NOM About to Launch $425,000 Attack Against Governor Lynch

Here is my reaction... (4.00 / 1)

I wonder if we can get this to go viral
http://www.facebook.com/event....

Hope > Fear




Create a free Blue Hampshire account and join the conversation.

---

by: Mike Hoefer @ Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 12:34:18 PM CDT

The National Organization for Marriage is an obvious (4.00 / 1)

failure.  I just read that there was a significant drop in the number of marriages registered in 2009.  Presumably, there are just as many common law marriages and the economic collapse is prompting couples to avoid frivolous expenses.

---

by: hannah @ Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 18:28:02 PM CDT

Thanks Mike, and more hits coming (0.00 / 0)

Thank you Mike for your support. And I wanted to let everyone know that more hits are coming. The so-called Americans for Prosperity bought $200,000 for attack ads that will start tomorrow.


Pamela Walsh

NH for John Lynch

www.lynch10.com

---

by: Pamela Walsh @ Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 19:23:46 PM CDT

NOM Lies (4.00 / 2)

What is most hypocritical is that it is the National Organization For Marriage that is lying about Governor John Lynch.  John Lynch never once said he would veto gay marriage.  He said he was opposed, and he had that right certainly, but he never said he would veto a gay marriage bill.

I watched every statement he made on the issue for the four years prior to June of last year when he signed House Bill 436.  During the two years after we had passed Civil Unions, all I asked of Governor Lynch was that he not say he would veto the bill -- that he allow the discussion to occur in the Legislative process.  He never said he would veto it.  

Like a good Governor should do, John Lynch allowed the discussion about marriage equality to occur.  We had two of the largest public hearings in the history of our state on this issue in the late Winter and early Spring of 2009.  We had a total of over 12 hours of debate on the House and Senate floors, plus endless discussion in House and Senate committees.  Over a thousand New Hampshire citizens testified for the legislation, and thousands of others contacted their legislators.  In the end, the Legislature approved a bill, and then Governor John Lynch took the extraordinary step of inviting both sides to further discuss it with him.

After much examination, he came up with a suggestion for stronger statutory religious protections, and the Legislature considered his ideas and added language in the law that met his conditions -- thus protecting everyone in our state.

On this issue, as well as many others of course, John Lynch showed himself to be the kind of Governor New Hampshire needs.  He's not a dictator like John Stephen obviously will be with the mighty little pen he shows on his TV ads.  One person who happens to sit in the corner office shouldn't very often stand as a sole decider of the public's interest.  John Lynch knows what democracy is, and NOM and their big money doesn't.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Wed Sep 29, 2010 at 22:42:01 PM CDT

Of course it would have been nice to have disclosure of who is really paying for all this. (4.00 / 4)

Is it corporate money? (If we knew this, citizens could choose to adjust their purchases, and perhaps affect corporate behavior, a la target, and stockholders could question such use of corporate assets). Is it church money? ( If so worshippers could choose on where and how much to donate, and taxpayers could decide whether religious organizations were violating the terms of their tax free status by campaigning).

Again I point this out so that we dont miss the lessons to be learned here. We are paying a terrible price in election fairness because of the misguided ruling in Citizens United and the misguided failure of the state and federal legislatures to mandate the disclose requirements that even the Citizens majority held to be t he rights of the people.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 06:27:23 AM CDT

Rhode Island (0.00 / 0)

I read the other day that NOM is suing the state of Rhode Island because RI requires disclosure.

Have you written a letter to the editor today? Have you donated today? Have you put up signs? Have you made calls? Have you talked to your neighbors?

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 06:51:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The RI law includes disclosure but apparenly has other provisions that limit contributions (4.00 / 2)

The National Organization for Marriage said in a federal lawsuit that it should not be forced to report its expenditures or comply with spending limits or bans that are required for political action committees. The group said it shouldn't be considered a PAC because it's not controlled by a political candidate and does not spend the majority of its money on Rhode Island's political races. It says the rules for PACs are burdensome and interfere with free speech.

http://www.necn.com/09/27/10/A...

Here is a more extensive article from the providence journal:

http://www.projo.com/news/cont...

It is difficult to tell from the articles without seeing a state response, but there may be some aspects of the RI law that run afoul of Citizens, but it certainly wont be the disclosure aspects, as the Citizens court unheld the constitutionality of disclosure requirements in that case by and 8 to 1 majority, with only Justice Thomas seeing any First Amendment problem with disclosure.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 07:42:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Right (4.00 / 1)

NOM does not want to have to idenrtify who is paying the bills for its activities.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 08:27:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's Why We Needed The Federal Bill... (0.00 / 0)

...your bill wouldn't have done that job, at all.   But it WOULD have muffled those of us and others who want to respond.

Your choice, Paul:  you can fight yesterdays ill-advised battles, or you can respond to the independent spending that would have occurred regardless of your legislative attempt.

Free speech is important to defend, and at least those Democrats who stopped your bill last June did so.  We have to respond to Citizens United in responsible ways that don't destroy the elements of American free speech.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 07:57:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Federal bill would not impact state candidates. (4.00 / 4)

The states have jurisdiction over disclosure involving state candidates.  That is why state action needed to be taken. It wasn't. Now the rest of us have to live with the consequences of the legislature's failure to act.    



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 08:26:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You are very inconsistent. (4.00 / 3)

You say that the state law would have violated free speech, but in the next breath urge a federal law that would do the same thing. You say that it violates free speech to require disclosure of those corporations that spend over $10000 on broadcast campaign ads, but your bill would completely forbid them from donating to candidates. (Apparently, free speech doesn't extent there in your estimation).

Of course it would be nice to have a federal law requiring disclosure. But we dont have one. We could have had a state law requiring disclosure of corporate expenditures of over ten thousand dollars, but we dont, thank you.

You say that "your bill wouldnt have done that job", but it certainly would have required disclosure of the source of funds for this type of expenditure which is far more that $10000. That would have led to one of several outcomes: either the people would know who is finding the NOM attack ads and be in a position to evaluate them, or the NOM would have decided that they dont want to operate in the light of day and gone elsewhere. Corporate or religious organizations likewise might have decided that transparency doesnt suit them and chose not to spend the money here. As I said above, shareholders and consumers would have had the right to decide whether or not to engage with corporations or organizations that take certain political positions (again see Target). The bill would have muffled no one.

This is not "yesterdays ill-advised battles"-- we are being drowned in anonymous attack ads from front groups with innocuous sounding names that serve only to deceive the public as to the real source of the noise. When the bill was being debated, you said that the supporters were overstating the danger that an influx of anonymously funded attack ads would present.

We are suffering from this right now, not yesterday, and if we don't want to continue to suffer from it in the future we need to pay attention to what is happening right now. Recent news reports have indicated that the Citizens United case is likely to result in a 6 to 1 spending advantage for regressive positions in this cycle. That is actually a worse outcome than we had expected, and it is made infinitely worse because we have been denied the transparency needed to evaluate the sources of all this money and noise.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 08:32:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

By Your Own Admission... (0.00 / 0)

...with the $10,000 level, you had a major loophole.  But by having that level, you allowed for anyone and everyone -- including the government -- to be able to haul anyone, any small organization or group of people, into court to defend themselves that they did NOT go over the $10,000 limit.  That's why so many non-profit organizations -- good ones -- were against your bill.  

I find it frightening that government could stiffle free speech in our American democracy, and speech-by-registration, which your bill required of any group participating in the process, is not an American ideal.  

You came in with your poorly-vetted plans, with six redrafts within a one week period, very late in the Legislative Session, and at the same time you sidetracked House Bill 1367 which would have prohibited corporate treasury money to candidates and political parties.  I assume the party heirachy for both Republicans and Democrats are cashing in those checks right now, and transfering money all over the place.

We need to learn from your mistakes.  Then you can go back to the drawing boards.  You bill wouldn't have stopped one dollar from being spent in New Hampshire that otherwise wouldn't have been spent attacking our candidates, but HB 1367 could have been in force right now preventing corporate treasuries from buying New Hampshire elections.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:05:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is hard to take seriously: (4.00 / 4)

with the $10,000 level, you had a major loophole.  But by having that level, you allowed for anyone and everyone -- including the government -- to be able to haul anyone, any small organization or group of people, into court to defend themselves that they did NOT go over the $10,000 limit.

NOM is said to be spending $450,000 dollars not $9999.99.

The bill originally had a much lower limit. There were meetings with non-profits, business representatives, labor etc, and it was in response to their requests and observations that it was raised to $10000 precisely to limit it to big spenders. You were present at least one of these meetings and didn't say a word about any concerns, at least while I was present.

As for the specter of groups being hauled into court and made to prove that they didn't spend over $10000, you ignore several facts:

1. We have lots of campaign and corporate laws and regulations already, and none have resulted in harassing law suits against small non profits.

2. While anyone can sue anyone else anytime they want, the burden of proof is always on the person or group bringing the suit and there are remedies for frivolous actions and abuse of process.

Finally, I did nothing to your bill-- I am not in the legislature--and, as I have told you five times now, I supported your bill then and do so now, although I feel that it would have limited effect, as it only deals with direct contributions to candidates, which already are subject to four digit limits. The real problem is in "independent" expenditures.


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 09:44:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Onto 2011 (0.00 / 0)

A real problem -- not the major one but a real problem is the independent expenditures, and if you had crafted a bill that made sense and would have focused on that, it would have been acceptable.  But instead, you tried to rush and jam it through.  Let's learn from that.

I'm doubtful you'll ask, but I'd be pleased to work with you on a real solution for 2011.  But I'm not going to support anything that attacks American free speech under the guise of protecting politicians from free speech.  

I think it was shameful for Democratic leadership to try to attack free speech the way it did last June, and it is a black mark on our legacy of being in the majority.  It was one of several mistakes these past couple of years which we have to try to overcome on November 2, and that's where our focus should be right now.    

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 10:36:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No attack on free speech (4.00 / 3)

It just is not true that the bill attacked free speech. I know that is your defense for defeating what would have been a national model for disclosure, but it just is not true.  

You also misrepresent the bill when you say anyone and everyone could drag a group into court. No, the bill limited that to a candidate or the AG - and the AG has jursidiction today over camapign finance violations. It had provided voters the right to enforce, but because of the concerns raised by smaller non-profit advocay groups, that was changed.  

The bill you supported was no more than a finger in the breach, prohibiting corporations from making direct contirbutions - stopping a direct contribution of $5,000 to a candidate, but doing nothing about the undisclosed contributions of tens of thousands of dollars, or hundreds of thousands, of dollars to groups lilke NOM. That is the number one vehicle for special interest funding in campaigns today, and your bill did nothing, zero, nada on that.

We had a chance to have real disclosure. What is shameful is that the legislature failed to act.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 11:55:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What Is Shameful Is... (0.00 / 0)

...the way supporters of that bill tried to ram it through.  No public hearing.  An end-run around those of us who have worked on similar issues for years and could have helped.  

I'm not offended that the supporters tried to keep what they were doing secret, but the way they did it led to the bill's defeat.  Instead of trying to involve people early on who could have addressed logistics before the bill had got too far, they thought Legislative leadership was all they needed to get it through.  They forgot that there would be floor debate.  

If you want to learn from that mistake, my advice is that you not try that approach again.  Do it in the open, cleanly.  And in the meantime, support the Granny D project that many of us are working for -- voluntary public funding of campaigns -- and a revise of House Bill 1367 to prohibit corporate treasuries form funding political campaigns or parties.  

Even if we were successful at having disclosure, the money would still be spent and we would have hundreds of thousands of dollars on attack ads.  But addressing Citizen United by getting corporate treasury money out of politics is a step.  

Go see Wall Street II.  It will educate you.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 12:39:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Keep telling yourself that (4.00 / 3)

While the anonymous corporate treasurey money flows into NOM, AJS and AFP.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 13:56:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We Could Have Stopped Corporate Money (0.00 / 0)

...and the anonymous money would have continued anyway.  But no, the Democrats in the Senate thought that would affect their purse strings -- or they were so told -- and killed House Bill 1337.

Interesting story about that, since you've asked.  We had HB 1367 in study for a year in the House.  The House Election Law Committee passed it with bipartisan support, with all Democrats backing it.  It went to the House floor, and passed.

Enter the Senate.  We had an excellent public hearing in the Senate Election Law Committee.  You weren't there, but it was good anyway.  Then the Committee voted unanimously for OTP -- that's Ought To Pass, a nice term for "approved."

Then it went to the Senate floor and was "tabled."  I was told not to worry -- I won't mention the two Senators who told me, because they're running for reelection and I support them so out of appreciation I won't tell their names, but apparently they were misinformed as to the reason for tabling.  They were told, and so told me, not to worry because it would be approved and it was being held up only so that an amendment could be considered -- I later learned that it was being held hostage so that others could work on the so-called disclosure bill as an alternative to prohibiting the purse strings of the corporations.  

Then out of nowhere appeared the so-called disclosure bill, in bad form and it had to go through half a dozen rewrites before it was even ready for serious discussion.

Eventually a "committee of conference" was created, and I was put on that committee from the House -- it had Senate members too.  When it became clear that I certainly wasn't going to support the parts of the bill requiring speech registration with the government in its current form, I was thrown off the committee -- not even informed of such until the next morning. There was apparently no room for compromise.  Sad. Besides, the "pros" thought that they had the votes, and House and Senate leadership, lined up for passed.

So, the attempt was then made to ram it through.  Next stop, the Senate.  It passed, after 3 hours of debate.  Then it got to the House, and logic prevailed.  

In the meanwhile, The Concord Monitor along with other newspapers and non-profit organizations -- good ones which have been traditionally Democratic Party supporters -- opposed the bill.  

Now, we can rehash the missteps of the past on this issue, and further discuss the two Senators who like me were manipulated and kept in the dark as an end-run around them was made, OR we can focus on November 2nd and then do what we should have done, and could have done last Spring:  prohibit corporate treasury money from going to our candidates and parties.  Your choice.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 15:19:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Keep telling yourself that n/t (4.00 / 1)

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 15:54:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jim you were the very first person I asked to be involved in this and you said no. (4.00 / 3)

You have previously acknowledged that we discussed this in January in a meeting at the office of the Secretary of State. Once you said no, there was no  need or purpose for your imprimatur.

That is hardly an end around.

Again there were public meetings on the bill, people from the non-profits, the business association, labor etc asked for changes, and they were for the most part accommodated. You sat through at least one of those hearings and didn't say a single word of criticism of the bill, but held your fire until after you had been placed on the conference committee by a leadership acting under the belief that you supported the bill. If you had voiced your concerns when they could have been addressed, the bill might have been changed to your liking.

But you chose to play hardball.

 

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 17:28:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You're Welcome (0.00 / 0)

And thank goodness we stopped that version, hardball or not.  It would have been a permanent black mark on the NH Legislature and the Democrats.  It's bad enough that Democratic leadership supported it as written.  I doubt Governor John Lynch would have signed it.  

The real hardball, and deception, was the killing of House Bill 1367 so that the political parties, and candidates, could still dial for dollars from corporate treasuries.  I saw through the deception just in time to stop the play for your alternate legislation from going through.  I guess I learned something in my 30 years of being there.  

And no, when we talked in January I certainly wasn't going to go on board with an attempt to register political free speech.  Not in the America I know.  There can, however, be proper disclosure rules without the government registration process and the potential court and audit oversight.  

IF you want to explore that in 2011, you might have me as an ally.  But not if it crosses the line just to protect politicians at the expense of that free speech.  Democracy is hard work, and the freedom to speak against our government, and its politicians, is worth fighting to protect -- even against a few well-meaning political leaders who think they and they alone have the answers for the rest of us.  

Fortunately, the majority prevailed in the Legislature and we kept the attack on free speech from happening.  Unfortunately we weren't able -- yet -- to stop the corporate treasuries from being used for the political parties and their campaigns.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 18:25:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And today's fake non-profit engaged in anonymous vicious attack ads on Johhn Lynch is: (4.00 / 1)

Americans for Prosperity which spending gobs of anonymous dollars to spread lies about a bill that both parties supported in the legislature to provide oversight of offenders when they finish their sentences:

The change in the campaign conversation, driven largely by criticism from Stephen and his supporters over the past five days, has forced Lynch to play defense on an issue he's rarely been challenged on.

It has also spurred out-of-state groups to deepen their involvement in the race: The conservative group Americans for Prosperity yesterday launched a weeklong television ad campaign attacking Lynch for signing the parole bill.

"Today, sex offenders are being released into New Hampshire communities," the ad states. "Why would John Lynch sign a law giving sexual predators and violent criminals early parole?"

Of course we will never know exactly who is providing the money for spreading these gross distortions. Shareholders wont know if it is their money being spent to broadcast a view that they dont hold and perhaps find anathema. Consumers cant redirect their spending because they dont know who is paying the piper. A functioning democracy needs to provided voters with the information that they need to make rational choices.

A second aspect is the absurd sham of groups like AFP using the tax code to pretend to be non profits not engaged in campaigning. A little transparency would marginally increase the likelihood that either the FEC or the IRS would come to life and begin to enforce the law. For that matter, groups that purport to be charitable or educational organizations but really are simply political machines violate NH election and corporate law.

We chose to do nothing.

Those that sow the wind will reap the whirlwind, and reaping we are.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 05:37:38 AM CDT

You Can Say Your Bill... (0.00 / 0)

...would have forced that disclosure.  But it wouldn't have, with all the built-in loopholes.   Instead, even if Governor Lynch didn't veto it, and if it had survived a court test, it would have created government speech registration for everyone, and stiffled our democracy.  Come up with a way to have disclosure without intimidating "the rest of us," and it may pass the Legislature.  We can't compromise our democracy by government speech registration.    

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 08:11:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

stfu already (0.00 / 0)

pissing into the past

7 Days
Have you knocked on doors today? Have you made calls ? Have you talked to your neighbors ?  

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 15:06:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Agree, Jonny... (0.00 / 0)

...we don't need to rehash this failed bill, but a couple of people keep bringing it up because they want something to blame for the money being spent by outside groups.  I'm not going to let that happen, or let anyone "piss" on the courageous House Democrats who stopped this attack on free speech, so when they mention it I'll respond.

Fact is, that money by outside groups would be spent anyway, and the bill wouldn't have stopped one dollar -- and there were so many loopholes in the bill that would have avoided disclosure it was disgusting.

We need to learn from all this though, and focus on getting money from corporate treasuries from going to candidates and the parties.  That's how we respond to "Citizen United," as well as support Paul Hodes constitutional amendment to change the so-called "rights" of corporations to be "persons."  

Let's focus on November 2nd in the meantime, and not try to justify a failed bill from last June that, thank goodness, never got to Governor John Lynch for him to have to veto.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 15:57:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]