FREE SPEECH ISN'T FREE ACCORDING TO WISCONSIN

Noisyroom.net ^ | 8-6-2010 | AJ

[Whenifhow]

Wisconsin has enacted a law which makes political free speech subject to fees or jail time.

If you think this can’t happen in America… well… it just did. This law affects liberals, conservatives and those of every political persuasion. It affects every American, both inside and outside of WI, who communicate in any manner about candidates running for office in WI.

Whether you are supporting or opposing a candidate, gathering to demonstrate for or against a candidate, or even if you are using email or the Internet to express your opinion about a candidate, you are subject to fees or jail time.

In the dark of night, behind closed doors, WI enacted the new Government Accountability Board – G.A.B. 128 Rule which silences political free speech 60 days prior to the election. Conveniently, this law goes into effect on August 15, 2010 with little to no time for successful legal challenges prior to the November 2010 election.

The entire text of the G.A.B. 1 Rule can be found here (Sections 1.10, 1.28, and 1.42 are most revealing): http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/gab/gab001.pdf

Under this new law, individuals and groups must pay a $100 registration fee to the state of WI if they want permission to use political speech that totals at least $25 “cumulatively in a calendar year.” But it doesn’t stop there…

Individuals and groups must set up a separate depository account and file a report with the Accountability Board and Secretary of State. They then need to provide periodic reports of every communication – explaining the type of communication/action for each and every episode of political free speech.

What WI did by adding G.A.B. 1.28 to the G.A.B. 1 Rule is to define political communication and actions in order to give the government the legal ability to regulate and monitor everything you say and do.

Expenses related to political free speech will include such things as a portion of your Internet bills, your phone bills, signs you’ve made, gas/bus fare to political gatherings, fliers, mailings, etc. These types of communication and action will easily total $25 per year for every American who wishes to exercise their 1st Amendment right to political free speech.

Essentially, WI has now abolished everyone’s Constitutional right to political free speech by enacting a law to ensure free speech is no longer free, and it’s now granted (or not granted), and monitored by the government.

This unconstitutional power grab by the government should outrage everyone on the political spectrum – left, right and everyone in between.

Just as the events of the Gulf Oil disaster unites everyone who cares about our Gulf Coast, this too is an issue that unites all of us.

If this new law stands in WI, it won’t be long before it spreads to other states throughout the country. Ohio is already moving in that direction: Bloggericide: Ohio Officials Charge Blogger With Campaign Violations. Will your state be next?

Here is the list of WI legislators who are responsible for taking away our right to political free speech – you may want to contact them via phone, email or letter before our right to free speech expires on August 15:

• Senator Russ Feingold (D)

• Senator Herbert H. Kohl (D)

• Governor Jim Doyle (D)

• Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton (D)

• Secretary of State Doug LaFollette (D)

• District 1 – Paul D. Ryan (R)

• District 2 – Tammy Baldwin (D)

• District 3 – Ron J. Kind (D)

• District 4 – Gwen Moore (D)

• District 5 – James F. Sensenbrenner (R)

• District 6 – Thomas E. Petri (R)

• District 7 – David R. Obey (D)

• District 8 – Steve Kagen (D)

With 77% of WI’s elected officials coming from the Democratic Party, clearly it’s been hi-jacked and it’s no longer the party we once knew. Their actions prove that they, AND the complicit Republicans, intend to strip us of our freedom and liberty.

When we allow government to grant “rights” to the American people, we are also granting them the power to take our rights away… and they just did.

From Gateway Pundit:

It should be pointed out that political speech was the very sort of free speech that the founders of this country were talking about when they crafted the First Amendment.

[Whenifhow]

......”On the other hand, there is no way Sensenbrenner, Ryan and Petri would’ve (or could’ve) played any role in this.”

Your point is taken – the list should have included state legislators or whomever appointed the board.

The procedural process enables the BOARD TO CREATE the legislation, and if the house doesn’t challenge it, it becomes law. That’s what was sort of described on the GAO website.

http://gab.wi.gov/node/1252

So what this means is that the WI senate passed it, and the WI house failed to act on it and their inaction made it law... which is why the house is to blame as well. Don’t forget that it’s possible the house didn’t act on it because they WANTED it to be passed into law.

Why is a board given this kind of power? That is what needs to be questioned.
Laws should begin in the legislature and this could also apply to the stimulus and health care bill which were created by someone other than lawmakers.

This should be something on the “to do” list along with term limits, etc. but not just at the federal level, also the (appointed) boards in these state legislatures need to be reviewed.

In this document dated March 23 2010, it refers to the supreme court case regarding campaign finance and stated that a review of the SCOTUS case was requested before continuing. This process began in 2009 and this document shows the original wording with changes noted using a strike-through.

http://gab.wi.gov/sites/default/files/news/rule_gab_1_28_memo_to_board_march_2010_pdf_91828.pdf

There is something going on in WI with elections – check out this article – not exactly related, but I bet there is more to this story.

Federal court rejects Wisconsin legislative candidate’s lawsuit over expletive

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/05/federal-court-rejects-wisconsin-legislative-candidates-lawsuit-expletive/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

This is a joke...... right?

[Whenifhow]

Not a joke - but a complaint has been filed.

Post #32

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Yeah I have the same question. It is ludicrous. It says even in mail you can’t speak pro or con for a political candidate nor protest.Who is going to watch your e-mails or read your mind?

This must be an experiment to see how many people would believe this in today’s political strife and radical rules against America.

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

The first link you posted is just a basic sheet on rules of campaigns and financing the second link is 404 file not found.

[TXnMA]

"Its time to pluck the feathers and boil the tar, someone get a goodly supply of rails also!"

I'll donate the pines and split them into nice sharp-cornered, splintery rails if someone will see to it that they are transported to WI -- AND that they are used appropriately.*

*("Appropriately" = lots of bounce in the step of those shouldering the springy rails...)

[xjcsa]

But fined in what way? I know I sound ignorant but how can this be enforced? There have been laws like this in the past but what if all sides just ignored this and just carried on?

Exactly. "I'm in Iowa; come and get me. Good luck."

[Whenifhow]

Regarding the Links

Here is the first link - scroll down on the page and you will find pdf files.

http://gab.wi.gov/node/1252

2nd link:

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/gab/gab001.pdf

[itssme]

Paul Ryan????

Paul Ryan has some questions to answer. What IS going on?

[Whenifhow]

This must be an experiment to see how many people would believe this in today’s political strife and radical rules against America.
********************

“GAB 1.28 Scope of regulated activity; election of candidates.

(1) Definitions. As used in this rule:

(a) “Political committee” means every committee which is formed primarily to influence elections or which is under the control of a candidate.

(b) “Communication” means any printed advertisement, billboard, handbill, sample ballot, television or radio advertisement, telephone call, email, internet posting, and any other form of communication that may be utilized for a political purpose.

(c) “Contributions for political purposes” means contributions made to 1) a candidate, or 2) a political committee or 3) an individual who makes contributions to a candidate or political committee or incurs obligations or makes disbursements for political purposes.

(2) Individuals other than candidates and persons other than political committees are subject to the applicable requirements of ch. 11, Stats., when they:

(a) Make contributions or disbursements for political purposes, or

(b) Make contributions to any person at the request or with the authorization of a candidate or political committee, or

(c) Make a communication for a political purpose.

(3) A communication is for a “political purpose” if either of the following applies:

(a) The communication contains terms such as the following or their functional equivalents with reference to a clearly identified candidate and unambiguously relates to the campaign of that candidate:

1. “Vote for;”

2. “Elect;”

3. “Support;”

4. “Cast your ballot for;”

5. “Smith for Assembly;”

6. “Vote against;”

7. “Defeat;” or

8. “Reject.”

(b) The communication is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. A communication is susceptible of no other reasonable interpretation if it is made during the period beginning on the 60th day preceding a general, special, or spring election and ending on the date of that election or during the period beginning on the 30th day preceding a primary election and ending on the date of that election and that includes a reference to or depiction of a clearly identified candidate and:

1. Refers to the personal qualities, character, or fitness of that candidate;

2. Supports or condemns that candidate’s position or stance on issues; or

3. Supports or condemns that candidate’s public record.

(4) Consistent with s. 11.05 (2), Stats., nothing in sub. (1), (2), or

(3) should be construed as requiring registration and reporting, under ss. 11.05 and 11.06, Stats., of an individual whose only activity is the making of contributions.

[okie01]

This should be something on the “to do” list along with term limits, etc. but not just at the federal level, also the (appointed) boards in these state legislatures need to be reviewed.

Excellent point.

California defines the "Appointed Board" Problem. As I recall, there are several hundred -- charged with enforcing regulations (that they write), some even with taxing authority.

But not a single elected official among them. Thus, no accountable official.

Government's gotten too big for its britches, not only in Washington, but in many of the state capitols, as well.

[Whenifhow]

“GAB 1.42 Voluntary committees; scope of voluntary oath; restrictions on voluntary committees. NECESSITY OF VOLUNTARY OATH FOR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE−RELATED ACTIVITIES. No expenditure may be made or obligation incurred over $25 in support of or opposition to a specific candidate unless such expenditure or obligation is treated and reported as a contribution to the candidate or the candidate’s opponent, or is made or incurred by or through an individual or committee filing the voluntary oath specified in s. 11.06 (7), Stats.

[Whenifhow]

“GAB 1.10 Reporting by nonresident committees and groups.

Every nonresident committee or group as defined in s. 11.07 (6), Stats., acting in support of or in opposition to any candidate for state or local office, which makes or accepts contributions, incurs obligations or makes disbursements exceeding $25 cumulatively in a calendar year within this state shall register both with the appropriate filing officer under s. 11.05 (1), Stats., and with the secretary of state under s. 11.07 (1), Stats.

[okie01]

Paul Ryan has some questions to answer. What IS going on?

The author listed both Senators and all the state's Congressmen -- for no good reason. These guys wouldn't have been involved in what the State Legislature and the Governor were doing.

And, since the governor is a Democrat and the State Leg is Democrat-controlled, the Republican Congressmen sure as hell didn't have a hand in it.

The author should've listed the State Legislators, not the Washington bunch.

[Mad Dawgg]

"I'll donate the pines and split them into nice sharp-cornered, splintery rails if someone will see to it that they are transported to WI -- AND that they are used appropriately.*"

Before this is all through I think we are going to need lots of rails for all 50 states and we are going to need at least 537 for Washington D.C.!

Someone needs to figure the amount of Tar and Feathers needed also! We will need some serious mathematicians for that cypher.

[itssme]

Many thanks for the clarification.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Got Rope ?...

[Domandred]

Maybe we will all get lucky and the court case will blanketly rule that the government can’t require a permit or fees to exercise enumerated rights in the Constitution.

[rbbeachkid]

I need to find some emails in WI so that I can start emailing political opinions after August 15th.

[grey_whiskers]

Then all we have to do, is to mass write emails suggesting that candidate X go F himself.

Since he's doing it to HIMSELF, it's not related to anyone's vote.

Cheers!