We're Slugging It Out
Oh, really?
(I was going to post on this yesterday, but the Eureka reporter didn't have their web page updated until later in the day so I gave up on it.)
I'll have to admit to being somewhat surprised at seeing the headline in yesterday's Eureka Reporter: Measure T Groups Duke It Out, in big letters across the front page. Made it look like things are really picking up in this fight. I suppose they are.
We then read of the same stuff coming from the Measure T proponents that we've read before:
Kaitlin Sopoci- Belknap refers to some supposed skullduggery in the Flemming campaign for 4th District Supervisor, where someone used some corporate loophole to get around the voluntary $500 contribution limit. She's quoted as saying:
“Measure T is about asserting our community’s right to define itself. Is the NOT campaign really opposing Humboldt citizens’ right to do that?”
Funny to hear that from the same people who's District Attorney candidate has taken his biggest contributions, so far, from out of the area. I know, we'll be hearing from the Measure T folks, "What's wrong with that? It's not corporate money".
So what? Isn't the theme of Measure T supposed to be Vote Local Control?
Kaitlin then goes on to say, “After looking at the changes NOT made to their Web site over the weekend, it is obvious that they intend to run a dirty campaign that misrepresents the truth. They are not the kind of people we trust to enter into deals with.”
Excuse me? Kaitlin, I'm hurt. What changes did I make to the web site over the weekend that misrepresents the truth?
Towards the end the article quotes Kaitlin: “We will stand by our support for the idea of a contribution limit for Humboldt (County) elections, and once Measure T passes and our community is assured LOCAL CONTROL OF ELECTIONS, we would support any effort to pass a complementary law that will also limit campaign contributions,”.
What that means, is once they tweak the playing field to their advantage, THEN they might consider contribution limits. That, of course, after they've silenced a fairly sizeable chunk of their potential opposition and still allow their side to take contributions from unions and other special interest groups from across the country.
This is a troubling development, although actually it's been going on for some time. The most troubling thing is they see nothing wrong with trying to control political activity from one group while protecting their own. In fact, not only do they see nothing wrong with it, they defend it.
It must be because they know what's best for us.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:13 AM
15 comments
15 Comments:
And that type of control has worked so well in communist countires!
NOT website:
"1. UNFAIRNESS- Measure T disenfranchises important stakeholders in this community from participating in local political campaigns."
Webster's Dictionary:
dis·fran·chise: "to deprive of the right to vote"
Whose votes are being deprived under Measure T?
Many small businesses will be deprived of participating financially in campaigns, whereas the potential opposition; unions and other special interest groups, will be able to contribute as much as they want.
And don't pull the webster's definitions on me. The same general meaning as we're are using is used by the lefties all the time.
Give me some time and I'll try and come up with some specific examples of the Left using the term in the same manner.
T will be a national issue and rise through the courts faster than you might think.
Fred,
Can you please name some of the important stakeholders? I just want to have more of an idea about who this is affecting.
Thanks
Chuck Childers, who made a statement on the No On T page:
http://www.fredtyg.freeservers.com/NoTSayings.html
is one I know of specifically. I don't follow which businesses are organized as S Corps but I understand a lot of small businesses are. I'm not, myself, but considered it once, until the guy who handled my IRA said there was some hundreds of dollars you had to pay the state just to incorporate and, besides, California is not a favorable business environment for corporations. Heck, California isn't a good business environment for most businesses.
Which begs the question of why so many businesses incorporate? Maybe I got bad advice?
What you're trying to suggest, is that every corporation is some big mean, mega corp. like GM, and it just isn't so.
The most troublesome part about this all is, the Measure T folks don't care about that. They're just interested in gaining an advantage by putting restrictions on potential electoral opponents, since no matter what kind of corporation it is, they're employers.
Shameless, imo.
What the heck! The inmates are already running the institution. Pass T, re-elect Paul G. and call United Van Lines (if they're still located in Eureka).
its the measure t nutjobs playing dirty with their threats against anyone on the left who stands up to their intimidation tactics. keep up the fight fred!
There's nothing different about it, Fred.
Just because a totalitarian system dresses itself up in black or red, fascist or communist, is a mere surface difference.
The Cobb gang want complete authority over everything, and they don't care who they step on to get it.
Sounds fascist, communist and all-around un-american to me.
Just put it this way. Holly Yashi is a local corporation. If one of the owner's kids goes away to college out of state, they're not a LOCAL corporation anymore under Measure T, so Holly Yashi can't donate necklaces to say, the Gallegos campaign.
9:59PM-
I don't understand why where the owner's children go to school has anything to do with it? Does the law really say something like that? This is the first I have heard of something like this.
Can you please explain what you mean?
10:07 writes: "I don't understand why where the owner's children go to school has anything to do with it?"
Because, oftentimes, S Corporations have family members as the Board of Directors or shareholders in their corporations.
Measure T requires every single shareholder or other member of a corporation to live inside Humboldt County.
Thus, as one insurance guy on the No on T page points out, he is organized as an S Corp. His sons live in Oregon and are shareholders in his company/ corp. Under Measure T, this guy couldn't contribute to a local campaign because his co- owners live in Oregon.
Fred:
Does he contribute to elections using his business?
If measure t passes why can't he just make contributions as an individual?
I'm not sure that they can. I don't know much about corporate organization, or the laws behind them, but I would suspect that once an individual or group incorporates, they BECOME the corporation.
Again, I can't say that for sure, but think that likely the case or it might not be an issue.
Besides, if they could just contribute as individuals instead, what would be the point of Measure T?
This is taken from the Measure T website, where anyone can read the full law (http://votelocalcontrol.org/ordinance_text.htm)
Section 9. Statement of Law.
Nothing in this Ordinance prevents individual corporate employees, trustees, directors, or shareholders from voluntarily and without coercion by the corporation contributing their own personal money or uncompensated services in elections to the extent allowed under state and federal campaign finance laws.
I'm a little surprised that you're so ignorant about this issue Fred, considering that you are so opinionated about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home