Past the Tipping Point

November 2012
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30

OUR LINKS

YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Past the Tipping Point – 16nov12

16 November 2012

George Rebane

Did you know that 36 states already regulate speech between private citizens when it may remotely bear on public policy? Specifically, today “in more than half the country the simple act of speaking to fellow citizens about issues of public importance can be regulated as a form of lobbying.”

In ‘Targeting the ‘Lobbyist’ Next Door’, Institute for Justice attorney Jeanette Petersen describes how a case now in front of those fun-loving justices of the Ninth Circuit Court can impact what you and/or your grass-roots organization can do or say. The case is one filed in Washington state which apparently is the leader on this latest assault on the First Amendment. A judgment for Washington would “result (in) a trap for the unwary that may mean fines or even jail time for ordinary citizens who fail to comply with complicated regulations written to cover professional lobbyists.”

Two Washington grass-roots organizations – one each liberal and conservative – have already ceased activities. And dozens of others across the country are watching how the Ninth will come down on this. I include this report under the Tipping Point heading because it wasn’t long ago that such cases affecting private speech would have been unthinkable when we still were a Republic that the Founders would recognize.

Petersen concludes – “Simply put, the supposed benefits of these laws are entirely speculative, but the costs to grass-roots advocates and their supporters are substantial. … If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects Americans’ right to communicate with fellow citizens and to contact their elected representatives about important issues. That isn’t “lobbying”—it’s speaking. The Ninth Circuit would be wise to pull the law up by the roots.”

I think this may be one of the few steps in our relentless march toward tyranny on which our more thoughtful political extremes may agree. Although I’m not sure about our local lefties, you know the ones who are constantly daubing themselves with a purple that doesn’t seem to stick.

Posted in Agenda 21, Current Affairs, Our Country, We the iSheeple

27 responses to “Past the Tipping Point – 16nov12”

Douglas Keachie

16 November 2012

Why George, what’s the problem with purple, after all, there it is, right in the middle of “America, The Beautiful.” “Purple mountains magesty…”
In the meantime, not paying employees what they are worth and taking the proceeds to Washington remains lobbying, and if you can grip about the Unions doing this, why not the employer?
Speaking of which, more Capitalism gone astray may allow some of us to cash in on the baddies. I have seven qualifying units.
http://consumerist.com/2012/11/16/you-only-have-until-dec-6-to-claim-portion-of-1-1-billion-lcd-price-fixing-settlement/

LikeLike
Douglas Keachie

16 November 2012

Make that a “j” and some like apostrophes too.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Purple+mountains+magesty%22&hl=en&lr=&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=4pqmUPCgM-fziQL-h4FQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1600&bih=844#hl=en&lr=&tbo=d&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=%22Purple+mountains+majesty%22&oq=%22Purple+mountains+majesty%22&gs_l=img.12..0i24l6j0i5i24l2.196.196.1.16009.1.1.0.0.0.0.673.673.5-1.1.0…0.0…1c.PgJP6n33_Uw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=d235ffd9a96f0914&bpcl=38625945&biw=1600&bih=844

LikeLike
George Rebane

16 November 2012

DougK 1157am – Ah yes, “paying employees what they worth” again. And who determines what they are worth, and to whom are they worth that determined amount?

LikeLike
Walt

16 November 2012

Ponder this Doug, in regards to “pay”.
If it came down to you or me being hired to operate a given piece of equipment, just who should be hired, and what should the pay scale should be?
I am worth more than you in experience alone. I am worth more because I can operate just about anything.( not bragging if you can do it)
So just what is your argument that YOU should get the job over me? ( and whine and demand that you should be paid more, let alone equal)
When it comes to heavy equipment and construction, I am WAY more valuable than you. So just for the sake of argument, why should you be paid the same rate as me, when you have less than half ( being generous) the knowledge I do?
And for the record, I have actually done work for more than one person that comments here, and have yet to get a complaint about the quality of said work. ( and all above board with licenses and required insurance to legally do the work)

LikeLike
George Rebane

16 November 2012

Walt’s 124pm expansion of my 1216pm questions highlight why economies under autocratic cum tyrannical rule always fail. Attempting to allocate labor and its price from a central planner is a fool’s errand. Yet history shows that such fools have abounded, and their intellectual progeny continue to roam the earth (and in many places vote).
But returning to the subject post – was everyone really aware of the ‘lobbying’ case; and being so aware is everyone really sanguine about the goings on? I believe it is silence on these matters that allows evil to grow in our society like a stealthy fungus under the floorboards.

LikeLike
Walt

16 November 2012

I think I understand what your getting at.( I’m just your friendly neighborhood ditch digger who some consider uneducated because of my choice of work) (all those 25 cent words ya know)
From my dealings with unions in the past, they expect “greenhorns” that have little experience “in the seat” to be paid the same as someone who has been “at it” for years. ( operating engineers to be exact)
Never mind the fact that in more cases than not, these “greenhorns” cost any given Co. more than they make because of that inexperience. ( someone has to go back and fix their screw ups, costing even more)
But Hay!,, Their union got them on the same pay scale. Ain’t it great?
You have a 10 dollar an hour apprentice making 25 to 30. ( all that self esteem crap we keep hearing about I guess)

LikeLike
Douglas Keachie

16 November 2012

In teaching, Walt, my main trade/profession, the beginners are never paid the same as experienced pros, the differential being upwards to 3 to 1 for a 30 year vet. I have probably more experience than you on my Kubota, and on a dark and stormy night would be more likely to correctly access and get a car out of a ditch.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t dream of messing with a larger machine without full instruction and ride alongs. The little one is dangerous enough. On the third hand, some of what you know from the big machines might be better employed on my little machine than my self taught experiences. In any event, most of the dirt I’ve moved is still where the owner of the land intended it. Why they erected greenhouses on their basketball courts is beyond me.

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

16 November 2012

Jesus Betterman, gentleman pot farm consultant. Who woulda thunk it?

LikeLike
Douglas Keachie

16 November 2012

And science dilettante too. Here’s your bedtime poster.

LikeLike
Billy T

16 November 2012

I am dumbfounded by Dr. Rebane’s post. Speech is lobbying by citizens? Citizens can’t lobby? I saw this coming awhile back, but I foolishly said “not in America.”
The picture Dr. Rebane used looks a bit like Casey Anthony. Tape on mouth? Just like Casey’s daughter.

LikeLike
Billy T

16 November 2012

Mr. Keachy, I do not know what someone is worth in pure monetary terms. I have heard people say “I am worth more than that!” and then tell the bossman to take this job and shove it. Unfortunately they find out their worth to the next employer is what they are paid, be it greater or lesser or the same as their last job. I could be wrong, but I think there is a little known labor law that states if you are out on strike and your employer goes out of business, then you do not qualify to draw unemployment benefits from the employer who closed his/her doors.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/twinkies-maker-hostess-plans-business-005051764.html

LikeLike
Michael Anderson

16 November 2012

George, I gotta tell ya, I really don’t like the graphic you’ve chosen for this post. Duct tape over a woman’s mouth is a bad image. Duct tape over Donald Trump’s mouth? Much better.
She looks like someone victimized in the trafficing trade. Not good. I wasn’t a big fan of Prop 35, and here is a description of why it might not have been such a good thing: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/11/01/prop-35

LikeLike
Steve Frisch

17 November 2012

Here is a link to the article that ma get readers around the paywall:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324735104578119013565758582.html

LikeLike
Steve Frisch

17 November 2012

Targeting the Lobbyist Next Store
By JEANETTE M. PETERSEN
Are you a lobbyist? You might be and not even know it. That’s because in more than half the country the simple act of speaking to fellow citizens about issues of public importance can be regulated as a form of lobbying.
The result is a trap for the unwary that may mean fines or even jail time for ordinary citizens who fail to comply with complicated regulations written to cover professional lobbyists.
But can such regulations of ordinary political speech really be constitutional? That is the question the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals now must answer in a case the court heard Nov. 9.
Washington state is one of 36 states that regulates such ordinary political speech—or “grass roots lobbying,” as the state’s law calls it. In Washington, a person who spends as little as $500 in one month urging fellow citizens to contact the legislature and express their support or opposition to legislation must register with and provide information to the state’s campaign-finance regulatory agency. The state law is so broad that it covers even people who simply speak with their fellow citizens and have no intention of lobbying governmental officials.
To make matters worse, the law covers speech about “any other matter that may be the subject of action” by the state legislature. At the appellate-court hearing, one of the judges said of the law’s broad definitions: “If someone wants to talk about the price of cat food—bang, it might come before the legislature,” so the speech would therefore be covered by the law.
As absurd as the law sounds in theory, in Washington it has real consequences for real groups engaging in real speech.
Many Cultures, One Message is a Seattle neighborhood group that works to fight eminent-domain abuse and other measures that threaten the character and vibrancy of MCOM’s diverse neighborhood. The organization’s multi-ethnic membership makes it especially wary of the law’s intrusiveness. Many MCOM donors and volunteers come from countries ruled by oppressive regimes, and these supporters withdrew from the group in 2010 when they learned that the lobbying law might require the placement of their names and addresses on a publicly accessible, government-run database.
On the opposite side of the political spectrum, Conservative Enthusiasts is a self-described tea party group that encourages citizens to promote limited government and lower taxes at all levels of government. After one of the group’s sponsors received a warning from the group’s fundraiser in 2010 that its financial support for the organization’s Fourth of July rally might be publicly disclosed on a government website, the donor withdrew its planned contribution.
Enlarge Image
Associated Press
A citizen’s convention, in New Jersey, supported by conservative grass roots groups.
Once the Washington law has been triggered, the associated red tape means that grass-roots groups must deal with an absurdly complex array of regulations. The state’s own lobbying handbook recommends that groups retain records for nine years; annotate receipts with date, person and purpose; maintain a separate bank account and credit card; and hire an accountant to anticipate and remedy reporting problems. Groups that fail to comply with the law can be fined up to $10,000.
Unable to decipher this maze of regulations, rules and requirements—much less afford a campaign-finance attorney and accountant—Many Cultures, One Message and Conservative Enthusiasts decided that the burdens were too onerous and both ceased their advocacy efforts.
Forcing grass-roots groups to jump through hoops just to talk to the public about political issues is bad enough, but it is also not clear how the public benefits. In a 2011 study, economist Jeffrey Milyo of the University of Missouri found no evidence that regulations on grass-roots lobbying increase public confidence in government, or that disclosure of contributors to grass-roots campaigns provides useful information to legislators or the public.
Simply put, the supposed benefits of these laws are entirely speculative, but the costs to grass-roots advocates and their supporters are substantial.
If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects Americans’ right to communicate with fellow citizens and to contact their elected representatives about important issues. That isn’t
“lobbying”—it’s speaking. The Ninth Circuit would be wise to pull the law up by the roots.
Ms. Petersen, an attorney with the Institute for Justice Washington chapter, is lead attorney for Many Cultures, One Message v. Clements.

LikeLike
Steve Frisch

17 November 2012

George, you are correct about perhaps finding some common ground. I agree that the Washington state rules appear to be ridiculous. As someone that both strongly supports the first amendment and who engages in ‘grassroots’ lobbying I find the disclosure necessary in this case (established at the $500 level) onerous.
So I have to ask a simple question—why would you object to disclosure for grassroots lobbying but not stand up for my nonprofits ability to engage in grassroots lobbying when we engage in it? Why did you stand by and say next to nothing, or even at times openly join in, when Russ, Todd, and Barry were implying I was doing something wrong, immoral, or illegal by speaking out on public issues? How is my organization any different than these groups? or the Tea Party for that matter?
Every citizen has a right to speak up about what they think needs to be changed in our government.

LikeLike
Steve Frisch

17 November 2012

Ooops typo right in the headline of the post…silly me.

LikeLike
George Rebane

17 November 2012

SteveF 724am – I have always supported SBC’s ability to speak out on public issues within its IRS designated charter. What I oppose is its doing so without declaring that it is a professional organization also engaged in lobbying for certain liberal causes, especially given the cynical nature of its name. And what I totally object to is your attempts to pass yourself off speaking as a private citizen.
As president/CEO of SBC, a lobbying organization, you cannot shed that mantle and must visibly wear it 24/7 and declare its charter. You cannot speak on public issues as a private citizen any more than can President Obama, Mark Meckler, or the President of Amgen. (Neither could I when I was an executive of a nationally prominent ecommerce concentrator and lobbied Congress, spoke at conferences, and gave media interviews.) That is one of the burdens of leadership, and doubly so when your personal beliefs dovetail with your organization’s policy.
Please don’t confuse the legal withholding of donor names with declaring your relationship to the organization receiving such donations. And that goes for Tea Party officers, Republican Party officials, etc.
Speak as freely as you wish, but always tell them who you are and where you are coming from. And BTW, thanks for bringing the comments back on topic.

LikeLike
Douglas Keachie

17 November 2012

Perhaps this can be simplified. If I am a lobbyist, where is my paycheck? And yes, Billy, you get no unemployment unless you are legitimately laid off, and your employer gives you a letter to that effect, AFAIK.

LikeLike
Douglas Keachie

17 November 2012

A good one for Greg, guess who said this: (don’t spoil the show, Steve)
” this was an engineering school. There was a very good math department, physics department, but they were service departments. They were teaching the engineers tricks they could use. The electrical engineering department, you learned how to build a circuit. Well if you went to MIT in the 1960s, or now, it’s completely different. No matter what engineering field you’re in, you learn the same basic science and mathematics. And then maybe you learn a little bit about how to apply it. But that’s a very different approach. And it resulted maybe from the fact that really for the first time in history, the basic sciences, like physics, had something really to tell engineers. And besides, technologies began to change very fast, so not very much point in learning the technologies of today if it’s going to be different 10 years from now. So you have to learn the fundamental science that’s going to be applicable to whatever comes along next. And the same thing pretty much happened in medicine. So in the past century, again for the first time, biology had something serious to tell to the practice of medicine, so you had to understand biology if you want to be a doctor, and technologies again will change. Well, I think that’s the kind of transition from something like an art, that you learn how to practice — an analog would be trying to match some data that you don’t understand, in some fashion, maybe building something that will work — to science, what happened in the modern period, roughly Galilean science. “

LikeLike
George Rebane

17 November 2012

DougK 1215pm – I have no idea again what kind of “show” you are starting here that you don’t want “spoiled”. But please relate this to the topic of my post before going on.
Your 1141am question was a good one.

LikeLike
Walt

17 November 2012

Hear about the gun shop in AZ.? ” If you voted for “O”, don’t come in. I don’t want your business”.
You can bet he is taking some heat for exercising his rights on that as well.
We need more like him.
Reading the comments, the Progressives say that there is no “war on guns”
from “O”, never mind the fact that he stated he would like to re-impose the “assault weapons” ban. Somehow in that Liberal mind, that don’t count.
A contractor is now charging an extra 30% to do work for Leftists, since they (by majority) vote for higher taxation and regulation. I get the feeling we will see more of this as time goes on.
I can see the next new law. Your political leaning will have “protected class status” ( with special exemptions just for LIBS of course)

LikeLike
George Rebane

17 November 2012

Walt 226pm – Where do you think this politically discriminating pricing policy will go? Keep us apprised as to its implementation.

LikeLike
Walt

18 November 2012

Only time will tell Doc. But that’s the beauty about the concept of “free enterprise” and being able to pick and choose just who can walk through your establishment doors. It’s one of the few freedoms a business owner still has.
As far as this guy’s business is concerned,and from what I have read, his business has seen an increase since the sign went up.
If the contractor can pull it off, that’s even better.
Progressives need to figure out that regulation after regulation is what drives up the cost of everything. Until their ideals strike them hard in their own wallets, they might get the picture. As of now, the majority of Progressives that vote for added regs. and taxes don’t get effected by what they vote for.
” HAY! I’m all for taxing the rich since I’m not rich. It’s not coming out of MY wallet,, Stick it to’m.”
So will the next anti discrimination law be framed to make political affiliation a protected whatever? Good luck (LIBS) with that. Since that can be changed just by checking a box on your voter registration form.
On second thought, GO FOR IT! Just think of all the collages and universities that will be forced to hire Conservative teachers. ( But LIBS won’t have ANY part of that)

LikeLike
Walt

18 November 2012

BTW Mr. R.
I have done plenty of work over the years for some ECO folk around here.
Funny how what they want others to comply with, they don’t. ( like messing with small creeks, and mandatory setbacks.) Permits? LOL!!
These “greenys” are not so green when the added cost is coming out of their own pockets.

LikeLike
Walt

18 November 2012

To try an answer your first question, I have to reference a “discussion” back when Town Talk (somewhat) Live existed, a Lefty of two (or three) sure didn’t have a problem with the idea of passing over a person for a job because of political affiliation and point of view. It’s not really an answer, but it goes to show
that some on the Left are not above political discrimination.
So that turns the question around a little to just which one is more severe?
refusing to give employment,or refusing just to do business?

LikeLike
Todd Juvinall

21 November 2012

Just as a reminder of how the left spins things. In Wisconsin the Republicans retook the State Senate and the Assembly (anyone seen this?) while the voters sent a liberal lesbian woman (self described) to the US Senate as well as voting for Obama (everyone has seen this).

LikeLike
Nick11766

27 November 2012

Forget this book and its fake controversy. Instead read a real banned book “America Deceived II” by a real outlaw author.
Last link of “America Deceived II” before it is completely censored:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/1450257437

LikeLike