By Jim Kofalt
New Hampshire law states that “political advertising” must be signed. In other words, if you are distributing materials that advocate for the success or defeat of a candidate or a particular measure, you need to state clearly and legibly who paid for it.
In early January, an unsigned flyer showed up in some mailboxes around our district making the specious claim that New Hampshire’s current school choice bill (SB193) “drains $3600.00 per pupil from the State education budget.”
Ironically, the headline on the flyer was “Say NO to Property Tax Increase.”
It’s not often that we see left-wing activists argue for lower taxes, (something we’d like to remind them of when the school district meeting comes around next month!). But disinformation and hyperbole are their stock in trade. And SB193 has been a target of concerted attacks from the supporters of teacher’s unions and others who claim the law would divert substantial amounts of state funding away from public schools.
I sat through a local School Board meeting several months ago in which an outside “expert” (Democrat activist Charles Denton) provided wildly unrealistic estimates that “over $20 million” per year could potentially be re-allocated away from New Hampshire public schools.
Our school superintendent argued that drug-addicted parents might view the scholarships as an opportunity to score some extra drug money; all they would need to do is to pull their children out of school and claim to be homeschooling.
Ironically, Mr. Denton even argued that the law is unnecessary because a state?sponsored scholarship program already exists for families of limited means. He was referring specifically to New Hampshire’s Education Tax Credit Program… which the Democrats and teachers’ union vigorously opposed.
The union even sued in an attempt to have the Education Tax Credit law overturned.
The alarmist arguments presented by the opponents of SB193 are clearly aimed at a low-information audience. Anyone who has actually read the bill understands that the impact on local districts will be small to non-existent and that there is a sound process in place for managing scholarship money. And, no, the state will not be showing up at the homes of heroin-addicted homeschooling parents and handing them envelopes full of cash.
With the case against SB193 so extraordinarily weak, it is not surprising that opponents are relying on spurious arguments and fear-mongering. And with their hyperbolic unsigned flyer, which appears to violate RSA 664, we can add illegal tactics to the list.
