<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, October 16, 2017

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/23/the-danger-of-president-pence

Friday, October 13, 2017

 Federal Election Commission, Attn.: Neven F. Stipanovic, Acting Assistant General Counsel, 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20463.

Comments for FEC disclaimer policies:
{My Attempts at submitting this online didn't work.]

I incorporate by reference my already filed comments on this issue, including as to the 1998-AO-22 Leo Smith matter.

When you asked, once before, for comments on whether the FEC should regulate the internet, you received a then-record 1000 comments, mostly saying “Hands off the Internet!” One of those was mine.

The current broad disclaimer policy followed by the FEC is a First Amendment violation, a willful intrusion into core political speech, and is unethical, for those commissioners and staff who are lawyers.

Disclaimer policies are unconstitutional under Talley v California and McIntyre v Ohio. This is well established law. There is no qualified immunity for FEC employees who conspire to violate Talley and McIntyre. [There may be official immunity for some actions but not others.]
Reed v. Town of Gilbert re-establishes that strict scrutiny is the standard of review.

Below, I have listed a series of cases that mostly have upheld the right to political speech without disclaimers.


A narrow disclaimer policy could withstand heightened scrutiny, if it were limited to corporations as per Citizens United, and foreign governments.

Robbin Stewart.
P O Box 29164
Cumberlaand IN 46229.
gtbear at gmail.com


Chronological Table of disclaimer cases

1908 ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908)
1960 Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960), http://epic.org/free_speech/talley_v_california.html
1961 United States v. Scott (D.N.D.) 195 F. Supp. 440 (1961)
1964 Canon v. Justice Court for Lake Valley, 61 Cal.2d 446, 39 Cal.Rptr. 228, 393 P.2d 428 (1964),
1962 People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 856 (Sup. Ct. 1962)
People v Drake (CA) cite missing
1968 Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968),
1969 Zwickler v Koota 389 U.S. 241 (1967), 290 F.Supp. 244, mooted 394 U.S. 103 (1969) sub nom Golden v Zwickler
1973 Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973)
1973 United States v. Insco, 365 F. Supp. 1308 (M.D. Fla. 1973)
1974 Miami Herald v Tornillo,  418 U.S. 241 (1974)
1974 In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974)
1974 New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974)
1974 Printing Industries of the Gulf Coast v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974), 42 L.Ed.26 33 dismissed as moot. http://openjurist.org/422/us/937/hill-v-printing-industries-of-gulf-coast
1975 Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975), http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass92.html
1976 State of Louisiana v. Fulton, 3.37 So.2d 866 (La. 1976)
1977 Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)
1978 State v. North Dakota Educ. Ass'n, 262 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 1978)
1980 Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App.
1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 45. http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5CCA2%5C1980%5C19800828_0040409.CA.htm/qx
1987 Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987) http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CIL%5CIL2%5Carchp%5C1987%5C19870220_0000193.IL.htm/qx
1987 Wilson v. Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987);
199x N.Dakota v. N.D. Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731 http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/612.htm
1995 FEC v. Survival Educ. Fund, Inc., 65 F.3d 285, 298(2d. Cir. 1995)
[upheld disclaimers related to fraud]
1995 Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995)
1995 McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html
1995 ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d 1422 (8th Cir. 1995), http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952857P.pdf
1996 W. Va. for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 960 F. Supp. 1036, 1042 (S.D. W. Va. 1996)
1997 Stewart v Taylor (S.D. Ind. 1997)
1997 ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997) http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.acluvmiller.html
1997 ACLU v. Reno, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union
1997 ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997) http://www.loundy.com/CASES/ALA_v_Pataki.html
1998 Doe v. Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998)

1998 Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998)
1998 Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1998) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/487/781.html
1999 Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999)
1999 Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Mich 1999) http://www.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/lawsuit/
1999 doublecheck dates Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 69 Cal. App. 4th 818, 82 Cal. Rptr.2d 25 (1999), reversed on other grounds,
2000 Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000),
2000 Citizens for Responsible Gov't State PAC v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, 2000 (10th Cir. 2000);
2000 N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 108 F. Supp. 2d 498, 510 (E.D. N.C. 2000)
2000 Vt. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000);
2000x Doe v. 2theMart, 140 F.Supp.2d 1088,
2001 FEC v. Public Citizen, 268 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2001),
2001 Melvin v Doe, 2001 Pa. Super. 33044 P.3d 1044 (2002)
2002 Tattered Cover v Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (Co. 2002)
2002 Free Speech Coalition, Ashcroft v., 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
2002 Ogden v Marendt 264 F.Supp.2d 785 (S.D. Ind. 2003)
2003 Doe v. Texas, 2003 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 88 (Tex. Crim. App. May 14, 2003).
2003, 2004 Majors v. Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind. 2003), 361 F.2d 349 (2004), http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/153312903321578269?cookieSet=1&journalCode=elj http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=02-2204&submit=showdkt&yr=02&num=2204A.P
2004 ACLU v Heller 378 F3d 979 (9th cir. 2004) http://openjurist.org/378/f3d/979/american-civil-liberties-union-of-nevada-v-heller
2004 ACLU v. Ashcroft, _ U.S. _ (2004), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._Ashcroft_(2004) see Doe v Gonzales, 546 U.S. 1301 (2005),
2008 The Broward Coalition v. Browning (N.D. Fla. 2008)
2009 Center For Individual Liberty v Ireland 1:08-cv-00190 (W.D.WV 2009)
2009 Michael James Berger, aka Magic Mike v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 2009)
2012 Hatchett v Barland, (E.D.Wi) , on appeal to 7th Cir.

L.A. CORE Founder Manuel Talley Dies

December 17, 1986
    • Email
      Share
A funeral service was held Tuesday for Manuel Talley, a founder of the Los Angeles chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality.
Talley was 68 when he collapsed and died of an apparent heart attack outside the Los Angeles County Courthouse on Dec. 8, said his son, Gregory.
A congressional candidate in 1974 and 1984, Talley also founded the United Freedom Assn., a group dedicated to the registration of black voters.
In addition to his son, he is survived by four daughters and four grandchildren.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

http://electls.blogs.wm.edu/2011/02/16/oklahoma-voter-id-plaintiffs-begin-a-%E2%80%9Clonely-crusade%E2%80%9D/

Oklahoma Voter ID Plaintiffs Begin a “Lonely Crusade”


Sunday, October 08, 2017






“The people paying for California political ads might be easier to identify under this new state law”


Governor Brown signed the California DISCLOSE Act yesterday, including provisions to specifically identify in ads the largest contributors to the entities producing them.  (I’ve written about similar provisions, here.)  Common Cause is pleased.
http://www.commoncause.org/press/press-releases/governor-brown-strengthens-democracy-by-signing-california-disclose-act.html?referrer=http://electionlawblog.org/

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB249
havent read it, but i assume it's as unconstitutional as 5 previous california statutes that have been struck down.

(3) The act prohibits a candidate or committee from sending a mass mailing...

That's censorship, and is unconstitutional.

This bill would additionally require the name of such an entity to be disclosed in a mass electronic mailing, as defined, 

That's an attack on the internet.

The act prohibits a candidate, committee, or slate mailer organization from expending campaign funds to pay for specified telephone calls

and on phone calls. [i might be ok with that.]

(6) The act imposes, in addition to other penalties, a fine of up to triple the amount of the cost of an advertisement on a person who violates the disclosure requirements for advertisements.

That's an attack on the freedom of the press.

Because a violation of the act is punishable as a misdemeanor,

Due process concerns when political speech is made criminal.

1) Include the text “Who funded this ad?” in a contrasting color and a font size that is easily readable by the average viewer.

compelled speech, and micromanaged. unacceptable interference with free communication.








Friday, September 29, 2017

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2017/09/she_couldn_t_pick_hillary_clinton_i_just_can_t_stand_someone_who_lies

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451968/wisconsin-voter-id-study-flawed-unreliable

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Pageviews all time history
99,315

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article175956836.html

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/nd-commission-examines-out-of-state-funding-of-ballot-measures/article_c86d32d4-bd58-5694-b192-d887cea5901f.html

REPORT: Kurds vote overwhelmingly in favor of independence from Iraq.

CANDIDATEVOTEPCT.
Roy Moore262,20454.6%
Luther Strange*218,06645.4
100% reporting (2,286 of 2,286 precincts)

Saturday, September 16, 2017

http://www.northsidesun.com/columns/unseating-eaton-legitimate#sthash.b8fmHn7V.dpbs

Friday, September 15, 2017

https://www.bna.com/fec-votes-explore-n57982087935/

To contact the reporter on this story: Kenneth P. Doyle in Washington at kdoyle@bna.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Paul Hendrie atpHendrie@bna.com

note to self: when file coments, cc these guys.

http://www.multichannel.com/news/advertising/fec-seeks-comment-net-ad-disclaimers/415294

The commission voted Thursday (Sept. 14) to open the comment period for 30 additional days following a request by Commissioner Ellen Weintraub that the issue be placed on the agenda for the meeting.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/12/clinton-book-adds-voter-id-laws-to-list-reasons-why-lost.html

Clinton book adds voter ID laws to list of reasons why she lost

On page 418, Clinton begins a section titled “Voter Suppression,” where she claims the Trump campaign “actively tried to discourage people from voting at all,” and adds that their play was “just the latest” in a “long-term” Republican strategy to “discourage and disenfranchise” Democratic-leaning voters.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/wisconsin/articles/2017-08-18/math-experts-join-brainpower-to-help-address-gerrymandering

Sunday, September 10, 2017

 alan king. not the same alan king, of course.
re:

“Democrat On Trump Voter Fraud Probe Slams Voting Restriction Efforts”



In a lengthy statement to the commission, Alan King, a Democratic probate judge in Alabama, criticized overzealous efforts to purge people from the voter rolls. In his statement, King wrote that while there may be some people who voted twice, there were thousands more who were removed from the rolls for no reason or had their vote suppressed. 

Saturday, September 09, 2017

outline:

Dear FEC:

Stop violating my civil rights by chilling my speecch with your Defend the President AO draft.

Disclaimer regulations were found unconstituional in 1960, the year I was born, 57 years ago.

I will not allow you to roll back the clock to the Jim Crow era of censorship of political speech.

"Stewart contends that McIntyre controls this case. Stewart is correct." Stewart v Taylor 953 F.Supp. 1047 (S D Ind. 1997).

It is unethical, tortious, possibly illegal, scurrilous, and ill-mannered for the FEC to enforce unconstitutional void regulations, whether under the fugitive slave act, the alien and sedition act,
the loyalty oath statutes, or the disclaimer regulations at issue in the AO draft. That draft is a smoking gun that the FEC is involved in unlawfully chilling core political speech protected by the first amendment. Such conduct is prohibited by the Ku Klux Klan acts.

So knock it off.

I wrote to you guys about this in the Leo Smith 1998-AO-22.
That's 19 years ago, and you are still at it.

I wrote to you again when you wanted comments on internet regulation. 1000 of us, a then-record, submitted comments saying hands off the internet. 

By now I am old, mostly retired, with a grey beard. But the issue is still a live one between us.

Here, you are trying to enforce a void unconstitutional set of regulations against groups supporting the president. That president has the power to appoint members of the FEC, traditionally in consultation with party leaders. There are what, 5 or 6 vacancies?

You put your institution at risk when you attack the president's supporters without legal authority to do so. It is not a position of strength.

So, tactically, the FEC should stop being evil in this way, even if you have no intrinsic desire to be good or decent.

So knock it off.

Cordially, rgs.

Friday, September 08, 2017


  1.   Retweeted
    Under no circumstances should NH be first in the nation primary if Gardiner remains on the Voter Suppression committee

  1. Replying to  
    4/ She’s wrong. We’re *very* late on this. Don’t know why GOPers have obstructed us for months, but I’m not done fighting. Stay tuned.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?