About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Mandatory Background Checks for all NH Candidates

by: susanthe

Fri May 28, 2010 at 15:14:52 PM EDT


(Oy vey. - promoted by Dean Barker)

A story in today's Conway Daily Sun tells us  about Frank Pingree from Bartlett, who is trying to get legislators to force first time political candidates to go through a background check, and mandatory jail time for any elected official that breaks the law.  
susanthe :: Mandatory Background Checks for all NH Candidates
The Sun quotes a letter he sent to Bartlett Selectmen:
"You really can't expect integrity of voter turnout when there is a sad lack of qualified candidates. People develop a disdain for politicians when we read stories like this," he wrote.

Of course, people have a healthy disdain for fascism, too, Frank. Why not add weekly urine tests  while we're at it?

As long as we have a hobby legislature that works for $100 a year, we'll always have a problem getting candidates. As it stands, we're lucky to get anyone to serve. Would candidates bear the cost? Would the town, county, or state? Where would that money come from?

Think about all of the elected positions held in your community. Imagine a background check to be a cemetery trustee. Really? Think this could have a dampening effect on running for public office?

I believe Mr. Pingree is a Republican - and I'm guessing he hasn't thought about the impact this could have on his own party - or his own town!  Bartlett is home to Gene "corn roast" Chandler, who would be in jail if Pingree had his way. Not surprisingly, Representative Chandler doesn't think this is such a great idea.

Frank is miffed because a Bartlett selectman has not resigned, since being charged with having child porn in his computer. The selectman is continuing to serve, as he waits to go to trial.  The real problem is that there is no way to remove a selectman from office. There is no legal remedy, no law that permits such a thing. That might be a smarter, and cheaper avenue to pursue than forcing background checks on people who are trying to serve their communities.

Nice to see the party of "personal freedoms and no gummint interference" maintaining the kind of high standards we've come to expect from them.

This kind of brilliance will surely be an asset to the GOP in the upcoming elections.

h/t to Dean Barker for the term "hobby legislature."  

Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
"A sad lack of qualified candidates" (0.00 / 0)
Will not be remedied by making the whole thing more invasive and less appealing.

Let's focus more on electing good people and less on this kind of stunt.

--
@DougLindner


Somehow, a sort of de minimus attitude has infected some of (0.00 / 0)
our people which leads them to consider the provisions of the Constitution as exceptions which only apply in special cases.  So, for example, individuals charged with a criminal offense has a right to remain silent and everyone else has to answer whatever questions an agent of government deigns to ask.  Similarly, while criminal defendants are to be considered innocent until proven guilty, that's just a procedural quirk and the ordinary person has to validate innocence.  It's as if rights only exist when an individual's physical liberty is under siege.

The Founders' assertion that even a person suspected of criminal behavior is entitled to have his/her rights respected seems to have gotten lost.


Background Check Czar (0.00 / 0)
Just what we need, a government bureaucrat to pre-qualify candidates, protecting the dainty voters.


Ah, the self-deception of Neo-Puritanism.... (0.00 / 0)
..they truly believe that their own actually live up to their impossible Standards of Purity...as if by repeating Purity Mantras over and over and pointing the finger at others no one will see the stain on their own garment.....

This would never fly (4.00 / 1)
down here in Massazona.


Who pays? (0.00 / 0)
So this means that only candidates who can afford the costs of a background check, plus can afford a $100 a year (before tax withholding) position and can cover the usual out-of-pocket campaign expenses (signs, palm cards, print ads) will be able to run?


Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox