1704 as found at  NH.GOV. While there was enough uproar to have the NH Senate table it last week, it is supposedly coming back from the dead.  I have already made the pitch that the bill needs to be amended so that donors / contributors / supporters no longer be listed.  The reason for that as the Progressives have pushed politics into ever more parts of Society at large (instead of keeping it simply in the Governmental / Political sphere), they are coming up against The Law of Diminishing Returns which states that the next incremental “gain” for them (which I consider a loss when compared to traditional Western Liberalism / Constitutionalism) costs more and requires more.  Thus, the new tactic now in wide deploy of finding and deliberately creating damage to their political opposition; no, not just in the political realm but in and to their personal lives and families.  Their scorched earth mentality is to so punish ordinary citizens (often, whose only “political crime” is to defend traditional American values) that these folks will either remain silent or destitute on the street (after all, they are just following Obama’s lead in intending to bankrupt the coal industry and from EPA Regional Administrator whose “leadership style concerning energy companies was to “crucify the first five to pacify the rest” and by that, silence dissent.

I have to admit, the person that titled this amendment to HB 1704 is out to:

• Protect the Political Class (and yes, Establishment Republicans are certainly often part of this Class)
• Silence the opposition to their rule

I hate to have to keep repeating it, but when our Political Class is either seemingly incapable of remembering this or willfully wish to disregard it, I feel like I have to be an elementary school teacher and repeat, repeat, and repeat some more:

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, here be the beginning of the fisking of the “Protect the Politicans’ Ass Amendment” (full text later in this post).

First thing to note is that no one that I know either doesn’t know or is refusing to “give up” the name of the absolute craven person that create Section 12 whose title (“12 New Section; Reports of Spending on Information Critical of General Court Members“) is a blatant scream of “We who are already elected are gonna make it HARDER for people to criticize us!“  It is my understanding that this particular amendment is coming out of, as I am told, the NH Senate Public and Municipal Affairs Committee, whose members are:

• John Barnes, Chair (Republican)
• Jeanne Forrester, Vice-Chair (Republican)
• David Boutin (Republican)
• Amanda Merrill (Democrat)
• Nancy Stiles (Republican)

Here is that Section (and then I will return to top down fisking of the entire Amendment; emphasis here is mine):

12 New Section; Reports of Spending on Information Critical of General Court Members. Amend RSA 664 by inserting after section 6 the following new section:

664:6-a Reports of Spending on Information Critical of General Court Members. Any political committee whose spending on distribution of information critical of a member of the general court who has not filed for office, in aggregate, exceeds $500 shall file an itemized statement with the secretary of state not later than 24 hours after such spending, and thereafter each time a further $500 is spent. Such itemized statements shall cover the period during which a total of $500 was spent. Each statement shall contain each date when such money was spent; the name and address of the person paid; the name of the member of the general court mentioned in the information distributed; the amount of each payment; the purpose of each payment; and the aggregate amount of all previous payments. If the payment is made for information critical of more than one member of the general court, the statement made under this paragraph shall allocate the way in which the payment was made among the members on a reasonable basis. For the purposes of this paragraph, “reasonable basis” means a statement which reflects the burden reasonably expected to be suffered by each member. The filing requirements of this paragraph shall be in addition to all other filing requirements, and shall not be limited to the filing periods during which expenditures must otherwise be reported.

This is out of the order of the Amendment, but it is the most irritating section of all – the fact that this Committee would actually use that fall into using that hateful Democrat tactic of identity politics (by setting yourselves up as a special protected Politically Correct group) and invoking “Victim!” for yourselves.

12 New Section; Reports of Spending on Information Critical of General Court Members. Amend RSA 664 by inserting after section 6 the following new section:

I sit here thinking to myself – Republicans did this?  Really?  HassanSpeech – sure, I expect it from Democrat Socialists. This is the major reason why the electorate on the Right is so upset – don’t they even think “Gee, is thing even close to being Constitutional?”  Or have they worked themselves into the meme “Hey, we have to be doing something to look like we’re earning our titles!” so much that they’ve worked themselves into Constitutional cluelessness?

Set apart from the rest of Society, with this Amendment, some of  the Political Class has decided that NO one has the RIGHT to criticize a NH legislator  without the fear of retribution.  This is all about the changing of the relationship of elected public servants to the citizens that elected them by incrementally placing the former over the latter.  This is all about making politicians (and make no mistake, this will simply rank politicians lower than used car salesmen) self defining themselves as those that walk upon political water – above the Natural Law definitions of Sovereign Citizens that they would now rule.

The Snarky Translation – Get that???? ->  Critical of General Court members! They apparently have extremely thin skins and oh so delicate psychies (yeah, I know, spelling – go with it).  THIS is a BAD thing – in effect, it is an “Incumbent Protection Racket” if this is passed.  Again, time to pound this again:

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.

On to the Section’s text:

664:6-a Reports of Spending on Information Critical of General Court Members. Any political committee whose spending on distribution of information critical of a member of the general court who has not filed for office, in aggregate, exceeds $500 shall file an itemized statement with the secretary of state not later than 24 hours after such spending, and thereafter each time a further $500 is spent.

Not only does this create a financial drain on the true purposes of a voluntary group of people that disagrees with any legislator, it also creates a time and paperwork sinkhole as well (er, “retribution”).  Campaigns last a while – sometimes, a long while.  And while $500 is not a vast amount of money, it adds up quickly.  It also an increment in which filing after filing after filing will be required.  This is called “wearing down the opposition” – at some point, it becomes a large burden to deal with.  This states “We in government will just wait you out – for we rule and you don’t” (gee, shades of Obama and “I won”?).  This is a thumb in the eyes of activists of all stripes and both sides of the aisle (for as much as I want the other side to lose, I want them to be able to keeping talking so that they get themselves into trouble).

In effect, this could put GraniteGrok (and Blue Hampshire, for that matter) out of business.  Look at it from an activist standpoint – why else would Politicians try to set this up?  For if you combine this Amendment with another one that has already been submitted by NH Senator Sharon Carson, that effectively broadens out the definition of what a political committee is, that could be interpreted to open anyone one or even a simple collection of friends to be a political committee (to be fisked later).

If you, or a group in which you participate, decide to launch a broadside at a politician because you hold them in ill favor for their actions (or any other reason, good or bad), and you spend more than $500, you have to file with the Secretary of State; this isn’t even a “May I see your papers“, this is a “Say a cross word against me, pay up serf“.  Yes, I used the word “serf” deliberately for that is what we will be, for then, we are no longer sovereign citizens as first claimed by our Founders.  Five hundred is the tax for speaking ill, payable within 24 hours.  Instead of holding our politicians accountable for their actions, they wish to hold us accountable for what we say against them.

Such itemized statements shall cover the period during which a total of $500 was spent. Each statement shall contain each date when such money was spent; the name and address of the person paid; the name of the member of the general court mentioned in the information distributed; the amount of each payment; the purpose of each payment; and the aggregate amount of all previous payments. If the payment is made for information critical of more than one member of the general court, the statement made under this paragraph shall allocate the way in which the payment was made among the members on a reasonable basis.

One of the general public extreme dislikes is that of paperwork – drudgery upon drudgery for no good purpose (as least as perceived by the general public).  In effect, what this is doing is having the public create a politician’s enemies list with little effort on the part of the politician.  Why not think about this – look at the above and all a pol has to do is do a cut and paste to get the names (I think that most can accomplish at least that).

Are we governed by our Consent, or is this just another nail in the house that the Political Class is creating for permanent governance? Is this a measure to suppress critical political speech the Governmental way – BURY them in paperwork?  That $500 time period can be very short indeed – I can easily spend that much in 15 minutes if that definition (and I will show that another Amendment does exactly that) includes buying equipment that allows the ‘GROK style of broadcasting information that is often critical of “General Court members” (i.e., the RINO Report, anyone?  GrokTALK, anyone?  Heck, live streaming commentary at political events, anyone?).

I spend a lot more than that on hosting charges – is this an instance of the Law of Unintended Consequences that would not allow us to criticize incumbent politicians of the NH General Court?  How about the Boo-Hoo Hampsters over at Blue Hampshire?  Will this also include unflattering editorials by for-profit corporations (the MSM among them)?  Who gets a pass, and who would get the shaft?  All I can think of at this time is the term “useful idiot” and apply it to whoever did this.  I guess that person is really scared of groups like the ‘Grok (or NOM or HRC or AFP or FreedomWorks or the Progress Now folks….and perhaps, those thinking of acting like the RLCNH as they have been very successful in RINO hunting?  Does this mean that the RLCNH and the Granite State Patriot Liberty PAC now have problems?  How about Kathy Sullivan’s PAC?

Whoever added this in did so in having it  play a role in the upcoming election on the national level PACs?  How about the Gay money PACs like HRC (Human Rights Coalition – wouldn’t that be homophobic)?  Or are is this meant to stop NOM (National Organization of Marriage – wouldn’t that be putting down traditional marriage and values)? Or Cornerstone?  Or even the (old name) Granite State Fair Tax group?

Certainly, somebody wishes to effect a change that warms the cockles of Maggie “The Red” Hassan and Kathy Sullivan – they must be giggling to themselves “Heh!  A REPUBLICAN (guessing here) is doing our dirty work in getting HassanSpeech / DISCLOSE act ready for us!“  If this is true – Good going, sport!

For the purposes of this paragraph, “reasonable basis” means a statement which reflects the burden reasonably expected to be suffered by each member. The filing requirements of this paragraph shall be in addition to all other filing requirements, and shall not be limited to the filing periods during which expenditures must otherwise be reported.

“A reasonable basis“- you have got to be kidding or the author has a warped sense of humor that exceeds all of us Groksters combined!   No, this is NOT a reasonable amendment section when you look at “ abridging the freedom of speech” and the philosophy that the Founders was to protect the very speech that these chuckleheads are abridging by simple dint of making it HARD.    Death by a thousand bureaucratic reams of paper…

“To be suffered by each members” – oh, the poor dears!  Gentle souls, tossed to and fro by the vicissitudes into which they have voluntarily placed themselves.  And I thought the purpose of these nitwits was to do as little harm to the rest of us instead of making sure that we do as little harm as possible to them!  And of course, ANY one that feels bullied has to be listed by the bully.  Or, at least those folks that politicians consider to be bullies.  Like us at the ‘Grok.

***********************************************

 Back to the rest of this amendment – Full test of this Amendment to HB 1704, 2012-1968s:

Public and Municipal Affairs

May 2, 2012

2012-1968s

03/10

Amendment to HB 1704-FN

Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:

AN ACT relative to political contributions and expenditures, relative to reporting by political committees, and relatives to nomination of political organizations.

Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:

1 Declaration of Intent; Political Organization. Amend RSA 655:17-c to read as follows:

655:17-c Declaration of Intent; Political Organization.

I. Declarations of intent for political organizations shall be in the following form and signed by the chairman of the political organization:

I, __________, chairman of the __________ organization hereby declare that the __________ organization intends to file nomination papers by the deadline established under RSA 655:43, I. [I further declare that the __________ organization intends to file the names of candidates for the following offices with the nomination papers.]

II. At the time of filing the declaration of intent, the chairman of the political organization shall submit a list of the offices for which it intends to file candidates and the names of the candidates for those offices. In addition, each candidate shall file a declaration of candidacy. The declaration of candidacy shall be in the form provided by RSA 655:17 with the understanding that, where the form says primary election, it shall be construed to mean general election. If the political organization does not obtain enough nomination papers to have its name placed on the ballot, any declarations of candidacy filed for that political organization shall be void.

2 Definitions; Political Committee. RSA 664:2, III is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

III. “Political committee“ means any organization that has as its major purpose promoting, defeating, or influencing a candidate election, campaign, or measure and that makes expenditures aggregating more than $2,500 in a calendar year for that purpose; or that does not have as its major purpose promoting, defeating, or influencing a candidate election, campaign, or measure but whose independent expenditures, as defined in paragraph XI, and spending on electioneering communication, as defined in paragraph XVIII, when combined, total more than $5,000 in a calendar year. As used in this paragraph, “organization” includes, but is not limited to, for-profit and nonprofit corporations, associations, partnerships, and the political committee of a political party, as defined in paragraph V.

Loosely construed, that would include GraniteGrok – between hosting charges and purchasing equipment, we spend more than that $2,500 limit.  Does ANYONE think that we Groksters are a Political Committee?  We certainly do opine on a lot of stuff and all of us are political activists to boot (though, not always all at the same time on the same issue).  Heck, all we DO is communicate!

3 Definitions; Expenditure. Amend RSA 664:2, IX to read as follows:

IX. “Expenditure” shall mean the disbursement of money or thing of value or the making of a legally binding commitment to make such a disbursement in the future for the purpose of influencing the nomination for election or election of any candidate or candidates or the success or defeat of a measure or measures. It does not include the candidate’s filing fee or his or her expenses for personal travel and subsistence.

4 Definitions; Independent Expenditures. Amend RSA 664:2, XI to read as follows:

XI. “Independent expenditures” means expenditures by a person, political committee, or other entity expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or candidates or the success or defeat of a measure or measures which are made without cooperation or consultation with any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate, and which are not made in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate. As used in this paragraph, “clearly identified” means that the name of the candidate involved appears; a photograph or drawing of the candidate appears; or the identity of the candidate is apparent by unambiguous reference.

We see, again, protecting politicians (“any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate“).  And it can be by “a person“, too.  Effectively, if you wish to engage in speech about “candidates or the success or defeat of a measure or measures“, you have been sucked into the Political Class radar and your Right to Free Speech (after all, do you see any modifiers in the First Amendment that would lead you to believe that Political Speech, as a subset of just Speech, must or should be handled differently?) is curtailed simply to stop them from being criticized.

5 New Paragraph; Definitions; Electioneering Communication. Amend RSA 664:2 by inserting after paragraph XVII the following new paragraph:

XVIII. “Electioneering communication” means any broadcast, publication, mailer, or cable or satellite communication that fulfills each of the following conditions:

Yup, this would mean us – we broadcast, we (Internet) publish, been on cable (but no satellite yet).  As they say in hunting circles, we’ve just been painte.

(a) The communication refers to a clearly identified candidate for state office or measure without a call to action.

Oh, very rarely do we try to hide what we do – we clearly identify who or what we are for – and what we’re not.  Like this pile of crapola.

(b) The communication is publicly distributed within 60 days prior to a general election or 30 days prior to a primary election for the office a candidate is seeking.

All the time (30, 60, that day – doesn’t matter to us) – just wish it was full time…..

(c) The communication is targeted to the relevant electorate.

Let’s see, I believe that would be the politically active Conservative / Libertarian electorate – yeah, that works.

6 Registration of Political Committees. Amend RSA 664:3, I to read as follows:

I. Any political committee, except the political committee of a political party, shall register with the secretary of state as provided in this section. The committee shall register with the secretary of state not later than 24 hours after receiving any contribution in excess of [$500] $2,500 or before making any expenditure in excess of [$500] $2,500 in the aggregate, but in no event later than 14 days after the formation of the committee. The registration shall be accompanied by a fee of $50, which shall be deposited by the secretary of state into the general fund; provided, however, that the political committee of a candidate which registers under this section shall not be required to pay the $50 fee. Each political committee shall designate a treasurer or agent who is a citizen of this state and who is authorized to receive all process and other legal documents on behalf of the political committee, and through whom may be obtained access to all books and records of the political committee. The political committee shall file with the secretary of state a statement of the purpose of the committee and shall indicate whether the committee will be making independent expenditures in support of or in opposition to any candidate including a statement of the name, address, occupation, and principal place of business of its chairperson and treasurer or agent, and the names and addresses of other officers. The committee shall file an amendment to its registration within 14 days of any change in the officers or purpose of the committee.

This is a problematic paragraph – as this changes radically in another Amendment.

7 Prohibited Political Contributions; Amount. Amend RSA 664:4, V to read as follows:

V. By any person (1) if in excess of [$5,000] $7,000 in value, except for contributions made by a candidate in behalf of his or her own candidacy, or if in excess of [$1,000] $3,500 in value by any person or by any political committee to a candidate or a political committee working on behalf of a candidate who does not voluntarily agree to limit his campaign expenditures and those expenditures made on his behalf as provided in RSA 664:5-a, provided that a person may contribute up to $7,000 for the state primary election and up to $7,000 for the general election to a candidate who has agreed to voluntary spending limits; or up to $3,500 for the state primary election and up to $3,500 for the general election to a candidate who has not agreed to voluntary spending limits, to a political committee, or to a political party; and may contribute an additional $5,000 during an exploratory period to a political committee working on behalf of a person prior to his or her public declaration of candidacy, (2) if made anonymously or under a name not that of the donor, (3) if made in the guise of a loan, (4) if any other manner concealed, (5) if made without the knowledge and written consent of the candidate or his or her fiscal agent, a political committee or its treasurer, or not to any one of the same.

8 Political Expenditure Limitation Amounts. Amend RSA 664:5-b to read as follows:

664:5-b Political Expenditure Limitation Amounts. Total expenditures by a candidate who voluntarily agrees to limit campaign expenditures as provided in RSA 664:5-a shall be as follows:

I. For governor:

(a) [$625,000] $1,000,000 in a state primary election.

(b) [$625,000] $1,000,000 in a state general election.

I-a. For United States senator:

(a) [$625,000] $1,000,000 in a state primary election.

(b) [$625,000] $1,000,000 in a state general election.

II. For representative to Congress:

(a) [$350,000] $500,000 in a state primary election.

(b) [$350,000] $500,000 in a state general election.

III. For executive council:

(a) [$50,000] $75,000 in a state primary election.

(b) [$50,000] &75,000 in a state general election.

IV. For state senate:

(a) [$20,000] $50,000 in a state primary election.

(b) [$20,000] $50,000 in a state general election.

V. For representative to the general court and all county offices, based upon the latest figures filed with the secretary of state:

(a) [$.50] $1.00 per registered voter in the district or the county in a state primary election.

(b) [$.50] $1.00 per registered voter in the district or the county in a state general election.

VI. For the purposes of this section, RSA 664:5-a, and the enforcement provisions of this chapter, “total expenditures” shall mean the sum of all expenditures made to influence either a state primary or a state general election made by a candidate and those made on the candidate’s behalf by the candidate’s committee or committees, the candidate’s party, and the candidate’s immediate family. For candidates for governor, United States senator, representative to Congress, state senate, state representative, and executive council, “total expenditures” shall include any such expenditures made after January 1 of the election year, regardless of when the person actually declares his or her candidacy. Each campaign expenditure limitation amount shall apply solely and independently to either the state primary election or the state general election.

9 Reporting by Political Committee. Amend RSA 664:6, I to read as follows:

I. Any political committee whose receipts or expenditures in support of a candidate, measure, or political party exceed [$500] $2,500 except, for the purposes of this paragraph only, the political committee of a political party, [or] the political committee of a candidate, or a corporation that is tax exempt under section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) of the United States Internal Revenue Code,

The bold italicized phrases just above will be addressed in another post – but the effect is to put HassanSpeech.  This effectively does what the Democrats want to do – legislatively undo the US Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United.  This is extremely important to note – and is extremely bad legislation in curtailing Free Political Speech.

shall file with the secretary of state an itemized statement, signed by its chairman and treasurer showing each of its receipts exceeding $25 with the full name and home post office address of the contributor in alphabetical order and the amount of the contribution, the date it was received, and the aggregate total for each election for each contributor of over $100. The statement shall be filed not later than the Wednesday 12 weeks immediately preceding a primary election, before 5 o’clock in the afternoon, and shall cover the period from the day of the committee registration up to and including the Monday before the statement is due. All receipts of $25 or under shall appear on the statements as unitemized receipts. Any listing which exceeds an individual’s aggregate total of $100 for each election shall be accompanied by the contributor’s occupation including official job title, the name of the contributor’s employer, and the city or town of the contributor’s principal place of business, if any. The statement shall also show each committee expenditure with the full name and city or town of persons, corporations, committees, or to whomever paid or to be paid, the date paid, and the election for which the expenditure was made, with the specific nature and amount of each expenditure since the date of the registration.

10 Reporting by Political Committee. Amend RSA 664:6, II-a to read as follows:

II-a. A political committee shall file a statement in the same form as in paragraph I with the secretary of state not later than the Wednesday immediately preceding a primary and a general election, before 5 o’clock in the afternoon. The statement shall summarize the statements under paragraphs I and II if such statements are filed and itemize all receipts and expenditures since the cutoff of the statement under paragraph II up until the Monday preceding the filing of the statement under this paragraph. In addition to the reporting requirements contained in this section, the secretary of state shall be notified by the fiscal agent within 24 hours of any contribution exceeding [$500] $2,500 which is received after the statement under this paragraph is filed and prior to the day of election.

11 Reporting by Political Committee. Amend RSA 664:6, IV-IV-a to read as follows:

IV. Any political committee whose receipts or expenditures do not exceed [$500] $2,500 for a reporting period need not file. However, when a committee’s accumulated receipts or expenditures for an election exceed [$500] $2,500 the committee shall file a statement at the next reporting deadline, unless the committee is a corporation that is tax exempt under section 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) of the United States Internal Revenue Code.

IV-a. Any political committee whose independent expenditures or spending on electioneering communications, in aggregate, exceed [$500] $2,500 shall file an itemized statement with the secretary of state not later than 24 hours after such expenditures are made, and thereafter each time a further [$500] $2,500 is expended. Such itemized statements shall cover the period during which independent expenditures and spending on electioneering communications totaling [$500] $2,500 were made. Each statement shall include a certification by the political committee that the independent expenditure or electioneering communication meets the definition in RSA 664:2, XI or RSA 664:2, XVIII. Each statement shall contain the date of each independent expenditure or spending on electioneering communications; the name and address of the person to whom the expenditure was made; the name of the candidate on whose behalf or against whom each independent expenditure was made or referenced in each electioneering communication; the amount of each expenditure; the purpose of each expenditure, and the aggregate amount of all previous independent expenditures and spending on electioneering communications. If [the independent expenditure is] expenditures are made in support of or to oppose more than one candidate, the statement made under this paragraph shall allocate the way in which the expenditure was made among the candidates on a reasonable basis. For the purposes of this paragraph, “reasonable basis” means a statement which reflects the benefit or the burden reasonably expected to be derived or suffered by each candidate. The filing requirements of this paragraph shall be in addition to all other filing requirements under this section, and shall not be limited to the filing periods during which expenditures must otherwise be reported.

12 New Section; Reports of Spending on Information Critical of General Court Members. Amend RSA 664 by inserting after section 6 the following new section:

664:6-a Reports of Spending on Information Critical of General Court Members. Any political committee whose spending on distribution of information critical of a member of the general court who has not filed for office, in aggregate, exceeds $500 shall file an itemized statement with the secretary of state not later than 24 hours after such spending, and thereafter each time a further $500 is spent. Such itemized statements shall cover the period during which a total of $500 was spent. Each statement shall contain each date when such money was spent; the name and address of the person paid; the name of the member of the general court mentioned in the information distributed; the amount of each payment; the purpose of each payment; and the aggregate amount of all previous payments. If the payment is made for information critical of more than one member of the general court, the statement made under this paragraph shall allocate the way in which the payment was made among the members on a reasonable basis. For the purposes of this paragraph, “reasonable basis” means a statement which reflects the burden reasonably expected to be suffered by each member. The filing requirements of this paragraph shall be in addition to all other filing requirements, and shall not be limited to the filing periods during which expenditures must otherwise be reported.

13 New Paragraph; Penalties. Amend RSA 664:21 by inserting after paragraph VI the following new paragraph:

VII.(a) A political committee that fails to register in accordance with RSA 664:3 shall be subject to a fine equal to 25 percent of the electioneering communication and independent expenditures made during the period from the date the political committee was required to register to the date the political committee registered.

(b) A political committee that fails to report independent expenditures or spending on electioneering communications in accordance with RSA 664:6, IV-a shall be subject to a fine equal to 25 percent of the electioneering communication and independent expenditures not reported or reported late.

14 Repeal. RSA 655:40-b, relative to filing names of candidates, is repealed.

15 Effective Date.

I. Sections 3-6, 9-11, and 13 of this act shall take effect August 1, 2012.

II. The remainder of this act shall take effect upon its passage.

2012-1968s

AMENDED ANALYSIS

This bill:

I. Modifies the procedure for nominating a political organization.

II. Modifies the definition of “political committee.”

III. Increases the limit on campaign contributions.

IV. Authorizes contributions of up to $5,000 each during the exploratory period of a campaign.

V. Increases voluntary campaign expenditure limits.

VI. Requires reporting by political committees of spending on electioneering communications, as defined in the bill.

VII. Raises from $500 to $2,500 the amount of contributions or expenditures triggering registration and reporting requirements for political committees.

VIII. Requires reporting by a political committee of spending on distribution of information critical of a member of the general court.