Steve has written about this already, and I did as well, but in the time that the NH Senate decided table the bill last week, word is (Jeb Bradley from the Senate floor, from what I’m told) that this bill is going to be brought up AGAIN an voted upon on Wednesday. Why are we bringing this up? Once again, simple words that should be taken literally by ALL politicians are these words by the Founders:
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.
Freedom of Speech; and the type of Speech with which they were most concerned with was Political Speech, which this bill addresses and not in a flattering way – in fact, in a really BAD way. Political Speech – that category of speaking (be it audio, written, video, or other) that criticizes or upholds the actions of the Government pertaining to the issues of the day. They KNEW that this was a pillar holding up our new country – putting any strictures on it in the political realm would be tantamount to opening the door to bad cronyistic government at best and tyranny at worst. And if the Amendments that I know about, if some of the wording that has already made it into the bill stays, I have two questions for the Senate Republicans:
Yo, chuckleheads! What part of “abridging the freedom of speech” do you not get? And WHY, in this time where many of you were put into office by folks who, more and more are Constitutionally minded, you think that your hides are more valuable than our ability to speak our minds freely to rip your hides to shreds (having earned such treatment or not) and therefore, wish to act contrary to that Constitutional philosophy??
In a lot of ways, what the Republicans are about to do is pass the hated HassanSpeech simply because THEY don’t want to be criticized by others. Simpletons all – you all put yourselves out there voluntarily, and if what you think that the “incoming” is bad now, go read your political history again and see the stuff that was passed around in the late 1700s and early 1800s for electioneering. Whether you think it “civil” or not is not the point and to be blunt, should matter not a whit. Anyone should be able to say what ever they want in the political sphere (calling for violence and the like is obviously not in the political realm and remains defenseless and vile). I maintain that the real damage is NOT allowing politicians to pass laws to protect themselves but that this law will codify bullying of private citizens by forcing those engaging in political speech to list their Donor records.
Either reason is enough to kill this bill off as soon as possible (although Sean Doherty is right in trying to clarify how much can be collected for races – except I would raise the amounts much higher). That said, let’s first start with identifying the bad parts of the bill as shown at NH.GOV as well as the three amendments that I know of are bad for political speech. Also, there are parts of the current RSA that are NOT amended – and our Chuckleheads should be brought to account for not reviewing those given the current political retributions now taking place across the country (and, to be blunt, by the Obama campaign’s example).
Subsequent posts will fisk the amendments, which are FAR, FAR worse than what is listed below
The full text is shown below – I am just gong to abstract those portions that, to me, set a restriction that favors a special interest or purpose and that I feel “abridging the freedom of speech”:
2 Prohibited Political Contributions; Amount. Amend RSA 664:4, V to read as follows:
V. By any person (1) if in excess of $5,000 in value, except for contributions made by a candidate in behalf of his or her own candidacy, [or if in excess of $1,000 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 $5,000 for the state primary election and up to $5,000 for the general election to a candidate, political committee, or 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.
This is OK (to a point) and I believe is the brunt of what NH Rep. Shaun Doherty is trying to do – up the amounts that can be raised for a race. I’m ok with raising the amounts as I feel this is certainly is a form of political speech BY DONORS. If I think that a candidate mirrors my philosophy and I wish to give them money to give them a shot to win, why should it matter? I used to be of a mind of “why let people buy elections” but recent history has shown that people who spend the least can win (look at Carol Shea-Porter’s beating of Jeb Bradley for the US Congress) and those that can spend as much as they want can lose (look at Bill Binnie’s run for US Senate).
This next part is more a problem of parts of the current law NOT being amended, given the current events of political retribution that we see across the nation the last few years.
3 Reporting by Committees. 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 except, for the purposes of this paragraph only, the political committee of a political party or the political committee of a candidate, 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. …. 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.
The part of this is that concerning the contributors with the information of their name, the amount – and who they work for if the amount > $100. As we have seen in California’s Prop 8 issue (the repeal of gay marriage) and well documented here on the ‘Grok, the opposition to that repeal were not satisfied to merely say “Dang, we lost – let’s try again”. Instead, as the Heritage Foundation wrote:
“…Individuals and institutions that publicly defend marriage as the union of husband and wife risk intimidation, harassment, and reprisal–at least some of it targeted and coordinated…”
And worse, if you read the article. This kind of retribution and silencing of any opposition has become more the norm rather exception when supporter profiles are available, either through court cases or under laws mandating “openness and transparency”. I ask everyone – is the cause of Freedom of Speech preserved when speaking up (via using their financial donations, affirmed by Supreme Court decisions as political speech) causes one to become a target? Most people have no problem in donating, but do not want the negative involvement afterwards. We see this in the case of Frank Vandersloot. Heck we have seen such actions here in NH in elections when the SEIU decided that it was prim and proper to organize boycotts against local business owners simply for disagreeing with higher local government spending.
I also have not understood this – if I give more than $100, WHY does my employer have to be named? And WHY would I want that known. That, in and of itself, is enough for me to NEVER give more than $100 – so that has chilled my “political speech” in that manner of expression.
4 References Deleted. Amend RSA 664:21, IV-V to read as follows:
IV. [In addition to the fines levied under paragraph I,] Any person who fails to file any report or statement on the date on which the report or statement is due under this chapter shall be subject to a daily fine of $25 for every weekday for which the report or statement is late and until the report or statement is actually filed, except that candidates for the general court shall be subject to a daily fine of $5 under this paragraph.
Here is protection of the Political Class (or wanna be a member thereof) – what is good for the normal person should be good for the candidate. This is basically saying “Hey, political candidate – wipe the sweat off your brow because WE are going to cut you a deal! Normal people, if they screw up reporting on political speech, they will have to pay 5 X the amount you do – here’s a gift and welcome to the club!”
***************************************************
The text of the Law as found at NH.GOV:
HB 1704-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2012 SESSION
03/10
HOUSE BILL 1704-FN
AN ACT relative to limits on political contributions and relative to reporting by political committees.
SPONSORS: Rep. Doherty, Hills 27
This bill:
I. Eliminates the $1,000 limit on contributions to candidates who do not agree to limit campaign expenditures, making the $5,000 limit applicable to all contributions.
II. Authorizes contributions of up to $5,000 each during the primary election, general election, and exploratory periods of a campaign.
III. Requires earlier reporting by political committees.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
12-2752
03/10
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve
AN ACT relative to limits on political contributions and relative to reporting by political committees.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Reference Deleted. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 655:19-c, I to read as follows:
I. Candidates for governor, United States senator, representative to Congress, executive councilor, state senator, county officer, and state representative who file declarations of candidacy shall pay the administrative assessment in paragraph I or file primary petitions as provided in paragraph III. Candidates for governor, United States senator, representative to Congress, executive councilor, state senator, county officer, and state representative who file declarations of intent shall pay the administrative assessment in paragraph I and shall meet the requirements of RSA 655:40 through 655:45 for nomination by nomination papers. [Neither the administrative assessment which is paid nor the primary petitions which are filed under this section, nor the nomination papers which must be submitted under RSA 655:41 and filed under RSA 655:43, shall be waived or refunded for a candidate for any of the offices listed in this section who, pursuant to RSA 664:5-a, voluntarily accepts the expenditure limitation set forth in RSA 664:5-b.] At the time of filing declarations of candidacy or declarations of intent, the administrative assessment shall be as follows:
2 Prohibited Political Contributions; Amount. Amend RSA 664:4, V to read as follows:
V. By any person (1) if in excess of $5,000 in value, except for contributions made by a candidate in behalf of his or her own candidacy, [or if in excess of $1,000 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 $5,000 for the state primary election and up to $5,000 for the general election to a candidate, political committee, or 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.
3 Reporting by Committees. 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 except, for the purposes of this paragraph only, the political committee of a political party or the political committee of a candidate, 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] June 30 of the year prior to the general election. The statement shall be filed not later than 5 business days after the close of the period covered, before 5 o’clock in the afternoon. All receipts of $25 or under shall appear on the [statements] statement 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. The committee shall file reports in the same form covering the periods from July 1 to December 31 of the year prior to the general election and January 1 to March 31 of the year of the general election, which shall be filed not later than 5 business days after the close of the period covered, before 5 o’clock in the afternoon. The committee shall also file a report in the same form not later than the Wednesday 12 weeks immediately preceding a primary election, before 5 o’clock in the afternoon, which shall cover the period from April 1 up to and including the Monday before the statement is due. A committee that registers after the date that a report is due under this paragraph shall file its first report by the next applicable due date, covering the period beginning with the day of the committee registration.
4 References Deleted. Amend RSA 664:21, IV-V to read as follows:
IV. [In addition to the fines levied under paragraph I,] Any person who fails to file any report or statement on the date on which the report or statement is due under this chapter shall be subject to a daily fine of $25 for every weekday for which the report or statement is late and until the report or statement is actually filed, except that candidates for the general court shall be subject to a daily fine of $5 under this paragraph.
V. [The provisions of this paragraph shall apply to violations of this chapter other than the violation of RSA 664:5-a and 5-b, and] A person liable under the provisions of this paragraph shall not also be subject to the penalties imposed under paragraphs [I,] II and IV. Any person who [otherwise] violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if a natural person or shall be guilty of a felony if any other person.
5 Repeal. The following are repealed:
I. RSA 664:5-a, relative to limitations on political expenditures.
II. RSA 664:5-b, relative to political expenditure limitation amounts.
III. RSA 664:21, I, relative to political expenditure limitation penalties.
6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2013.
LBAO
12-2752
12/07/11
HB 1704-FN – FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT relative to limits on political contributions and relative to reporting by political committees.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Judicial Branch, Judicial Council, and New Hampshire Association of Counties state this bill may decrease state and county expenditures by indeterminable amounts in FY 2013 and each year thereafter. There will be no impact on state, county and local revenues, or local expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:
The Judicial Branch states this bill would amend RSA 664:4, V, to eliminate the $1,000 limit on contributions to candidates who do not agree to limit campaign expenditures as provided in RSA 664:5-a. The Branch states RSA 664:21, V makes violations of RSA 664:4, V a misdemeanor for a natural person. The Branch states it does not have information on which to estimate how many charges might not be brought forward as a result of this bill. The Branch states in the past decade there have been very few prosecutions at any level for any violations of RSA 664. The Branch assumes continuation of this historical trend and states any fiscal impact from this bill would be minimal.
The Judicial Council states this bill may result in a minimal indeterminable decrease in general fund expenditures. The Council states typically if an individual is found to be indigent, the flat fee of $275 per misdemeanor is charged by a public defender or contract attorney. If an assigned counsel attorney is used the fee is $60 per hour with a cap of $1,400 for a misdemeanor charge. The Council also states additional costs could be incurred if an appeal is filed. The public defender, contract attorney and assigned counsel rates for Supreme Court appeals is capped at $2,000 per case, with many assigned counsel attorneys seeking permission to exceed the fee cap. Requests to exceed the fee cap are seldom granted. Finally, expenditures increase if services other than counsel are requested and approved by the court during the defense of a case or during an appeal. The Council cannot determine the decrease in expenditures at this time.
The New Hampshire Association of Counties states to the extent fewer individuals are charged, convicted, and sentenced to incarceration in a county correctional facility, the counties may have decreased expenditures. The Association is unable to determine how many fewer individuals who might be charged, convicted or incarcerated as a result of this bill to determine an exact fiscal impact. The average annual cost to incarcerate an individual in a county correctional facility is approximately $35,000.
The Department of State and the Department of Justice state they will not incur any fiscal impacts as a result of this bill.
