E/R Says No On T!
No surprise there, huh?
For some reason I didn't expect to see a recommendation on Measure T so soon in the Eureka Reporter. Well, on the good side, it's one more item to add to the What's New section of the No On Measure T page.
On the downside, sorry Glenn, I didn't think it was all that well done. Not a whole lot of substance, just a sort of generic It's Unconstitutional argument. Well, maybe that kind of argument will sway some folks. We shall see.
I was somewhat puzzled by this statement in the editorial:
"The ordinance purportedly bans nonlocal contributions from corporations, but that is unconstitutional and unfair because the Constitution does not allow treating out-of-the-area contributions differently than local contributions."
I'll have to admit to not having read the Constitution in decades, at least the whole Constitution. But I don't recall the Constitution dealing with political contributions at all. Please someone correct me if I'm missing something.
Their point about restricting freedom of association and freedom of speech is certainly a point well made and, until I read the editorial and saw this phrase is included in Measure T, I was totally unaware of it:
“(No) corporation shall be entitled to claim Constitutional rights or protections in an effort to overturn this law.”
Just imagine telling anyone or any entity, "We're passing this law because we know what's best for you and you can't go to court for redress of grievances. You'll just have to learn to live with it....".
That should make anybody's hair stand on end. I know it does mine (what little of it I have left).
Now, lets see what the other local papers end up saying about Measure T.