And this here in the “Live Free or Die” State – King Dan Feltes wants to put duct tape on your mouth.
All three of these (enumerated below) Constitutional protections to your right to Free Speech in matters political are under attack in SB106 sponsored by NH State Senator Dan Feltes to protect himself (and other politicians) against OUR Right to speak up on any topic we wish in the manner of our choosing. After all, the First Amendment was created EXACTLY to protect the anonymous speech of the “pamphleteers” during the Revolutionary War advocating our our new Nation regardless of the cost to themselves and against the King. And Feltes is saying you can have all the Free Speech you want until you reach $5K during a whole calendar year or you then must ask permission of “King Feltes” in order to speak your mind. Yet another Socialist (because that is what they do – silence dissent) attempt to stifle debate; an American value that establishes that we should be able to speak our minds at any time, anywhere, and spend whatever money we want to do that speaking that they (and King Feltes) want to deep six. No, not outright but in tying it up in so many regulations that most folks wouldn’t bother because of the high risk of either being sued, fined, or jailed because
And Feltest is putting yet more horsepower behind that last part. Yet, what did our Founders believe?
First Amendment: 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.
[Art.] 4. [Rights of Conscience Unalienable.] Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.
[Art.] 22. [Free Speech; Liberty of the Press.] Free speech and Liberty of the press are essential to the security of Freedom in a State: They ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.
They believed that Government (and make no mistake, Feltes as a NH State Senator IS The Government) should not infringe on that Right. Period. Yet, here we are again with politicians no longer protecting the Constitution but willfully disobeying and disdaining its strictures. Make no mistake, the Constitutions were set to limit craven politicians like Feltes and disallow them from limiting US.
Back to this post’s title – for if these power hungry, greedy politicians want to play this game, so can we.
“The GraniteGrok Full Employment Act” – Ayup, that’s what I was told earlier this week that SB106 should be named. And it was followed up with this (and I shall protect the innocent here):
The GraniteGrok Full Employment Act.
Under SB 106, “press” is fully exempted from RSA 664 (i.e. campaign finance). That means that media outlets (not defined in statute or the bill) could take unlimited amount of contributions to do an unlimited amount of express advocacy, with absolutely no reporting – for candidates at the state level.
GraniteGrok could endorse a candidate for Governor, get a big donor to that candidate to give $1 million and do a comprehensive media campaign (digital, mail, radio, TV, etc) spreading their endorsement across the state.
And yes, we have the expertise to do all that – we just haven’t done so at this point. What an addition to our normal citizen journalism and our “ground and pound” activities that come naturally to us. My first reaction was “Gosh, IMAGINE what we could do with that kind of funding? You think that we are PITAs right now with NO money behind us? Hahahahaha!”
After all, since 2006, running GraniteGrok has always been out of my pocket for all costs with a few exceptions of donations for equipment now and then until my position was offshored a year ago. Then, other Groksters, our dear readers, and a couple of generous donors pitched in to help us out – I was humbled, gratified, and willing to do even more because of it. And I will always be thankful.
So, what is SB106 in a nutshell? You can see it here and I have put it at the bottom of this post.
- This is a Democrat sponsored bill by ONE, only ONE Democrat Senator, Dan Feltes, who just happens to be rumored to be a potential Governor candidate against current Governor Sununu.
- If you mention a candidates name within a 60 day window of an election and you (and a coupla like minded friends) spend $5K over an entire calendar year ($13 or so bucks a day – just an office worth’s of coffee!) talking about said candidates, you MUST register as a lobbyist. This includes individuals, groups of people partnerships, small or large companies
So, King Dan Felts, all by his lonesome, believes he has the authority to block your Free Speech in speaking your mind on the politics and candidates of the day simply because he can wield his Tyranny Pen and has the votes to further establish this Incumbent Politician Protection and Racketeering Act? If you want to “up your game”and spend money to get your mind and message out, Feltes really wants to put the screws to you and put you into the position of not believing in the literal words and intent of the First Amendment and Article and make you into a Speech Serf (more than what already exists) that must ask Daddy Dan “May I please speak my mind?”
And they wonder why we protest against gun registration because we’ve already seen what it does to our Free Speech (again, there is no such independent thing as “political speech” that can be regulated – either Speech is Free or it is coerced and silenced. Guess which one King Feltes believes? However, SB106 doesn’t apply to us – GraniteGrok. We are a news and opinion site that specializes in politics and culture – the very notion of “the Press”.
Okey-dokey, then! The Law of Unintended Consequences – so folks, if you want to help us help you, we will be it an issue, some kind of advocacy (or anti-advocacy) or candidacy, let us know. All it has to be is that it aligns with our Principles – they have never been for sale and never will.
And no, it doesn’t take a check as you know that we have been putting up Op-Eds more and more from our Conservative friends as we believe we can get the message out when the MSM ignores your speech. But given that we could do a lot more under this act, that would take money as it IS expensive to do more than just run a blogsite. And trust me, we have the capability to do much more “press and media” than just what we do here. After all, “they” wrote the rules – we’ll just play by those rules anyway we can.
Note: our DONATE button is in the process of getting fixed so one might think this post is a bit early. But given the hard Left turn the Democrats have taken this session and limiting our Rights under the rubric of “security and safety” and making Government Bigger (and thus, the ordinary citizen smaller with them taking choices away from us), start thinking what to do in this time where campaigning never stops and never ends.
Here is the entire bill with a bit of commentary:
SB 106 – AS INTRODUCED
2019 SESSION
19-0982
05/04SENATE BILL 106
AN ACT relative to the definition of political advocacy organization and expenditure.
SPONSORS: Sen. Feltes, Dist 15
COMMITTEE: Election Law and Municipal Affairs
—————————————————————–
ANALYSIS
This bill revises the definition of political expenditure and political advocacy organization under RSA 664.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
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.
19-0982
05/04STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nineteen
AN ACT relative to the definition of political advocacy organization and expenditure.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Political Expenditures and Contributions; Definition of Expenditure. Amend RSA 644:2, 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
That would be in-kind contributions, helping a candidate outside of their own campaign efforts, and the like
disbursement in the future or the transfer of funds by a political committee to another political committee or to a candidate [for the purpose of promoting] that by purpose or appearance promotes the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures. “Expenditures” [includes] include disbursements constituting independent expenditures, as defined in paragraph XI. It does not include:
(a) The candidate’s filing fee or his or her expenses for personal travel and subsistence;
(b) Nonpartisan activity designed to encourage individuals to register to vote or to vote[, if that activity or communication does not mention a clearly identified candidate];
(c) Any communication by any membership organization or corporation to its members or stockholders, if the primary purpose of that membership organization or corporation is not for the purpose of promoting the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates and measure or measures; [or]
(d) Any communication by any political committee member that is not made for the purpose of promoting the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures; or
(e) Any communication by a member of the press, a tax-exempt organization pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, or a state agency.
And that last part would be that – a member of the Press
Note that OTHER dangling clause at the end of (e): or a state agency. Electioneering by government employees is currently illegal. Is this where that barn door gets open? Does this mean that DES or DOT or any other “state agency” gets to start campaigning FOR their Democrat candidates or issues – and against Conservative ones at will? I’ll have to ask a lawyer and get back to you because I’m not a lawyer.
2 Political Expenditures and Contributions; Definition of Political Advocacy Organization. Amend RSA 644:2, XXII to read as follows:
XXII. “Political advocacy organization” means any entity, including, but not limited to, an organization described in RSA 664:2, III, that [spends] makes expenditures of $5,000 or more in a calendar year to pay for [a communication that is functionally equivalent to express advocacy because, when taken as a whole, such communication is likely to be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat of] communications that refer to a clearly identified candidate or candidates [or the success or defeat of a measure or measures, taking into account whether the communication involved mentions a candidacy or a political party, or takes a position on a candidate’s character, qualifications, or fitness for office] and are publicly distributed within 60 days before a primary or general election to an audience that includes members of the electorate for the office sought by the candidate or one or more of the candidates, regardless of whether the communication or communications expressly advocate a vote for or against the candidate or candidates.
And this is where Feltes wants to hamstring you even more than currently. He wants to separate you from the process of self-government and that process should include spending what you want, on what message you want, without having to report to Daddy Dan how you’re doing it. It is a furtherance of the intolerance of the Political Class towards those that they wish to Rule over (instead of governing – a huge difference).
Free Speech, obviously is something Feltes despises – else why would he do this? There is no idea of any kind of separation of Free Speech from Political Speech; Speech is speech no matter what the topic is nor in how it is presented nor the tone of voice in which it is broadcast. The Left, in which he is firmly ensconced, wants you to BELIEVE there are different kinds of speech and have you believe that anything other than Free Speech can be regulated.
And of course, they (and their Republican useful idiots) are more than happy to define your Free Speech right out from underneath you by calling it something else. In this case, Political Speech or ‘hate’ speech or some other kind of speech. This is how they work, this is how they divide, and this is how they wish to control other by defining our language to mean things it is not. After all, he who controls the definition of our language controls that language itself – and the ideas that can or cannot be expressed (e.g, look what Political Correctness has done already and it is the Left that controls what is PC or not).
The simple retort to all of this should be “Up Yours!” because I’ve run out of any other plausible answers that they’ll listen to.
3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
Back to what I was told:
