I just shot off a quick email to my New Hampshire State Senator this morning. I do not know his stance on this yet, but I have some questions about language added, via amendment, to HB 1704, regarding political speech. I find the amendment language confusing.
I am not certain of the purpose, or if this amendment even achieves that purpose, whatever it is. And most importantly, it sounds to me like an effort to stifle political speech by interjecting bureaucratic nonsense, while simultaneously encouraging speech intimidation through the implied threat of failing to comply. This “threat” would come through the ever-present risk of third party complaints of potential violations that would keep people from speaking out for fear of having to lawyer up to defend their political speech against members of the General Court.
I was against it when Maggie ‘The Red” Hassan and Kathy ‘Lawsuit” Sullivan tried it. I am going to simply state that I am against this becasue it looks like an effort to not just regulate but to complicate free speech, and I do not much care who is trying to do it. I will do what I can to stop it.
(I will post an update when I have clarification from my State Senator on his position, and or explanation of this new language.)
Senator White,
I have a few questions about the amendment to HB 1704-FN. It appears to me to include language that would make it difficult to engage in political speech about members or candidates to the General Court.

